A few suggestions for future articles.
1) Americans have trouble grasping Celsius measurements. Please keep using Fahrenheit for stories to run here, but put the Celsius equivalent in parentheses.
2) The article failed to note something very important -- the yardstick the world uses to determine how much more CO2 we can handle has changed. As you note, the world adopted a 2C increase over pre-industrial norms, as the "guardrail" in 2010. However, scientists decided in Bonn this summer that it was no longer safe. Rather, the evidence now is that there is no guardrail, and they recommend a stronger "defensive line" - only a 1.5C increase over pre-industrial norms. This means we really need much stronger commitments to lower emissions -- ie., we have to move much faster to renewables --than was anticipated in the run-up to the Paris conference.
3) The Times has done a credible job of reporting (and editorializing) about climate change. I recommend you consider publishing a special edition (Science times) going into the Paris negotiations to generally review some of the technical issues and commitments to facilitate the efforts of your readers and reporters.
1) Americans have trouble grasping Celsius measurements. Please keep using Fahrenheit for stories to run here, but put the Celsius equivalent in parentheses.
2) The article failed to note something very important -- the yardstick the world uses to determine how much more CO2 we can handle has changed. As you note, the world adopted a 2C increase over pre-industrial norms, as the "guardrail" in 2010. However, scientists decided in Bonn this summer that it was no longer safe. Rather, the evidence now is that there is no guardrail, and they recommend a stronger "defensive line" - only a 1.5C increase over pre-industrial norms. This means we really need much stronger commitments to lower emissions -- ie., we have to move much faster to renewables --than was anticipated in the run-up to the Paris conference.
3) The Times has done a credible job of reporting (and editorializing) about climate change. I recommend you consider publishing a special edition (Science times) going into the Paris negotiations to generally review some of the technical issues and commitments to facilitate the efforts of your readers and reporters.
5
There is little hope of doing anything significant on the demand side for increasing amounts of power. We can, and must, act firmly on the supply side. Governments need to incentivize coal and oil to stop digging and drilling, and to start investing their very large profits exclusively into alternative forms of energy. It simply takes will. I'm the last to believe it may happen: the focus on the next report on profits, prepared, unfortunately, by men with children and grandchildren whose futures they do not clearly envision, control corporate actions. A few hundred lobbyists, including the US Chamber which has been hijacked by energy companies, have far more influence that the hundreds of thousands of people who fear for the future they envision.
3
I'm dismayed as usual by how little the Times seems to understand about alternative energy and innovation in the utility industry.
I'm not worried. The people of this planet will hit their key climate targets because failure to do so will entail the increasingly widespread slaughter of the grandchildren of the key decision-makers -- now, not later.
Life-critical ecosystems such as our planetary biosphere must always have a fail-safe mechanism - in this case, it should be an exceedingly distasteful, degrading and dehumanizing one if required to achieve the necessary, accelerated behavior change.
Life-critical ecosystems such as our planetary biosphere must always have a fail-safe mechanism - in this case, it should be an exceedingly distasteful, degrading and dehumanizing one if required to achieve the necessary, accelerated behavior change.
1
It is not true that poor countries have contributed little to climate change. Overgrazing by livestock has devastated the grasslands that once covered the Middle East, central Asia, northern and eastern Africa, the American southwest and northern Mexico. These soils once held vast amounts of carbon that have been released to the atmosphere through erosion and desiccation. The poor countries of southern Asia and South America have destroyed their rain forests, profiting corrupt politicians of those countries who ignore their own laws. The industrialized West must certainly lead in combatting climate change, but the rest of the world has little basis for claiming innocence and freedom to continue in the destruction of vast ecosystems.
4
I worry for my grandchildren. After I am dead, I hope they will tell me that everything is all right with them when I text them.
1
For the first time in the short history of our species have a global civilization that is poisoning, if not killing, the planet.
The species homo sapien does not, however, react to anything unless disaster stares it in the face. We are experiencing ocean warming and acidification, desertification, extreme weather events, the sixth extinction etc, none of which prompts the radical and global change needed to avert the coming disaster.
The competitive nation state model has failed us. And we will never have a global authority with the jurisdiction and power to effect the change that is needed.
If you have grandchildren, you have my condolences. To corrupt Louis XV, apres nous, le deluge.
The species homo sapien does not, however, react to anything unless disaster stares it in the face. We are experiencing ocean warming and acidification, desertification, extreme weather events, the sixth extinction etc, none of which prompts the radical and global change needed to avert the coming disaster.
The competitive nation state model has failed us. And we will never have a global authority with the jurisdiction and power to effect the change that is needed.
If you have grandchildren, you have my condolences. To corrupt Louis XV, apres nous, le deluge.
4
I think it takes individuals and institutions to reduce global warming as well as governments. I hereby pledge to keep my carbon footprint small. I meet people around me who do not care about their own carbon footprint or that of the institutions to which they belong. While I almost never use heat or air conditioning and am signing up for clean sources of energy, the high rise building in which I live keeps the common areas of the building cold in the summer and hot in winter. I have noticed the same phenomenon at the school I attend and the hospital where I see doctors. We must use both our belief system at home and our influence in public buildings to change wasteful uses of energy. I regret that I have very little or no influence, but I will try to engage those who do, e.g. deans and physicians.
5
Thank you!
2
The economist Elinor Ostrom, who won the Nobel in economics in 2009 for her work on how societies historically have learned to govern common resources (fisheries, forests, aquifers), would support your individual approach. Everyone has a role, and that role must be visible.
Her keystone paper on climate is here:
http://www10.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/pe/2009/04268.pdf
Her keystone paper on climate is here:
http://www10.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/pe/2009/04268.pdf
1
I'm grateful to see that some of us who have left comments here have our eyes open. I believe that this awakened heart or spirit or whatever you want to call it has led to Shell leaving the Arctic, China's cap and trade program, Hillary Clinton's coming out against the Keystone Pipeline, and the Pope's recent climate message. We are the sleeping giant. May we all wake up in time.
8
I don't believe in climate change. Human activity definitely can damage the planet, but all these meetings and discussions are needed when politicians want to demonstrate they are all very busy or can at last agree about some point.
The planet doesn't care about your beliefs. You cannot change reality by "believing" that false is true. Wake up, please, before you all take the rest of us with you.
9
In the United States, not "believing" in climate change puts you in the company of a majority of those running for president on the Republican ticket. However, across the rest of the world, you would be very lonely. The conservative parties of other western democracies recognize that facts are facts.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/whys-gop-only-science-denyi...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/whys-gop-only-science-denyi...
1
What about gravity? Do you believe in gravity?
Do you really think you can change the laws of physics with magicall thinking?
Do you really think you can change the laws of physics with magicall thinking?
Can't say we don't know what we're doing. We know what we're doing; and we're doing it, anyway. Bush said it, "...we're addicted to oil."
Most addicts know -- and say - they're addicted. Rarely is addiction overcome. Statistically speaking, our human capacity for self-control is extremely limited.
Our love of freedom and individualism -- of the freedom to do as we please, as individuals -- is going to go by the wayside. In other words, one causality of global climate change will be democracy.
We might possibly keep some semblance of democracy alive by doing something along the lines of the 1965-1970 Delano Grape Strike and Boycott, only on VERY much more massive scale -- i.e., a strike and boycott shutting down greenhouse gas emissions globally -- but how likely to happen is that? Not very!
To be sure, governments cannot be counted on to do what's necessary to curtail human-induced global climate change -- until they're no longer democratic. America has long been morphing the America dream into a nightmare.
Human-induced global climate change will make Nazism look like a walk in the park.
Most addicts know -- and say - they're addicted. Rarely is addiction overcome. Statistically speaking, our human capacity for self-control is extremely limited.
Our love of freedom and individualism -- of the freedom to do as we please, as individuals -- is going to go by the wayside. In other words, one causality of global climate change will be democracy.
We might possibly keep some semblance of democracy alive by doing something along the lines of the 1965-1970 Delano Grape Strike and Boycott, only on VERY much more massive scale -- i.e., a strike and boycott shutting down greenhouse gas emissions globally -- but how likely to happen is that? Not very!
To be sure, governments cannot be counted on to do what's necessary to curtail human-induced global climate change -- until they're no longer democratic. America has long been morphing the America dream into a nightmare.
Human-induced global climate change will make Nazism look like a walk in the park.
1
In this century that will live in infamy, total mobilization must come at some point. The longer we delay, the greater will be the cost. The allowance for conscientious objectors will be the global existing and expanding middle class who believe themselves to be each a special case in destiny who get to take a pass. The coming chaos is on everybody's shoulders. The grim reaper has arrived for the children of the future and that grim reaper is you, the great god father, whose cognitive biases made the fool whose love could ever be so misguided. Stark it is and stark it will be. Normal has a new frame, made of transparent reason that civilization has failed its reach, and then the cruelties of natural law bear their wrath upon the innocent we parent. Science, technology, economics and progress are a tiny historical window written in the archaeology of a planet. How small we were to act out as giants. Cognition in our specie fails to lock upon the expanse of time and future. For that accidental flaw, the fossilized footprint made in the sands of time is our own.
1
The more of us there are, the less each of us is worth. The law of diminution at the margin.
6
This is not settled science. The only folks that believe it's settled are the proponents of a particular course of action. There appears to be no willingness to keep our minds open to finding the truth and the honest scientific software algorithms that would describe the atmosphere, its characteristics, composition and trends based on the true factors that bear on the climate. In the meantime, let's just keep working the technology issues associated with alternative energies and realize we must use what we have today and into the forseeable future. Closing down all coal mines, putting up a mass of wind machines and solar panels of today's technology is not the answer. Research and development needs to be where our tax money goes to find solutions that are realistic. Spending tax monies (that's citizens money) for production and then providing subsidies on top of that should not be governments job. Today, we're blowing in the wind if we think we have answers to these issues. This issue is more a political issue than a scientific one and we need to bring this issue to the scientific table once again.
3
The notion of "settled science" is just stupid. All models which predict behavior over time are dealing with degrees of probability. At what probability do scientists need to peg human extinction within x number of years before the ignorant masses wake up and demand action now? From what I have read if we allow an average global increase of 6.3 degrees our chances of survival could be less than 50% over the next 50 years.
So you are going to explain to your children and grandchildren that you did nothing while the earth they depended on was being destroyed because the science wasn't 100% "settled"? Are you serious?
So you are going to explain to your children and grandchildren that you did nothing while the earth they depended on was being destroyed because the science wasn't 100% "settled"? Are you serious?
7
What the nations are agreeing to is a 6.3F degree rise in temperature. What might that bring?
It's possible that within 100 year our ability to survive may be over. The tipping points and other consequences include massive methane release as a result of permafrost melting; shutdown of ocean circulation; ocean acidification; extinction of a variety of plants and animals; agriculture failures, and widespread flooding.
Our children will face a grave future, their grandchildren may not have a future.
The NYT needs to be stronger on this subject and drive home the point that a 6.3F degree rise within such a short period is extremely risky. We may be facing our extinction.
It's possible that within 100 year our ability to survive may be over. The tipping points and other consequences include massive methane release as a result of permafrost melting; shutdown of ocean circulation; ocean acidification; extinction of a variety of plants and animals; agriculture failures, and widespread flooding.
Our children will face a grave future, their grandchildren may not have a future.
The NYT needs to be stronger on this subject and drive home the point that a 6.3F degree rise within such a short period is extremely risky. We may be facing our extinction.
6
At 62, I thank God I'll be dead before I see the kind of ruin forecast.
But my children will still be alive, and their children, if they have any (although what thinking person would bring children into a dying world?) -- and it's they I feel for.
But my children will still be alive, and their children, if they have any (although what thinking person would bring children into a dying world?) -- and it's they I feel for.
6
Till the very last day, humankind will rather postpone in lieu of properly react and redirect the course of action. Much easier and 'cheaper' to put the blame either on its neighbor or anything else that fits the bill. Anyway, why bother? Since Earth, ailing womb out of which pretty much everything since times immemorial came about, blossomed and thrived thus leading to infinite forms of life nowadays is merely being treated by us, the top specie, more than anything else as a sinkhole, a waste basket, an old sponge gagging up on an infinite amount of human dejection (nuclear waste, chemicals, you-name-it..). Non-recyclable-detritus keep being swooshed under the mantle not unlike a rude guest pushes the crumb of cheese fallen off his plate under the host's carpet. Again, who cares? As long as the puny crime goes unnoticed at least for a few more days? And when the mess ceases dribbling down into a saturated ground, it bubbles back up and billows, polluting the air we all breathe. Up to a certain extent, air becomes untakable, the ice pack starts to melt, temperatures jacks up whereas the soil all about 'urbi et orbi' suppurates from spills long forgotten. Yet again the needle barely moves and the majority continues assuming these inconveniences are no object since, worst coming to worst, we all can move to another host-planet unless the next generation puts the finger on some kind of treatment apt to clean up, wipe off the entire mess. most unlikely...
4
We are dealing with financially-based interests. If more people go solar, for example. utility companies that are designed solely as profit making entities see energy conservation as not in their interests. Ditto for coal, big ag, oil, big auto, etc. Whenever bottom lines are affected their feet will drag endlessly. Otherwise there would no more plastic grocery bags, styrofoam . . . the list is long. Instead of downsizing automobiles people rush out to buy behemoth vehicles when gas prices are temporarily low. The SUV should never have allowed on the market. A transport vehicle is not your living room. VW committed fraud because they wanted a diesel vehicle that would be "fun" to drive. They want more power and more money. Why isn't there a program that requires solar on every new building in the US? That would be worthy of subsidizing from the--OMG--government. Countries can make all the agreements on climate change they want but they are all fighting behemoth industries of pollution that don't want to go along.
3
What is lacking on those Climate Interactive graphs are uncertainty estimates.
2
Actually if you dig into that site, there is more than a factor of two range in the 90% c.i. of temperature change for any of the scenerios, using their own models. Hence the questions about how strong a cork we put in the fossil fuel bottle.
https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/scoreboard/scoreboard-science-a...
https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/scoreboard/scoreboard-science-a...
It just breaks my heart to read this story. More than 20 years ago, scientists were warning that this would happen and nations did nothing. And now our beautiful planet is being destroyed. I hate to think what will happen if a Republican becomes president - apparentlly none of them believe in climate change and yet it is happening before their very eyes.
4
The dye is cast , humans are way to stupid to stop the END TIMES
Sorry to rain on your parade
Sorry to rain on your parade
2
When we rely on fossil fuels for our existence, there is a clear limit to how many of us can persist on this planet. We are beginning to experience what it means to exceed that limit.
3
The Times fails to mention why Mr. Obama has encountered vociferous opposition Congress, rendering a full understanding of the political challenges of making "any serious pledge" impossible from reading this article.
In every article about political negotiations regarding climate change, the Times should remind readers of the concerted efforts of business and their lobbyists to oppose progress.
In every article about political negotiations regarding climate change, the Times should remind readers of the concerted efforts of business and their lobbyists to oppose progress.
5
We are beyond hope of turning it all around at this point. The damage is done. The Arctic Circle is going to melt completely. Not to mention that the ocean pH will continue to rise, further reducing sea life (more than 25% of the oceans have dead zones at this point). Our societies live in a very delicate balance that is about to be disturbed in very significant ways. There are going to be socioeconomic collapses reverberating around the globe.
But... if we give up, saying "what is done is done", then more people will die and the time it will take to bounce back will be much, much longer. We MUST continue the fight for reducing our rate of pollution. But with naysayers still taking the podium and shouting false claims, what can we do?
But... if we give up, saying "what is done is done", then more people will die and the time it will take to bounce back will be much, much longer. We MUST continue the fight for reducing our rate of pollution. But with naysayers still taking the podium and shouting false claims, what can we do?
6
What can we do? Well, we have to counter the naysayers. There's a tipping point to everything. Just one letter in a small town newspaper could spark the vote that elects the candidate who casts the deciding vote that makes all the difference. It could come from a naysayer......or it could come from you.
Conversations with family and friends, joining a campaign, donating to an organization, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly......that's what democracy is about. If we don't use it, we lose it. No, even more pathetic, we forfeit. In this case, we forfeit innocent species, and future members of our own.
So never say it's too late, or hopeless. Believing that makes it so. The magnificence of life on earth deserves our gratitude and defense. We are the tipping points. It's up to us.
Conversations with family and friends, joining a campaign, donating to an organization, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly......that's what democracy is about. If we don't use it, we lose it. No, even more pathetic, we forfeit. In this case, we forfeit innocent species, and future members of our own.
So never say it's too late, or hopeless. Believing that makes it so. The magnificence of life on earth deserves our gratitude and defense. We are the tipping points. It's up to us.
2
Any progress must be viewed as good news in this very ominous situation we have gotten ourselves into. That said our own human nature is working against us on this problem. To date ecological overshoot has been the problem of isolated civilizations at differing times and in disparate parts of the Planet—now we face a truly unprecedented global problem temporally and spatially: global warming due to human induced climate change is in the here and now for us all.
As a species we do not have much real experience in dealing successfully with long-term solutions to problems that are not immediately life threatening—and our propensity is to off-load costs onto others if at all possible when we do. However, we are all in the same boat on this one. It’s time we evolved our thinking, planning, and actions to deal with global threats as that is where we are at; whether it be global warming, global ecological overshoot, over population, or global social and financial inequality. We must learn to act fairly, responsibly, decisively, meaningfully, and with accountability as humans on a global scale if we want a livable, safe, desirable future.
The decision is ours, the timetable is Nature’s. Guess which one bats last.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
As a species we do not have much real experience in dealing successfully with long-term solutions to problems that are not immediately life threatening—and our propensity is to off-load costs onto others if at all possible when we do. However, we are all in the same boat on this one. It’s time we evolved our thinking, planning, and actions to deal with global threats as that is where we are at; whether it be global warming, global ecological overshoot, over population, or global social and financial inequality. We must learn to act fairly, responsibly, decisively, meaningfully, and with accountability as humans on a global scale if we want a livable, safe, desirable future.
The decision is ours, the timetable is Nature’s. Guess which one bats last.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
4
In response to the headline: Limited Progress Seen Even as More Nations Step Up on Climate
Way to discourage me NYT! I actually read a lot, unlike too many of our busy citizenry. Let's not give the deniers any excuse to avoid doing the right thing because "we can't do anything about it anyway!" to summarize the GOP candidates' position on the issue.
With each new report the need for decisive action becomes more apparent. Let's cheer all progress & push for more.
Way to discourage me NYT! I actually read a lot, unlike too many of our busy citizenry. Let's not give the deniers any excuse to avoid doing the right thing because "we can't do anything about it anyway!" to summarize the GOP candidates' position on the issue.
With each new report the need for decisive action becomes more apparent. Let's cheer all progress & push for more.
4
So, when is the Pope can to advocate population control? Until then, we're pushing a boulder uphill.
5
Once again the Times, which has increasingly tied its reputation to the Climate Alarmist movement, gives us projections on future warming trends, but very little on how much the world has actually warmed in the last few decades. It also fails to note that IPCC prediction models have already failed disastrously: even though CO2 emissions have risen dramatically since 2000 (because of India and China), the world has not warmed up to any significant degree. Temperatures in the past 15 years have risen .09 degrees C. (No misprint: .09). The IPCC forecasted .8 Green Fanatics (Gillis and Sengupta included) may be disappointed in both numbers, but those are the facts. Not only have temperatures not really budged, but the models have been off by 90%. The Alarmists always fail to bring these inconvenient facts up, but have no issue spending trillions of dollars and reducing living standards to achieve debatable objectives. Let's now be honest: climate "science" is, charitably, another manifestation of Gaiaism, which has been with humanity for centuries. Less charitably, it is an effort by left wing forces to use the environment as an excuse to expand government power. Both factors are at play in the movement, but cynic that I am I will go with the later explanation as the major force behind it. Green is the New Red.
3
90% of the GHG added heat is absorbed by the oceans, and that's what will change everything in the climate over the next fifty years as it works it way through the system (changing ocean currents, precipitation, heat waves, melting land ice and rising sea levels)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content
For New Yorkers, the big story is the melting Antarctic, recent observations well-explained here by a doctoral student:
http://climatesight.org/2015/01/16/the-most-terrifying-papers-i-read-las...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content
For New Yorkers, the big story is the melting Antarctic, recent observations well-explained here by a doctoral student:
http://climatesight.org/2015/01/16/the-most-terrifying-papers-i-read-las...
2
I am not proud of our species -- we cannot seem to see what is right in front of us. Pure destruction of everything in the name of the human and our "super preditory" will. As if we have the right...
5
The people are clearly ready for clean energy. The corporations are fiddling while the earth burns.
5
The sang froid of some comments is truly disturbing. To say, "I feel for the animals, but new species will arise after the humans are gone." is like shrugging off genocide. If there was any justice, you'd be exiled from the enjoyment of existing birds, animals, etc. because you don't care about them.
Then there are the tiresome comments about being old and fortunately not going to be around to see the worst. Climate change is an issue of more lasting consequence than our little lifespans.
Don't we owe more to this planet that has given us all life? Those who are aware of what's at stake, but lack the moral backbone to speak up, activate, defend this planet, are of no more substantive worth than the deniers.
There's an ethical challenge here that can't be denied. We should defend other species, because they can't defend themselves. We should defend the future of our own species, because we enjoyed life on this planet ourselves.
Then there are the tiresome comments about being old and fortunately not going to be around to see the worst. Climate change is an issue of more lasting consequence than our little lifespans.
Don't we owe more to this planet that has given us all life? Those who are aware of what's at stake, but lack the moral backbone to speak up, activate, defend this planet, are of no more substantive worth than the deniers.
There's an ethical challenge here that can't be denied. We should defend other species, because they can't defend themselves. We should defend the future of our own species, because we enjoyed life on this planet ourselves.
8
Well said.
2
When MIT has an on-going grant from the government to measure climate change and forecast temperature increases, they are going to forecast temp. increases and disaster. Why can't we fund an honest study, without preconceived notions? Because governments want cap and trade to fill their pockets and unless there is climate change due to emissions, their pockets won't be filled.
That, along with statements like Obama's when he visited CA a year ago and announced that the drought was due to climate change, is what makes skeptics. CA is a desert! Just because too many people live and farm there doesn't mean it will stop being a desert.
Climate analysis is gray and we need to stop speaking in black and white and look at root cause. CO2 emissions, a contributor. But the real difference between historical times of cold and heat might also be a combination of factors - like the amazon being burnt down.
Even credible sources recognize and are willing to discuss the fact that climate change is complex. I am not a fan of cap and trade - it opens us all up to fraud as money is involved. It also says we can keep polluting, but will have to pay a fine if we go past the cap, or purchase excess emission allowances from companies that don't have high emissions.
Money, the root of all evil, but a necessity to survive.
That, along with statements like Obama's when he visited CA a year ago and announced that the drought was due to climate change, is what makes skeptics. CA is a desert! Just because too many people live and farm there doesn't mean it will stop being a desert.
Climate analysis is gray and we need to stop speaking in black and white and look at root cause. CO2 emissions, a contributor. But the real difference between historical times of cold and heat might also be a combination of factors - like the amazon being burnt down.
Even credible sources recognize and are willing to discuss the fact that climate change is complex. I am not a fan of cap and trade - it opens us all up to fraud as money is involved. It also says we can keep polluting, but will have to pay a fine if we go past the cap, or purchase excess emission allowances from companies that don't have high emissions.
Money, the root of all evil, but a necessity to survive.
3
We mostly use the weather to illustrate catastrophes linked to global warming, but by doing this, we acknowledge the candor of our modelling, strictly - and clumsily - weather-oriented.
This planet is alive, and it has many tricks up its evolution sleeves.
Within one human generation, we could see species totally changing their behavior in a very nasty way.
Even something grotesque and minute could bring havoc on our economies. What if killer shrimps already plaguing fisheries turned into swarming pests biting humans all along our sunny beaches ? What if it bloomed in unpredictable patterns, without any warning ? What if it preyed on the fish stocks we already deplete with over-fishing ?
This planet may let the bees die, but it may also let out new swarms - totally new swarms - animals that had never swarmed before, and that would, suddenly, swarm in order to survive global (s)warming.
We're struggling with, say, the antibiotics conundrum, and we fail to see what a planet could unleash when it's pestered by our own species...
This planet is alive, and it has many tricks up its evolution sleeves.
Within one human generation, we could see species totally changing their behavior in a very nasty way.
Even something grotesque and minute could bring havoc on our economies. What if killer shrimps already plaguing fisheries turned into swarming pests biting humans all along our sunny beaches ? What if it bloomed in unpredictable patterns, without any warning ? What if it preyed on the fish stocks we already deplete with over-fishing ?
This planet may let the bees die, but it may also let out new swarms - totally new swarms - animals that had never swarmed before, and that would, suddenly, swarm in order to survive global (s)warming.
We're struggling with, say, the antibiotics conundrum, and we fail to see what a planet could unleash when it's pestered by our own species...
2
The sky-is-falling narrative gets worse every day, which tells me the global warming movement is being exposed for the fraud that it is.
4
Joe -
The sky-is-falling narrative gets worse every day because the inevitable consequences ARE on an increasingly steep, long forecast, decline that is accelerating (also as forecast). This is not good for your grandchildren, should you have any. Where have you been?
The sky-is-falling narrative gets worse every day because the inevitable consequences ARE on an increasingly steep, long forecast, decline that is accelerating (also as forecast). This is not good for your grandchildren, should you have any. Where have you been?
11
Come back in 10 years, maybe 15, and try again. Joe, you are too gullible to limited vision and ignoring worldwide events.
4
OK , the rain forests are over 90% gone ,so stop eating beef and hamburgers ,stop using palm oil and stop breeding hundreds of millions of offspring in every back water third world nation and continent.The oceans have already been decimated of seafood supplies only a century after the industrial revolution with human populations only a fraction of what exists today and is multiplying with tremendous rapidity. The trash field in one sea current is the size of a small state and hundreds of meters deep and the plastic contents kill millions of fish and predatory birds.The warming trend has been melting ice for tens of millions of years it is only now that the earths inhabitants are existing in those affected regions and taking notice.
6
"The planet has already warmed by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit above the temperature that prevailed before the Industrial Revolution, representing an enormous addition of heat. Virtually every piece of land ice on Earth is melting, the sea ice in the Arctic is collapsing, droughts and other weather extremes are intensifying, and the global food system has shown signs of instability."
But let's keep running articles that make it seem like the one major U.S. political party ignoring all of this isn't a total joke. - The NYT
But let's keep running articles that make it seem like the one major U.S. political party ignoring all of this isn't a total joke. - The NYT
3
I read the Club of Rome Report: Limits to Growth (1960) shortly after it was published. That book asserts that unless decisive action is taken by 1980 (yes, 1980, that's not a typo), the world would be in for serious catastrophe. I decided at the time to make every effort to live to be more than 100 in order to see how it turns out. I can only hope that longevity doesn't come with too much discomfort.
By 2001, when the Bush administration abandoned the Kyoto agreement as "bad for business," we were at a point where we still had some chance of containing the damage, although serious damage was by then inevitable.
We are now at the point where catastrophe is certain, the only question is how much of the world's population will suffer irreparable damage. At least one Pacific Island country will disappear between the waves; most of Bangladesh probably will become uninhabitable; substantial parts of New York, New Orleans, Miami, and the Netherlands, among other places will flood. These things happen even if we meet the +3.6 degree limit that we apparently are deciding to forego. It may take a century before what's bound to happen reaches completion, but most of the changes predicted 20 or 30 years ago have happened far more rapidly than originally envisioned.
We need a movement on the order of the civil rights movement of the early 60's, the antiwar movement of the late 60's and 70's, and the nuclear freeze campaign of the 80's all rolled into one. And we need it NOW!
By 2001, when the Bush administration abandoned the Kyoto agreement as "bad for business," we were at a point where we still had some chance of containing the damage, although serious damage was by then inevitable.
We are now at the point where catastrophe is certain, the only question is how much of the world's population will suffer irreparable damage. At least one Pacific Island country will disappear between the waves; most of Bangladesh probably will become uninhabitable; substantial parts of New York, New Orleans, Miami, and the Netherlands, among other places will flood. These things happen even if we meet the +3.6 degree limit that we apparently are deciding to forego. It may take a century before what's bound to happen reaches completion, but most of the changes predicted 20 or 30 years ago have happened far more rapidly than originally envisioned.
We need a movement on the order of the civil rights movement of the early 60's, the antiwar movement of the late 60's and 70's, and the nuclear freeze campaign of the 80's all rolled into one. And we need it NOW!
9
Hey, the first Earth Day was in 1970. The environmental movement over time became co-opted and de-fanged by industry. No one can say they weren't warned.
http://www.earthday.org/earth-day-history-movement
http://www.earthday.org/earth-day-history-movement
Advocates for specific solutions: Space based power, carbon sequestration, nuclear power, magic batteries ... may be correct--or (most likely) not, as a single magic bullet cure.
Many comments make the assumption that not relying on oil, coal, and gas must be much more expensive. Compared to what? Walling the ocean out of Florida? Wind and solar are already cost effective.
We have not saved even one ton of carbon by sequestering. Earth orbit based power generation--really? Getting rid of the excess thermal energy in space, transmission to ground, cost per kilo of putting material into space are all unsolved at scale.
Fortunately, none of this is needed to have a clean, livable world. Slightly better batteries able to take solar cell energy from rooftops a few hours after it is generated makes solar far more effective for power distribution--and smart meter technology is already in place to support it. A carbon tax would help direct funding to reduced greenhouse gas energy generation. Nuclear power needs a waste storage solution--but is already the safest base-load power generation we have. The list of available solutions that can significantly reduce generation of power from fossil fuels is very large, growing, and available now. Solar alone can generate more jobs than oil and coal.
We lack political will to provide a livable world for some of our children and many of our grandchildren. Do not vote, ever, for anyone who would ruin our world by overheating it.
Many comments make the assumption that not relying on oil, coal, and gas must be much more expensive. Compared to what? Walling the ocean out of Florida? Wind and solar are already cost effective.
We have not saved even one ton of carbon by sequestering. Earth orbit based power generation--really? Getting rid of the excess thermal energy in space, transmission to ground, cost per kilo of putting material into space are all unsolved at scale.
Fortunately, none of this is needed to have a clean, livable world. Slightly better batteries able to take solar cell energy from rooftops a few hours after it is generated makes solar far more effective for power distribution--and smart meter technology is already in place to support it. A carbon tax would help direct funding to reduced greenhouse gas energy generation. Nuclear power needs a waste storage solution--but is already the safest base-load power generation we have. The list of available solutions that can significantly reduce generation of power from fossil fuels is very large, growing, and available now. Solar alone can generate more jobs than oil and coal.
We lack political will to provide a livable world for some of our children and many of our grandchildren. Do not vote, ever, for anyone who would ruin our world by overheating it.
2
Limited progress on climate change, limited progress on foreign affairs, limited progress on jobs, limited progress on infrastructure, limited progress on medical costs, limited progress on social issues, limited progress on hope and change, and no progress at all on leadership from the top. No more on-the-job-training for the president's office.
1
You'd rather have a charlatan who pretends they know everything?
We have no choice. Obama has done pretty well with horrible hateful opposition.
Only person not needing OJT is Hillary, perhaps she is a good choice after all. I'm a Bernie fan myself. Not one Republican is anything but a phony encouraging delusion.
We have no choice. Obama has done pretty well with horrible hateful opposition.
Only person not needing OJT is Hillary, perhaps she is a good choice after all. I'm a Bernie fan myself. Not one Republican is anything but a phony encouraging delusion.
2
What have the Republicans done to solve all of the problems you mentioned?
"Virtually every piece of land ice on Earth is melting, the sea ice in the Arctic is collapsing" - This NYT article.
"Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s." - NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-recor...
Why are there skeptics? Duh.
****************************
"Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s." - NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-recor...
Why are there skeptics? Duh.
****************************
5
It's not the sea ice around Antarctica that's collapsing, it's the ice shelves. The writer made an honest mistake, easy to do because sea ice IS expanding there, as opposed to the land based ice. That's because the fresh water dumping into the ocean freezes at a higher temp than salt water. (That's why they salt icy roads.) So-called "skeptics" like to seize on this fact of physics to confuse the public into thinking that Antarctica isn't in serious trouble (well, it isn't, but anyone living near a coast line is.)
3
Perhaps you never learned the difference between the Arctic and Antarctica? Hint: they are not the same place!
Think of all the construction jobs that will be created when we have to tear down our entire civilization and move it inland, away from rising sea levels. We can rebuild our decaying infrastructure while we fight this menace.
Of course, with Republicans in control, this likely won't happen. Oh, well...
Of course, with Republicans in control, this likely won't happen. Oh, well...
3
The signs of environmental decline are all around us, but the siren falls on deaf ears. It is depressing and uncomfortable for us to acknowledge the damage to this planet at the hands of man. Most inflicted over the last 100 years with the industrial "revolution". Man's ego is at the heart of it all, and cannot get out of the way. Fact: Earth has lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years. Example: Only 3,000 tigers left in the wild. Largely due to habitat loss and poaching. However, the human population is over 7,000,000,000 (and growing). Think about it.
12
I find it rather ironic that the Pope—a religious zealot—is leading the discussion for sane and immediate action on climate change, while the sewer snakes in our Senate and Congress continue to insist it's a liberal hoax.
4
I'm with you except he's not a zealot, just the first public real Christian I've seen in the public arena for a good while. Like Katherine Hayhoe and a good few others, he's for stewardship. Too bad he's stuck with an institution that opposes contraception and women's equality though, not a good thing.
But hierarchical male power is normal in any institution.
But hierarchical male power is normal in any institution.
4
I'm looking forward to seeing how much money the US will have to cough up for OPEC nations as a result of moving away from an oil based economy to something cleaner. You may recall that the OPEC nations demanded in Peru that they receive funds to offset the loss of their revenue under such conditions.
1
When the American paper of record refuses to treat the environment with the same weight and respect it does it main sections what hope is there that enough people will recognize the dire shape we are in?
The Times deals the news out piecemeal but when all the globes degradation is cataloged together the fact that we are on the brink of disaster is indisputable assuming the viewer is reasonably intelligent and possesses intellectual integrity.
Rather than treat the subject and subscribers respectfully important news is very often placed in back pages and we are fed two opinion columns one by Mark Bittman, nominally directed at conservation but really concerned with lifestyle. The other is the ridicules fare proffered by Andrew Revkin a mix of everything under the sun from him recounting his guitar exploits to endless links to other peoples writings but mostly pointless diddling centered on micro measurements, pontification, and speculation all seemingly put forth to back up his incrementalism.
The Times deals the news out piecemeal but when all the globes degradation is cataloged together the fact that we are on the brink of disaster is indisputable assuming the viewer is reasonably intelligent and possesses intellectual integrity.
Rather than treat the subject and subscribers respectfully important news is very often placed in back pages and we are fed two opinion columns one by Mark Bittman, nominally directed at conservation but really concerned with lifestyle. The other is the ridicules fare proffered by Andrew Revkin a mix of everything under the sun from him recounting his guitar exploits to endless links to other peoples writings but mostly pointless diddling centered on micro measurements, pontification, and speculation all seemingly put forth to back up his incrementalism.
8
The rain forest is one thing but did you know that 75-80% of our oxygen -and the concomitant decrease in CO2 - comes from our oceans - from plankton and algae. We've got to be very concerned about the health of our oceans.
7
Of course there is going to be "limited progress" regarding any environmental problem as long as our leaders fail to enact policies to stabilize and then actually stabilize the human population. In recent decades Americans have watched as most advances in pollution reduction and fuel economy have been eaten up and reversed by 30 million more resource consumers, crop, range and forest land bulldozers to build necessary housing etc ... and yes polluters per decade. And American population growth now largely consists of mass immigration that this paper relentlessly propagandizes for so it borders on hilarious that the editors of this 1% bought off mouth piece for the rich and powerful dare to pretend that they care about the environment or the common good.
6
We are all together on this sinking ship and the captain has abandoned us. But the fact remains that even the wealthiest have children and grandchildren and all the gold in the world will not save the human race as temperatures rise to 6 degrees. Even the junior Kochs will have no food, nowhere to go, no protection from teeming masses looking for higher ground.
Is it time to forget about reducing emissions and living a carbon-free lifestyle and just party like there is no tomorrow? If looking at the ads in the NYT Sunday newspaper is indicative of the American lifestyle, we're toast.
Is it time to forget about reducing emissions and living a carbon-free lifestyle and just party like there is no tomorrow? If looking at the ads in the NYT Sunday newspaper is indicative of the American lifestyle, we're toast.
4
The more the nations of the world pretend that climate change
is top of their agenda, the more weather gets the mange.
Tornadoes in Alaska and monsoons in Utah rage;
drought in sub-Sahara does not even make front page.
The eggheads say extinction of plants and animals is looming
(While the fossil fuel cartel is casual and booming).
Ask the proud Punjabi to give up his motor bike,
and he will tell you softly to go take a lovely hike.
Tell the Chinese bizness man he must clean up his place,
and he will send you packing to the ends of outer space.
And NEVER tell Americans they have to stop their pigging;
you might as well tell shovels they no longer are for digging.
Just who is going to cut back on their carbon footprint, hey?
Russians and the Japanese? That'll be the day . . .
is top of their agenda, the more weather gets the mange.
Tornadoes in Alaska and monsoons in Utah rage;
drought in sub-Sahara does not even make front page.
The eggheads say extinction of plants and animals is looming
(While the fossil fuel cartel is casual and booming).
Ask the proud Punjabi to give up his motor bike,
and he will tell you softly to go take a lovely hike.
Tell the Chinese bizness man he must clean up his place,
and he will send you packing to the ends of outer space.
And NEVER tell Americans they have to stop their pigging;
you might as well tell shovels they no longer are for digging.
Just who is going to cut back on their carbon footprint, hey?
Russians and the Japanese? That'll be the day . . .
2
Lovely ditty! Thanks.
1
There are at least two major barriers to effective action on climate change and we are not seeing any progress at all on confronting them.
First is the sense of entitlement, particularly in the United States but also in other nations, to an economy built on intense energy use. In this country too many cities have simply thrown out any effort to integrate public transportation into planning and have forced people to rely on cars. We have foolishly turned out back on nuclear power and, instead, subsidized fossil fuel extraction and use. In other countries the hunger for the American lifestyle continues to grow. The planet cannot sustain it but too few people, and even fewer leaders, appear to understand that reality.
Second, the American political system is too broken to deal with this crisis. Congress is utterly and completely corrupt and will not respond to this issue in anything approaching a timely manner. The Republican-dominated Supreme Court is far more concerned about the profits of big business than it is about the fate of civilization and so will be constantly tempted to rule that the U.S. Constitution forces us to live with the changing climate we are producing. And the American people are, by and large, either too ignorant or too ideologically rigid to accept that fundamental changes in our economy must happen if disaster is to be avoided.
The outlook is grim. It will get much worse if the U.S. electorate falls for GOP snake oil next year.
First is the sense of entitlement, particularly in the United States but also in other nations, to an economy built on intense energy use. In this country too many cities have simply thrown out any effort to integrate public transportation into planning and have forced people to rely on cars. We have foolishly turned out back on nuclear power and, instead, subsidized fossil fuel extraction and use. In other countries the hunger for the American lifestyle continues to grow. The planet cannot sustain it but too few people, and even fewer leaders, appear to understand that reality.
Second, the American political system is too broken to deal with this crisis. Congress is utterly and completely corrupt and will not respond to this issue in anything approaching a timely manner. The Republican-dominated Supreme Court is far more concerned about the profits of big business than it is about the fate of civilization and so will be constantly tempted to rule that the U.S. Constitution forces us to live with the changing climate we are producing. And the American people are, by and large, either too ignorant or too ideologically rigid to accept that fundamental changes in our economy must happen if disaster is to be avoided.
The outlook is grim. It will get much worse if the U.S. electorate falls for GOP snake oil next year.
4
Pretty simple: stop the HUGE gas-guzzling vehicles like SUVs, pick-up trucks and vans that are commuting in stop-n-go traffic on our roadways every day. Slap a heavy tax on them and get them off the road!
3
It's a start. That's in the category of eliminating the enormous waste of energy in this country, resulting in CO2 emitted for no sensible purpose. People riding around in toy trucks so they can feel like the Marlboro Man is an example.
We've got to eliminate coal-fired power plants, a big-ticket CO2 item. We also have to eliminate the mis-use of airplanes. Flying a private jet these days is criminal, when you look at the CO2 cost per passenger-mile. We need to use trains much more sensibly. All those flights between Boston and NYC are crazy. We should have real high-speed rail between those cities, and between NY, Philly and DC.
I'm 73 years old and will probably exist stage left (certainly not right!) before it really hits the fan. But I have seven grandchildren. I worry a LOT about what those kids are going to face in their lifetimes.
We've got to eliminate coal-fired power plants, a big-ticket CO2 item. We also have to eliminate the mis-use of airplanes. Flying a private jet these days is criminal, when you look at the CO2 cost per passenger-mile. We need to use trains much more sensibly. All those flights between Boston and NYC are crazy. We should have real high-speed rail between those cities, and between NY, Philly and DC.
I'm 73 years old and will probably exist stage left (certainly not right!) before it really hits the fan. But I have seven grandchildren. I worry a LOT about what those kids are going to face in their lifetimes.
3
We can only hope then that these catastrophes bring humanity's numbers down to the level where we're not demolishing the environment, while leaving enough to survive and maintain or rebuild civilization. We might even luck out with a Spanish Influenza type event which will slay huge numbers of humans but not damage the environment in the process. There's always hope.
3
You have no respect for the sanctity of human life. Let's start with eliminating the CO2 that you emit.
Bull droppings; any climate catastrophe will come from (guess what?) NATURAL CAUSES such as volcanic eruptions, strikes from meteors comets,etc, NOT mankind!
You calculate "warming of the planet by 6.3 degrees?" More droppings; I predict a warming DECREASE of 70-plus degrees this winter! I fully agree with climate change; I call it SUMMER and WINTER!
You calculate "warming of the planet by 6.3 degrees?" More droppings; I predict a warming DECREASE of 70-plus degrees this winter! I fully agree with climate change; I call it SUMMER and WINTER!
3
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Meanwhile, the actual temperature increase over the past 15 years is ... [wait for it] ... less than half a degree, Celsius.
Just saying.
"Climate change?"
Ha, like that which has been going on for *millions* of years---without human beings involvement? You know: continents being covered in ice and then subsequently being uncovered. Ice ages and whatnot come and go.
Again, just saying: get over it; you'll be a lot happier!
Meanwhile, the actual temperature increase over the past 15 years is ... [wait for it] ... less than half a degree, Celsius.
Just saying.
"Climate change?"
Ha, like that which has been going on for *millions* of years---without human beings involvement? You know: continents being covered in ice and then subsequently being uncovered. Ice ages and whatnot come and go.
Again, just saying: get over it; you'll be a lot happier!
4
Okay...I promise not to pay any attention to the actual science, but only to right-wing phony claims from here on out.
1
Before wasting network bandwidth with posts like this, learn some science, and then study the reports of climate scientists who have spent their careers studying a subject about which you clearly know nothing..
6
Remind me--in how many instances over those "millions of years" have there been 7+ billion humans on the planet? Hard to imagine we could have much impact on the planet...it's not like we all need food, energy and we all create waste.
Please read "The 6th Extinction" and get your head out of you know where. People in Hawaii will be particularly exposed to the results of climate change.
Please read "The 6th Extinction" and get your head out of you know where. People in Hawaii will be particularly exposed to the results of climate change.
8
Step one - stop cutting trees. If you must, do it in orderly fashion, and not whole sale.
Papermills are the primary user of trees, but we can all write or print on recycled paper, no big deal really. Farming is the other. confiscate the land that they burn, plus the land they already had, watch how fast they knock this off.
More trees, more CO2 absorbed, it's easy.
Papermills are the primary user of trees, but we can all write or print on recycled paper, no big deal really. Farming is the other. confiscate the land that they burn, plus the land they already had, watch how fast they knock this off.
More trees, more CO2 absorbed, it's easy.
Political leaders are failing us. They are putting their careers above our survival.
2
The vast majority of proposed Climate Change solutions basically seem aimed at preserving our current technologically-based lifestyle in some way, whether by using new "clean" energy sources, replacing lightbulbs or building protective barriers to address rising sea levels. However, as much as I and others have enjoyed the 'good life' in the past, it is simply not sustainable or ethical in almost any way. We must prepare for a completely new paradigm of living without the ease of the modern lifestyle.
There is no neat solution that would maintain our current global economy. Things are changing and will change much more at a massive scale. Why aren't we discussing how it will be possible to live without our current technology? For example, we need to strengthen local food and trade systems.
There is a possibility of some human beings actually surviving this catastrophe. If we do, it would be incredibly helpful to have systems in place that would make our lives not as terrible as feared and more in accord with living (really) sustainably on Earth. It is dire that we immediately decide on and implement methods to reduce the destruction on the planet. However, why aren't we also preparing to live differently -- completely differently? If we do prepare, even if there is a much smaller human population (which would not be bad), it is possible that humans might survive on Earth without destroying their home.
There is no neat solution that would maintain our current global economy. Things are changing and will change much more at a massive scale. Why aren't we discussing how it will be possible to live without our current technology? For example, we need to strengthen local food and trade systems.
There is a possibility of some human beings actually surviving this catastrophe. If we do, it would be incredibly helpful to have systems in place that would make our lives not as terrible as feared and more in accord with living (really) sustainably on Earth. It is dire that we immediately decide on and implement methods to reduce the destruction on the planet. However, why aren't we also preparing to live differently -- completely differently? If we do prepare, even if there is a much smaller human population (which would not be bad), it is possible that humans might survive on Earth without destroying their home.
3
At present, with the current landscape, there is too much commitment to the status quo on too many critical issues to expect that any meaningful progress in the fight against climate change.
I almost hate to say this, but the political shake-up required to cause fundamental change may be staring America right in the face in the person of Donald Trump.
Seeing his performance on 60 Minutes last night, he is the one person running who may be capable of causing fundamental change in the US, and consequently the world, if he is given the opportunity and the support of the American people. He would kill the status quo on many issues: free trade, the military, taxation, immigration and who knows what else. Surely not all of it would be good, but it would happen.
There are many checks and balances, he could only do so much harm. It may be time for someone like him in the White House.
I almost hate to say this, but the political shake-up required to cause fundamental change may be staring America right in the face in the person of Donald Trump.
Seeing his performance on 60 Minutes last night, he is the one person running who may be capable of causing fundamental change in the US, and consequently the world, if he is given the opportunity and the support of the American people. He would kill the status quo on many issues: free trade, the military, taxation, immigration and who knows what else. Surely not all of it would be good, but it would happen.
There are many checks and balances, he could only do so much harm. It may be time for someone like him in the White House.
1
Donald Trump has denied that climate change is a problem.
2
Be careful what you wish for, GBC. Great upheaval comes at a great cost. See: French Revolution, Russian Revolution, National Socialism. In fact, Hitler was greeted with almost identical sentiments in the 1930s - as in, 'yes, he is crude and a blunt instrument, but he'll shake things up and help usher in a new order - and besides the Germans are far too civilized to take things too far.'
In short, your hope for a historical short-cut that bypasses the democratic process is both unrealistic and dangerous. Change does happen that way, but it's almost inevitably change for the worse.
In short, your hope for a historical short-cut that bypasses the democratic process is both unrealistic and dangerous. Change does happen that way, but it's almost inevitably change for the worse.
4
Yeah, I really expect that a loudmouthed, narcissistic, ignorant billionaire who's bankrupted at least five companies he ran will jump right on helping the little guy and cleaning up the planet.
And exchange his various jets for a flying pig squadron.
And exchange his various jets for a flying pig squadron.
4
Commitments are one thing, but actual progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require action to change our current system.
Here in the US, Congress could lead by implementing a carbon fee and dividend. Studies have shown that this policy would significantly reduce emissions, avoid a cumbersome regulatory environment, and boost our economy by adding jobs and growing our GDP. In addition, border adjustments would incentivize the broader adoption of such policies around the globe, turning the prisoner's dilemma of climate action on its head.
Here in the US, Congress could lead by implementing a carbon fee and dividend. Studies have shown that this policy would significantly reduce emissions, avoid a cumbersome regulatory environment, and boost our economy by adding jobs and growing our GDP. In addition, border adjustments would incentivize the broader adoption of such policies around the globe, turning the prisoner's dilemma of climate action on its head.
3
"It's the economy, stupid!" How much to you pay for the CO2 coming out of your tail pipe? Or your utility's smoke stack? Or the embedded emissions in everything you buy? Zero, or close to it. As long as fossil fuels remain artificially "cheap" because their social costs are "externalized" from their price, their rising use is inevitable. We need a carbon tax, but don't count on 196 countries to work it out. If just the US and China agreed on a carbon tax with border carbon tariffs, the rest of the world would soon follow. Make it revenue neutral -- the government doesn't keep the money but returns it to citizens -- and we'll have a non-partisan plan all could agree on, unless you own a coal mine. Check out Citizens' Climate Lobby.
16
How is climate change not a front page issue for the NY Times every single day?
Does any other issue compare to what you wrote: "The planet has already warmed by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit above the temperature that prevailed before the Industrial Revolution, representing an enormous addition of heat. Virtually every piece of land ice on Earth is melting, the sea ice in the Arctic is collapsing, droughts and other weather extremes are intensifying, and the global food system has shown signs of instability."
Does any other issue compare to what you wrote: "The planet has already warmed by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit above the temperature that prevailed before the Industrial Revolution, representing an enormous addition of heat. Virtually every piece of land ice on Earth is melting, the sea ice in the Arctic is collapsing, droughts and other weather extremes are intensifying, and the global food system has shown signs of instability."
15
They picked Fahrenheit because 0.8 degrees over 300 years looks rather unimpressive.
1
"Virtually every piece of land ice on Earth is melting, the sea ice in the Arctic is collapsing, droughts and other weather extremes are intensifying, and the global food system has shown signs of instability."
These facts remain true, regardless of whether you think that "0.8" in some completely-arbitrary scale "looks rather unimpressive" to you.
These facts remain true, regardless of whether you think that "0.8" in some completely-arbitrary scale "looks rather unimpressive" to you.
1
So, those who've been saying the pledges won't work - but will harm our economies - were right, after all.
And, of course, I'm very sure the Chinese, India, and countless other countries are just dying for the US and western Europe to stop using fossil fuels so they can use it at much lower costs than today.
And, of course, I'm very sure the Chinese, India, and countless other countries are just dying for the US and western Europe to stop using fossil fuels so they can use it at much lower costs than today.
There is a very simple way to get India to comply with a reduction in global warming and that is to place a moratorium on purchasing any goods or services from India.This doesn't even require the whole world to participate as the amount of products and services that the US alone purchases should be enough to get their attention, unfortunately this is not something that US businesses will do willingly.
If only have of what this article states is true it looks like whatever we do now is too little and way too late.
If only have of what this article states is true it looks like whatever we do now is too little and way too late.
Oh, well...catastrophes. Humans have made catastrophes on an almost daily basis ever since they learned how to play with fire. What would be unusual -- truly amazing -- would be if we stopped.
2
The only real way for wealthy nations which generally already have a pretty clean mix of energy sources to combat climate change is stop all the free trade nonsense, which is really just exploitation of the third world for the benefit of the rich and start imposing tariffs on products that were manufactured using process or energy sources that wouldn't be allowed in the consuming country. This will also help somewhat alleviate the outsourcing bonanza.
We are toast. I can't say it bothers me that much. We've treated the earth like a personal garbage dump for more than 150 years. What goes around comes around. I do feel for the animals, but new species will arise after the humans are gone. Maybe a new human-like species will appear in 100,000 years and be a better steward of this planet than we have been.
6
Fossil fuel corporations and other industries financially tied to them are a major part of the oligarchy that dominates our political process. This has been entrenched for decades and pretending that 'pledges' and rhetoric will have any meaningful impact on stopping the production and use of fossil fuels is ridiculous. The US is the biggest (though certainly not the only) obstacle to transforming global energy infrastructure through its tenacious support of multi-national vulture capitalism. If the oligarchs wanted clean energy we'd have it. It's time to take control of our political process through the kind of political revolution that Sen Sanders is trying to help create: an informed citizenry that demands an effective crisis response to this immanent global crisis.
2
As long as there is denial of the physics and chemistry behind geology, oceanography and meteorology by most nations and their citizens there will be no meaningful progress on climate change.
1
As Al Gore said recently in Berkeley, global warming may be the biggest economic opportunity in the history of human civilization.
Somebody is going to pay for all the trillions that will fill the bank accounts of the opportunists.
It's best to cash in on the Carbon Rush, because those who remain on the sidelines won't have a pot to .........
Somebody is going to pay for all the trillions that will fill the bank accounts of the opportunists.
It's best to cash in on the Carbon Rush, because those who remain on the sidelines won't have a pot to .........
Dear New York Times, Can you just STAND UP for an issue that will bring devastating wars and famine to the whole world!! Yes, you are reporting more about Climate Change, but always with a 'padding the USA on the back' attitude.
What we are doing is too little, too late, and praising future US goals that are already behind other countries' 2015 achievements (on car emissions, renewable energy) already today - is just a disservice to your readers. Please be brutally honest.
What we are doing is too little, too late, and praising future US goals that are already behind other countries' 2015 achievements (on car emissions, renewable energy) already today - is just a disservice to your readers. Please be brutally honest.
4
There is nothing we can do to prevent the world from warming that would not stop development in its tracks and result in an unacceptably reduced standard of living for the majority of the planet. We better get that through our heads fast, so we can move on to mitigating the alleged damage to come. The Climatistas have yet to come clean with what a full implementation of their truly radical agenda would mean to the average person in both developed and undeveloped nations. You're busy scaring people into action but not being honest about the costs this will impose.
Huh. And here I thought having your neighborhood flood, your food get more expensive, your air get worse, your summers get hotter, and your kids get shipped away to fight more and more often affected the little guy's standard of living.
The headline should be "Inadequate Commitments on Climate Change," not "Limited..."
The NYT was a bit late to giving significant attention to climate change, and as recently as a couple years ago was treating deniers to plenty of space for the "other side" of the story. So you owe it to us to now be completely accurate.
The NYT was a bit late to giving significant attention to climate change, and as recently as a couple years ago was treating deniers to plenty of space for the "other side" of the story. So you owe it to us to now be completely accurate.
9
When people act through government to accomplish any objective they are relying on the state's so-called "authority" to initiate force to accomplish its purposes. Force (violence ) cannot be used in a vacuum. It always causes reaction and has unintended and unpredictable negative consequences. Violence always begets more of the same.
Because of the enormity and diversity of the earth's climate, climate control through government legislation promises to give the state, as opposed to individuals, exponentially more power than it currently holds, and will necessarily evoke more violence. Nothing short of a third world war could be more dangerous to the human race than climate legislation.
One must ask, where does our government's authority to initiate force, such as in the collection of taxes or to enforce climate regulations come from? Our theory of government holds it comes from "the people" through their representatives. As SCOTUS has said, the people are the sovereign authority of this nation.
However, it is manifestly impossible for the people's representatives to exercise an authority the people themselves do not have in their individual capacity. No one has a right to force others to do their will. Thus, any climate legislation or regulation will be illegitiamte, just as taxes are. When, oh when will we ever learn to get along without resorting to violence?
Because of the enormity and diversity of the earth's climate, climate control through government legislation promises to give the state, as opposed to individuals, exponentially more power than it currently holds, and will necessarily evoke more violence. Nothing short of a third world war could be more dangerous to the human race than climate legislation.
One must ask, where does our government's authority to initiate force, such as in the collection of taxes or to enforce climate regulations come from? Our theory of government holds it comes from "the people" through their representatives. As SCOTUS has said, the people are the sovereign authority of this nation.
However, it is manifestly impossible for the people's representatives to exercise an authority the people themselves do not have in their individual capacity. No one has a right to force others to do their will. Thus, any climate legislation or regulation will be illegitiamte, just as taxes are. When, oh when will we ever learn to get along without resorting to violence?
You seem to be confusing "violence" with the rule of law.
Unless you can convince the world's population of heterosexuals to stop procreating NOW, the problem will continue to escalate unabated.
4
If all of us could just learn to think outside the box and disregard some of what we have been taught. Just imagine how much more cleaner and how much more enjoyable life would be if say most people in North Jersey or most of the nation would instead of getting into our automobiles and fighting with each other over traveling lanes and parking space were to walk to the shopping center or to walk to the local park or the library. Problem is today if you walk or bike in most towns in NJ and the nation, it can be a lifethreatining endeavor as people with automobiles, distracted on the cell phone, make turns without looking or swerve dangerously into pedestrian lanes. As a person who exercise walk around town this has happened to me far too often than I care to talk about. Americans drive everywhere and suffer awfully for this indiscretion. Obesity skyrockets and related diseases such as Diabetes Mellitus, Chronic Hypertension, Arthritis, Heart Disease are now affecting teenagers and young adults at epidemic ranges. Why do you think there a CVS and Duane Reade on every corner? The drivers also suffer terribly with rates of trauma, depression, boredom, extreme anger from wasting time in traffic skyrocketing. Simple solutions such as pedestrian lanes, cracking down on bad driver are frowned upon while instead of changing we argue with the 97% of climate scientist who warn us that our beheavor is ruining the earth.
1
Since climate change is only partially manmade, efforts to slow climate change by reducing or eliminating human causes of climate change will have only limited impact. We can hope to reduce the speed of climate change, but we will still have to deal its effects. The planet will probably continue to grow warmer until the next age. We should be focusing a major part of our efforts on coping with these effects.
8
This is inaccurate. Since the earth would now normally be in a cooling trend, one can reasonably say that ALL of the warming since 1950 is due to human activity. Don't confuse natural variability with anthropogenic global warming. As for "climate's always changing," that's false too. Weather changes, climate has been stable for the past 12,000 years. That's why we're here, in this advanced form of civilization. But when the bough breaks, the cradle will rock, and down will come baby....
7
During the Carter years, there was widespread liberal belief in global cooling and nuclear winter. I wonder what the leftist beliefs will be like by the third Trump administration?
Your assertion is not consistent with the latest science. In fact, the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded with 95% certainty that current climate change is happening primarily (not partially) due to human causes.
Your other comment with respect to the debate between mitigation and adaptation is legitimate and is currently debated in high-level talks, but it it is a discussion that cannot be had without accepting that climate change is manmade.
I am not sure why the New York Times would make this comment an NYT Pick. It is imperative that only comments with scientific backing be encouraged.
Your other comment with respect to the debate between mitigation and adaptation is legitimate and is currently debated in high-level talks, but it it is a discussion that cannot be had without accepting that climate change is manmade.
I am not sure why the New York Times would make this comment an NYT Pick. It is imperative that only comments with scientific backing be encouraged.
1
It's curious how we hear so much about climate change, but virtually nothing about population growth. It is population growth that drives the economic activity that contributes to climate change,. Many western countries (like Canada), were it not for immigration, would have declining levels of population - not through some kind of draconian law, but by choice. That should be the goal - to achieve long-term population decline in western countries. Once that is set in place, the climate change issue will take care of itself - ie less economic activity will lessen the production of greenhouse gases which cause climate change.
45
Given at the present time we are bashing China over its head for its one-child policy, I don't think what you say is practical. And good luck convincing Americans not to try for a second trophy child if the first does not promise to be the next brain surgeon astronaut president and did not make clear its failings in time to be aborted.
I am OK with long term population decline, but why do you limit it to "western countries"? By the way, what is a "western country"? Europe and North America? I am absolutely unwilling to be singled out for decline. I am quite willing to participate in shared sacrifice. I am totally unwilling to participate in unilateral self-sacrifice.
The problem with population growth is that it is often a red herring. Yes, population is one factor that leads to growing emissions. But other elements, namely affluence and technology, are crucial. The fact of the matter is most of the population growth is happening in developing countries where per capita emissions are extremely low, so population growth makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. You also have to remember that population growth is linked to economic growth—yes, less economic activity will lessen the production of GHG emissions, but you would also see job losses and demographic crises manifesting in lack of funding for national pensions due to an aging population as well as a lackluster labor force. Controlling population should be "encouraged" to the point where it is voluntary and done right (we should not even have to get into the topic of involuntary measures), but it is by no means the end all as many seem to think. Developmental paradigms in the end are what need to transform the most to stop the developing world from developing the way the West did and from subsequently increasing their per capita emissions.
1
We could, if we got real, make progress towards preserving our hospitable home, though we've already passed some targets through collective gullibility to argument, apathy, and/or love of stuff. There is real danger, as explained by the article and elsewhere (NYTimes environment section, Justin Gillis's fine series: topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/justin_gillis/inde... ).
In any other part of our lives, we would not ignore the advice of top experts worldwide and over time, but the mirror PR universe so ably funded by the wealthiest industries on earth seems to deceive so many gullible people who think their politics and their friends are more real than reality. Unskeptical "skeptics" provide distorted material that ignores so much in favor of a biased view, while advising people to avoid any curiosity about what the best science says. They would not do this with their health, their bridges, or any other thing in their lives, seeking out a small minority that agrees with them instead of getting the best advice.
We can, as the family of humankind, work together to develop, store, and deliver clean renewable energy. Business is already doing well by doing good in this field.
Please wake up: the time is now and the problems are urgent. Evidence is piling up. Look worldwide over time, and remember all that has happened and is happening. Real reality matters, and we can because we must.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
In any other part of our lives, we would not ignore the advice of top experts worldwide and over time, but the mirror PR universe so ably funded by the wealthiest industries on earth seems to deceive so many gullible people who think their politics and their friends are more real than reality. Unskeptical "skeptics" provide distorted material that ignores so much in favor of a biased view, while advising people to avoid any curiosity about what the best science says. They would not do this with their health, their bridges, or any other thing in their lives, seeking out a small minority that agrees with them instead of getting the best advice.
We can, as the family of humankind, work together to develop, store, and deliver clean renewable energy. Business is already doing well by doing good in this field.
Please wake up: the time is now and the problems are urgent. Evidence is piling up. Look worldwide over time, and remember all that has happened and is happening. Real reality matters, and we can because we must.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
13
The root cause of all global environmental problems including any effect of humans on the climate is overpopulation, but there is no political or religious leadership to address it. Thus there has been no real "progress" on solving these problems, which will intensify as the human population increases from some 7.4 billion today to around 10 billion later this century.
20
Overpopulation requires a long-term solution, unless you are thinking along the lines of immediate mass extermination.
Climate change requires immediate action, unless you are thinking in terms of long-term mass extermination.
Climate change requires immediate action, unless you are thinking in terms of long-term mass extermination.
4
I don't disagree, but as they say "perfect is the enemy of the good." If we don't solve the energy problem (i.e., carbon-based) in the next few decades, the overpopulation problem become moot. Even if we decided to first take overpopulation head-on (perhaps more socially challenging than the energy problem) and bend the curve downward, the planet will still burn up if the energy problem isn't solved in parallel. If I had a magic wand and could pick only one of the two problems right now, it would be the energy problem.
1
Such nonsense! The root causes are mismanagement of natural resources and the sickening wealth inequality among nations. If humans were able to look beyond their petty border squabbles in order to ensure the survival of all in the planet, the rest would follow. Looking at the world in general and the Middle East in particular indicates this will probably never happen.
… 20 years of disappointing negotiations… and the next, I ask?
Seven years ago the Village of Pinecrest in Miami, FL 33156 permitted five acres of sumpland, wetlands, to be filled and elevated without drainage. For Before and After images visit:
http://pinecrestfloods.blogspot.com/
The past 7 years have been full of angst and anxiety since City filled in sumpland without drainage. They allowed wetlands to be filled and elevated minus a way for the stormwater to exit, and now our neighborhood floods.
The water table is at its highest now, October, both previous floods occurred in October, one in 2008, the other in 2013.
Despite the irrefutable evidence, Pinecrest has no intention of resolving, reclaiming the 5 acres even as it was known prior that connecting to canals leading into Biscayne Bay was illegal, developers can no longer drain into the Bay because the canals are full re sea rise.
Ramping up climate change ambitions will hardly suffice, brain transplants perhaps a better idea, plus less greed — time to stop building here.
Seven years ago the Village of Pinecrest in Miami, FL 33156 permitted five acres of sumpland, wetlands, to be filled and elevated without drainage. For Before and After images visit:
http://pinecrestfloods.blogspot.com/
The past 7 years have been full of angst and anxiety since City filled in sumpland without drainage. They allowed wetlands to be filled and elevated minus a way for the stormwater to exit, and now our neighborhood floods.
The water table is at its highest now, October, both previous floods occurred in October, one in 2008, the other in 2013.
Despite the irrefutable evidence, Pinecrest has no intention of resolving, reclaiming the 5 acres even as it was known prior that connecting to canals leading into Biscayne Bay was illegal, developers can no longer drain into the Bay because the canals are full re sea rise.
Ramping up climate change ambitions will hardly suffice, brain transplants perhaps a better idea, plus less greed — time to stop building here.
3
I hope people take time to view your link. The pictures show actions that are testaments to stupidity
1
Thank you, Lew. I hope they take the time, too. Images are awful, and true. Some roads on MIami Beach are closed because of higher than expected tides, what does this say about inland sea rise, how high the water is underneath? Lots!
Observing human nature, the greed of politicians and corporations, and the difficulty nations have working together -- I don't see how the kind of major, painful actions that are needed to deal with global warming will ever happen.
In fact, no matter what is done with solar and wind, I think we will see a burn-it-all scenario, where humans burn every molecule of hydrocarbon they can reach.
The discussions at the level of public consumption are very misleading. Typically the 2100 goal is expressed as 2C, while it is 3.6F, which is a much bigger number to think about. And warming doesn't magically stop at 2100, it will go on for centuries, even for millennia if we burn-it-all. Finally, pushing all this is the monster in the room that nobody talks about -- population growth, which will be immense by 2050 (9 billion) and unimaginable by 2100.
In fact, no matter what is done with solar and wind, I think we will see a burn-it-all scenario, where humans burn every molecule of hydrocarbon they can reach.
The discussions at the level of public consumption are very misleading. Typically the 2100 goal is expressed as 2C, while it is 3.6F, which is a much bigger number to think about. And warming doesn't magically stop at 2100, it will go on for centuries, even for millennia if we burn-it-all. Finally, pushing all this is the monster in the room that nobody talks about -- population growth, which will be immense by 2050 (9 billion) and unimaginable by 2100.
3
Too little and way too late!
5
There are a lot of alarmists commenting on this. Life and technology will adapt to deal with change. Besides, the rest of the world, most notably China, Brazil, Russia, and India, does not care about and is not on board with the whining Prius drivers.
3
i sure hope your kids and grandchildren have a nice life - no reason to worry about it though as im sure some brilliant facebook programmer will program up an application to remove all the smog and to perhaps even to resurrect all the dead environment.
Life is far less forgiving than you hope but i like your philosophy of "dont worry - be happy.". Hope it works - i really do...
Life is far less forgiving than you hope but i like your philosophy of "dont worry - be happy.". Hope it works - i really do...
Please give us your science credentials so we can compare them to the vast majority of climate scientists who are "alarmists."
"Life and technology will adapt", huh? That is the favorite mantra of conspicuous consumers who think that technology can solve all problems, and care not a whit that their own cozy lives never have to change, as they live happily insulated from the fallout of climate change. Yes, they will build their coastal vacation mansions on stilts, they will turn up the A/C if it gets too warm, they will be able to afford every gadget on the market to make themselves comfortable in the worst situation, they will take a plane to flee the floods and fires, and yes, they will do the obligatory head-shaking over the plight of the unfortunate 99% who can't afford to do likewise. They feel no obligation to be part of a solution that has long-term sustainability, as they don't generally plan past their own lifetimes - why would they care about the end of the century?
Blame India by all means, as both the most populous and one of the most pro-growth countries at the table, on not being committed enough to establishing a workable global policy on climate change, but the rest of the countries you mention HAVE made a commitment to cutting emissions. Maybe you hadn't yet had your morning coffee, or missed that part of this article?
- A whining Prius driver, who would prefer to be driving a Mirai.
Blame India by all means, as both the most populous and one of the most pro-growth countries at the table, on not being committed enough to establishing a workable global policy on climate change, but the rest of the countries you mention HAVE made a commitment to cutting emissions. Maybe you hadn't yet had your morning coffee, or missed that part of this article?
- A whining Prius driver, who would prefer to be driving a Mirai.
4
There are only two choices:
1. Hard emissions targets, enforced via boycotts of products from countries that don't comply.
2. A gradually rising carbon tax, also accompanied by boycotts of imports from bad actors. In the case of Australia, which has a huge per capita footprint along with enormous exports of coal, tourists would boycott the Great Barrier Reef, which is already suffering enormous damage from climate change.
All international conferences, starting with Kyoto, have featured noncompliant countries (such as the United States) and "targets" that are ignored, including by signatories such as Canada.
The world needs to act immediately. Continued diplomatic masturbation, accompanied by fossil fuel industry bribery, is leading us to mass death and destruction.
1. Hard emissions targets, enforced via boycotts of products from countries that don't comply.
2. A gradually rising carbon tax, also accompanied by boycotts of imports from bad actors. In the case of Australia, which has a huge per capita footprint along with enormous exports of coal, tourists would boycott the Great Barrier Reef, which is already suffering enormous damage from climate change.
All international conferences, starting with Kyoto, have featured noncompliant countries (such as the United States) and "targets" that are ignored, including by signatories such as Canada.
The world needs to act immediately. Continued diplomatic masturbation, accompanied by fossil fuel industry bribery, is leading us to mass death and destruction.
14
Mike, how about eliminating all these international conferences that are nothing but luxury vacations for big-carbon-footprint alarmists? If these people were serious about global warming, they would hold all their jamborees on the internet, thus saving billions of tons of carbon pollutants. Yet, they keep scheduling their never ending gabfests.
1
Climate change doomed the ancients according to a NYTimes op-ed- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/opinion/climate- Prof. Cline said: “climate change has been leading to global conflict — and even the collapse of civilizations — for more than 3,000 years ... The Late Bronze Age civilizations collapsed at the hands of Mother Nature. It remains to be seen if we will cause the collapse of our own."
If Mother Nature caused the climate to change in ancient times, but we humans are now able to control it, and, if properly motivated, could change its course, there has, indeed, been a remarkable evolutionary shift of control from Mother Nature/.
More specifically, if the ancients couldn’t forestall global warming/climate change, but we are now in a position to do so, we mere mortals have come a long way toward becoming masters of the universe – a basic tenet of Church of Anthropgenic Causation(CAC) that ordinary agnostics find hard to swallow—but not the Pope who, mirabile dictu, has now publicly accepted CAC doctrine as gospel .
Based on data from nasa.com, agnostics re CAC doctrine, “know” that the average decadal global observed land and ocean surface temperature (recorded on buoys or boats) for 2000-2009 (58.1) was an estimated 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit higher than that for the 1880s (56.7). As to why that increase occurred, what its ultimate course will be and what it may mean for inhabitants of, e.g. New Jersey, California, Timbuktu or Peking, who knows?
If Mother Nature caused the climate to change in ancient times, but we humans are now able to control it, and, if properly motivated, could change its course, there has, indeed, been a remarkable evolutionary shift of control from Mother Nature/.
More specifically, if the ancients couldn’t forestall global warming/climate change, but we are now in a position to do so, we mere mortals have come a long way toward becoming masters of the universe – a basic tenet of Church of Anthropgenic Causation(CAC) that ordinary agnostics find hard to swallow—but not the Pope who, mirabile dictu, has now publicly accepted CAC doctrine as gospel .
Based on data from nasa.com, agnostics re CAC doctrine, “know” that the average decadal global observed land and ocean surface temperature (recorded on buoys or boats) for 2000-2009 (58.1) was an estimated 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit higher than that for the 1880s (56.7). As to why that increase occurred, what its ultimate course will be and what it may mean for inhabitants of, e.g. New Jersey, California, Timbuktu or Peking, who knows?
1
The shortcomings of the national pledges are very sobering, but governments can keep improving their pledges before, during, and after COP21 in Paris. Grassroots efforts and pressure from the most vulnerable nations are essential in keeping up a good head of steam. And when leaders like Pope Francis speak out the moral imperative becomes even more apparent.
4
We have the technical know-how to create a 300 mph global network intercity. all-electric, superconducting Maglev transport for trucks, freight, automobiles, and passengers. See www.magneticglide.com for description. It is cheaper, safer, & more profitable than conventional high-speed rail passenger rail. The new Maglev can levitate on conventional railroad tracks, electronically switch, and also carry trucks & freight containers in roll-on, roll-off Maglev vehicles. Licensed manufacturers of the components can create a new global industry rivaling autos & aircraft.
We also have the technical know-how to create space based satellites to collect solar energy & beam it to Earth. Making very low cost electric power available to grids all over the planet. This system can be cheaply & reliably launched using a Maglev Launch system invented by Drs. James Powell, Gordon Danby & George Maise. The full description of the system is available in a book, "Maglev America" on Amazon.
Finally, using cheap electricity, we can synthesize gasoline, diesel & jet fuel from carbon dixoxide in air, and hydrogen in water. This process is described in a new soon to be published book by James and Jesse Powell and me. "Silent Earth, Will Humans Give Up Fossil Fuels?".
The argument of the book is that humanity has made tremendous economic & social progress with fossil fuels, and will not give up fossil fuels except for a higher standard of living. That is what the book is all about.
We also have the technical know-how to create space based satellites to collect solar energy & beam it to Earth. Making very low cost electric power available to grids all over the planet. This system can be cheaply & reliably launched using a Maglev Launch system invented by Drs. James Powell, Gordon Danby & George Maise. The full description of the system is available in a book, "Maglev America" on Amazon.
Finally, using cheap electricity, we can synthesize gasoline, diesel & jet fuel from carbon dixoxide in air, and hydrogen in water. This process is described in a new soon to be published book by James and Jesse Powell and me. "Silent Earth, Will Humans Give Up Fossil Fuels?".
The argument of the book is that humanity has made tremendous economic & social progress with fossil fuels, and will not give up fossil fuels except for a higher standard of living. That is what the book is all about.
1
A low carbon future is going to involve a lot less consumption of transport that is powered by anything except human power. People just won't travel 10,000 miles per year personally - they might travel 1000 total. This would require radically improving the quality of services and amusements in most parts of the country.
Once again, the mostly scientifically illiterate, (paid or otherwise), world leaders and politicians get together to rearrange the deck chairs. Problem is we're running out of time and room upon the sinking S.S. Planet Earth.
Remember most of us are in the 'Steerage' class. And the lifeboats are full to capacity all ready with the 1%.
Remember most of us are in the 'Steerage' class. And the lifeboats are full to capacity all ready with the 1%.
6
The insanity of such limited action is difficult to accept. This applies not only to governments but to each and every one of us. The scale of the threat is indeed great and hence the need for a very powerful and determined response. Turn off the lights, turn down the heat or air conditioning, drive less, buy fuel efficient and electric vehicles, put solar panels on the roof, etc., etc! The fact that most people are responding in a casual way is deeply disturbing. How about you? What are you doing?
2
I always feel like a naysayer in these debates. Carbon dioxide has an atmospheric lifetime of 100 years, an environmental lifetime of 3,000. We must reduce C02, but to buy time and to minimize the effects of carbon dioxide, we must immediately reduce emissions of short-lived causes of warming--diesel soot, which has a lifetime in the air of 5 days, or methane, which has a lifetime of 12 or so years. CO2 is a "forever" pollutant, in the words of Dr. Susan Solomon, who chaired a National Academy of Sciences study on the subject. Short-lived pollutants are, according to a NASA report, the chief cause of today's warming. Cutting them will not only reduce warming right away and pull us back from the brink of a potentially cataclysmic "tipping point" of the sort that doomed the Twin Towers. To fully protect ourselves, we must figure out how to scrub carbon dioxide from the ambient air, but we absolutely must start with short-lived pollutants. Reducing them will not only slow global warming, but save billions of lives and trillions of illnesses. We know how to reduce them because humanity has been doing it for a half-century or more. Let's get on with saving ourselves, and pay attention to science.
4
“WE NEED A GREEN ENERGY MOON SHOT and a bold national mobilization on the scale of World War II.” Tom Weis
A so far little-acknowledged Arctic Methane heat wave, combined with Global Warming, signals a worst case possibility of human extinction beginning in 5 to 15 years. See the website: aesopinstitute.org
Sustaining life on Earth requires reducing the burning of fossil fuels 80% within 5 years.
New Science (technology in development) can make that possible. "If we have carbon free electricity, the [climate] problem is solved". James Hansen
Carbon free electricity is en-route. One technology employs, seemingly impossible, Fuel-Free Engines that will run 24/7 on Atmospheric Heat, a vast untapped source of solar energy larger than all the fossil fuels on Earth. Another employs geomagnetic energy and could replace solar panels.
Fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of $5.3 Trillion this year! (International Monetary Fund – Working Paper – WP/15/105 - May, 2015 – Page 30)
An 80% reduction in burning fossil fuels is hard to believe. However, with world-wide mobilization of all renewable technology on a 24/7 basis it could be done.
A 4 engine bomber was produced every 59 minutes 24/7 at Willow Run during WWII. Most thought THAT impossible before it happened. Breakthrough energy technologies are much simpler than bombers.
BOLD ACTION IS REQUIRED Check the facts. Help if you can. The lives you save may include your own - and those of everyone you care about.
A so far little-acknowledged Arctic Methane heat wave, combined with Global Warming, signals a worst case possibility of human extinction beginning in 5 to 15 years. See the website: aesopinstitute.org
Sustaining life on Earth requires reducing the burning of fossil fuels 80% within 5 years.
New Science (technology in development) can make that possible. "If we have carbon free electricity, the [climate] problem is solved". James Hansen
Carbon free electricity is en-route. One technology employs, seemingly impossible, Fuel-Free Engines that will run 24/7 on Atmospheric Heat, a vast untapped source of solar energy larger than all the fossil fuels on Earth. Another employs geomagnetic energy and could replace solar panels.
Fossil fuels are subsidized to the tune of $5.3 Trillion this year! (International Monetary Fund – Working Paper – WP/15/105 - May, 2015 – Page 30)
An 80% reduction in burning fossil fuels is hard to believe. However, with world-wide mobilization of all renewable technology on a 24/7 basis it could be done.
A 4 engine bomber was produced every 59 minutes 24/7 at Willow Run during WWII. Most thought THAT impossible before it happened. Breakthrough energy technologies are much simpler than bombers.
BOLD ACTION IS REQUIRED Check the facts. Help if you can. The lives you save may include your own - and those of everyone you care about.
1
Perpetual promises of perpetual motion technologies that are always, somehow, just one working prototype from fruition aren't the solution.
Mr. Goldes, if just one of your myriad promises held water you'd have the working prototypes by now.
Mr. Goldes, if just one of your myriad promises held water you'd have the working prototypes by now.
Let's accept for a moment all that these scientists say and put aside suspicions about their motives.
Isn't the accord reached with China last year by the Obama administration that allows Chinese carbon emissions to grow exponentially until 2030, then be 'voluntarily' capped the moment when our doom was sealed?
For the critical period of the next 15 years -- at least -- EVERYTHING that America does will fail to offset the INCREASE in Chinese emissions.
And yet the New York Times blindly embraced and endorsed that deal. What an act of politically-motivated cowardice.
Isn't the accord reached with China last year by the Obama administration that allows Chinese carbon emissions to grow exponentially until 2030, then be 'voluntarily' capped the moment when our doom was sealed?
For the critical period of the next 15 years -- at least -- EVERYTHING that America does will fail to offset the INCREASE in Chinese emissions.
And yet the New York Times blindly embraced and endorsed that deal. What an act of politically-motivated cowardice.
5
Our most unfortunate trait as a species is that our technology has vastly outpaced our wisdom. At no time is this more true than since the Industrial Revolution. We are unable (at large) to fully perceive a threat, no matter how large, that is not imminent. It doesn't raise the adrenaline levels. It might, for those of us that understand, raise the persistent low level stress that is our current plague. However, it isn't sufficient to allow us to overcome the power of greed and apathy. It seems that our global leadership is willing to let the planet slide into catastrophe for ours and most of the other species currently thriving here. In a universe so vast and so isolated, the greatest crime is the waste of the potential of a sentient species. We are all of us guilty of that terrible crime.
4
Greed always trumps the environment. This is why man is an evolutionary dead end.
6
The scientific community is undervaluing the potential of global war and pandemic impacting the human toll on global warming. Both are a much more likely solution to man mad global warming than global political cooperation.
We will grow our population and consume until we reduce our population. Any historian can confirm that plague and global conflict are the fastest ways to reduce human consumption.
The sequester will be broken by both parties not for renewable energy or more funding for health. They will break it for more weapons. I'm very confident that less man will reduce man made global warming and we are clearly heading in that direction.
We will grow our population and consume until we reduce our population. Any historian can confirm that plague and global conflict are the fastest ways to reduce human consumption.
The sequester will be broken by both parties not for renewable energy or more funding for health. They will break it for more weapons. I'm very confident that less man will reduce man made global warming and we are clearly heading in that direction.
4
Naomi Klein has already lowered expectations. Paris will amount to a replay of Copenhagen. None of the should come as a surprise... the rest of the world is not buying the bogus science and fake statistics that long ago took the Science out of Climate Science.
The Developing Nations will not commit hari-kari to appease the Green God who is worshiped by elites in the West.
The Developing Nations will not commit hari-kari to appease the Green God who is worshiped by elites in the West.
2
Ah, Posa. But developing nations are also pushing for agreements, and you are plain wrong about the science.
I'd say that if India and China really thought things through, they'd be stampeding towards renewables just to keep global temperatures low so that the nation of Bangladesh isn't flooded. Almost 80 million of their population of 160 million live within 10 meters of sea level. It's the most densely-populated large nation, and think what would happen if that population had to move somewhere else - like India.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world/asia/facing-rising-seas-banglade...
“There is no doubt that preparations within Bangladesh have been utterly inadequate, but any such preparations are bound to fail because the problem is far too big for any single government,” said Tariq A. Karim, Bangladesh’s ambassador to India. “We need a regional and, better yet, a global solution. And if we don’t get one soon, the Bangladeshi people will soon become the world’s problem, because we will not be able to keep them.”
Mr. Karim estimated that as many as 50 million Bangladeshis would flee the country by 2050 if sea levels rose as expected.
I'd say that if India and China really thought things through, they'd be stampeding towards renewables just to keep global temperatures low so that the nation of Bangladesh isn't flooded. Almost 80 million of their population of 160 million live within 10 meters of sea level. It's the most densely-populated large nation, and think what would happen if that population had to move somewhere else - like India.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world/asia/facing-rising-seas-banglade...
“There is no doubt that preparations within Bangladesh have been utterly inadequate, but any such preparations are bound to fail because the problem is far too big for any single government,” said Tariq A. Karim, Bangladesh’s ambassador to India. “We need a regional and, better yet, a global solution. And if we don’t get one soon, the Bangladeshi people will soon become the world’s problem, because we will not be able to keep them.”
Mr. Karim estimated that as many as 50 million Bangladeshis would flee the country by 2050 if sea levels rose as expected.
Hate to sound like a broken record, but what's needed on an immediate basis is a carbon tax with all the revenue used as an incentive to install renewable energy technologies. This would be hybrid, electric, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and feed-in-tariff electricity generation, the latter where individuals and businesses generate their own electricity and sell their surplus to the grid, and in the process, everyone coming out financially ahead. Using computer technology, operators of the grid would make this work in a way that electricity would still be plentiful and the price would be drastically reduced in most areas for users.
If the highest subsidies for vehicles went to a combination of the most fuel efficient and lowest priced, the price of these vehicles would be greatly reduced for 90% of purchasers--a combination of the model T and computer technology, by way of comparison. While vehicles in the past 50 years have seen big price increases, due to the monopoly political clout of unions and manufacturers coupled with demand based on bigger is better (and more pollution), the price of computers has done nothing but come down, based on new technology and healthy competition.
As conservation and new less usage technologies step in with electricity generation, most of the intermittent problems with renewables will be solved--and natural gas and installed hydro are there as back up.
If there were less prisons and war mongering, a carbon tax would not even be noticed.
If the highest subsidies for vehicles went to a combination of the most fuel efficient and lowest priced, the price of these vehicles would be greatly reduced for 90% of purchasers--a combination of the model T and computer technology, by way of comparison. While vehicles in the past 50 years have seen big price increases, due to the monopoly political clout of unions and manufacturers coupled with demand based on bigger is better (and more pollution), the price of computers has done nothing but come down, based on new technology and healthy competition.
As conservation and new less usage technologies step in with electricity generation, most of the intermittent problems with renewables will be solved--and natural gas and installed hydro are there as back up.
If there were less prisons and war mongering, a carbon tax would not even be noticed.
22
There has to be some incentive,for people to get out of their cars.A friend of mine,with 4 kids,says none of his kids have ever walked,bused or biked to school.He and wife have driven all kids to school,from kindergarten to high school.I ride a bike and have to deal with traffic jams,near schools,when kids are being picked up and left off.A tax on vehicles,based on pollution produced and miles driven would be great,but I suspect it wouldn't be politically possible.
2
to jrj: i'm up in Arcata. we have excellent bus service here. students at HSU have unlimited passes for $60/semester. good public transportation should be part of the mix. in SF many get rid of their cars because they are a nuisance. hong kong is all buses.
@jrj90620. I don't know why anyone would need more of an incentive than the fact they have 4 children who are going to be living on a planet that is hopelessly polluted because many people won't make any effort at all. We are running out of water, with many more horrors in store for us. About three weeks ago, I was walking to BART on my way to work and I was behind a young woman pushing a baby in stroller, drinking a cup of coffee. She passed a garbage can, finished her coffee and threw the whole cup out in the middle of the street. I see this behavior every day. What kind of a world is leaving to her child? How lazy can people be?
The American people must embrace the science. And those of us who know the perils of global warming should join together and suit those who are behind America's disinformation campaign. It is their influence over Congress that has stonewalled real progress. The fossil fuels industry and opinion news has every right to say what they like, but we have every right to take them to court for having mislead the public to a disastrous misunderstanding. They should be forced to admit what they have been doing, some jailed for recklessness, certainly forced to pay for the truth to be widely understood and the costs of damage done.
The goal is 2 degrees centigrade anything more is gambling with a world that is livable for humans. Anything more is ignoring the science.
I too, admire the Pope Francis but he holds an important key to the future, if we do not allow the distribution of contraceptives worldwide the world's population will out run all efforts to confront global warming's impacts. Rather than 11 billion people in 2100, we must reduce the world's population.
The goal is 2 degrees centigrade anything more is gambling with a world that is livable for humans. Anything more is ignoring the science.
I too, admire the Pope Francis but he holds an important key to the future, if we do not allow the distribution of contraceptives worldwide the world's population will out run all efforts to confront global warming's impacts. Rather than 11 billion people in 2100, we must reduce the world's population.
8
"The American people must embrace the science."
They won't.
Because that's they way they were educated. And a large fraction prefer the literal interpretation of the bible to rationale assessments of today's world.
There is light at the end of the tunnel and it's the light of the incoming train that will hit us.
They won't.
Because that's they way they were educated. And a large fraction prefer the literal interpretation of the bible to rationale assessments of today's world.
There is light at the end of the tunnel and it's the light of the incoming train that will hit us.
8
You really mean embrace the "opinion" or "consensus" of folks who claim to be scientists. Simple!!!
1
what science? Climate theory is based on computer models and a limited temperature record. If you know anything about science surely you realize that climate theory is not falsifiable, hence is not really science but a belief system.
A picture is worth a thousand words. That could be the picture of a scorched Earth. It is in the realm of possibility which in in the words of Pope Francis, " If we do not care for our common home. " The alternate means for energy are already present. Why not focus and develop those alternative sources of energy?
It could be as transformative as the discovery of the light bulb. But there has to be a social, political, co-operative will, setting aside petty differences, greed and denial of an existential catastrophe, a catastrophe just waiting to happen. And let's not forget the population explosion. Earth has finite resources. It will never be able to sustain an infinite population.
It could be as transformative as the discovery of the light bulb. But there has to be a social, political, co-operative will, setting aside petty differences, greed and denial of an existential catastrophe, a catastrophe just waiting to happen. And let's not forget the population explosion. Earth has finite resources. It will never be able to sustain an infinite population.
2
Many countries announce great progress in emission reduction in the next decades, but they don't do much by now.
But the climate problem is not linked only to emissions, but also to other destructive actions.
Both are the rut causes, but the first is delayed as solution, the second is ignored.
In Brazil the pluvial forest is constantly and progressively burned for different private interests.
The Brazilian Government should impose that any burned forest have to remain as it is for 100 year, while the State should replant the forest and no human and industrial action must be allowed, except for the native Indians which live in the forest and feed themselves from the forest.
China is completing the three Gorges Dam, the world largest hydroelectric dam.
This dam will span the Yangtze River, destroying all the nature and agriculture in the Yiling District, causing the desertification of the region and a forced displacement of all the country inhabitants.
USA allowed recently a new petrol drilling in Alaska and we know that the marine environment will be destroyed.
Italy is doing the same in the Adriatic see, an almost closed see with very low water interchange, therefore with ignored deadly consequences.
All that demonstrates that all countries show little care for the environment, the nature, the mankind.
Everything is postponed to tomorrow, but tomorrow will be to late to stop Climate Change and to leave to our children the environmental conditions we find.
But the climate problem is not linked only to emissions, but also to other destructive actions.
Both are the rut causes, but the first is delayed as solution, the second is ignored.
In Brazil the pluvial forest is constantly and progressively burned for different private interests.
The Brazilian Government should impose that any burned forest have to remain as it is for 100 year, while the State should replant the forest and no human and industrial action must be allowed, except for the native Indians which live in the forest and feed themselves from the forest.
China is completing the three Gorges Dam, the world largest hydroelectric dam.
This dam will span the Yangtze River, destroying all the nature and agriculture in the Yiling District, causing the desertification of the region and a forced displacement of all the country inhabitants.
USA allowed recently a new petrol drilling in Alaska and we know that the marine environment will be destroyed.
Italy is doing the same in the Adriatic see, an almost closed see with very low water interchange, therefore with ignored deadly consequences.
All that demonstrates that all countries show little care for the environment, the nature, the mankind.
Everything is postponed to tomorrow, but tomorrow will be to late to stop Climate Change and to leave to our children the environmental conditions we find.
4
It is good to read such a well-written article, by Justin Gillis, and Somini Sengupta, with so many follow-up comments concerning the importance and dangers of climate change. Fight the doubts and negativity regarding anything being done to fight climate change successfully, and to the extent that is needed, for as long as needed. REAL leaders are needed in our most important leadership positions who, as all REAL leaders do, will have the power and the guts to use that power, and with the support of the people, CAN help win the difficult (but not impossible) battle to make the needed climate change that IS possible a reality. We have many excellent people who are extremely creative who will step forward with the solutions (some of which already exist, along with NEW solutions that will occur) that are needed, and WILL make climate change a positive reality. It is up to all of us to help those who will have/discover the solutions to support them by staying determined, sincere, persistent, and involved in our support. We must fight hard for as long as it takes, including lifetimes if necessary. You will grow strong beyond anything you could possibly imagine by doing so.
1
A well written piece indeed. Too bad the facts are wrong. Examples: The Ice Sheets in East Antarctica are expanding, not melting. (Melts in W. Antarctica are mostly caused by active geothemal formations, not warm seas and air)
The real howler is the claim "droughts and other weather extremes are intensifying".. this claim is flat-out contradicted by the IPCC AR5 report (Ch. 2).
The real howler is the claim "droughts and other weather extremes are intensifying".. this claim is flat-out contradicted by the IPCC AR5 report (Ch. 2).
1
Harrowing scenes of rainforest destruction often accompany news reports on climate change. Though deforestation creates its own set of problems, including loss of habitat for species and their resulting extinction, climate change is not one of them.
There is considerable evidence global biomass has increased over the last decade, in part due to increased precipitation. 40 billion additional tons of carbon has been naturally and successfully sequestered by plants and animals.
Why do atmospheric CO2 levels continue their inexorable march upward? Because 9 billion tons of carbon, sequestered underground for millions of years, are being added to the terrestrial biosphere each year solely by burning fossil fuels. The carbon balance, and climate, are being returned to a pre-Pleistocene state of affairs which will result in the extinction of most of the animals and many of the plants alive today.
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has noted, fossil fuels - coal, "natural" gas, and oil - must be eliminated from our energy mix by 2100 to hold global temperature rise at +2ºC. The only viable means to that end is building out safe nuclear energy as fast as possible - permitting the re-powering of transportation and heating (as France has done) with zero-carbon electricity.
There is considerable evidence global biomass has increased over the last decade, in part due to increased precipitation. 40 billion additional tons of carbon has been naturally and successfully sequestered by plants and animals.
Why do atmospheric CO2 levels continue their inexorable march upward? Because 9 billion tons of carbon, sequestered underground for millions of years, are being added to the terrestrial biosphere each year solely by burning fossil fuels. The carbon balance, and climate, are being returned to a pre-Pleistocene state of affairs which will result in the extinction of most of the animals and many of the plants alive today.
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has noted, fossil fuels - coal, "natural" gas, and oil - must be eliminated from our energy mix by 2100 to hold global temperature rise at +2ºC. The only viable means to that end is building out safe nuclear energy as fast as possible - permitting the re-powering of transportation and heating (as France has done) with zero-carbon electricity.
You are so incorrect that it is impossible to read your post. Sure deforestation is an issue as is the large number of people trying to live like us.
1
I am a strong proponent for cutting carbon emissions. This is always tied to the impact this has to our economy and standard of living. I feel this is easier to achieve for countries who have already experienced the Industrial Revolution. Moreover, I feel that the models we use to extrapolate the data is indirect evidence due to many factors that may change in the next 80 years. One example is the development of alternate or "green" energy. Moreover, after playing devil's advocate I appreciate that we have a monitor or guide for our carbon emissions. Let's continue to make individual, national and global choices that will make positive impacts on carbon emissions.
Aaron Wolfe
NWHS
Env. Sci.
Aaron Wolfe
NWHS
Env. Sci.
1
No it is easiest in those countries not yet developed. They don't have an infrastructure for carbon energy, and don't need as much advancement either.
1
The progress that has been made is good. But it is not close to what is
needed to avert a catastrophe. We must do more to reduce carbon emissions
and we must do it with far more expediency. The warning signs of global
warming are seen all around the globe. Ask the family who just lost their
home in one of the many horrific fires in California. Ask the family who lost
their home in one of the many floods around the globe. Ask most people with
two eyes and a brain and they will tell you we must do more to help slow
climate change. Our children and future generations are counting on us to do
the right thing and we must not let them down.
needed to avert a catastrophe. We must do more to reduce carbon emissions
and we must do it with far more expediency. The warning signs of global
warming are seen all around the globe. Ask the family who just lost their
home in one of the many horrific fires in California. Ask the family who lost
their home in one of the many floods around the globe. Ask most people with
two eyes and a brain and they will tell you we must do more to help slow
climate change. Our children and future generations are counting on us to do
the right thing and we must not let them down.
Great article, and is narrative that needs to be heard. But why let the great be the enemy of the good? As we have seen in California and even in Texas, market-based renewable incentives can easily be met ahead of schedule given technological improvements and an attractive investment climate. Now California aims to have 50% renewables by 2030 and Texas already has the most wind power in the country.
The chief cause of carbon emissions is carbon-based energy. The energy business, particularly the renewable energy business, is incredibly capital intensive. Until renewable investments are seen as "mature" investors will require a premium over fossil fuels because no one really knows what the risks to a GE wind turbine is over 20 years. The first step is guiding nervous investors to global renewable investments through incentives. Once investors no longer command a premium, renewable investing will take care of itself, as will carbon emissions--god willing.
The chief cause of carbon emissions is carbon-based energy. The energy business, particularly the renewable energy business, is incredibly capital intensive. Until renewable investments are seen as "mature" investors will require a premium over fossil fuels because no one really knows what the risks to a GE wind turbine is over 20 years. The first step is guiding nervous investors to global renewable investments through incentives. Once investors no longer command a premium, renewable investing will take care of itself, as will carbon emissions--god willing.
This week I'm watching Cowspiracy with my high school Special Needs Biology students. One fact driven home again and again is that most of the environmental problems (deforestation, greenhouse gas output, water scarcity, ocean Dean Zones, etc.) can be directly linked to Animal Agriculture. It's obvious that unless we curb the use of land for animals (particularly cows for dairy and bulls for meat) all the other progress made will make no difference at all.
6
Like Bob Marley says in his prophetic lyrics "A prophecy a fulfill". The rich nations and rich people who are intimately involved with causing the catastrophe and doing nothing about it will find a way to get around it with the least damage to themselves. Probably New York City will have engineering structures which will offer protection against a rising sea wall. It's the poor and developing nations and also the poor in America that have the most to lose. I would bet on massive refugee crisises of the type being seen in Europe with richer nations building great walls (I.e the proposed Trump Wall) to keep refugees out. Man's inhumanity to man will continue unabated. Like the saying goes the rich will get richer while the poor man slaves and suffers.
3
"The planet has already warmed by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit above the temperature that prevailed before the Industrial Revolution, representing an enormous addition of heat. Virtually every piece of land ice on Earth is melting, the sea ice in the Arctic is collapsing, droughts and other weather extremes are intensifying, and the global food system has shown signs of instability."
Really? Do some real research.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654
Really? Do some real research.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654
Here's the Arctic trend from 1979 to 2015:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2015/02/figure-3.png
One rebound does not a recovery make.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2015/02/figure-3.png
One rebound does not a recovery make.
1
I don't hear the term "tipping point" so much these days, perhaps because it's behind us. When the permafrost melts, methane is released and it is 17 or so times worse than CO2 as a heat-trapping gas. That alone seems to be problematic as it causes a snow-ball effect. And the permafrost IS melting. Woolly mammoth bones are rising out the ground in Siberia as I write this. CFC 22, the good old Freon, has long been banned in new vehicles due to the damage it caused to the ozone layer. People now think it's safe to release it's replacement (R-134a) into the atmosphere, but it is 1,400 times worse than CO2 for heat-trapping. It doesn't look good, folks.
Here in northern NJ, there seems to be an arms race to have to largest truck or SUV. With current gas prices being what they are, that trend will unlikely reverse itself. The people buying these vehicles are mostly young people - the very ones who will surely inherit this problem. They equate big with "safe". It seems that we can't see past the end of our noses on this issue. Self-interest is going to wreck this world.
Well, we are adaptable after all. The only question is how many will survive the adaptation.
Here in northern NJ, there seems to be an arms race to have to largest truck or SUV. With current gas prices being what they are, that trend will unlikely reverse itself. The people buying these vehicles are mostly young people - the very ones who will surely inherit this problem. They equate big with "safe". It seems that we can't see past the end of our noses on this issue. Self-interest is going to wreck this world.
Well, we are adaptable after all. The only question is how many will survive the adaptation.
3
"The pledges that countries are making to battle climate change would still allow the world to heat up by more than 6 degrees Fahrenheit, a new analysis shows,..."
Every alarmist temperature model to date has been wrong but this one- this one I'm telling you!- is right.
Please.
Every alarmist temperature model to date has been wrong but this one- this one I'm telling you!- is right.
Please.
2
"Too little, too late" will be on the headstones of many a species, possibly including our own. Difference being, we brought it on ourselves, while they are innocent victims helplessly along for the ride. It's criminal irresponsibility on a global level. Pope Francis used his moral authority to do what he could, bless him. As for the rest of us, among other things we can:
---ask family and friends not to vote for any presidential candidate who does not promise swift and effective action
---write letters to the editor of our local newspapers (NYT comment section is great, but more or less preaching to the choir)
---write to our elected representatives
---join climate awareness organizations, follow up on their action alerts and donate if we can
---ask family and friends not to vote for any presidential candidate who does not promise swift and effective action
---write letters to the editor of our local newspapers (NYT comment section is great, but more or less preaching to the choir)
---write to our elected representatives
---join climate awareness organizations, follow up on their action alerts and donate if we can
Of course for the last 15+ years we have pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere than ever before and the temperature hasn't budged. Real scientists would realize that their hypothesis needed more work and that their computer projections were incorrect so that model needed modifications. But when we polticize science this is what we get. Bureaucrats shouting the sky is falling and the more their projections come out false the louder they shout. It is a pity to see science corrupted that way. But it isn't the first time and I imagine it won't be the last.
3
The United States is in a terrible position. We will cut emissions and our economy and trade balance will suffer. India will continue to pollute as will China, Brazil, Russia, etc. because they require economic growth for political stability. Leading by example will never work.
POPULATION GROWTH and the programs we know can slow this were not included inthe Sustainability Development Goals and only mentioned in generalities in the IPCC Fifth (the last) Assessment Report on reductions in green house gas emmissions.
We are on track to reach 9 billion people by 2050 but must reduce CO2 emissions by 70% by 2050 to keep warming under 3.6F. The math doesnt add up.
$1 in family planning invested now will save $7 in climate mitigation
We are on track to reach 9 billion people by 2050 but must reduce CO2 emissions by 70% by 2050 to keep warming under 3.6F. The math doesnt add up.
$1 in family planning invested now will save $7 in climate mitigation
7
It is even worse, because INDC are neither pledges nor commitments, and may be changed up or down by each government. The Conference in Paris can be a great fiasco.
There is no technical reason why fossil fuel powered cars can't have electric power instead. The cost of those vehicles is of course an issue, but they will become much cheaper over time. Perhaps car roofs, hoods and trunk lids will have solar panels built in, for example.
1
Well, there are technical reasons why electric powered automobiles cannot have the same range performance of IC engines. It's a matter of energy density. Fossil fuel powered automobiles have a large advantage in onboard energy density over electric power in both range and in refueling. Solar panels can produce small amounts of energy to recharge an electric car, but the time required is not practical in terms of normal automobile use. Then there's the problem with parking and getting access to sunlight to recharge batteries.
2
Well, actually there is a reason why electrical motors cannot replace engines running on fossil fuels. Coal, oil, and gas are materials which can be stored until needed when they can be ignited to create rapidly expanding gases which can drive pistons or turbines to push crank shafts. Electricity is not a material, it is energy in the form of electrical charges, created by electrical generator or sunlight, which when directed into an electrical motor creates electromagnetic fields which push against each other to revolve a crank shaft. The material fuels can be stored and carried without any special processes to keep them ready to use while electricity must be carefully stored so that it can be released at any time. The batteries are the limitation for electrically powered vehicles.
2
I have been an environmentalist since I was maybe 5 after reading a bunch of translated Japanese environmentalism comic books. I've always believed if we do something now we can stop Earth from turning into Mars or Venus. I am not so sure now...
All the grown-up environmentalist are just politicians, attacking each other trying to present their agenda as the true legit one and everything else as scam. At the rate we are going there would be oxygen-mask wearing Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd, clean coal, PETA, nuclear-power, solar-power, fuel-cell supporters fighting each other to determine how we should use the last bottle of water on Earth.
Think I am joking? Watch the NASA announcement at 11:00 EST. Mars was once like Earth.
All the grown-up environmentalist are just politicians, attacking each other trying to present their agenda as the true legit one and everything else as scam. At the rate we are going there would be oxygen-mask wearing Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd, clean coal, PETA, nuclear-power, solar-power, fuel-cell supporters fighting each other to determine how we should use the last bottle of water on Earth.
Think I am joking? Watch the NASA announcement at 11:00 EST. Mars was once like Earth.
in my opinion I feel that regardless what the outcome may be, we should try our best to do what we can to keep us around a little longer. we need to care more.
No. God gave us the responsibility to be stewards of His creation. We are failing in this regard. This is God's earth. We are its tenants. We will be evicted.
1
No one will do anything unless the US does. But with our GOP centered set of state non-governments, each whining like a fat, 10 year old boy on a hot day , crying for ice cream; America will do nothing.
As before the Second World Wa,r we will sit on our butts and tell everyone else to take care of their own. When the fur begins to fly, we will have the GOP screaming "Why didn't someone do something!?!?"and it will be too late.
There will be very little unaffected. and the book that reminds me of the situation is Well's "The War in the Air", as there is no happy ending.
News media will wonder why they reported happily about hydrocarbon drilling but said as little as possible about the consequences-everyone will claim they were too worried about their jobs to worry about their children.
As before the Second World Wa,r we will sit on our butts and tell everyone else to take care of their own. When the fur begins to fly, we will have the GOP screaming "Why didn't someone do something!?!?"and it will be too late.
There will be very little unaffected. and the book that reminds me of the situation is Well's "The War in the Air", as there is no happy ending.
News media will wonder why they reported happily about hydrocarbon drilling but said as little as possible about the consequences-everyone will claim they were too worried about their jobs to worry about their children.
6
mabraun - very interesting comment...
It baffles me when some people claim that they're not worried about climate change because they won't be here. These are also the same people who cry over the belief that their grandchildren will be burden with paying off the national debt.
1
The national debt is real. See the difference now.
1
Anyone keeping track of the number of extreme hurricanes that have blasted the US coast this year?
Despite progressive histrionics, there is no evidence that climate change is occurring, let alone man made climate change. What we have is a temperature record over a very short time that may be subject to error and in all likelihood is not out of range of normal variation. What we have are compute climate models that have not accurately predicted future temperature elevations (as there haven't been any in the last 15-20 years) succeeded in confirmatory backtesting.
What we do have are a bunch of leftist politicians who are willing to cripple our economy because (a) they don't understand how it works (b) they lack any scientific training but (c) would love nothing better than to gain more control of the economy and destroy capitalism.
Now, there's nothing wrong with energy efficiency (as opposed to reducing your capacity to grow and provide all a better life style). And there is nothing wrong with taking care of our environment. And we need scalable energy sources like nuclear to eventually replace fossil fuels.
What we don't need is behavior driven by hysteria. Climate science is not a true science, it isn't falsifiable, particularly when all its major predictions are in the distant future and when any extreme weather event (not predicted of course) is deemed as "evidence." Again, where were the hurricanes this year? The massive tornadoes?
Despite progressive histrionics, there is no evidence that climate change is occurring, let alone man made climate change. What we have is a temperature record over a very short time that may be subject to error and in all likelihood is not out of range of normal variation. What we have are compute climate models that have not accurately predicted future temperature elevations (as there haven't been any in the last 15-20 years) succeeded in confirmatory backtesting.
What we do have are a bunch of leftist politicians who are willing to cripple our economy because (a) they don't understand how it works (b) they lack any scientific training but (c) would love nothing better than to gain more control of the economy and destroy capitalism.
Now, there's nothing wrong with energy efficiency (as opposed to reducing your capacity to grow and provide all a better life style). And there is nothing wrong with taking care of our environment. And we need scalable energy sources like nuclear to eventually replace fossil fuels.
What we don't need is behavior driven by hysteria. Climate science is not a true science, it isn't falsifiable, particularly when all its major predictions are in the distant future and when any extreme weather event (not predicted of course) is deemed as "evidence." Again, where were the hurricanes this year? The massive tornadoes?
9
You mention the importance of "scientific training." The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has some of the most extensively trained scientists on the planet. These are the same people who first put a human on the moon, and they've put together a very useful and informative website explaining the current scientific understanding of the causes and effects of climate change: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Give it a look and you might learn something. There's no "hysteria" there. Only solid scientific evidence.
Give it a look and you might learn something. There's no "hysteria" there. Only solid scientific evidence.
1
And what if you're wrong, Ralphie?
It's so easy to embrace the science and technology that allows you to chime in on a Comments section while ignoring the science in which 97% of all research indicates that climate change is a reality. If those of us that are "hysterical" are wrong, all we've done is helped to preserve the planet. If you're wrong, most humans will die as a result.
What makes you think this planet--which until 150 years or so ago had less than a billion humans--can endlessly sustain 7+ billion eating, energy-consuming waste-creating people? Is it not common sense to recognize that unlimited growth will destroy our habitat?
But don't worry about it, Ralphie. Just keep your head in the sand and keep arguing on behalf of the polluters. Since you're in CT, you might want to work on your swimming skills too...
It's so easy to embrace the science and technology that allows you to chime in on a Comments section while ignoring the science in which 97% of all research indicates that climate change is a reality. If those of us that are "hysterical" are wrong, all we've done is helped to preserve the planet. If you're wrong, most humans will die as a result.
What makes you think this planet--which until 150 years or so ago had less than a billion humans--can endlessly sustain 7+ billion eating, energy-consuming waste-creating people? Is it not common sense to recognize that unlimited growth will destroy our habitat?
But don't worry about it, Ralphie. Just keep your head in the sand and keep arguing on behalf of the polluters. Since you're in CT, you might want to work on your swimming skills too...
1
Don't wish to sound totally defeatist here. But as long as the population of Earth as a whole continues to increase, and as long as the population as a whole continues to strive toward the lifestyle, consumption standards, and standard of living of the developed world... it's already too late without a major sea change in how we exist. And the first part is the critical point: more people. The staggering numbers of people we're approaching make that sea change unlikelky. Can't have it both ways.
Meanwhile, most of those who don't exist the way we do here (yet) feel, more or less rightfully, that they're entitled and it's their due after so much inequality for so long. And surely they don't aspire to be fabulously wealthy and live like royalty; what counts as lower-middle class here would probably be embraced by most of these folks.
George Carlin said it best once, long ago: "Save the planet? The planet will be fine; Earth will shake us all off like a bad case of fleas sooner or later."
Okay so that does sound totally defeatist. Apologies.
Meanwhile, most of those who don't exist the way we do here (yet) feel, more or less rightfully, that they're entitled and it's their due after so much inequality for so long. And surely they don't aspire to be fabulously wealthy and live like royalty; what counts as lower-middle class here would probably be embraced by most of these folks.
George Carlin said it best once, long ago: "Save the planet? The planet will be fine; Earth will shake us all off like a bad case of fleas sooner or later."
Okay so that does sound totally defeatist. Apologies.
2
You are spot on. It's as if the human race itself is the most deadly form of cancer on this earth
Humans are the only species that fouls its own nest.
A Republican president would ensure our descent into climate disaster. As for the billionaires profiting from climate change denial - they should remember the old adage: You can't take it with you.
6
When I see photos like the one of the destroyed, smoking rain forest, I am certain we are doomed. We cannot sustain this.
6
Money talks, but unfortunately always too late. As the effects of global warming cause larger land larger financial losses, the efforts to combat it will increase. People starving to death in a far off third world country is bad but flooding out super expensive coastal real estate will spur action.
The world will eventually come around and spend the money necessary to greatly reduce carbon emissions but a lot of people are going to have to suffer first. As stated in the article, if emissions ceased by mid century, warming will still increase by 3.6 degrees. We are already experiencing what 1.5 degrees does. This isn't going to be fun.
Human society is and always has been crises oriented. Global warming has not reached the crises stage yet. It someday will and then the world will react. I'm glad I wont have to live through an 8.1 degree rise.
The world will eventually come around and spend the money necessary to greatly reduce carbon emissions but a lot of people are going to have to suffer first. As stated in the article, if emissions ceased by mid century, warming will still increase by 3.6 degrees. We are already experiencing what 1.5 degrees does. This isn't going to be fun.
Human society is and always has been crises oriented. Global warming has not reached the crises stage yet. It someday will and then the world will react. I'm glad I wont have to live through an 8.1 degree rise.
2
I guess I'm a pessimist on this. All the world has done in the past 5 years is talk about reducing carbon emissions. Nobody has actually done anything. So, here we are, presenting plans five years later. It's fine to write up a plan, but if politics prevents the plans from being implemented, as is likely, what's the likelihood that pledges can turn into facts?
I've heard some scientists say that it's already too late and that weather catastrophes will dramatically change the world as we know it. All of us posting here so freely won't be alive to see it, but our progeny will.
If only some of the countries feel true urgency, when most scientists have been alarmed for years now, how can we expect sufficient progress to be made?
I've heard some scientists say that it's already too late and that weather catastrophes will dramatically change the world as we know it. All of us posting here so freely won't be alive to see it, but our progeny will.
If only some of the countries feel true urgency, when most scientists have been alarmed for years now, how can we expect sufficient progress to be made?
2
Can't save the environment in the face of population explosion, insistence on eating mammals, and corrupt governments. Brazil is the victim of all of these diseases.
6
When half the worlds population is dead then we just might get serious about climate change.
6
Steve Hunter - "might" is the key word here. We are a crisis-driven country, and that will not change until we have REAL leaders in our most important and serious leadership positions. Good comment.
The solution to the problem will be achieved when half the world's population is dead. Nature has her ways of removing toxic life forms.
1
Just elect a Republican president. He or she will be sure to fix it -- by denying it exists.
15
Eat less meat (or none)
Plant trees, support forests
Conserve Energy
Walk more, take the bus
Vote out climate deniers
Vote for climate problem solvers
Change your technology
Plant trees, support forests
Conserve Energy
Walk more, take the bus
Vote out climate deniers
Vote for climate problem solvers
Change your technology
16
"Vote out climate deniers"
Who, by name, denies we have a climate?
Who, by name, denies we have a climate?
2
To: Public Editor/Style department
For articles on this topic, it is important to provide temperature measurements in Celsius, not (or not only) Fahrenheit. I shouldn't have to go to my calculator to figure out how far above the 2 degrees Celsius target these findings put us. This is an international story and all the figures we're used to seeing (not least that 2 degrees threshold) are in Celsius.
For articles on this topic, it is important to provide temperature measurements in Celsius, not (or not only) Fahrenheit. I shouldn't have to go to my calculator to figure out how far above the 2 degrees Celsius target these findings put us. This is an international story and all the figures we're used to seeing (not least that 2 degrees threshold) are in Celsius.
3
While billions live in abject poverty, and tens of millions die annually from air pollution and energy poverty, we continue to make decisions which are not based on scientific consensus and standard risk assessment analysis: http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/resources/fastfacts_e.htm.
Our bodies and the universe are comprised exclusively of matter and radiation. Too little is just as deadly as too much. Why are we so afraid of radiation, but could care less about sure death from continued energy poverty? http://www2.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-sources-and-doses#tab-2
It's past time to adopt an energy production plan which embraces all clean, safe, modern technologies, to build the world all our children deserve: http://www.itheo.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Molten-Salt%20Reactor%20Fea...
Our bodies and the universe are comprised exclusively of matter and radiation. Too little is just as deadly as too much. Why are we so afraid of radiation, but could care less about sure death from continued energy poverty? http://www2.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-sources-and-doses#tab-2
It's past time to adopt an energy production plan which embraces all clean, safe, modern technologies, to build the world all our children deserve: http://www.itheo.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Molten-Salt%20Reactor%20Fea...
3
When are we going to start talking about nuclear energy in a serious way? In an effort to "save the earth" we are defacing vast landscapes with obscene windmill farms and solar panels, when a single nuclear plant can deliver high quality, zero emission, on-demand energy equivalent to 1000 square miles of solar panels. Even Germany, which is the global leader in wind and solar, is forced to restart filthy coal burning plants to make up for the ill-conceived decisions to shut down their nuclear plants.
33
I can believe there are safer nuclear plant designs than the old ones, but I cannot see how we are going to handle nuclear waste disposal. Until that issue has been sorted, I rather like the look of solar and wind farms, just not the destruction to birds.
4
Nuclear energy from fission is used to boil water more efficiently than any energy source that relies upon electrons jumping energy levels during chemical reactions but the radioactive material is not used up in the process and must be discarded in a manner which keeps it from circulating through the biosphere or it will lead to massive disruptions to life across the planet until it loses it's radioactivity. It's frustrating to see a simple solution that presents more perils than less simple ones but those perils cannot be ignored. We have not the science and technology adequate to manage fission based nuclear steam making reasonably, and never have had, yet.
2
What most people miss is that climate change is not about CO2, but about heat. Nuclear power plants send about 30 percent of their incredible dense energy into warming the planet though those cooling towers and lakes before one Joule is available for consumption. All energy that does not get radiated into space warms the planet. What we need are better radiators, or where solar is not needed, better reflectors to modulate the global temperature. Reducing CO2 would help but it will take 1000 years. Stopping the burning and blowing up stuff would help right now, but only in the 2nd or 3rd decimal place. To solve the problem, I have an idea to harvest floating trash caught in the ocean gyres to deploy black, water filled, shade balls that will act as a global radiator.
I've been working in international development for over 25 years. Concerned scientists and activists have been watching the destruction of the Amazon and world's forests for over two decades. In Nicaragua, the frontier - as it's called - is being slashed and burned by poor farmers trying to raise cattle for beef exports. Meanwhile locals can't afford beans. The exodus from rural ares will continue. At a research station in Nicaragua, a scientist told me, people will not stop burning the forests. Add this all up with rising aspirations and out of control consumption for 7 billion people and current population growth-- and the future really does not look good. The UN is a worthless institution. They can't even deal with the current migrant crisis in Europe. How will they deal with more climate refugees, famines and growing poverty? Critics have been mocking the Pope this week for not doing enough for women, but at least someone has come out to talk about poverty, capitalism and the environment. I'm afraid drastic and immediate measures are needed and everyone (even the rich) is going to have make lasting changes to their lifestyles. The future isn't a zombie apocalypse. It will look like an urban slum in Mumbai. VW just proved that the fox can't guard the hen house. Let's see what happens if we just let large multinational corporations, corrupt politicians, inept governments, and the UN work it out. Be afraid.
91
Thanks for this perspective. It's important to realize that we each can (and must) do something powerful today and every day by no longer taking out our wallets to buy food that comes from animals. "Follow the money" -- from our immediate desire to please our palatte that motivates us to pay the grocer who pays the butcher who pays the distributor who pays the livestock farmer who pays those who burn the forests to graze the animals to satisfy our momentary pleasure not our need. You are right: we cannot wait for multinationals, politicians, governments, or the UN. It's time to back our power.
1
Thank you. Forests are natures way to recycle CO2, and CO2 is required to sustain life on a planet - required for the cycled production of water. Now that we are cutting all the forests down, there is no natural elimination or consumption of CO2. Add that to the millions of people having tens of millions of babies and we are in trouble. More trouble that an electric car or solar panel can resolve.
We need forests world wide.
We need forests world wide.
Well said
Could Add " Wealth has No Conscience "
Could Add " Wealth has No Conscience "
While we are waiting for others to make decisions we can make decisions ourselves. Perhaps we could agree to drive our cars 20% fewer miles each year, or at least below the average use. There is something each of us can do, and since our country uses so much, it will make a difference.
9
The response of Republicans reading this article: "big deal, what's a little more heat."
2
So we have India with almost 4 times as large a population as the US but only one third the size of the US and not meeting environmental management (try New Delhi). Or Bangladesh being 1/70 the seize of the US but with 150 million people - same environmental disinterest. The UN is wasting our time.
That people today actually think that man can have a significant impact on climate continues to amaze me: "allow the world to heat up by more than 6 degrees Fahrenheit." Much as Galileo was banished by the then government - the Catholic Church - for advancing that the sun did not revolve around the earth and they had it backwards.
Of course politicians and the self proclaimed world government that we call the United Nation love this stuff because it givens them purpose and the vehicle to control and tax otherwise free citizens as punishment for burning fossil fuel as punishment for the ruse of their own making.
Of course politicians and the self proclaimed world government that we call the United Nation love this stuff because it givens them purpose and the vehicle to control and tax otherwise free citizens as punishment for burning fossil fuel as punishment for the ruse of their own making.
3
Jurgen, the majority of scientists and educated people have proved repeatedly beyond a reasonable doubt that humans are in fact altering the climate, quickly and significantly. It was not a UN plot or scheme to take your taxes.
7
Have you looked up the definition of the word "paranoia" in a while? Why is it so hard to imagine that scientists care about science. Not money. Science.
2
The ambitious and proud Galileo was a scientist and genius who brought evidence from observation and caculation to bear on accepted and conventional thinking. Today we have the climate change deniers clinging to there conventional explanations and actually it is the 99% of climate scientists who get to play the role of Galileo. It is the Republican party now playing the role of Pope Urban VIII and condemning the entire planet to a future much depleted in biodiversity and a great deal harder for the remaining species to live in, including natures experiment with self awareness, Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
2
Trump: "I’m not a believer in global warming. And I’m not a believer in man-made global warming. It could be warming, and it’s going to start to cool at some point."
This can be considered to be the point of view of the great unwashed electorate. Behavioral science tells us that people don't change their mind about things like this until they experience a "significant emotional event". The fires, floods, tornados, and droughts so far have not been enough. I believe it will take something clearly linked to climate change that kills hundreds of thousands before that happens.
Unfortunately, by the time that happens, it will be far too late. It probably already is.
This can be considered to be the point of view of the great unwashed electorate. Behavioral science tells us that people don't change their mind about things like this until they experience a "significant emotional event". The fires, floods, tornados, and droughts so far have not been enough. I believe it will take something clearly linked to climate change that kills hundreds of thousands before that happens.
Unfortunately, by the time that happens, it will be far too late. It probably already is.
3
Well they may accept the changes but that does not mean that they will also understand those changes nor what might be helpful to address them.
takes a long time for a tree to grow and a few mins to cut it down. Stop in it's tracks these short term profit demonics ,take all the poisons out of the air and now in our water and hang the 1% responsible upside down figure of speech bent on exterminating humans take make themselves more powerful with their way of solving problems
The 1 percent you want to hang is just selling you what you demand. How much of the 1 percents products are you buying?
How many products from the evil corporations are in you kitchen /living room/ bathroom right now?
How many products from the evil corporations are in you kitchen /living room/ bathroom right now?
Good point. N.B. left out boycotting corporations. Somehow I don't think that what you meant.
1
right here, right now, we can cut our emissions in half by making simple changes to the national building code that would make every building far more energy efficient than they are now.
half the nation's energy is used to control interior climate and most of it simply leaks out.
and you'll never hear anyone talk about it because there's no big profit in conserving energy.
half the nation's energy is used to control interior climate and most of it simply leaks out.
and you'll never hear anyone talk about it because there's no big profit in conserving energy.
8
Discussions on climate change and global warming with attendant consequences are raging all over the world particular among the academia. However, its implications and fall out have not percolated down the ladder well enough to make it a mass movement involving all concerned. Nations of different categories may have their specific concerns. But this should not deter the working out of the effective mechanism that would ensure a crackdown leading to significant decline in the warming of the atmosphere. The approach should be synergistic making them accountable in the way they can deal with it smoothly.
Damaging the American economy in pursuit of an ideological climate myth is very foolish and purely left wing politics. There has been no credible scientific evidence of the global climate warming to some higher temperature. Many natural not man made factors enter into the global climate for example, distance from the sun, changes in solar radiation, changes in the earths axis and rotation and revolution around the sun, changes in amount and content of volcanic gases into the atmosphere, growth of forests and trees and vegetation by far and away out weigh mans activity in the US. Furthermore reductions in carbon output in the US will have no impact globally because the volume reduced by the US is quite small compared to the volume of the global atmosphere. It is a myth and a fools errand and nothing more than left wing politics.
Vote NO democrats in 2016.
Vote NO democrats in 2016.
4
I think those have been accounted for. Probably 50 years ago. News must arrive in Alaska by dogsled.
13
You come from a state that is oil dependent so your point of view is colored and influenced by that. Climate change has nothing to do with politics other than the fact that most "right wingers" think it's a communist plot and a hoax. Just look at the statistics and you will see that the earth is warming due to human activity and fossil fuels not because of some "left wing" plot.
9
"Distance from the sun" is a factor?? You seriously think scientists are not aware of this measurement? Now I see how Sarah Palin got elected up there...
6
Our leaders just do not appreciate how reliable scientific knowledge happens to be so they try to find compromises where there are none to be found. Too few of us actually appreciate the precision and reliability of science because we just have not been well enough educated in mathematics and the physical sciences. When on takes a lab course and actually sees what is predicted occur it makes one understand that science can be believed, it's not just a point of view. Without that appreciation one can think well how do we know that what scientists predict about climate can be trusted when the weather is so difficult to predict reliably? Anyway, aren't scientists always shy about expressing certainty about what will happen? In church the priest, ministers, rabbis, et al easily proclaim certainty, so why do not scientists? Science represents the limits of what man can know and what man knows already, but despite the persistent skepticism in the discipline about what it can tell us, nothing has proved better at describing the natural forces than science. We are being silly to think that we safely delay actions to reduce carbon gases in the air instead of doing as quickly as we can.
2
Time for America to lead with positive vision and yes, even some sacrifice. Despite the current political stand-offs, America is currently in a stronger position developmental and economically than even China and Russia. The European Union Is struggling with mass immigration. Why can’t we set the bar high and face the problem of global warming by making changes here at home? Boots on the ground and selling weapons have been proven to have their limitations. Cutting back on our own emissions would be true leadership, encouraging others to do likewise, making the future world more secure.
3
Humanity can clean up its own nest or Mother Nature will do it for us. It will not be pretty. Mother Nature is not inhibited by some mythical belief system so will take its course.
21
What about astronomers prediction that because of a quiet sun cycle we are about to enter a mini ice age?
If you dont believe the astronomers are you anti science?
If you dont believe the astronomers are you anti science?
6
"The astronomers" say no such thing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/14/no-e...
Scientists will often have opposing viewpoints and theories. The whole purpose of the scientific method is to substantiate the claim with observable supportive data. Do the observable scientific facts support this claim?
Although the problem is big enough to require government action, there are things that individuals can do. We can all eat lower on the food chain (more fruits and vegetables and less energy-consuming and carbon-producing animal products). If we can afford it, we can replace our light bulbs with more efficient LED bulbs, buy higher mpg cars, insulate our homes, put up solar panels, and encourage our elected representatives to take action.
32
The carbon footprint of making a car, no matter how fuel efficient, is huge! Going out and buying a high mpg car may make you feel better about yourself as an environmentalist, but how bad do you think the emissions on your current car need to be for this to be good for the environment? Driving less would be the better solution. People never want to change their habits but there is no way to throw a bunch of money at climate change and make it better.
This may be one of the most significant commitments, "Brazil also committed to ending illegal deforestation and to restoring millions of acres of degraded forest." The earth needs forests and greenery to absorb it's waste. Small and developing countries can do their part by using renewable energy sources rather than oil as they grow - they don't need OUR money to meet the challenge. World scientists need to work together to find a way to neutralize nuclear energy so it can be used in daily living because it's an ever-ready, abundant, universal source of energy.
1
Small/developing countries DO need our financial support--do you think they deforest because of a whim? They need alternative incomes. Not necessarily cash payoffs, but research, alternative development, political cover. We need them to achieve these changes, and we need to help them!
1
A new coal plant is designed to last 50 years. But 50 years from now, there will not be any coal plants -- guaranteed. The economics of inaction are terrible.
By way of contrast, we have the technology now to do what we have to. Wind and solar energy and fission can make all of the clean energy we need. Ground source heat pumps can heat and cool our buildings economically with the power they produce. Efficiency hybrid vehicles giving way to battery vehicles with swap stations or fuel cells vehicles can take care of our surface transportation needs. Biofuel can be used to fuel aircraft, and, eventually, hydrogen from electrolysis.
The technology we need is here and it would neither destroy our way of life nor severely damage the economy to switch to it. We just need the political will to use it, and a public that is better informed of the risks, options, and technological and economic possibilities. Too many people still think that the problem here is technology, when in fact it's greed, corruption, and lack of political will.
By way of contrast, we have the technology now to do what we have to. Wind and solar energy and fission can make all of the clean energy we need. Ground source heat pumps can heat and cool our buildings economically with the power they produce. Efficiency hybrid vehicles giving way to battery vehicles with swap stations or fuel cells vehicles can take care of our surface transportation needs. Biofuel can be used to fuel aircraft, and, eventually, hydrogen from electrolysis.
The technology we need is here and it would neither destroy our way of life nor severely damage the economy to switch to it. We just need the political will to use it, and a public that is better informed of the risks, options, and technological and economic possibilities. Too many people still think that the problem here is technology, when in fact it's greed, corruption, and lack of political will.
58
Good stuff, but the big problem is that you don't drill for sunshine from vast fields under the ocean's floor, or mine wind from chasms in the Earth. It's the only reason big business doesn't mind nuclear, so much -- it has to be extracted using a dirty, dangerous, and complicated process, and its waste has to be stored for potentially thousands of years. Big bucks to be made, there.
Once a solar panel goes up, it begins to make energy. All it takes is a single installation, and then maintenance and repair. All good for local contractors, and perhaps chains like The Home Depot and Lowe's. Same with small-scale wind energy. These methods of energy production eliminate entire industry sectors. These industry sectors don't want to be eliminated, nor do those who hold shares in them.
Like any cartel, its sole aim is to control and maximize profits on its interest, be it petroleum, coal, banking, or drugs.
Once a solar panel goes up, it begins to make energy. All it takes is a single installation, and then maintenance and repair. All good for local contractors, and perhaps chains like The Home Depot and Lowe's. Same with small-scale wind energy. These methods of energy production eliminate entire industry sectors. These industry sectors don't want to be eliminated, nor do those who hold shares in them.
Like any cartel, its sole aim is to control and maximize profits on its interest, be it petroleum, coal, banking, or drugs.
Billions of people still believe that God made the Earth to be indestrucable by humans, and they want to prove it.
6
Hey, no worries! Charles Koch was asked about climate change just last month in the Washington Post and he said "[T]here has been warming. The CO2 goes up, the CO2 has probably contributed to that. But they say it’s going to be catastrophic. There is no evidence to that."
So it's all going to be okay! If you can't trust a Republican billionaire industrialist who has made his fortune by polluting our atmosphere, who can you trust?
So it's all going to be okay! If you can't trust a Republican billionaire industrialist who has made his fortune by polluting our atmosphere, who can you trust?
112
You know what is interesting? The Koch brothers funded a new wing of the Smithsonian Natural History museum - on evolution. I was there this summer and saw it with my own eyes (along with the Koch name on the wall). You have to wonder at those brothers and their canny way of pulling the strings. I'm sure they believe in evolution (obviously) and probably climate change too. The latter is just bad business for them, and heck, they'll be dead soon anyway. They've pretty much shown that they don't care about the future of our planet for anyone, including their descendants (I have no idea of they have any).
2
He has a bomb shelter somewhere stocked with loads of stuff - probably several as its impossible to know what will happen climate-wise and im sure he is prepared and will take his top associates with him....
Of course you can trust him...
Of course you can trust him...
This isn't the actions of the nations of the world that is falling way short, it's their "promises" to act at sometime in the future. Clearly, our leaders are failing us - not surprising since they are owned by corporations that would rather maintain their current profits than prevent environmental disaster.
Many of these same corporations are looking at climate change as business opportunities to peddle technologies to reverse the warming and to build levies and other storm damage prevention projects.
If we don't extricate our governments from the corporate tentacles ensnaring them, we're doomed.
Many of these same corporations are looking at climate change as business opportunities to peddle technologies to reverse the warming and to build levies and other storm damage prevention projects.
If we don't extricate our governments from the corporate tentacles ensnaring them, we're doomed.
4
If ... If ... If ...
The last two words were all you had to say.
The last two words were all you had to say.
1
Many people here are calling for more technological advancements and / or massive individual efforts to fight this issue. Well this isn't a technological issue, and individual action is not going to be enough without effective policy changes.
The lack of adequate action is stunning. when we've needed bold policy changes all along.
The lack of adequate action is stunning. when we've needed bold policy changes all along.
113
The boldest action is that taken by ourselves, not by waiting for others. We can stop the destruction of the rainforests by no longer buying food that comes from animals.
And to have bold policy, we need an informed public (the responsibility of the media), and we need lots of citizen activists.
So under our current plans, the best case scenario is a disaster, and the worst is an apocalypse?
Wouldn't it be nice to add a third option to that list?
As long as we treat the continued massive burning of fossil fuels as an inevitability, we might as well throw in the towel and stop pretending we have any plan at all.
Even as nations are concocting ever more elaborate agreements to use less energy, their corporations are actively prospecting for more oil and coal deposits to incinerate for a bigger, badder, hotter future.
We have been turning the Earth's thermostat up for 200 years, and at this point we need a better plan than to try to turn it up a little slower. We need to take control and design ways to turn it in the opposite direction.
We need to stop fearfully denying our ability to affect the climate, and instead start to make good use of it. The fact is that human society is not going to willingly revert to the pre-industrial era in terms of population or energy usage. This is a "solution" that rivals the problem in awfulness.
In my opinion, the best way to take control over our situation and forge a future that is worthy of that name is the combination of two technologies: space-based solar power systems and earth-based CO2 scrubbing.
Some people prefer geothermal or nuclear power, or earth-based solar, but space-based solar captures energy that would otherwise be completely wasted, has no dangerous waste products, and taps the largest source.
Wouldn't it be nice to add a third option to that list?
As long as we treat the continued massive burning of fossil fuels as an inevitability, we might as well throw in the towel and stop pretending we have any plan at all.
Even as nations are concocting ever more elaborate agreements to use less energy, their corporations are actively prospecting for more oil and coal deposits to incinerate for a bigger, badder, hotter future.
We have been turning the Earth's thermostat up for 200 years, and at this point we need a better plan than to try to turn it up a little slower. We need to take control and design ways to turn it in the opposite direction.
We need to stop fearfully denying our ability to affect the climate, and instead start to make good use of it. The fact is that human society is not going to willingly revert to the pre-industrial era in terms of population or energy usage. This is a "solution" that rivals the problem in awfulness.
In my opinion, the best way to take control over our situation and forge a future that is worthy of that name is the combination of two technologies: space-based solar power systems and earth-based CO2 scrubbing.
Some people prefer geothermal or nuclear power, or earth-based solar, but space-based solar captures energy that would otherwise be completely wasted, has no dangerous waste products, and taps the largest source.
41
Let me understand this ... You advocate capturing energy from the sun that would otherwise stream out into space and channeling it down to Earth instead?
1
Space-based solar is not an available cost-efficient option now. It may never be cost-effective. Roof-based solar and ground-mount solar systems are available right now. We should be installing solar and other renewable technologies as fast as we can. BTW, workers in the solar industry are not getting rich. I work in the solar industry, a job I took for a 50% pay cut over my previous career as a tech writer, because I feel compelled do as much as I can to directly fight climate change.
Both of which are actually available and scalable with the right infusion of money.
There is a big hope that solar and wind energy will replace the majority of fossil energy for utility. It may happen progressively in 20-30 years, but the progress can be quicker if all nations work together. Part of the reason is that China joined the manufacturing of wind and solar power equipment, lowering the price close to grid parity. That means in the near future, it will be cheaper to use wind and solar energy for utility than fossil energy. No price to pay, for being environment friendly!
Unfortunately the US and China are engaged in a solar trade war because of the big potential of profitability in wind and solar. That increases the price of solar. Let's hope the two governments can handle this rationally and find a solution soon.
Unfortunately the US and China are engaged in a solar trade war because of the big potential of profitability in wind and solar. That increases the price of solar. Let's hope the two governments can handle this rationally and find a solution soon.
15
China may have the lowest price on PV but do their panels landed on US soil have the lowest CO2 footprint, given the distsnce they are transported? If nations go forward with reductions, trade routes are guaranteed to be scrambled and rethought.
Singapore did not have school on Friday. Indonesian slash and burn agriculture has blanketed Singapore in smog too dangerous to go out into. We are already seeing catastrophes ranging from food shortages to plant and animal extinctions. Maybe the animal extinction we need is our own species. We are a cancer on this lovely earth.
18
The shortcomings of the national pledges are very sobering. Climate action organizations are stepping up to help improve the pledges. 350.org, for example, will try to get the world’s governments to keep up a good head of steam with its Power through Paris effort before Paris and after. On November 28th and 29th, Global Climate March will promote turning off fossil fuels and turning on renewable energy. Mass Mobilization will take place on December 12 in Paris and elsewhere right after the United Nations COP21 in Paris with actions to keep the pressure on. Bold Escalation will follow in April. Grassroots efforts like these are essential to keep governments moving.
2
This is not a choice between disastrous global warming on one hand and poverty on the other. We can have all the air conditioning, server farms, and airplanes we want, but we can't use fossil fuels to power them. Once that sinks in people will start making informed assessments of the various forms of non-fossil energy sources, energy storage, and power transmission.
And no, veganism and population reduction are not going to stop global warming. Five billion people are not going to be convinced overnight to stop eating meat, or stop having children, or commit suicide.
And no, veganism and population reduction are not going to stop global warming. Five billion people are not going to be convinced overnight to stop eating meat, or stop having children, or commit suicide.
1
Comprehensive family planning and greater educational opportunities for Women can help to stabilize and reduce population levels without resorting to war and genocide fighting for diminishing finite resources.
Unfortunately these are long-term solutions, and we have run out of time.
No one is doing anything overnight. Just steadily make the dietary changes and use birth control. It can only help. Fatalistic exaggerations such as your comment definitely do not help.
1
Later today NASA is expected to announce they've found water on Mars. So we have a spare planet to screw up. We should be good for another couple of centuries. No Worries.
2
If one reads the introductory cover letter to the UN's IGPCC reports, it is 'catastrophe' that is precisely a nuanced policy. Deindustrialization and depopulation are the twin policy goals at the heart of the UN's climate program. A good primer is the Schiller Institute's recent report. Climate and warming have nothing to do with reducing pollution, investing in new energy technology or even lowering carbon emissions. Moreover, military, commercial and state geoengineering activities must be filtered from observable extreme weather if reliable climate data is sought.
2
Nature has already met her singularity and it is us.
2
*This* is why the world has a climate crisis.
The American paper of record just can't come out and say the truth. By not saying the truth, it leaves its readers uninformed and continues to support a delusional American policy.
"20 years of disappointing negotiations" have been 20 years of disappointment because of the United States. No one else. The United States. Twenty years ago it refused to sign on when every other developed country was willing, and we are now where we are, close to the brink. If the NYT cannot come out and speak this simple truth, we are lost, and will continue to be lost.
Now I guess the NYT would like to pretend that the past is the past. But this will not do. We are at brink because of an American refusal to sign on twenty years ago, and it is morally repugnant of the NYT to avoid this evident fact.
It is also morally repugnant - and dangerous for the world's health - to make it sound like the United States now has some ambitious plan. It does not. The American plan given by Obama is pathetic compared to what the Europeans plan to do - and the Europeans are starting from a much lower base of pollution. As long as Americans think each American has a right to pollute as much as 4.5 Chinese, we are lost. There is no moral justification for this excess.
The problem is not that Brazil is on board. The problem is America. If the NYT has to pussy foot around this truth, then we are lost.
The American paper of record just can't come out and say the truth. By not saying the truth, it leaves its readers uninformed and continues to support a delusional American policy.
"20 years of disappointing negotiations" have been 20 years of disappointment because of the United States. No one else. The United States. Twenty years ago it refused to sign on when every other developed country was willing, and we are now where we are, close to the brink. If the NYT cannot come out and speak this simple truth, we are lost, and will continue to be lost.
Now I guess the NYT would like to pretend that the past is the past. But this will not do. We are at brink because of an American refusal to sign on twenty years ago, and it is morally repugnant of the NYT to avoid this evident fact.
It is also morally repugnant - and dangerous for the world's health - to make it sound like the United States now has some ambitious plan. It does not. The American plan given by Obama is pathetic compared to what the Europeans plan to do - and the Europeans are starting from a much lower base of pollution. As long as Americans think each American has a right to pollute as much as 4.5 Chinese, we are lost. There is no moral justification for this excess.
The problem is not that Brazil is on board. The problem is America. If the NYT has to pussy foot around this truth, then we are lost.
192
Well said. Internal US politics, and the unwillingness of elites to grapple with them, have been the most destructive force on Planet Earth. In a nutshell: the world of finance pays red state politicians to keep taxes low and government weak. A side effect, abetted by the energy industry, has been paralysis on climate.
1
Each of us can and must, if we care, become educated about what we can do individually, and what collective actions have the most impact. Changing what we eat is one example. We already grow enough food to feed more than 11 billion people, but "36% of the calories produced by the world's crops are being used for animal feed":
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015
It's clear that we *can* live healthy lives without eating animals, but with the planet's lungs (it's rainforests) at risk, now is the time we can say that we *must* live without eating animals.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015
It's clear that we *can* live healthy lives without eating animals, but with the planet's lungs (it's rainforests) at risk, now is the time we can say that we *must* live without eating animals.
abo is correct. The NYTimes has treated the greatest crisis in our history as tepid he said/she said tedium for decades in some supposed fairness doctrine where overwhelming science and flatearthers have to be given equal weight.
Informed citizens have a duty to broadcast the truth. What about a great News Paper?
Informed citizens have a duty to broadcast the truth. What about a great News Paper?
The research shows that by the end of this century temperatures will increase about 6.3 degrees. Down from an expected 8.1. Getting pretty precise here. I predict that it will rise 2.54377 degrees by 2100. Where's my money?
1
A lot depends on whether one believes that the cause and cure of climate change is man-made. Secondly one might call the inability of large complex systems (global population) to actually make functional decisions "social entropy"; that is that as the size and complexity of the system goes up, the options for solutions to large scale requirements for solutions seem to become limited, finally just one choice and that is a single more or less undirected outcome, despite great intentions.
We have now reached a point where all who consider and study information now climate change is real and it is likely caused by human action. Yet in our nation a large number of members on Congress deny climate. We have media sources that deny climate too. The United States is in a better position to work for changes that will limit climate change, but we can not do that because of key climate deniers. Wake up America before it is too late.
2
Living in New York City, taking the subway and riding my bike everywhere is a way of green living that my friends upstate don't quite believe. Thy burn wood in their fireplace in a free standing single family home while considering themselves the ultimate environmentalists. I live in an apartment which shares a heating system, water and gas come from the street where each line serves many, and our waste goes into the shared sewer system.
I only write this to highlight the disconnect many people have between what they think is the right path and what will actually work.
I only write this to highlight the disconnect many people have between what they think is the right path and what will actually work.
22
How much fossil fuel does your building burn to generate your heat?
How many times do you contribute to the pollution caused by mass transit? {one of the biggest polluters out there)
What coal or nuclear power plant do you get your electricity from?
Is your air conditioning using freon that destroys the ozone layer?
Dont pat yourself on the back so quick, theres quite a disconnect with you as well.
How many times do you contribute to the pollution caused by mass transit? {one of the biggest polluters out there)
What coal or nuclear power plant do you get your electricity from?
Is your air conditioning using freon that destroys the ozone layer?
Dont pat yourself on the back so quick, theres quite a disconnect with you as well.
I am 65 years old. I'm no genius, but I know one thing for absolute certain. We won't act in time. We are too stupid, we are too greedy. Maybe this is why we've seen no evidence of other civilizations out there. The "intelligent species on a planet uses up all it's resources, fouls the air and water, and dies.
43
Sorry to say it but a generation of "Greed is Good" Fools have dangerously dropped the ball on this. Jimmy Carter put Solar on the White House roof and then we got "Maximum Thrust" Ronny Ray-Gun and the got to have a SUV and a McMansion crowd who never looked back.
Solar is nice and Wind is ok but they can't be deployed fast enough and the Capacity Factor for both sources is woefully inadequate. The USA could lead the world (again) and make a move to completely remove Fossil Fuels from our energy equation within fifty years.
This would require the roll-out of lots of advanced Gen-3+ and Gen 4 Atomic power. Looking at and implementing Thorium MSRs. Making hydrogen and other carbon neutral transport fuels from Atomic plants waste heat and widespread use of electric cars.
Add vastly increasing efficiency of buildings to the complete transition of the grid to Atomic and Renewable power and there is a real possibility of making a significant to near total reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The rest of the world would follow.
It would take guts and those are in short supply in the generation that is in power now and even more rare in the insane asylum congress has become. No magic man in the sky is going to fix this, we humans have to do it.
Solar is nice and Wind is ok but they can't be deployed fast enough and the Capacity Factor for both sources is woefully inadequate. The USA could lead the world (again) and make a move to completely remove Fossil Fuels from our energy equation within fifty years.
This would require the roll-out of lots of advanced Gen-3+ and Gen 4 Atomic power. Looking at and implementing Thorium MSRs. Making hydrogen and other carbon neutral transport fuels from Atomic plants waste heat and widespread use of electric cars.
Add vastly increasing efficiency of buildings to the complete transition of the grid to Atomic and Renewable power and there is a real possibility of making a significant to near total reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The rest of the world would follow.
It would take guts and those are in short supply in the generation that is in power now and even more rare in the insane asylum congress has become. No magic man in the sky is going to fix this, we humans have to do it.
5
The world needs to fight real pollution and spend money on population control, not waste billions on controlling CO2 emissions - which we don't even know cause issues. Fight the known problems not the unknown ones.
1
quantumhunter: "not waste billions on controlling CO2 emissions - which we don't even know cause issues."
Just because you don't know, doesn't mean "we" don't. Scientists have known for more than a century that adding C02 to the atmosphere will cause average global surface temperatures to rise. Anyone who makes the effort to learn can know it too. I recommend starting with "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer R. Weart of the American Institute of Physics. It's available in paperback, and online at:
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
Just because you don't know, doesn't mean "we" don't. Scientists have known for more than a century that adding C02 to the atmosphere will cause average global surface temperatures to rise. Anyone who makes the effort to learn can know it too. I recommend starting with "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer R. Weart of the American Institute of Physics. It's available in paperback, and online at:
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
It's a start. Let's hope it is not too little too late.
Until China, India and Brazil come to the table 100%, there will be no appreciable change in the levels of greenhouse gases and the resultant rise in temperature worldwide. The first two nations passed the U.S. like a bullet several years ago in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. And Brazil continues to destroy the Amazon rain forest at alarming levels. The U.s. has already done its part at increasingly higher costs to American taxpayers and consumers. It's time for the rest of the world to do theirs.
12
Given that the U.S. will never come to the table 100%, why would the BRICs?
1
This mantra is getting so old. THE USA needs to get its own house in order and stop the nonsense about other nations not doing anything. Other nations are doing something about it. The nations who manage to develop sustainable economies first will be the winners. It makes sound economic sense to develop economies that use sustainable energy sources and do not depend on a constant source of finite raw materials.
1
Reply to Paul. Emissions rank is China, 10 Gtons per year, U.S. 7 Gtons and way down is India, 2 Gtons. U.S. Has reduced CO2 emissions by 5% since 2008, due to the recession and small conversion to renewables. I don't think anyone believes we have done anything close to our share. Mexico has done more, per Capita
We need a cheaper and cleaner way of producing electricity and a better battery in which to store it. Until then everything we as individuals or nations do will only forestall the inevitable.
16
But this is dangerous nonsense. We know how to produce electricity without contributing to warming -- nuclear fission; wind and solar with storage where available and grid leveling where not. We do need cheaper batteries and fuel cells, but they aren't what's preventing us from dealing with warming at this point. The problem at this point is political rather than technological and people have to realize that, because the belief that there are technological barriers are preventing reform rather than greed and political myopia.
6
If we continue to believe that billions of people riding around in their own 1.5 ton vehicles is sustainable, climate change will never be reversed.
2
"We need a cheaper and cleaner way of producing electricity and a better battery in which to store it. "
As long as the cost of climate change is kept out of the prices we pay for energy from fossil fuels, there isn't enough incentive to develop alternatives. If even a fraction of climate change costs were internalized, carbon-neutral energy sources would immediately become more competitive, stimulating development of sources and storage, and the build-out of the needed infrastructure. Economists agree that a carbon tax charged to producers at the mine, well or port of entry, along with a Border Adjustment Tax (ie. a tariff) on imports of manufactured goods keyed to the carbon released to make them, is the most efficient way to internalize climate change costs: see www.carbontax.org.
We should all be lobbying our elected officials to support a revenue-neutral carbon tax, and allow market forces to drive the transition to a greenhouse-neutral economy.
As long as the cost of climate change is kept out of the prices we pay for energy from fossil fuels, there isn't enough incentive to develop alternatives. If even a fraction of climate change costs were internalized, carbon-neutral energy sources would immediately become more competitive, stimulating development of sources and storage, and the build-out of the needed infrastructure. Economists agree that a carbon tax charged to producers at the mine, well or port of entry, along with a Border Adjustment Tax (ie. a tariff) on imports of manufactured goods keyed to the carbon released to make them, is the most efficient way to internalize climate change costs: see www.carbontax.org.
We should all be lobbying our elected officials to support a revenue-neutral carbon tax, and allow market forces to drive the transition to a greenhouse-neutral economy.
2
If climate change is a brick wall that we are racing towards at a speed of say, 150 mph, the current effort to address the problem would have us reduce the impact to a reassuring 120 mph.
I feel better already.
I feel better already.
85
That's a reduction in kinetic energy of 36% - that can be the difference between life and death. I'm saying this as someone who was a passenger in a car yesterday that ran into a concrete wall. 10 mph more and I would be writing this from a hospital instead of my home.
It is quite obvious now that there will be no change in carbon emissions sufficient to stop the warming of the planet. It is equally clear that the massive rise in sea waters when the ice caps on Greenland fall into the sea will destroy the coasts of every continent on Earth. Despite this there is no planning for moving people away from the coasts to safer areas of the various countries. There is no real planning to do anything except to argue about what is clearly happening to the planet.
26
You don't get it. They don't care. Not their problem.
Burning fossil fuels, deforestation, over population, all because of a greedy bunch of individuals who think they are the only ones who matter. The smart people know we've probably already passed the point of no return, yet there are still those who would fight to prevent any changes from happening. Talk about cutting off your nose despite your face.
6
So this is how the world ends, "not with a bang, but a whimper".
6
The title should be, "Almost No Progress Seen Even Things Get Worse and Worse While Few Nations Do Anything Meaningful."
The "war on the environment that sustains us" receives relatively little attention in the media compared to the other "wars."
A hard proportion of "educated" Americans deny climate change for ideological reasons, which allows them to simply dismiss all evidence for its existence.
Edward Abbey wrote, "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell."
Yet this is the ideology around which Capitalists, Catholics and Communists (and almost everyone else) all agree.
The "war on the environment that sustains us" receives relatively little attention in the media compared to the other "wars."
A hard proportion of "educated" Americans deny climate change for ideological reasons, which allows them to simply dismiss all evidence for its existence.
Edward Abbey wrote, "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell."
Yet this is the ideology around which Capitalists, Catholics and Communists (and almost everyone else) all agree.
35
The UN this week will release the GHG emissions targets reductions submitted by all countries (above article) and the Sustainablity Development Goals, a roadmap for investing in development, health education and the environment for the next 15 years.
The two roadmaps, are of course inextricably linked. And all models project that development can occur equally well in a 'green' economic environment. But neither roadmap integrates the huge challenge of over consumption and population growth, both in high consumption rich countries and developing poor countries. One dollar invested in family planning saves $7 for the cost mitigating CO2 emissions resulting from population growth.
The two roadmaps, are of course inextricably linked. And all models project that development can occur equally well in a 'green' economic environment. But neither roadmap integrates the huge challenge of over consumption and population growth, both in high consumption rich countries and developing poor countries. One dollar invested in family planning saves $7 for the cost mitigating CO2 emissions resulting from population growth.
1
"In 2016 a turning point in the battle against global warming was achieved when the countries of the world bravely committed themselves to a united program of too little, too late"
That is what future historians will likely say about us, as they entertain the survivors with stories sung nightly around the village campfire.
That is what future historians will likely say about us, as they entertain the survivors with stories sung nightly around the village campfire.
2
We simply live with our heads in the sand as to the potential catastrophe that is likely to be wrought by the end of the century (and much of it before that). We celebrate the birth of children and grandchildren, but what kind of place are we leaving behind for them to live?
Small gestures like recycling and sustainable building practices feel good to us, but they won't stop the problem. We're simply unwilling to make the big decisions it would take to stop climate change. We're too accustomed to the luxuries we feel entitled to (e.g. driving, air travel, air conditioning, the list goes on).
Small gestures like recycling and sustainable building practices feel good to us, but they won't stop the problem. We're simply unwilling to make the big decisions it would take to stop climate change. We're too accustomed to the luxuries we feel entitled to (e.g. driving, air travel, air conditioning, the list goes on).
39
*We do not need to give up any of those luxuries.* Sorry for shouting, but the notion that we have to give up our way of life is false and discourages people from demanding action on climate change. That's what makes it dangerous.
Consider for example that your air conditioner could be a super efficient and money saving ground source geothermal heat pump, run off energy from a source like fission, solar, or wind that contributes nothing to warming.
Not for the first time, I wish that the Times would run some articles on the technological options open to us because public ignorance is widespread.
Consider for example that your air conditioner could be a super efficient and money saving ground source geothermal heat pump, run off energy from a source like fission, solar, or wind that contributes nothing to warming.
Not for the first time, I wish that the Times would run some articles on the technological options open to us because public ignorance is widespread.
1
Two interactive models built by the British government let you see how a safe, sustainable planet can work:
http://globalcalculator.org/
my2050.decc.gov.uk
Short advice while we get used to the differences that make up the solution: fly less. Eat less meat. Buy less junk you're going to throw away. Join the Citizen's Climate Lobby and support the enactment of a non-partisan solution, a revenue-neutral fee on carbon.
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/
http://globalcalculator.org/
my2050.decc.gov.uk
Short advice while we get used to the differences that make up the solution: fly less. Eat less meat. Buy less junk you're going to throw away. Join the Citizen's Climate Lobby and support the enactment of a non-partisan solution, a revenue-neutral fee on carbon.
http://citizensclimatelobby.org/
Change your lifestyle. Wanting something is not the same thing as needing something. Be satisfied with your own community. Enhance it so that it is the place you want to be - not somewhere a car ride away. Work within your own community to make it low-carbon and green. In the end, it takes a village...
26
If we lived as we did during the first half of the18th century, there would be no global warming to the extent that we see, but our expected age of dying would be half as long as it is and we would live in a three mile an hour world as they did at that time without electricity and sophisticated machines to make our lives easier as well as more productive. The make our lives simple and less demanding of resources strategy has a steep price, too.
In addition to these governmental efforts, every single one of us should do what we can to help. Put solar on your roof - with a solar lease, it's effectively free (pay your lease co. instead of your electric bill), and for most of us (me included) results in a smaller overall electric cost. Make your home more energy efficient. When you buy a car, choose a car that uses less gas or NO gas (electric).
70
Absolutely, though it's important to keep in mind that individual action isn't nearly enough to reach the IPCC goal.
The big elephant in the room: meat and dairy consumption. Animal agriculture produces 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, while ALL transportation combined produces 13%. Animal agriculture is responsible for 91% of Amazon destruction. And growing feed crops for livestock consumes 56% of all the water use in the US. References for these numbers are easily obtainable.
Okay, that seems to be a rational plan - but it will have NO EFFECT upon global climate! Good luck.
The actual temperature increase have been 1 F over the past 60 years. Projections of 6 F temperature raises over the next 85 years have no basis in fact. Much more probable is continued temperature rise at the rates we have seen, which would warm the world to about the same climate we had around the year 1100 AD, which was highly favorable, as it entailed longer growing seasons, expanded agricultural areas, ice-free summertime Arctic navigation, and mild winters. While it is true that continued warming beyond that for another two centuries would be unfavorable, we have plenty of time to develop cheap carbon free power sources including nuclear fission, fusion, and photovoltaics. This will happen fastest under conditions of maximum economic growth. Thus moves that stifle economic growth via severe carbon use restrictions in the near and medium term are unwarranted and counter productive to both the goals of meeting human needs and protecting the environment.
The closer you get to the poles, the faster the temperature is rising.
2
You'll be ok out there in Golden, on your oceanfront property.
2
Money is going to be a or perhaps the major obstacle in making substantial progress in reducing emissions. If the world economy were booming, assistance in funding by high-income countries would have a fighting chance of being somewhat adequate to the task.
Non-Group of 7 nations, why not seriously try to change the monetary and financial system by first removing the dollar as the world’s trade currency and pushing for a trade SDR that goes beyond being only a government-government currency? In the process, push to have the IMF and IBRD become part of the UN system!
A next step -- a transformational leap-- is the transformation of the monetary, financial, economic and commercial systems by transforming the unjust, unsustainable, and therefore, unstable international monetary system which, being their glue, would transform those global systems. One way of doing this is by basing that international monetary system on a carbon standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person, which would not only combat the looming climate catastrophe but also advance low-carbon, climate resilient development of the SDGs. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such carbon-based international monetary system are presented in Verhagen 2012 “The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation” and updated at www.timun.net.
Non-Group of 7 nations, why not seriously try to change the monetary and financial system by first removing the dollar as the world’s trade currency and pushing for a trade SDR that goes beyond being only a government-government currency? In the process, push to have the IMF and IBRD become part of the UN system!
A next step -- a transformational leap-- is the transformation of the monetary, financial, economic and commercial systems by transforming the unjust, unsustainable, and therefore, unstable international monetary system which, being their glue, would transform those global systems. One way of doing this is by basing that international monetary system on a carbon standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person, which would not only combat the looming climate catastrophe but also advance low-carbon, climate resilient development of the SDGs. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such carbon-based international monetary system are presented in Verhagen 2012 “The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation” and updated at www.timun.net.
Please print more articles and research on the affect of animal agriculture on climate change. It is the "elephant or cow, pig, chicken, etc" in the room. The pledges being made now to limit carbon emissions, while encouraging, do nothing to address the biggest contributor to global warming, our food supply system. If more people understood that simply choosing a vegan diet could change the world, maybe they would...
5
It gets worse than just a few degrees in global temperature.
Capital Markets in our current age have grown to a size where they are energizing ecologically and socially destructive forces of a magnitude that has never before been seen in the history of the planet. Resource allocation is being misguided and misappropriated on a massive scale. Irreparable planetary harm is being done.
Exponential population grown is out of control. More and more people want more and more.
How much time do we have? Some highly accredited scientists say our present trajectory will present very serious planetary problems within the next fifty years and they even point to the end of our species after three hundred.
Unless we can change the way the market prices what we desire to consume, the biblical prophecy of the end of times may very well prove to be self-fulfilling.
There is the possibility our great-great grandchildren will find themselves at the bottom of Dante’s inferno with no escape.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
Capital Markets in our current age have grown to a size where they are energizing ecologically and socially destructive forces of a magnitude that has never before been seen in the history of the planet. Resource allocation is being misguided and misappropriated on a massive scale. Irreparable planetary harm is being done.
Exponential population grown is out of control. More and more people want more and more.
How much time do we have? Some highly accredited scientists say our present trajectory will present very serious planetary problems within the next fifty years and they even point to the end of our species after three hundred.
Unless we can change the way the market prices what we desire to consume, the biblical prophecy of the end of times may very well prove to be self-fulfilling.
There is the possibility our great-great grandchildren will find themselves at the bottom of Dante’s inferno with no escape.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
6
There has to be a serious discussion in the world community, not only about carbon emissions, but the fact that we have ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS all around us from wireless communications, military and law enforcement satellites, etc. that are compromising human immunity. We ignore the fact that we sandwiched between these satellite systems (e.g., HAARP and GWEN) which are constantly heating the earth via the use of low-level radio frequency, radiation, radar and plasma style components. The World Health Organization has traditionally cited this as contributing to global warming, yet no one wants to give up their cell phones or creature comforts, even if we risk cancer, heart attacks or strokes because of the global network we have built.
As a species we are destroying our home and our children's future. While we quarrel among ourselves and allow ourselves to be distracted by propaganda from a greed-infected fossil fuel lobby the climate is changing more rapidly than many scientists initially predicted. We have allowed a minority of politicians in the US Congress, put into office by people who are driven by fear, anger, ignorance and hate, to obstruct real efforts to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This minority and the powerful economic forces that control them are doing irreparable damage to the only home we have. We must sweep this radical minority of so-called "conservatives" aside and take control of our future or all may be lost.
5
The GHG emission targets voluntarily submitted by 80 plus countries to date are less than half of what is required to keep global warming below 3.6F. Clearly most governments have not been responsible. Mass mobilization of citizens in every country is the only thing that will change the course in the short time frame that is necessary.
The cost of not achieving lower emissions NOW is a fraction compared to the cost of 6F warming and 6 feet sea rise, as we are on course for with current submissions.
The cost of not achieving lower emissions NOW is a fraction compared to the cost of 6F warming and 6 feet sea rise, as we are on course for with current submissions.
1
Until the World addresses Animal Factory Farming, which accounts for more than 18% of the greenhouse gas emissions, compounded by extensive deforestation throughout our planet, with the resultant loss of trees and vegetation which would trap a large percentage of the CO2 emissions. In 2009 the total effect was considered 40% larger than all of transportation combined (this was from UN report in 2009, and it has gotten worse since then). To gas warming effects add the devastation of the soil, the use of pesticides, the generations of millions of tons of toxic manure, and resultant waste of our precious water as well as contamination of rivers and coastal zones (dead coastal zones, where there is insufficient oxygen to maintain a healthy fish population have been well documented).
THIS IS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM!!!
No one is tackling the problem, no government on Earth appears to have the guts to address this problem, and say that a mostly plant protein based diet is what needs to be done. Government agriculture subsidies ( as in the recently passed Farm Bill) as well as additional subsidies hide the true cost of Animal Factory Farming.Cheap animal protein is a fallacy and a delusion which will come to haunts us all (it already is!!!!). Who would pay $10 + for a gallon of milk, or $15/lb for hamburger meat?
None of the present proposals are not enough to stop, or even reverse, the effects of global warming. We are eating ourselves into the abyss!!!!
THIS IS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM!!!
No one is tackling the problem, no government on Earth appears to have the guts to address this problem, and say that a mostly plant protein based diet is what needs to be done. Government agriculture subsidies ( as in the recently passed Farm Bill) as well as additional subsidies hide the true cost of Animal Factory Farming.Cheap animal protein is a fallacy and a delusion which will come to haunts us all (it already is!!!!). Who would pay $10 + for a gallon of milk, or $15/lb for hamburger meat?
None of the present proposals are not enough to stop, or even reverse, the effects of global warming. We are eating ourselves into the abyss!!!!
36
Actually, the room is full of elephants. We just pretend not to notice them.
2
Supported by the development of a primitive stone industry, small-scale hunter-bands evolving for the past millions of years or so, persistently relied on meat supplements for survival. The reality of their consumption is that until the twentieth century meat and fish compromised only a small fracture of the diet, probably within the 2-5% range. The why of our modern obesity crisis is the incorporation of heavy meat and milk products into the daily diet. In a nutshell, we are simply overeating, and overeating, and overeating. Deny if you will, but the results are apparent. But good luck with society willingly forgoing excess meat and dairy consumption. That would entail rationalization of the problem, fitting of an enlightened modern being. Meanwhile, we still confront the obstinance of denial by those without the courage to face their current reality.
2
Multiply the "need" for meat by the growing world population and you have a recipe for disaster, even with a huge drop in the use of cars and other vehicles, and coal-fired plants.
1
Consider, if you will, the leviathan that is the petrochemical industry, from the drilling platform to the gas station, from the ocean floor to the gas tank, to all the billions of internal combustion engines that cover our planet. Now, with that in mind, consider what it will take to replace them.
The hardest fight will be, of course, with that leviathan. And there's no way the industry is going to concede an inch until the functional usefulness of that infrastructure has passed -- certainly decades.
And speaking of obsolescence -- every single aspect of the collection, processing, transport, storage, and use of petroleum in America will become a hazardous waste site. Who's gonna pay for that? I wonder. No, not really...
Finally, governments are impotent against the likes of the fed, the world bank, and other cartels that mean to protect aggressive, mindless capitalism for its own sake, and for the sake of those with vested interests.
The hardest fight will be, of course, with that leviathan. And there's no way the industry is going to concede an inch until the functional usefulness of that infrastructure has passed -- certainly decades.
And speaking of obsolescence -- every single aspect of the collection, processing, transport, storage, and use of petroleum in America will become a hazardous waste site. Who's gonna pay for that? I wonder. No, not really...
Finally, governments are impotent against the likes of the fed, the world bank, and other cartels that mean to protect aggressive, mindless capitalism for its own sake, and for the sake of those with vested interests.
4
It is more than troubling to see only rwo comments on an issue of this importance. The only reasons I can think of are 1) how to cook a frog and 2) denial in the face of something that is seen as distant but inevitable.
One data point: ticks were not seen in Maine thirty years ago, but now they are killing moose and giving Lyme disease to humans; because it is warm enough for them to survive winter.
One data point: ticks were not seen in Maine thirty years ago, but now they are killing moose and giving Lyme disease to humans; because it is warm enough for them to survive winter.
9
I grew up in New Jersey (suburb of NYC) in the 50s, and played in the woods and undeveloped lots all the time. We didn't even know ticks existed.
I would like to see scientists address climate control in terms of human population. Given a set of implemented climate controls, what would the human population have to be to impact average temperatures by less than 1 degree? Or have zero impact?
What is better: to crash into a wall at 60 mph? 30 mph? Or not at all?
Can population control be part of the solution?
I would like to see this discussed in a serious manner!
What is better: to crash into a wall at 60 mph? 30 mph? Or not at all?
Can population control be part of the solution?
I would like to see this discussed in a serious manner!
49
Read Limits to Growth, which was published in 1972. Population is one of its variables.
Telling people to limit reproduction is probably the last taboo.
But, yes, we need to talk about it.
Hoping people will stop having more than one child will not make it so, any more than canceling Sex Ed classes will shut down teenage hormones. We need to break the taboo and remind couples that every child has an impact - no matter where he/she happens to be born.
But, yes, we need to talk about it.
Hoping people will stop having more than one child will not make it so, any more than canceling Sex Ed classes will shut down teenage hormones. We need to break the taboo and remind couples that every child has an impact - no matter where he/she happens to be born.
As long as you have a way to bully people into not doing what they have always done. These abstract complaints are not useful.
It certainly would help if people would stop obstructing cheap ready access to birth control and let women have more control over their lives.
It certainly would help if people would stop obstructing cheap ready access to birth control and let women have more control over their lives.
People still worship a the Church of Global Warming?
The science says the next event likely is a mini-ice age. We need to be worrying about how we will feed the population when the crops are all dead. This entire AGW idea is worse than nonsense and NOBODY has ever shown any significant warming due to humans...
2
James: "This entire AGW idea is worse than nonsense and NOBODY has ever shown any significant warming due to humans..."
If you got your information about climate science from peer-reviewed scientific sources rather than from science-denying politicians and bloggers, you'd have a much clearer picture of the truth.
If you got your information about climate science from peer-reviewed scientific sources rather than from science-denying politicians and bloggers, you'd have a much clearer picture of the truth.
9
"Virtually every piece of land ice on Earth is melting, the sea ice in the Arctic is collapsing, droughts and other weather extremes are intensifying, and the global food system has shown signs of instability." Add to this the acidification of the oceans, rising sea level, melting permafrost releasing vast quantities of methane, and the apparent sixth extinction now in progress. Still, the republicans remained impassive during the Pope's address to congress when he spoke about protecting our environment. They say Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Our modern counterpart was on full view for the world to see last Thursday.
153
Yes, scientists have calculated the burning all known remaining fossil fuels will cause the Antarctic ice cap to melt.
But you know what ignorant bigots scientists are, worshiping at the Church of Reason and Evidence, instead of at the Church of Ideology and Mythology.
But you know what ignorant bigots scientists are, worshiping at the Church of Reason and Evidence, instead of at the Church of Ideology and Mythology.
7
As a child I could not have conceived that humanity could alter the earth on a global scale.
When I was taught about man made climate change from greenhouse gases in the mid '70's at the University of Orygun I did not think it possible that greed and disinformation could obstruct the need to made changes.
At 64 I'm glad I'll be dead before this magnificent planet, the only one we know of that can support life, is reduced to a Hobbesian war of each against all for survival.
When I was taught about man made climate change from greenhouse gases in the mid '70's at the University of Orygun I did not think it possible that greed and disinformation could obstruct the need to made changes.
At 64 I'm glad I'll be dead before this magnificent planet, the only one we know of that can support life, is reduced to a Hobbesian war of each against all for survival.
94
I first learned about climate change at the University of Nebraska in the 1960s. I'm luckier than you, Craig; I'm 73 and will have to witness less of the destruction we have wrought.
2
craig geary,
Unfortunately, you will not be dead. I give us 3 to 5 years before apocalyptic environmental calamity. When a life from reaches its carrying capacity, population plummets. The particulars of how this happens -- fires, floods, desertification, famine, disease, war -- are merely the means, among which any one will do.
Unfortunately, you will not be dead. I give us 3 to 5 years before apocalyptic environmental calamity. When a life from reaches its carrying capacity, population plummets. The particulars of how this happens -- fires, floods, desertification, famine, disease, war -- are merely the means, among which any one will do.
Wouldn't it just be easier to deny climate change exists as the GOP puppets for the fossil fuel industry are doing?
1
Denial is always the best solution.
Deny the problem?
Then there is no problem to solve.
Easy peasy.
Deny the problem?
Then there is no problem to solve.
Easy peasy.
1
Politicians don't stand a chance against Mother Nature. Decisions about efforts to improve the climate should be made by executive fiat, not the volks.
5
"An analysis by researchers at Climate Interactive, a group whose calculations are used by American negotiators and by numerous other governments"
Who?
Who?
1
Most of the world's governments have begun to rattle their swords and shout the charge against man caused climate change, but little has been done to fight the battle. A few wind turbans and saved trees are not going to do it. We need great, aggressive action and a large battle plan now. The battle is almost lost.
6
Make that "wind turbines" Must be Monday!!!!
1
empty gestures
2
We are such an ignorant, arrogant species. As the saying goes, "we need nature, nature doesn't need us."
119
Nature, get used to humans.
Hello world! The primary cause of climate change is overpopulation and the primary cause of overpopulation is religion. Sorry your holiness but the world cannot handle an infinite number of humans.
82
So glad someone here said it. 7-8 Billion people on the planet. That's probably about 4-5 Billion too many.
Just to go full crazy person here, I do not understand why humans believe that they are the only species here worth anything.
Dentist kills a lion, media backlash aside, nothing happens. Number of lions left? Maybe 30,000.
Dentist were to shoot and kill someone, he'd get (assuming he would not be able to buy his way out of it) 25 to life for FULLY pre-meditated murder. Number of humans left ~7-8 Billion.
Something is wrong with that picture.
Just to go full crazy person here, I do not understand why humans believe that they are the only species here worth anything.
Dentist kills a lion, media backlash aside, nothing happens. Number of lions left? Maybe 30,000.
Dentist were to shoot and kill someone, he'd get (assuming he would not be able to buy his way out of it) 25 to life for FULLY pre-meditated murder. Number of humans left ~7-8 Billion.
Something is wrong with that picture.
Can it be true that we human beings respond only to threats immediately before our eyes? Is our species incapable of acting in our long-term interest? If so, we may be doomed.
We need more leaders like Pope Francis capable of looking out decades and willing to help us to transcend our "fight or flight" and competitive hard wiring on behalf of a shared future. Scientific projections seem to be insufficiently persuasive on their own.
We need more leaders like Pope Francis capable of looking out decades and willing to help us to transcend our "fight or flight" and competitive hard wiring on behalf of a shared future. Scientific projections seem to be insufficiently persuasive on their own.
113
Interesting that all those jungle tribes thought to be primitive and backward are living in harmony with their environment. We on the other hand, may not be as smart as we think.
1
Were you aware that US law requires publicly traded corporations to provide a profit for their shareholders? So, when looking at the long-range effect of anything, the profit forecast is the first chart in the slideshow presentation. The second chart shows how much money will be lost if the corporation adheres to US law regarding regulation of any kind, much less those guided by 'controversial' data regarding global climate change.
1
We are a species divided into those who would react vigorously to survival threats before being in global crisis and those who would react only to the unfolded disaster. In America, it's the division between Democrats, who pay attention to science and Republicans for whom scientific facts are selectively applied, if at all.
1
I propose that all foreign military aid be discontinued immediately worldwide. Military aid from all countries and to all countries. The savings should go entirely into renewable energy projects in the developing world.
36
"You can't save the environment in the face of population GROWTH. You just can't."
YouTube video of Professor Emeritus in Nuclear Physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Albert A. Bartlett (1923-2013)
YouTube video of Professor Emeritus in Nuclear Physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Albert A. Bartlett (1923-2013)
101
Yes. When will the Times recognize this, and begin soliciting op-eds from academics who have been writing about real, rational, "sustainability" -- not the off-hand, casual, meaningless use of the word -- for years. The literature is out there, but it doesn't get into the mainstream media. Global warming will never be reversed without a drastic reduction in world population. The arithmetic will just not support it.
3
Given that he chose to burden the planet for 90 years while urging population shrinkage, doesn't seem to me to be the go to guy on this.
The US is about 17 tons of CO2 emissions per capita; a person in India is responsible for less than a tenth of that. One roundtrip flight from NYC to Paris is more than their per capita carbon emissions for a year. Population is a factor, but consumption, and the wild imbalance of it globally, is a bigger factor. Now we need India to come to an agreement -- but why would they do anything for us (like curb emissions) that we won't do for ourselves?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Ghg-co2-2012.svg
Hans Rosling better explains the population conundrum in three minutes:
https://youtu.be/SxbprYyjyyU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Ghg-co2-2012.svg
Hans Rosling better explains the population conundrum in three minutes:
https://youtu.be/SxbprYyjyyU
6
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/whys-gop-only-science-denyi...