Why do the progressives pick the worst examples to promote action against climate change?! Hurricanes have been hitting the FL, GA, SC, and NC coasts forever. The issue is that too many have built homes/structures on the cost and immediately inland - the density is out of control. When too many people live in a hurricane path, they will lose. This isn't climate change, it's stupidity.
Anyone who fails to understand that climate change is both real and present is invited to my home near Conway, SC. It was built only about 15 years ago, but now the storm sewers cannot drain all the rain. Our street was flooded today, not from the several days of the hurricane over it, but from the storms as it passed.
My backyard is flooded too, though not as badly as in 2015 or after Matthew. Other areas near me are far worse off and will become even worse over the next week as rivers in NC drain their flood waters toward the ocean.
We build but we can't maintain, partly because we don't plan for "thousand-year" events on a yearly basis. This is the new normal, especially as those in power ignore reality.
6
What does it say when Rex Tillerson, former Exxon CEO, said to stay in the Paris Accord?
4
I want to share a graph from NOAA:
It is the contiguous US avg max temps for the warmest six months (may-oct). You see 3 things: 1) Max temps have actually declined. The 1930's was hotter (for those months) than now.
2) There is a lot of annual variation --- avg max temps change year to year.
3) It's cyclical -- there was a move up from just before 1910 to the mid 1930's, then a big decline (trend line shows it) until 1980. Things were flat until about 1995 then temps rose again -- but not to the level of the 1930's.
Average temps show the same pattern but not quite as pronounced. On the other hand min temps rose in the 2000's slightly.
Now, if you want to go around believing that we are getting hotter -- do a little research. The US has had in place since 1895 half of the total number of temp data collection stations and they have been distributed across the country and run by a single agency for most of that time. It's not as rigorous as you would like but it is better than anywhere else on the globe where there were just a handful of temp stations in 1900, mostly on the coasts and measures are based on estimates.
And if you still proclaim temps are rising -- let me ask if you would buy a stock with a similar chart with the expectation it would go up.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series/110/tmax/6/10/1895-20...
The GOP and this administration must be very proud of themselves. Their relentless self serving, racism (roll back anything the black guy did) and ignoring what is good for not only the country but the world is mind numbing.
Vote in November to begin the process of making America smart again.
peace
5
What do all of these Trump people think of the future they are leaving their children and grandchildren?
Not to mention, China sees this as an economic / jobs opportunity to be the world's supplier of solar panels.
4
September 17, 2018
That is so for Nature has her say in affairs of humanity juxtapose to the intelligence of say of the collective educated forces that are having to live by the consequences of the beauty of: science, politics, and journalism - say the fabric of life is fully transparent and we get what we deserve - but giving heed to today's editorial leads the better options going forward as responsible citizens aligned to our global life and times.
jja
1
The Coasts Roar, Inlanders cackle. What gives?
1) For years inlanders felt slighted and neglected by coastal elites intent on shackling the US to a UN controlled technocracy. Now they find themselves kingmakers, and better yet, led by the Global Arsonist in Chief. Climate change is as credible in the heartland as Evolution--almost nil. For most, the existential frog-fry horror of coastal elites is an amusing (and highly useful) political fraud fathered on a fiction, a wild goose chase headed for a dead end. If debilitating fear keeps your opponents paralyzed, there cannot be too much of it--or too many arsonists.
2) If true, warming is seen as a coastal problem, and the coasts are the root of all American evil.
3) The frequent date setting of point of no return is on the level of religious end times chicanery. The Left's moving timeline cannot but create the most hardened sinners. The wolf is always moved to the next door.
4) But here's where the rubber meets the road: the Left does not have even one candidate willing to run on a Climate plank. Ergo: it's another exotic piece of political furniture, like gender politics, uni-bathrooms, universal wage, etc.
5) For inlanders, fear inspiring apocalypticism is part of their religious DNA--the earth is less than 10,000 years old and the End is always nigh--a renewed earth will follow this decayed one.
Hence Climate believers, like Evolutionists, will never be more than a mocked sect in the Heartland.
Re Methane: "$75 million a year (expense) by the Environmental Protection Agency’s estimates, a rounding error for the powerful oil industry. The industry could in fact end up a loser, since captured methane can be sold at a profit." Your analysis must be wrong. The industry would not propose eliminating a money maker unless this money maker was harming larger revenue. If that is so, your argument makes no sense. These people are engineers and understand numbers. I wonder if you do. That's not to say that we shouldnt have these regulations but we shouldn't advance dumb arguments.
@Bill
Sometimes I get the feeling a good part of the motivation is if Obama was for it, they are against it.
1
@Bill
"(...) could end up": that means that the studies aren't out yet.
And what makes you believe that the oil industry is so smart in the first place? Don't you know that for decades already they're receiving billions of government subsidies, tax credits etc? Buying a GOP politician doesn't necessarily require a high IQ, especially not these days ...
Trump and the Republican Party are entirely responsible for this retreat from important progress on addressing climate change made during the Obama administration. Presumably they care more about Big Energy interests over the physical health of our citizens including insuring the health of future generations. All the more reasons to drive them out at the midterms so that we can resume progress toward a clean environment and so that our children and grandchildren will be able to breathe.
2
It's hard to hear anything over the sound of the coins hitting the campaign coffers. They've sold our children's future for a few bucks worth of campaign advantage, but what will they have won, or more importantly, what will the rest of us have lost ?
2
Is a law a law?
I’ve mentioned in the past that I do not understand our concept of law that changes with the tide. What is the point?
Yes, laws need to be flexible. But what is the criteria?
We expect an ethical platform. Something that is sound and not subject to the plunder of corporations.
No, I don’t have the answers. My dissent rests in politicians for whom laws are not laws.
No, I don’t have the answers. All I have are questions.
@-tkf
There is no law, it's up to the Executive to determine the rules of the game.
The idea behind this is that laws take lots of time to make and pass and repeal, whereas many things need a government response that is much faster than that. Those things are relegated to the Executive branch of government, who has to decide how to implement existing law.
What this shows is that it's extremely important to vote, because if not, THIS is the kind of power that we're giving away to lobbyists and special interests, whereas the consequence will impact all of us ...
1
>>>The change in the methane rule is just plain dumb. The savings to industry would be trivial, $75 million a year by the Environmental Protection Agency’s estimates, a rounding error for the powerful oil industry. The industry could in fact end up a loser, since captured methane can be sold at a profit.<<<
That is logic, but logic is not operative here. We are looking at expressions of pure power, as well as an institutional and political effort to deep-six anything that has a progressive stamp. This is particularly true of Obama-era policies, against which Senator McConnell and those of his stripe, and all of their partners in chicanery, were committed from Day One of that presidency.
4
Global warming will just continue on its own pace no matter
what anyone does or does not do because the inconvenience and cost would be too high to have a significant impact. Not
enough people would want to do anything about it.
So just accept it as a fact of life and learn to deal with it.
@Tom
Uh ... one political party in one country refuses to do anything about it.
The other political party in that same country already started, as did the rest of the world.
Soon the corrupt GOP, a mere shadow of the Grand Old Party, will be voted out, and the US will continue to join the rest of the world.
As long as the Paris Agreement didn't exist, I was skeptical too. But Democrats HAVE managed to achieve this, and in politics the first step is always the most difficult one. Now the movement has been created, and there's no reason at all to believe that it will stop.
Soon California will be part of the zero carbon emission regions/cities in the world, for instance. Burlington (Vermont) already is as we speak.
So no, this isn't too expensive at all, it HAS been done already, and the entire world (except for one isolated political party, the GOP) is working hard to increase its speed.
Conclusion: time to jump on the bandwagon and act, rather than standing at the sidelines yelling "not enough!" to those struggling in the mud and who just achieved a significant step forward!
Remember, cynicism never helped us make progress. Focus, patience and persistence does, together with remembering that human beings have already achieved lots of things that previous generations couldn't even dream of.
We can do this!
Take care.
1
"Agua fresca"...… tremendous what a well heated up Atlantic is able to deliver! But there is no climate change, of course, and no bigger prevention action were taken up before the water hit.
It is funny to see how the USA is falling prey to the nonsense some political nuts are propagating.
Wow, Michael Bloomberg and Jerry Brown sounds like a winning ticket to me.
3
The Oligarchs: Mercers, Koch bros, Sinclairs, etc all look forward to lives in walled and guarded enclaves helicoptering over squalor from one small exclusive Eden to the next. Just what strange primeval corner of their brains is running their show, who knows. But it would be best if the unwashed masses took back their power before the bathtubs run dry.
5
Not very smart indeed. Those old white men clearly don't understand what science is all about and why it has always been at the very heart of America's greatness.
As country with the biggest carbon footprint per capita in the world, and with only 6% of the world's population producing nevertheless 25% of the world's CO2 emissions, it's obvious that already from a merely MORAL point of view, the US government has to stop inflicting horrible hurricanes on its own citizens and the entire world.
Obamacare covered 20 million more Americans, which is saving an additional 40,000 American lives a year, and yet, the GOP already destroyed the healthcare of 3 million of those people. How many American deaths are now a direct consequence of Trump's signature? At 4,000 a year, it will soon already be more than the number of temporary jobs created by the Keystone pipeline.
And now this. Carbon concentrations are already too high for thousands of Americans to be able to survive, in other words they're already causing thousands of deaths a year, and all that the GOP can think of is changing the rules of the game so that even more Americans will die.
This is literally a LETHAL government. Forget about America's greatness, what the November elections are now all about is to simply keep the right, as ordinary citizens, to SURVIVE.
Compared to that, two high level Republicans pleading guilty to conspiracy against the US is all of a sudden one of the least dangerous recent GOP attacks ...
1
Let's be honest:
This greed will continue until the 1% can no longer protect itself against its own parasitic whims.
Then, they will cry and hue and whine and blather and yadda and wah and otherwise endlessly choke the rest of us with their self-entitled outrage: "What's this madness that has visited itself on ME? Doesn't the environment know who EYE am??"
And, in their self-induced delirium, they'll find a way to blame Obama, Michelle, Malia, Sasha, Bo, and Sunny for every single bit of environmental disaster from which they no longer can escape.
You know it's true.
3
@Valerie
This is NOT about the 1% wealthiest Americans. It's about wealthy Republicans, and those Republicans who hope to get rich in a dirty way and as a consequence are selling the power of the government to those wealthy Republicans.
Michael Bloomberg is a multi-billionaire (more than $50 billion) and like Obama (in the meanwhile a millionaire) and so many other Democratic millionaires and billionaires, they are doing all that is in their power to stop this madness and do something serious about climate change.
The only way to take the government back, as "we the people", is to be very clear about who the enemy is here.
4
Maybe it'll take Mar-a-Lago getting washed away for people to figure it out.
4
Of course both climate change and the Mueller investigation is just a hoax to the Trump administration and its militant base.
The definition of hoax is a humorous or malicious deception.
The climate change deniers and the man-child in the White House are the real hoax - full of malicious deception. They are the most sever danger not only to this country but to the world at large.
1
The members of the editorial board are indeed divorced from the day to day reality of news reporting. The rest of the NYTimes reports the consumption and increased burning and even blowouts of oil and gas wells as positive additions to the US and world economy. The prices of various carboniferous combustibles are reported by rwriters for the paper as mere background music to the continuous increasing pace of "development" in the world economy. Onward-ever upward!
Little is said or appears known is said or seems known by NY Times reporters,(who report on PBS that Methane is a mere 25% more efficient at heat trapping than CO2-: it is, in fact closer to 25 times as effective a greenhouse gas), about the replacement of ancient coal/oil and gas combustion with more and clean nuclear and solar energy. We have entered a time when it is possible to begin to economically replace most fossil fuels with cleaner forms of industrial and home energy systems, but as far as most of this newspaper is concerned-but for occasional end of Summer articles like this, clean nuclear and solar power might as well be freak shows at Coney Island, dead and pickled in bottles of alcohol, for the the suckers to view at 10c a pop.
1
@meloop
That's not at all my image of the NYT.
Where in this editorial do you find things that could back up your interpretation of it ... ?
1
We are the frog in the slowly heating pot on the stove. It's getting warmer, we are beginning to feel it, but we don't act. Trump's response to is to up the flame just a bit. He things he is the Frommaster. More severe fires and floods are stretching diminishing resources - now. Sea levels are creeping u[ slowly, almost imperceptibly to most. Glaciers are nearly gone. The frog - us - are we literally about to croak? How do we get out of this? Is it too late for us? Frogs unite! Take the leap now! If you can. It is called VOTING! That water is too hot!
3
This is not a laughing matter, but at least the guy in the White House is going to go where it is much hotter.
1
Either the Washington politicians and bureaucrats really believe the garbage that they promote or they are voluntarily blind. Either way, they are killing us and other citizens of the world and do not belong anywhere near a responsible office. And I do agree with commenter Rozenblit that a lot of what they're doing seems to be revenge on President Obama's enlightened agenda which they are dismantling just because they can. What a world....
1
The catastrophe is not in the making. The catastrophe has been made. Anyone who thinks we still have a chance to save ourselves is living in the same world of delusion as the Republicans. We have about 50-100 yrs until 240 ft sea level rise. Not to mention - oceans increasingly acidic due to the fact that the oceans are essentially huge carbon sinks; loss of arable land due to drought; loss of near shore fishing due to rising ocean temps (as ocean gets warmer, fish move away from shore to get cool); the collapse of agricultural food production due to the combined catastrophes of an ambient temperature too hot for plants to fruit, and a steep decline in pollinators threatening the vast majority of foods we eat. I simply cannot comprehend the ability to pretend that these things are not real. Don’t Republicans live in the same world as the rest of us? Don’t they breathe the same air, drink the same water, and eat the same food as the rest of us? What in the world do they think will save them or their progeny?
89
@Elizvan; The megalithic structures that dot the planet; structures similar in style as our skyscrapers today, indicate that humanity has been here before in similar, highly civilized, fashion. Whatever the cause; and most of the indications are they were caused by environmental degradation, they collapsed.
I suspect that past is prologue to our future; principally because the human race is geologically myopic and as a consequence never learns. Further to this there is a basic rule of Nature. An organism which does not constrain itself within the limits of the terrarium it resides within will die; or be severely constrained.
So be fearful for your progeny. I do not mean to wax apocalyptic but by our actions we have jeopardized their future. The forces we have set in motion that will do it are merciless and implacable with regard to our human concerns. And they are setting up to severely reduce our numbers if we continue apace. If we do so then we will have only ourselves to blame.
So it goes.
John~
American Net'Zen
12
@Elizvan
>>>What in the world do they think will save them or their progeny?<<<
Those who actually understand that human-caused climate change is occurring, and who are wealthy, believe that their wealth will allow them to choose safe havens in which to live and to obtain clean water, food, and air, even if those have to be manufactured. The rest, wealthy or no, either don't believe the science or simply don't care. It's really hard to comprehend such a wholesale cavalier attitude.
1
@Elizvan
They have decided this is just normal temp changes. I guess when the great flood, and migration comes from our coastal cities they will pray and build a wall.
1
Climate change is the biggest challenge to our civilization that humans have ever faced. For decades, scientists have warned about the rising consequences of ignoring this global threat, which we now witness daily. Politicians conveniently ignore the threat because of their self-interest in getting re-elected. The new mantra now is what can we do about it fast enough? But Congress remains mute.
Economists agree that the fastest way to decrease CO2 emissions is to put a price on carbon. Charging the fossil fuel industry up front, to cover the financial costs to society currently paid for by tax-payers, is a market-based way to spur a faster progression to a healthier, sustainable energy economy. Putting a rising fee on carbon and passing those funds on directly to the consumer is a progressive measure that levels the playing field for wind, solar and other renewables that don't pollute the atmosphere, spurring a faster production of cheaper, non-polluting commodities like electric cars. Placing a border fee on items imported from countries that don't have a price on carbon would spur exporting countries to put their own price on carbon. Citizens Climate Lobby is educating members of Congress about such a plan, originally proposed by Republicans from a previous era (e.g. George Schultz). We can tackle this problem if voters demand that Congress put a price on carbon and pass those funds onto the consumer. Become a Climate Voter.
63
Carbon tax proceeds should go to pay to remove the taxed carbon from the atmosphere, and to pay other external costs such as extraction cleanup. When high density energy storage is needed, the full cost might be worth paying.
Response to ejhuff - If you don't pass the funds to consumers, the poor and middle class will suffer, because the fossil fuel industries will respond by raising the cost of fossil fuels to the consumers. But models have shown that the lower classes, with a smaller carbon footprint, will actually come out ahead if the funds are divided equally among US households.
Just another in a very long list of policies that will need to be reversed once sanity returns. Is there someone in the Trumpolini gang tasked with finding the next nasty thing to be done to the planet and it's citizens?
3
Don't these climate change deniers in Washington, DC and statehouses around the country have children and grandchildren? I feel like a broken record, but it is astounding to me that they are unconcerned about what the future will bring for their own progeny, let alone the rest of us. A neighbor of mine seriously told me once that we will be able to find another planet to inhabit after we destroy this one. The level of delusion is mind blowing.
5
Republicans have absolutely no interest is climate change because they can make more money at the present time on fossil fuels.
7
Those states are forming a more-perfect union.
Other states: please join in!
3
Considering that a 2016 Forbes magazine article says oil and gas subsidies run $10 billion to $52 billion, it would seem that the oil and gas industry are whiners who want to trade a trifle $75 million for our planet's health. I guess that's all the planet's worth to them. For $75 million, I think we could do a fundraiser to buy our planet back from disaster, right?
1
All local planets warm and cool, probab;y dou to activitiy in our Sun. But the actual history of major hurricanes strongly suggests that there is no relationship at all between anything humanity has done and the occurence of the major storms.
Blame Mr. Obama if you need a bad guy. He changed NOTHING in the real environment while throwing tax money away to make himself look good on the international stage.
The Paris Accords? An absolute joke with NO actual requirements for any county.It's time to be honest about all of this.
I watched 15 minutes of the hurricane coverage by 3 different reporters on the scene and in the studio and not once was climate change or global warming mentioned. News organizations do not connect the dots which means fewer citizens connect the dots.
2
"President Trump rolls back policies designed to address global warming."
Trump rolls back anything and everything that President Obama did. President Obama dared to criticize trump at that dinner so trump will do everything he can to eliminate anything Obama did.
Everyone with a love of our country, no matter what party you belong to, must vote this November and get the GOP out of Congress. Put Democrats in the majority in both the House and the Senate. I know that's a tall order but we can do it if we all get out and vote.
3
"Trump ignores"
If he can control the weather, why doesn't he make it rain in my area? Or is he not also a god of little things? More troubling, the entire field of Democratic candidates is silent on the problem. Is it a problem? Then it must be preached from the housetops, lest we all perish. But alas, how many true believers are there? Winter is upon us soon, and how do you preach warming to a man who is cold. We dwell, I fear, in a land of unbelievers. Scoffers to boot. They revel in their doubts, and the worst mocker is their greatest hero. Worse, they seem to be hardening.
@shreir
As this editorial remembers, in real life Obama and the Democrats not only initiated the Paris Climate Agreement and then successfully managed to unite the entire world, Democrats also just had a major summit on this issue, with Democratic governors promising to continue to act to slow down climate change even when the GOP does everything to increase it.
So imho, if you believe that "the entire field of Democratic candidates is silent on the problem", imho it's time to take out those earplugs ... ;-)
3
The short sightedness of this is truly mind boggling. It doesn't take a climate scientist to tell us that severe weather of all kinds is becoming more extreme. The scientist ability to link it to human activities is becoming irrefutably more accurate.
Further more the nation that develops the technology to address climate change will control the next century.
We are surrendering those goals to other nations, like China. Renewable energies, (wind solar, tidal, thermal), Super efficient batteries, (longer life- immediate recharge), Smart Grid, etc. could be creating the economy for the next century, and we are busy making "coal great again." Golly, why not bring back the steam engine?
Furthermore natural disasters are going to become budget busters EVERY year from now on. Florence is only the first of the season. Imagine two or three of these a year, worse what if it came to the same area?
We have a president that thinks its a hoax, and many of his supporters do to, including many without power right now. Its mind numbing people can be that stupid.
Action must begin now, the more we wait the harder it gets exponentially.
6
This is silly. One weather event proves nothing either way. Just checked the national hurricane center and there is one other storm out there -- dissipating tropical depression joyce. While we still have about 6 weeks to go in the atlantic hurricane season, the odds are we won't get many more major hurricanes formed.
Last year we had six major hurricanes but that wasn't particularly unusual. We've had years with 4 or more major hurricanes going back to the 19th century -- when hurricanes (as 97% of climate scientists) were under reported. Before that we don't know do we?
Alarmist screeds like this will never convince skeptics -- because they are off the wall. Some of the deadliest and largest wildfires occurred in the 19th century.
Sure, the climate scientists believe that if sea temps go up that hurricane intensity will increase. But it will take years upon years of future hurricane data to show whether this is actually true and if sea temps rise as forecast.
Unfortunately, the Times is no longer an objective source of news or fact based opinion. It's a partisan rag.
@Ralphie
Science has proven that hurricanes are becoming more intense (flooding that goes further than ever before, water volumes increasing) for years already.
Here's a good start, IF you want objective information (and supposing that you're serious when you claim to indeed want this kind of stuff ... ):
http://uk.businessinsider.com/carbon-dioxide-record-human-health-effects...
2
The large dump of rain from a hurricane event is just one consequence of climate change. the droughts or the opposite, the record rainfall are another. The glacier and ice cap melts are adding to ocean levels. These are the noticeable, tangible results that the general populace can understand.
Add to that the stress of draining the planet's health through waste plastics, chemical poisons, over population, natural resource destruction that includes over farming, building and mineral extraction and the result is a slowly depleted earth.
Think of it this way, many people smoke cigarettes and seem perfectly healthy. After 50 years of smoking, the long abuse becomes an incurable cancer. Just looking at the world through an air conditioned room with glass windows looking at what seems a normal day, does not reveal to the average person the growing, accumulating deterioration of the planet's system. The tipping point is here. The patient is ill if you could see below the surface.
1
@Ana Luisa Science hasn't proven anything about hurricanes. If there is more flooding it is due to development, destruction of wetlands, subsidence. Hurricanes have not become more intense. We aren't have more major hurricanes now than we did over 100 years ago. Weather events vary from year to year. And we would need years of data showing increases in storm intensity and other data on flooding, rain amts, etc. Not a couple of events.
As for the correlational graph showing temps and CO2 increases, here's the US max temp avgs since 1895:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series/110/tmax/12/12/1895-2...
Note that temps went up until the 1930's, declined until the 1980's, then went back up. It's cyclical and varies a lot from year to year. The US has a much better temp record than the global temp data set which is based on estimates. If there was a strong relationship between Co2 levels and temps -- why the year to year variation -- why the cycles?
Also, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. No one disputes that. But we've only been measuring it for a short period accurately and only from a few locations. And it's not the only thing that influences climate.
Mr.Trump is determined to overturn the world order.He wants to build huge walls on our southern border, he intends to change world trade by imposing tariffs on China and he is happy to tear up any treaty that the United States has negotiated in good faith.The unstoppable force of climate change will humble him.He cannot change it or call it fake news- it is with us in full force and thousands of citizens are feeling the full fury of a climate degraded by carbon gases.People understand the devastation of fires and floods.
1
This nation of deniers should just arch our proud backs, stick-out our peacock chests, and bellow our "USA, USA, USA" chant into the heavens every time we step outside.
We, ALL, might as well look ridiculous together because we're, ALL, are messing this place up together. So, 14 December, the day George Washington died of acute laryngitis, we make it "All Fools Day".
Along morning commute, we spot the biggest, prettiest guzzlers, like we're judging a dog show, and ask "How many miles, do you drive a year?" And clap and applaud loud for high numbers and boo for low numbers.
At lunch, we will celebrate any coal ash ponds that collapsed that year. If none, we can still applaud the unlined pits that are leaching toxic water. We'll laugh about all kinds of toxic discharges because they're funny like our President.
We'll hoot and holler for intensional releases of pollutants, especially if no goes to jail. EVEN BETTER - if we have no government information because industry now self-regulates - we satisfy all questions with a simple chorus of "Lock Her Up".
That night, if we can, we'll light a river on fire and we'll invite the Governor and President for a marshmallow roast. Bring your kids and let's have all the moms wear "I DIG COAL" t-shirts.
Hopefully, snow is on the ground for 14 December, All Fools Day. We'll make enough snowballs for a year's worth of Show and Tell school reports. Look, no global warming! USA, USA, USA!
3
Well, I can offer a small bit of solace in the leaky methane issue.
My NASA scientist spouse has invented a small hand-carry, real-time measurement methane sensor called OPLS (Open Path Laser Spectrometer) supported by the fossil fuel industry. OPLS can also be attached to a drone and flown at various heights and into areas where humans cannot easily tread.
Based on NASA Mars technology, OPLS has found a manufacturer and is moving rapidly beyond the prototype phase and into fine-tuning for production. Business and industry have already placed orders and activist groups have expressed interest.
Capturing methane leaks is not only valuable for saving the future of the planet but increases safety and profits.
Industry knows this and has not been emboldened by Trump's EPA to postpone movement toward cleaner energy and implementing inventions like OPLS.
In this case, at least, science is trumping Trump.
5
The gutting of regulations to limit coal burning power plant pollution means that western states like Wyoming means that the giving to northwestern New England states the gift of acid rain will resume!
1
The companies could just ignore Trump's foolishness and
work towards cleaner energy on their own. It's not as if Trump is passing a law against clean energy.
@Robert McKee
Doing so means investing, and that temporarily creates a disadvantage with rival companies who invest in higher production instead.
That's why the Paris Climate Agreement exists and why we need political action. A law mandating ALL companies to stop polluting levels the playing field, that's why it's efficient.
3
It is a global worry when those at the highest echelon of power in the most advanced Nation refuse to listen to reasonable voices.This Editorial article is another prudent advice regarding the climate related threat the human race faces.Having pristine , untampered domain as wide as possible is a necessity to continued existence, not a luxury.In the US as well as the developed World Obesity,type 2 Diab,etc. are taking Epidemic proportion, even in nations with rising Economy.Few yrs back at my dad's birth place, some 200K from here,I got potato seeds planted a hand full Seminary and high Sch students with peasant back ground did the planting, the weeding and the caring, they were using as fertilizer animal refuses,ashes, etc.i.e organic fertilizers.The potatoes whether U mad a soup with it or just ate some 3 of them with the typical spicy Ethiopian Pepper(aka Mitmita) they are god sent and make U forget flavorful dairy or meat related dishes and moreover they r normal weight friendly dishes.One typical feature of where I got the Potatoes and other Veggies produced is that hardly any vehicles pass in the nearby vicinity, no Industry, etc.,meaning the soil and the surrounding air the plants,partly,feed is Natural.The point of all of these is not just people in the developed World and else where too we need to protect and preserve whatever is left of the unperturbed natural domains, keep our surrounding climate as pure as possible.Health cost will erase all Eco gain.TMD.
Trump’s rollback of carbon regulations will hardly matter in the big and long term picture of climate change. It’s a hiccup, nothing more. He will learn about his irrelevance soon, and that’s a good thing as well. However the US will miss the technology train to a carbon free future. Innovation and industries will go to countries with a clear framework of an regenerative energy policy, such as the EU and China. That’s where they expect the most predictable return on their investment. Over the long run the US will be dependent on importing the technology. But hey, we can pay by exporting more soy beans and pork. We just need to lower the tariffs again, one day.
34
Please don't careless use the word "Washington" as if it's some monolithic thing. The problem is with the GOP and trump. Each time you use "Washington" in this way, you feed anti-government sentiment. Other than political appointees at the EPA, EPA employees are doing their jobs trying to protect the environment. And residents of "Washington" are generally quite progressive when it comes to the environment, and our local laws and incentives underline that point.
114
To say small steps aren’t going to make a difference is like saying my one vote isn’t going to make a difference. Small steps together from varying sources amounts to big steps. Green cars, no methane put out, clean energy from wind, are just a few small step that can make a big difference when it comes to reducing global warming.
47
The Trump White House is the end of the line for deniers. After we, the people, get rid of Trump and his no-brainer Cabinet, I strongly believe the next elected president and his/her cabinet will address climate change head-on, as will most governors across the country. Why? Because it is now overwhelmingly evident to most Americans that climate change is a fact . We now have proof as so many friends and family are impacted by wildfires, floods, incessant rainfall, incessant drought, and other extreme weather events. It has (finally) become personal, and people are waking up to the truth of climate change.
83
Just before the Deep Water Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama had a press conference and announced they were opening up all of the South East to offshore drilling because due to technology, pollution from drilling doesn't happen anymore. Then after that horrible event, they called off the expansion of drilling, though Trump recently revived it. The Republicans are so bad that we forget how bad the Democrats are. California and other state and local democrats present exceptions to the rule but the yielding of our future to the interests of Big Oil had been a bi-partisan project right down the line. Voters have to call out every candidate, early and often, their are very few good guys out there. Money talks - especially to our politicians.
35
@Arthur
I strongly disagree that Democrats are of comparable ilk.
President Obama joined with China to lead every nation in the world (possibly except Syria) to sign the Paris Climate Accord - which is the world's first decent step. Though it's not yet enough, it has a built-in improvement mechanism.
He and his EPA implemented the greatly improved methane capture for gas fracking - because methane is 25 times as bad as carbon.
They implemented (40%?) smog reduction rules which will save over 4000 lives annually, and had begun to research reduction in airplane pollution.
They put out the first guidelines clean water impacting, I think, smaller streams.
And much more.
The Trump administration has reversed all they can.
As Speaker, Ms. Pelosi reversed some errors in language giving oil companies undeserved benefits. She was instrumental in getting the 2009? economic stimulus which included some environmental research.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry went on a junket to Africa advising them to develop with fossil fuels rather than clean energy. (Obama's first energy secretary was a Nobel laureate.)
Like you, I'd like to see complete sustainability.
But remember that in 2008 the American and Western economies collapsed, and the leaders saw a need to get people back to work. That meant they maybe couldn't rush to ban fracking and Keystone and drilling, not just for fear of political backlash but actually sinking the economy and with it the nation.
1
The Times editorial overestimates the adequacy of Obama's policies. Not only do they not fulfill the terms of the Paris climate agreement, but that agreement itself is very much too little too late. Look at what leading climate scientists like James Hansen, Robert Watson, and Kevin Anderson have to say about Paris and about our current predicament. The Times editorial in that sense is very much part of the problem, as the relative lack of alarm and concern among the comments demonstrates.
4
The industrialized world needs to put a price on carbon in order to apply market forces to move us to a sustainable economy. Many business leaders are in favor of this approach, including some from the fossil fuel industry who are willing to couple it with protection from lawsuits related to damage caused by climate change. Whatever the strategy, we need to move forward with a tax on carbon, including carbon from fossil fuels, industrial uses, and animal agriculture.
7
So this is the legacy the Trump Administration and its enablers want to leave for children? For what? More power, more money? These rollbacks are the heartless unconscious decisions of people out-of-touch with reality and the sacredness of the life. How can we help them regain sanity?
7
When methane (CH4) breaks down, it combines with oxygen to produce water and carbon dioxide, which are both greenhouse gases. While it's important to acknowledge that methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long as other greenhouse gases, it is also important to clarify that it doesn't just disappear.
11
I have always assumed that advertising was an effective way to steer consumers toward one's products.
I have noticed lately the reports that demonstrate that inefficient SUVs and trucks are now outselling more traditional passenger cars.
Another thing I have noticed is that every automobile advertisement I see on television, with the sole exception of those advertising Volkswagen's Jetta, are selling people on SUVs and Trucks. Ford now is even stopping the manufacture of its regular cars save for the Mustang only, and some of those sedans were world-competitive in performance and efficiency.
But if one presumes that advertising is effecting in affecting consumer behavior, what would move automakers to try to push customers in the direction of the least efficient vehicles? Do API members defray part of the costs?
10
@Dr. Planarian
Change how we pay for gas. Using chips in cars and gas pumps. Each vehicle receives a designation of efficiency, 1-5 lest say. 1 most efficient, 5 least. Each of the five levels pays a different price for gas, 1 is the cheapest, 5 the most expensive. You want to see how fast consumers change their behaviors? Only to be followed by the industry.
3
The simple question is "why?" The death of the planet, which was only discussed in science fiction stories/books until 50-60 years ago, now seems quite possible, perhaps even likely. Why do these people, who are already so incredibly wealthy that they can buy anything in the world, need more? Why are they willing to sacrifice the planet, and the 7.6 billion people on it, so that they can have more money and more power? I can only conclude that lust for power has made them insensitive or insane...
26
Sometimes these climate pieces would do better to acknowledge the longer-term process we have seen over fifty years to reorient energy policy, and the genuine progress that has been made, rather than seizing on every weather event as yet another harbinger of doom and evidence of the treachery of those who refuse to leap to the barricades over each heat wave or tropical depression.
In any case, as your reference to "the coalition of the willing" makes plain, the trend is in favor of continued reductions of emissions. And whatever this administration does to tinker around the margins, regulatory, in terms of treaties or otherwise, is not going to alter significantly the general movement to respond to the "predicament," as you put it.
If Trump and the GOP encourage polluting our planet, consumer do have choices: they can buy due efficient cars, possibly manufactured elsewhere, weatherproof their homes, buy the most efficient home appliances, and install solar panels for their homes, etc. They can also educate others - and vote these polluters out of office.
9
@Konrad Gelbke, but much of the problem comes from the unelected bureaucrats who will remain in place after these polluters are voted out. It will take a new and far more enlightened president in 2020 to get rid of them, and in the meanwhile they still have two more years to work their nefarious ways.
1
'Uniting these leaders is a belief that human ingenuity can lead us out of a predicament that humans have helped create and a faith in collective action that is almost impossible to find on the Potomac.'
Humans are entirely responsible for the effects of burning fossil fuels, for the despoiling of the natural world by extractive industries, and for direct habitat destruction. And, importantly, further population increases only compound the problem.
Scientists have known the basics of human caused climate change for decades. More science merely refines the estimates and documents the consequences of our shortcomings.
We're destroying the planet for the benefit of a relatively few wealthy individuals who are acting in their short term financial interest. We're not doing it to save net jobs or improve quality of life.
And, as usual, the costs due to destructive climate effects will be absorbed by the victims and the tax paying public.
First, we need to restore climate sanity to our national and as many state governments as possible. The general public can act on its own, but it's essential to have government action of the types put in place by California and the Obama administration. The fossil fuel industries can help pay.
We also need moral and religious philosophies to emphasize preservation of the natural world. And this must include reducing human populations down to sustainable levels.
We only deserve dominion over the world to the extent we act responsibly.
9
The Republican Party will not budge on clinate change until it abandons its anti-government, anti-taxes, pro-fossil fuels agenda, and when is that likely to happen?
To take action on climate change beyond what individual states can do, requires a well-funded, robust, federal government response - exactly what the Republican Party has pushed as anathema for decades.
Not scientific data, not lives lost or billions in damage, not the evidence of their own eyes, will change the Republican Party's refusal to address climate change or even acknowledge its increasingly devastating impact on our world, because then they would have to admit that many problems cannot be fixed, many actions cannot be taken by entities other than government.
Continued undermining, underfunding, and interference with the efficient operating of government as pushed by the Republican Party is leaving climate change and environmental damage unchecked, our infrastructure crumbling, our health care, affordable housing, public education, immigration systems, wages, not to mention our underfunded social safety net, floundering to the point of crisis.
Until the Republican Party divorces itself from its anti-government/taxes/regulation dogma, the problems above will continue to worsen.
How bad will things get before the tipping point is reached and the American public stops buying into this bogus and harmful anti-government/anti-taxes meme?
It's anybody's guess.
14
Global Warming or Climate Change is, in fact, one of the ultimate Inconvenient Truths—especially for the US. We consume massively more energy per person than any other country. We are the largest producers of fossil fuels in the world. Sales of fossil fuels is one if the few real opportunities we have to increase exports and reduce the trade deficits. And it is the only opportunity we have to enhance tax revenues in a time when republicans have only one thing to sell—tax revenue cuts.
Any one of these makes it difficult for Americans to act. Combined it makes it impossible. So we lie and tell ourselves stories about future technical miracles or that god will violate the laws if physicts to save us if we just pray. Anything but act
The Chinese, the Indians, the Getmans, who are not ruch in fossil fuels and see disruptions in energy as a potential threat have huge incentives to invent the next energy revolution. Most of their energy demand will be new plants, new infrastructure. Ours is replacement of existing infrastructure. The US financial incentives are all towards resistance
Only money matters. We are not going to be a player. Too much money involved. Too many Exxon’s and Chevron’s and big coal’s with deep pockets and no morals who will do anything possible to get in the way. And too many politicians desparate for contributions
Let’s hope China and India can save the world We won’t
9
Thanks for calling attention to the President's dereliction of duty, along with his Cabinet members and Congressional Republicans. Many Republicans have led on this issue in the past, but they have now been primaried by Koch and other fossil fuel companies.
Consequences are likely to come from abroad. Europeans are furious- we spent last month in Paris- but everyone is incredulous. We are in a climate emergency, and the leader of the nation with the most scientific knowledge is denying basic physics. If this keeps up, the remedy will be boycotts of US exports; our "brand" has already been damaged.
The problem of methane leaks is not going to be addressed anytime soon. The natural gas companies want to remain competitive with clean energy, and think the public will believe their lie that its emissions are half of coal. So far they've been right, thanks to careless media and craven politicians.
Equally remiss is the behavior of political leaders in addressing land use emissions. Trump now wants to enlarge the size of timber clearcuts to 7,000 acres, which will lead to dessication, hotter fires, and hotter microclimates. All so we can consume 25% of the world's wood products, mostly for throwaway items like 2 x 4's. It's far worse than concrete or steel here (see IPCC country submittals).
I attended the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco. It was inspiring, but not aggressive. We need more climate warriors- the kind who will fight. [email protected]
165
@Mike Roddy
How do you fight the Kochs? Right now there is a carbon captured c02 fuel system available that would power existing cars developed by a company in Canada. Do you think it will be allowed in the US? The reactionary oil industry will prevent it. Companies should be throwing money at development of this and other innovations.
15
It doesn’t compare to what’s going on in the Carolinas right now, but here in the Midwest we’ve had our own taste of the climate-changing future lately. Nearly 20 inches of rain (over half our annual average) in the span of three weeks, flooded streets, homes, and parks, and all-time high lake levels that may mean massive shoreline damage when the lakes freeze in a few months. Meanwhile our Republican governor ordered the Department of Natural Resources to remove all references to climate change from its website. When willful ignorance becomes official government policy we’re in big trouble.
254
@Richard-I feel for you. Your governor is bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers who funded 10 different PACs to buy influence and use your state as an incubator for ALEC-style legislative assaults they could then take to other states. Now they are targeting voters in "cities and counties across the country — including Little Rock, Ark.; Phoenix, Ariz.; southeast Michigan; central Utah; and in Tennessee" to oppose plans to build light-rail trains, new bus routes, and other traffic-easing initiatives.
How the Koch Brothers Are Killing Public Transit Projects Around the ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit....
http://realkochfacts.com/the-koch-brothers-and-americans-for-prosperity-...
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/voter-suppression-may-have-...
--@Richard Willful ignorance has become the mantra of the Republican party since the Regan presidency. The shameful fact is that the elected Republicans are not stupid, just bought and paid for with pitilessly small sums of money. Follow the money, and you'll find yourself in the boardrooms of corporate America, where vast sums of money are dolled out to willing lackeys in almost every elected office in the country.
Did someone have an attack of conscience and show a bit of spine? No problem, it's inexpensive to support a more pliable minion in the next heavily gerrymandered primary and fix the "problem" while simultaneously setting an example for anyone else straying from the party line.
The only viable solution is to vote out every Republican from dog catcher to President. Replace them all now. VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!
Of course that same Republican governor is running around trying to demonstrate his concern for the people who've been impacted by the flooding and touting his efforts to help them recover. Doing anything to prevent even worse flooding in the future? Not so much.
For a number of reasons, reading this article makes me profoundly sad. First, I suppose, is the fact that it is a report on a noble, and almost certainly lost battle for the survival of the planet by a group of genuinely good people. So, part of my sadness is just the image of all those men and women and the great sorrow they must feel.
Second, and obviously, is the sadness for the children of tomorrow. I am 72 years old and three years ago my first and only grandchild was born. Pure grace. I feel ashamed to be leaving him this world that we have somehow gotten so wrong.
Finally, I am sad beyond consolation about the fact that the people who are reading this article, and the many others like it--the people who, like me, are reading the NYTimes and The New Yorker--are already attuned to the reality, already understand the problem and support the solutions.
The people with the money and the power to actually turn this around have other fish to fry.
306
@oldteacher, I am an old teacher--as is my wife of 50 years--and we both totally agree with you. The real challenge is reaching beyond the readers of the Times and New Yorker (and many others).
30
@oldteacher
I wouldn't worry about the planet, she's fine. It's just the human species that's going to disappear. Unfortunately, we seem determined to take as many of our fellow species as we can with us.
28
@Alison Cartwright Yes, and this determination arises from fear and ignorance of the value of the natural world of which we are a part. It is sad proof that scientists, naturalists and philosophers have not been able to get through to enough people, have not been able to explain what climate change is and what it will do in ways that enough people can understand. A failure of teaching methods, perhaps, but the biggest obstacle to understanding is the capitalist view in which ecosystems and their inhabitants are seen as "resources" from which profits can be made. The opposite view, which includes respect for the natural world and a willingness to share its wealth rather than gather and hoard it, is overshadowed by the idea that unlimited growth is desirable--but unlimited growth, as many have pointed out, is a property of cancer cells.
1
The Republicans like to maintain that they are not against environmental regulations. They claim that what they are against are burdensome, costly regulations that produce questionable benefits, if any. That's not what is going on here.
It is patently obvious to anyone that bothers to look, that Trump and his cabal of poison peddlers are pursuing a vendetta of Obama erasure. They are systematically dismantling everything President Obama did to protect the environment. There is no rationale being employed other than to dismantle Obama's legacy.
These gas leakage emissions are a prime example. They cost very little, especially compared to the savings they produce. Furthermore, the oil and gas industry already gets all manner of tax breaks and subsidies that total well over 10 billion dollars. But yet they can't use a tiny percentage of that money, less than 1%, to clean up methane leaks. It's not like they are all going broke either. These are some of the most profitable businesses in the world.
This assault therefore goes beyond reason. It's all about revenge. It's like when a murderer shoots his victim 30 times. The joy of doing the shooting is the motivation, not the resultant death. Trump is having too much fun killing all of us with climate destruction in his glee at getting back at Obama.
443
@Bruce Rozenblit
As Adam Smith said, the dead hand of the market needs the live hand of government to ensure capitalism functions for the good of society.
36
@Bruce Rozenblit: But wait, there's more! I've heard it argued that the methane problem is primarily due to farm animals and huntable species. That surprised me as I thought the guy would simply blame it on Hillary. I don't recall even noticing the large deer population in the Hamptons passing gas en masse, though if you've ever been to a cattle processing center or a hog farm you might think differently. This could be a new angle for those commercials about blue bears that use one particular brand of toilet tissue, if they introduced a biodegradable tie-in. I guess I'll never get used to the depth and breadth of ill will towards Obama that one party seems to cling to for dear life. Given the aggrieved pin cushion of doubt and insecurity now in the oval, it's being focused like a laser through his distorted vision of the world. Apparently he spends his nights not just talking to portraits, looking in the mirror and tweeting, but coming up with new ways to tear down anything and everything Obama did, or even tried. With FEMA, like most federal agencies, on the ropes, how can we be expected to prepare for and deal with a cat. 6 effluent storm of an administration? Duck and cover won't cut it. He's not just shooting the victim 30 times, he's posting pics of the corpse on social media.
3
@Bruce Rozenblit. I believe the motivation is primarily economic. The trashing Obama's legacy thing is just powdered sugar on top. Trump wants his rich buddies in the energy sector to get richer. He thinks it will make them like him better. He also knows they will continue filling the campaign coffers of the GOP if he does their bidding. It's actually pretty simple.
2
We are in a comparative LULL in America's history with major hurricanes. Why? Because our carbon diaxide production is unable to create any more global warming than the eons-lomg pattern of warming and cooling that the planet has always seen.
Just because your parents told you that you were very special doesn't mean that all of earth history began the day you were born. Sorry.
2
if you don't believe there is global climate change exacerbated by human activity that will adversely affect the planet,then at least look at other environmental damage caused by human activity. Mine tailings and industrial pollution, water contamination, air quality deterioration, over population using too much of earth's resources to the point where more is consumed than renewed leading to a net loss and toxic waste to just name a few abuses by mankind due to human greed and carelessness.
Government action and citizen activism is required if the human race wants to survive beyond the next few generations.
1
The population must shift power via the ballot box in order for humanity to make wholesale changes. When youth wake up to their generational molestation and vote 80-20 en masse then changes can be substantive and sustained.
2
Of all the emotions running through me election night the one that gripped me most was fear of what this madman would mean for the most critical priority of our time, the environment and climate. He has surpassed the foolishness that even my pessimism imagined. I weep for the coming generations.
The thought of ignoring learned scientists in favor of idiotic and corrupt politicians is beyond my understanding.
14
His great grandchildren will curse his name. Vote everyone
6
"The change in the methane rule is just plain dumb." No surprise here, especially in view of the now-incontrovertible evidence that everything the administration does is brain-dead, under the malign direction of dimwits. The foundation for such rank idiocy is a US Congress of feckless cowards.
Put all these elements together and we have given the country we purport to love a pure kakistocracy. It's almost funny, but not quite. The price for all the dunderheadedness will be steep. It will amuse nobody, not even the president.
8
Greed kills planet.
8
Don't worry, Americans have lots of guns to protect themselves!
3
No idea has merit unless it can produce a profit in 90 days.
Save the planet? Nope, takes too long. Save lives? Nope, no profit in it. Decrease misery, improve how people live? Once again, no way to profitize it.
But if we can make a quick buck, and the offset is long term disaster, well, we'll just burn that bridge when we get to it. Meanwhile, we have a few deposits to make int he Caymans.
We hear and see nature roaring, and we will ignore it. Over the weekend, I had a debate with some of my family over memes demonstrating that CNN and the Weather Channel images showing the reporters to be exaggerating the hurricane conditions where they were. The debate wasn't over the idiot newsmen, but over the blogger spreading the images - an staunch anti-climate change advocate. His point was to equate the idiocy of the reporters with proof that climate change is a hoax.
There is money in denial, but the profit from conserving the planet is long term and too far out to be a good investment. Expect more of the same. The future comes in 90 day Wall Street cycles. 50 years and we are out of time? Oh well. Carpe Diem.
13
Climate change is the new fundamentalist religion. The faithful kneel to it and every weather system is a sign!
1
@M
A religion is based on non falsifiable and not objectively proven hypotheses.
That means that it's up to any individual to decide for himself whether to use it, concretely, in your own life, or not.
Science, however, is a professional activity that leads to objectively proven truths.
Climate science is part of that.
"Objectively proven" means that any one can learn the skills to verify for himself, and no matter what your initial believes are, once you do the same tests, you'll obtain the same results.
Many Nobel prize winners in the category of physics are religious people. None of them confounds religion and science however.
Any ordinary citizen who want's to behave in a rational and morally responsible way shouldn't either.
5
A better title for this articles would have been "Nature Roars, Washington Ignores."
Ho hum. So what else is new? All we can do is comfort our fellow passengers, arrange the deck chairs, and, hopefully, ride the ship down in relative comfort.
4
Trump: Unfit for All Seasons
7
Did the Obama Administration even happen?
3
David Koch is an evil man for working with his even more evil brother Charles to completely poison the earth. As if $96 Billion (David and Charles) was not enough wealth, they had to make Pine Bend more profitable, by forcing the end to government regulation to protect people's health and the earth's weather stability. NO amount of donations to hospitals and museums will make up for this. And David, you can't take it with you! But humanity will rue your life and its residual on the earth....
12
WHEN TRUMP DEPARTS HIS OFFICE--Which cannot happen too soon for many of us, we'll be stuck cleaning up his toxic mess born of ignorance, greed, stupidity and sadism. He's all for the 1%, but too dumb to realize that the 1% breathe the same polluted air and drink the same polluted water humans require to survive. What his policies hasten is continued fires, storms, earthquakes and winds that will ravage the earth. Trump is engaging in a scorched Earth policy, abusing executive privilege as a means of leaving as much destruction after he is gone from office as he possibly can. (DISCLAIMER: The remarks about Trump leaving office are in recognition of the fact that no president--no elected official--holds office forever. Yes, Supreme Court justices hold their positions for a lifetime. But they are appointed, NOT elected. No harm is intended toward the person of the president.)
8
Don't expect the dunces in the GOP to either read this piece or, if they do, either understand nor show a desire to do anything about it. These are retrograde humanoids, not people. Someone slipped a steamer in the gene pool table. These genetic mistakes are unable to reason or think. Picture those foaming at the mouth, MAGA hat wearing sub humans, yelling "lock her up" months after the election. Are those the reactions of the thinking man? I think not. The oil industry has been burning off natural gas for over 50 years now. Think of all the energy wasted. You think reason will change their minds now. Forget it. Re education camps might be our only hope.
9
Trump fiddles while the planet burns.
5
That's $75 million that could go into some rich guy's wallet! How dare the sniveling liberal elites deny profit. Besides it's all a bigly Chinese hoax right?
And all the people in the Carolinas who have flooded homes? It's their fault in the eyes of Rand Paul - that bastion of libertarian American you're on your own. Meanwhile the rich and powerful are building their doomsday shelter compounds down under in New Zealand - just in case don't you know.
The GOP 1% want their money, all of it, and they will get it anyway they can. And Mother Nature is a woman - no respect there either.
1
Trump’s assignment (his bargain with the devil) is to destroy America. He’s being propped up by those who agree with his destructive realignment, who join him on a list of traitors to America including the Republicans in office who will not stop him and in fact support his dreranged thinking to advance our demise. They must be voted out or they may succeed.
4
Republicans' anti-science talking points will all be drowned out when Mother Nature gets the last word.
8
I seen what lack of climate regs can do to the environment.
Trump only care about Trump.
http://www.appalachianhistory.net/2017/08/acid-rain-devastates-tennessee...
3
Ever feel like the government doesn't represent you?
Did you vote?
7
Nature roars. Republicans hear nothing.
6
Yet another completely stupid move from the Chump Administration based on the adulation factor for the "President" flowing from a narrow, angry faction of American Voters .
8
We should ALL be very afraid of Mother Nature's increasing fury, and the GDOP should be VERY afraid of 5th Avenue's fury at the polls.
3
The worst intentional evil of Trump personally and of this administration--and of the industrialists who actually know that they are spreading lies- is their aggressive encouragement and exploitation of ignorance and confusion about the effect of the massive increase of hydrocarbons in our atmosphere. It is criminal.
9
The quixotic approach of the Global Climate Action Summit to improve the disasters the Times speculates are caused by global warning will fail unless the fairy tale believers force China and India to comply.
...the change pretty much completes the demolition job on Mr. Obama’s climate strategy...
The strategy remains, only it's execution has been temporarily delayed due to the moron in control.
7
The evil Trump must end
Perhaps we’re using the wrong words to describe the ultimate results of uncontrolled global warming. How about the words “stifling heat,” “premature death,” and “rotting flesh?”
5
I attended an environmental college. Global warming is real. Other countries would send their representatives to our conferences and agreed. Ignorance may be bliss for Trump and Republicans but it won't be for the planet. I don't understand why they ignore this. Too much money from oil companies? Selling our country for a few shekels? Selling their children's future? Thinking their god will save them? Disgusting.
7
There is an idea called The Precautionary Principle. Basically, it goes kind of like this. Instead of waiting for the roof of your house to fall down on you; you maintain it and/or fix it. There is a benefit to paying attention (& money) to your home's roof.
Cleaning our air, land & water has a payoff to every living thing on earth. Forget about whether you believe climate change is man made or not. It doesn't matter. A cleaner earth benefits us all. Waiting for our planet to be mortally wounded before we take action is stupid.
Even an idiot can understand this. I don't know if conservative politicians, Trump or the Koch brothers can understand this, but an idiot can.
9
Well, being the Presidunce is a Russian stooge, this all makes perfect sense.
4
The Russians are on record saying they want climate change to accelerate. Then they can exploit even more methane from the arctic and Siberia. The greed ain’t just American. The future is very bleak for the flora and fauna of this blue planet. It will reset, life will continue, but without homo idiots.
7
Signs and portents went out of style during the enlightenment. Is the board going too start examining entrails and reading tea leaves?
The Atlantic Ocean is hot as a McDonald's French fry and the coast of NC is a lake, and yet, MAGA voters (there) predominate. Is everyone in the South slow on the uptake or just deprived because of poor education? The Trump White House is pouring coal soot into your lungs and you inhale cancer causing particles willingly. Maybe, voting in the South is counterproductive to wellbeing due to self-hate and loathing.
6
Trump and his base are the blind leading the blind.They will quickly fall into a ditch.Hopefully they will not take us all down with them.
3
I have no idea how long it will take to clean up the mess the GOP has made, including placing Donald Trump in the White House.
It's really hard to tell what they excel at most: incompetence, blind determined stupidity, or greed.
4
Trump's ignorant attitude is not only dumb but malevolent and racist, as man-made Climate change is already biting our 'behinds', the increased frequency and severity of natural disasters (droughts, floods, fires, etc) easily demonstrated, and Obama's wisdom brought forth. How is it even possible that one man's willful stupidity can have such a negative impact on a world phenomenon dooming our future? And how come the U.S., one of the largest polluters on Earth, can look to others with a straight face, while making their lives miserable with disasters they seem unable to cope with? World injustice in the making?
5
It is not "plain dumb." The denial of global warming and human accelerated climate change by the repugnant man in the White House is not due to his ignorance of the facts. It is his willful decision to do these things: his glee in opening the spigots for methane emissions and demolishing the rest of Obama's climate strategy. These simply add to his many despicable actions driven by a fascist's hatred of Obama because of the color of his skin. The awful Mr. Trump willfully contributes to the ill health and increased early mortality of countless individuals. Would some other despot in a faraway country instigate such actions against its populace she/he would be accused of a crime against humanity. So should the dreadful Mr. Trump be so accused. It's no wonder his lickspittle buddy Mr. Bolton vilifies the International Criminal Court.
9
This jerk Trump can’t even speak intelligently beyond his fifth grade vocabulary. So who’s shocked that the moron doesn’t believe the science of global warming? You and I cannot change the Oval Office until 2020. But we can change Congress in a few weeks with the midterm elections. If our Members of Congress won’t take action to advance human intervention to mitigate continued environmental damage, you and I must act. You and I must vote. We are out of time. Running out of viable options. If you live in Florida right now, you get it. Just venture outside and smell the death of our sea life. Observe the empty beaches and lost tourism dollars. Struggle with our respiratory issues.
Watch the news. Summer storms, winter storms, wildfires, flooding, draughts, melting icebergs, extreme temperatures. Heck,you don’t need the news. Walk outside. Pay attention in your own neighborhood. People have been saying global warming is a lot of hooey for decades. That hooey is undeniably becoming a dangerous gamble. Sea levels are rising. Our attention is needed, and needed now.
7
A more humid than normal summer and a run of the mill hurricane and you blame it on global warming. Seriously? There is no linkage.
1
It may come to pass that President Trump and the Republicans policies of borrow, spend, cut taxes on the rich, explode the deficit and go all out with a trade war will cut emissions more than any plans of Obama. By the means of a huge, tremendous, historic recession that cuts emissions by savaging an economy overheating on debt, in a country led by fools, charlatans and liars.
2
Paired with a New Yorker article on the hurricane-induced floods, and overflowing effluence from North Carolina's hog farms, this editorial should (but, sadly, won't) awaken climate-change deniers to the disasters on their very doorsteps. What to expect of a population hypnotized by a raving madman bent on destroying everything in his path?
5
Though Trump appears to espouse no religion other than the base worship of money, his policies indicate a Satanic orientation. As in a quote from a 1950s movie where the Evil One says to Christ upon the mount, "And I will give you all these things, if you will but bow down and worship me." Like so many wealthy people throughout the ages, Trump has chosen wealth over goodness in every instance. Are we surprised that he would wreak havoc and abet destruction of our planet?
4
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair
Or in this case when his campaign contributions from Big Energy depend on it. Meanwhile, Congressmen and Senators, have a Koch and a smile and be glad your basement isn't one that's flooded.
7
Only willful ignorance, mercenary politics, corruption, and theological nihilism could lead to the lack of environmental concern if not alarm shown by this government. TY to the NYT editorial board for offering a critique that should not even require drafting were it only that this administration had a conscience.
6
The elements are offering a rebuke which is falling on deaf ears. trump is clueless, his “administration” has clapped its hands over its ears as it dismantles environmental regulations, and trump’s blind followers in Kansas, Wyoming and similar places weren’t affected by Florence, so the reports of flooding and lives lost are all fake news filled with crisis actors.
Tomorrow trump will tweet about another A+ grade for disaster management, then follow that with a tweet about how manafort is a traitor.
3
Who is "Washington"? Why aren't you right up front and just be clear, as the editorial discusses, that it is Republicans? There is no "Congress" when it come to almost any policies. There are Dems and Republicans. Please stop using terms that have no meaning anymore.
1
This is anti-scientific claptrap.
The idea that climate is being materially run off its natural course by human activity is wrong. How much of the CO2 and methane in the atmosphere is being "created" by human activity? very little. How much methane leaks from those same underground sources? massive quantities. Where did the CO2 being released from hydrocarbons come from? largely deposits from times when CO2 was more prevalent.
These questions and more (i.e., read about Holocene temperatures and climate dynamics) and it becomes clear what a bunch of anthropocentrism is in these flimsy "models." We are causing it... sure. Burn Galileo Galilei for the outrage of suggesting that Earth is not the center of the universe. This methane is immaterial.
Temperatures are climbing and the Earth is becoming vastly more fertile, just like controlled growing environments (scientifically designed) saturate for CO2. This paper is full of Malthusian dystopian fantasies. Misinformation posing as enlightenment.
Is there any proof the the hurricanes are caused by or made worse by global warming? This sounds like more Al Gore scare mongering.
@James
Yes, as a matter of fact. Short term hurricane prediction is a very sophisticated and accurate art. So this group ran their models on Florence without global warming. That is, with a cooler ocean. The results show that it would have had 50% less rain, and a diameter 50 miles smaller.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/first-ever-pre-storm-study-looks...
One of the study's author's wrote: “More analyses are needed to assess the robustness of this quick analysis, although the basic result that global warming increases the precipitation is a very robust one supported by observations and modelling studies.”
@James
There's a lot of proof out there.
Here's another link summarizing the current situation in the science community:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/20...
It is encouraging and good news that the “coalition of the willing” is attempting to respond to our warming climate. It appears to be bipartisan among the states and local governments which are involved.
Sadly, frustrating and infuriating is the negative response by the national GOP. They are proving to be a racist party whether attempting to undo every Obama piece of legislation or in their treatment of immigrants. Trump is not alone. The House and Senate leadership is equally guilty of racist actions.
The national GOP is DUM. Their unwillingness to listen to and accept the science on climate change is so contrary to the nations of the world to be dangerously stupid. The GOP is DUMMER. Their unwillingness to protect the water and air quality for Americans is harmful to our health. The GOP is DUMMEST as they fail to take advantage of the financial gains to be made supporting renewable energy.
It is difficult to understand why the GOP refuses to address the long term financial cost to governments (federal, state, local) , home owners and insurance companies as more crippling storms affect so many homes, businesses, infrastructure, health, etc.
The GOP is not only a danger to Americans, but our planet. The National GOP is unfair to our world.
5
When Trump and Melania take their “thoughts and prayers” tour down here to NC in the next few days, I hope they bring rolls of the Extra Absorbent paper towels - and lots of them.
6
We couldn't have elected a worse president. I was just reading in a scientific article that because of US Republican administration foot-dragging and denial over the past 30 years, it's too late to reverse the death and destruction of climate change. All we can hope to do is slow it down. Think about that. We have a very greedy man in the White House who at age 72, still thinks he isn't rich enough. His friends are the same - old men who are already billionaires but who cannot bear the thought of losing a penny down a sewer grate.
6
This is beyond sad. And it was so easily avoided. All Hillary had to do was beat Donald Trump. But she was the victim of a perfect electoral storm that resulted in the election of the biggest fool in America. So many little things - that were so easily avoided - have given Republicans the power to put corporate industrial interests ahead of the ecosystem that supports all life known to us. Worse yet, the help being given to industry is being given when they're making oodles of money. There are no signs that Obama's regulations were harming their businesses. This is the cruelest moment in Republican history. Yet, Americans keep voting for these thieves. It's probably too early to say the sky is falling, but it certainly has holes in it.
4
Ah, yes. A category 1 hits NC and the NYTimes points the finger at Trump.
And people wonder why conservative moderates take your arguments less seriously than Trump's.
Yes, of course, nature roars, and Trump does not hear. But it is not only nature that is roaring and apparently not being heard. The natural gas system in Andover and Lawrence MA roared, but nobody seems to be listening.
See http://www.wbur.org/news/2018/09/13/multiple-explosions-fires-lawrence-a... and then go to the 2 NYT stories and the 200 comments at each.
WBUR - 20 to 25 homes on fire, 1000s urged to evacuate, map showing 70 sites of fires, leaking gas, concern.
I went to the Times stories to write my own comments, expecting to see many pointing to the need to move on, end growth of the NG pipeline octopus, turn to renewable energy.
Surprise! That is not at all what I found. Most US based commenters, with one exception, simply responded by writing:Fix the NG system, let it grow.
To do so is to support the fossil-fuel industry and, perhaps unwittingly, ignore what is in today's column and declare that Donald Trump is right, whatever the climate change or on-the-ground hazards, use more gas.
One lone voice, Portia from MA understood the lesson, writing on 9/14:
"You know what never explodes? Solar panels... Install an energy-efficient heat pump... heat and cool your house year round. Clean! No fossil fuel emissions helping to power monster hurricanes! Cheap too! Mothball the pipelines -- we have better tech now."
117 Recommended
Where were the rest of you? Listen to Portia and act.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
7
Oh, as if Trump even cared that he was doing something that might negatively impact climate. I doubt that the content of these changes even made a blip on his radar. The ONLY thing that matters to him and his cultists is undoing anything and everything within his power that Obama accomplished, that's it. The only thing that matters to these people is negating the legacy of the first black president at all costs. Its as if they are trying to erase the fact that Obama was even elected. As if this black man didn't even exist. Which is no doubt what they would prefer happen to every non-white person in the country: not exist.
4
your graphic says it all, a Washington completely captured by the fossil fuel industry. and Trump, it's as if an Al Capone figure completely captured Chicago. What a joke that he should be making Supreme Court nominations.
4
Mock christians* focus on Trump as Cyrus...they should reaquaint themselves with the story of Noah...
*a play on MACHiavellian -the end justifies the means-since these people worship money in complete contradiction to the pre-mega money church christianity thus they are mocking the religion...what’s left of it.
3
The press (and we) are so easily distracted by Trump when we need to concentrate on the evil being done by his Republican enablers and point this out to those who would otherwise be cynical or complacent. "Out of the hot tubs and into the streets!"
1
As a foreigner I had to read this sentence several times in disbelief - because what kind of a crule comedian could make an agency with this name make this kind of decision? "...The Environmental Protection Agency proposed weakening rules aimed at reducing leaks of methane from oil and gas operations".
6
Washington hears nothing because VOTERS hear nothing. What will it take for flooded eastern NC voters, overwhelmingly fanatical Trump voters, to face their complicity in what has befallen them from nature, because of their decades-long fight against efforts to curb the climate change that is ruining them?
3
I guess there were never hurricanes or hot weather before "global warming." Who knew?
1
It is my sincerest hope that Trump lives long enough to see everything that he has tried to do in dismantling Obama's legacy undone. I hope that he also lives long enough to know how despised he is, both in contemporary times and historically, and how he will forever be considered a failure and a charlatan, especially when compared to Obama. Indeed, I suspect that this small, pitiful little man understands, somewhere in his heart, that he is truly pathetic beside Obama. That is one of the reasons he is trying so desperately to erase his predecessor .
4
The Trump administration is all about selling custom legislation and regulations for campaign financing. Whether it’s methane emissions or glider trucks, ... Overruling the greater good never had a smaller, stupidly low price tag.
It’s just ridiculous and needs to end. Let’s get the iconoclasts in the red States back on board with an agenda that serves everyone (i.e. economic), so we need to stop making the liberal agenda only about social progress just because it serves the old liberal elite and their backers who don’t like unions.
Thank you NYTimes for pointing out the absurdity of the methane rule rollbacks the Trump admistrayion is about to start pushing. Why would the industry want to waste a valuable resource, one that’s extra-potent as a greenhouse agent when released through leaks? Why would government refuse to regulate an industry when it refuses to implement best practices that would actually save it money, and help the greater good, when the science is clear and getting clearer? The Trump administration’s actions on methane are the clearest signs yet that its energy policy is being set by a sadistic, suicidal cult of know-nothings who can’t be bothered to change their ways, even if the future of the planet hangs in the balance. They have forfeited any credibility of the natural gas “bridge;” it’s time to kick these clowns and their cronies out of power for good and go for 100% renewable power.
3
The California Summit was a refreshing event. Brown and Bloomberg have to be congratulated for their vision and efforts. However it is to be noted that the US and other governments and societies are not yet fully facing the consequences of a looming climate catastrophe notwithstanding the fact that some moderate progress is being made.
One way that human ingenuity can lead us out of our dire future predicament is to transform the international money system that is about to repeat the 2008 financial crisis. Basing this unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system on the carbon standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person is an ingenuous way to solve both unsustainable global systems at the same time. For details on the conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of this carbon-based international monetary system see Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and www.timun.net.
An outstanding climate specialist and noted economics author declared in 2011: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.” Bill McKibben, May 17, 2011
1
The proliferation of more frequent and dangerous hurricanes notwithstanding, lest we forget we have to breathe this junk and suffer it's resultant horrible medical consequences.
1
I think the entire world is engaging in a silent war. On one side is Old Wealth. The febrile, avaricious elite who desperately clutch to their fortunes, amassed by a century of fossil based energy profits. On the other: the brave and enlightened majority fighting to adapt to a renewable energy based existence. These are the Futurists.
Old Wealth, also called the 'Polluters' are comprised of Arabia, Russia, the USA and China; along with the Kochtopus, the majority of the US Republican Party, and the vast corporate complexes of fossil based energy. In this great war Old Wealth are the guys (and it's mostly guys) that are wearing the black hats.
1
This is an issue I continue to care about, because I am an intelligent person who is familiar with the facts of climate change. I know there are many others in the US like me, and many of us are at a loss as to what to do, beyond lifestyle changes and donating a little money here and there. We lack unity as a movement because we lack leadership. Where there should be unity, in our Federal government, we instead have a self-serving clown who could care less about anyone else, much less planet earth. I am hoping enough of our younger voters wake up soon so we can replace our government with people more hinged to reality.
1
Even Coca Cola has stated that global warming is a threat to its business model. In the end, the middle and lower class will pay the price of more pollution. The rich will have the means to protect themselves or recover from weather damage. Guess who supports Trump and its policies that will allow polluters to make more money!
6
Man made climate change. If you could stop it, how would you? Simple, stop using carbon fuels and raise taxes on said carbon.
Time passes.
What is the "correct climate"? Who is the arbiter? What is the goal and when will it happen?
Answering these simple questions, might bring a lot more people to your side. As it stands now, I don't see the direct correlation between carbon fuel use and it's effect on the world. Earth has heated and cooled many time, before there was carbon fuel.
What is the "correct climate"?
I vote the Sun as the culprit. And volcanoes.
@Mike
If you "don't see the direct correlation between carbon fuel use and its effect on the world." you haven't been paying attention. You might start here:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
You will see that the sun and volcanoes are not the culprits.
The question of the "correct climate" is a straw man argument. No one is suggesting we can dial in precisely the climate any of us might want. What is clear is that there is an atmospheric level of CO2, methane, and other heat trapping gasses that could trigger feedback loops producing ever more such gasses and the heat that goes with them, making the earth much less hospitable to humans in our present numbers, not to mention many other species of animals and plants. One would think that behooves us to keep our carbon emissions below that level. If, both collectively and individually, we are incapable of doing that, of making the necessary adaptations, the question will become whether we are the correct species.
3
''The change in the methane rule is just plain dumb. The savings to industry would be trivial...'' - Aye, it would be, but the playbook from business (or the right) is to fight tooth and nail at all costs, and never, ever, ever, give in one inch.
That could be the fight for sensible firearm safety measures, or for woman's equality (especially for dominion over their own bodies), unions, or anything to do with the environment.
To let just one win pass by (or a Democratic administration that enacts any laws) is to allow a small opening, that might be in the future expanded. All defenses must be put up, and when there is a republican majority, then all laws/restrictions must be repealed. (no matter how much public outcry or retort from the scientific community)
This is essentially why we cannot have shiny things.
(or a clean environment)
1
''The change in the methane rule is just plain dumb. The savings to industry would be trivial...'' - Aye, it would be, but the playbook from business (or the right) is to fight tooth and nail at all costs, and never, ever, ever, give in one inch.
That could be the fight for sensible firearm safety measures, or for woman's equality (especially for dominion over their own bodies), unions, or anything to do with the environment.
To let just one win pass by (or a Democratic administration that enacts any laws) is to allow a small opening, that might be in the future expanded. All defenses must be put up, and when there is a republican majority, then all laws/restrictions must be repealed. (no matter how much public outcry or retort from the scientific community)
This is essentially why we cannot have shiny things.
(or a clean environment)
1
Melting glaciers, reducing ice sheets coupled with the increasing global population to me, a non scientist, means environmental change. Removing the safe guards is just plain ridiculous.
7
While speaking on the phone today with a cousin, who had to hurriedly evacuate inland several days ago from her home situated on the North Carolina coast in an area hit very hard by Hurricane Florence, she told me that some self-described “climate deniers” she had been conversing with were now reassessing that position. Although anecdotally limited in scope, you have to wonder, however, whether with enough widespread devastation caused by these recurring weather catastrophes the narrative of the anti-science propagandists will be ultimately rejected by all but a fringe number. Hopefully reason, even if unfortunately motivated by personal loss, will prevail over ignorance and greed.
6
The Trump administration and his Republican party enablers continue their assault on efforts to combat the manifold threats of climate change. Trump has previously rolled back the Obama administration's vehicle fuel economy standards while challenging California and other states' efforts to set more ambitious standards. It has proposed to allow states to relax Obama-era clean power regulations that will allow the dirtiest greenhouse gas spewing power plants to keep active longer.Now it is relaxing regulation of methane--even more dangerous than CO2.
All this despite the accumulating evidence that climate scientists predictions about the dangers of global warming are not only valid but that the impacts will be felt sooner than conservative forecasting models had predicted. Is there a starker example of a president and a political party who behave like nihilists?
6
And what about the money? Who is going to fund the clean up for all of these disasters? They're already robbing FEMA. This country is sinking further every day - in every possible way. It's disgusting to witness when all of these problems can be solved - if people cared more about others and their children's futures.
4
What does President Trump know about the environment? He has no iterest in the subject. To him, all that matters is Trump himself.
He has taken America hostage and the Republican Congress doesn't want to know or hear about what's happening under their watch.
The future generation is not the only group that will pay the price of the Republican indifference. The folks in the Carolinas are paying now.
5
A few NYT articles over the past few years surveyed scientists and concluded that there is no consensus among scientists tying climate change to severe weather. See for example:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/climate-change-extreme-weathe...
But that won’t stop the Editorial Board from arguing that they are linked.
You accuse the President of ignoring scientists, but then you go ahead and do the same thing.
2
@Steven Roth
It's clear that you haven't read or understood the survey article. It specifically states that at least 50% of the weather phenomena are indeed specifically linked to climate change. Here are direct quotes from the article:
-The studies this year are pretty evenly split, about 50-50, for those that did and did not find a role for climate change in the event’s likelihood or intensity.
-A new study says climate change probably had a role in the unusually high number of cyclones that hit Hawaii last year
-The papers suggest that “human-caused climate change greatly increased the likelihood and intensity of heat waves” in some regions, including Argentina, Europe, China, the Korean Peninsula, Australia, and the northern Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
-If anything, this particular debate underscores that the question is no longer whether there is an influence of climate change on extreme weather events. The debate is simply over the magnitude and extent of that influence.
3
@Steven Roth
I think you should re-read that 2015 article.
@Steven Roth
You're out of date. The science is now clear that climate change is making these storms stronger.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/first-ever-pre-storm-study-looks...
Hurricanes tend to occur during hurricane season. Thus, hurricanes may impact land during this time. Sensationalism, anyone?
Don't greedy polluters ever think about their children and grandchildren? Our 18-year-old daughter has gone vegan and simplified her life to do her share to help save the planet. These young people feel like our generation, with its knowledge of climate science, has let them down. Now they are faced with the very real prospect of a climate so changed that it cannot be helped. Actions like this latest by the Trump administration are just another slap in the face. Washington really doesn't care.
7
Global warming is simply long-term human suicide, and will only be addressed effectively when we fix the human belief system itself. In the near future, we will program the computer model of human mind, and at long last will see that we are driven by a "survival" program that has been tricked about what exactly is supposed to survive with our ridiculous beliefs. Only then can we begin the long trek back to sanity. See RevolutionOfReason.com
3
Let's be clear, it's not just Trump who must be held accountable for our disastrous retreat from science. There are numerous complicit parties.
The republican party abandoned science for political purpose about the same time they abandoned truth for political purpose. They are complicit.
Congress abandoned its Constitutional role in drafting binding legislation on controversial matters long ago. Avoiding any position on any topic that does not have a clear majority of voters in their district is the norm for elected representatives. Doesn't matter whether they abdicate on declaring wars, ignoring their fiscal insanities or addressing climate science, Congress is missing in action. They are complicit.
President Obama intensified the role of executive action in the face of republican obstructionism. While I personally supported his actions as necessary to get good things done, I realize now just how temporary such measures can be when the dark side is elected to office. Presidents who administer by fiat, whether it be for the Paris Accords or the Iran deal are complicit.
Most of all, we Americans are complicit. Too many of us do not insist that our leaders respect science, rational thought, logic, ethics or responsible actions. Too many of us are willing to ignore character flaws and outright despicable behavior so long as the politician supports our particular hot button. Too many of us are complicit.
6
Wake up, Americans! Why should the people of North Carolina pay with their lost property and moldy homes for the bad, climate warming practices of the fossil fuel industry? What happened to vision and foresight in this country?
2
The culture now dominating the GOP has been on the wrong side of every important political issue since the formation of our nation. so we progressives are pretty use to that.
What is hard to understand is how this history hasn't turned an overwhelming majority of Americans against the party that has become the home of anti-science, anti separation of church and state, anti-voter rights, anti consumer protection from corporate exploitation, anti labor...
And worst of all anti-planet earth.
Must be the power of advertising.
4
Mother Nature is a more powerful force than Trump. He will never win a battle with her.
4
Thank you for this editorial, NYT, I wish someone would get up and read it aloud to Congress. They truly need to hear some naked truth -- money and power focused in a sane, productive direction could certainly make our road to a sustainable future a much less resistant and perilous one.
"The change in the methane rule is just plain dumb." Indeed it is. In a nutshell.
I practice the reduce, reuse, recycle, use it up, or pass it up when I can. Dollars are votes of a sort, so I am very conscious of how and where I spend money. Also demonstrate when I can and contact my elected representatives, and sometimes yours too. Any small thing I can do, I will do. I couldn't look my little grandson in the eye if I didn't make an effort. All the children's futures are riding on us...
Thanks again, Editorial Board. More like this, please.
6
Why does this surprise anyone. Trump will never personally be affected by climate change. He does not consider or care about anyone else including his children and grandchildren. He is not capable of looking beyond himself. He proves that every day. This pathology will never change.
3
Environment has become political.Helen Caldicott in her book on Nuclear energy has said that Nuclear power is not an answer to global warming.She has gone to the extent of calling seven nations as rogue states which include the U.S. China and even India for using Nuclear power.If you strictly follow the environment rules no development is possible and we will have to go back to the Stone age.
The Trump administration should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity, beginning with the elimination of EPA regulations
6
It would be nice if our president made a decision that was actually based on helping our citizens, as opposed to making money for someone.
3
Donald Trump wants to continue large-scale use of natural gas the use of which contributes to climate change as does the associated methane. So too, apparently do most of those who commented at the two Times articles on Andover/Lawrence explosions and fires.
To judge from this Editorial, Times Editors would oppose rollback of the laws and strategies named. Do they also opposed continued development of natural gas use?
Having raised those questions I think it would be of considerable interest for a Times reporter to follow up on Andover/Lawrence by getting answers to these questions:
1) Have the owners of all the homes either destroyed or seriously damaged been identified?
2) Will it become a matter of public record if these owmers choose to use natural gas to heat their homes after homes damaged have been restored and those destroyed have been replaced?
Similar followups might be carried out in key areas in the Carolinas that have been or are now being flooded.
And would you, about to have a new home built, opt for natural gas?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
Losses from Hurricane Harvey during 2017 more than tripled 2017 government spending on climate change research. And a lot of what passes as climate change spending is highly questionable, including spending on nuclear energy.
Trump's funding priorities are obscene. But don't let anybody kid you. Our efforts to address climate change have been woefully inadequate forever, and since the first effort in 1993, government initiatives have been outstripped by damages by who knows how much? Your guess is as good as any. 50 to 1? 100 to 1? 500 to 1?
Whatever the right answer it is it is shameful and the blame is shared by a bipartisan coalition dedicated to sitting on their hands.
It's not hard to deny climate change science when you have a yacht and a jet and lots of money at your immediate disposal.
3
The Trump administration doesn't care about the environment, all that matters to them is that they and certain others get to put as much money in their pocket for as long as they can.
They will ruin this country and world for their grandchildren and future generations.
4
This is what you get from a society whose core cultural value is making even yet more money, with hardly anything worthwhile left around to spend it on.
3
Two tiered ignorance. First, we ignore global warming, and take out existing regs put in. Second, we ignore it personally, and ignore information like +1,000 barrels per day globally, every day, for the foreseeable future, and we hop into our planes for business trips, and we buy 4,000 sq ft homes, and 5 cars per family of 3, and throw away plastic, and eat ocean fish thousands of miles inland or throw it out because its $24/lb, buy new clothes that ruin rivers in China and India, eat cows that make global warming. We blame the government, and blame our own companies, and not blame Uncle Walter, whose death triggers 40 plane rides for a funeral.
3
It will be interesting to see how Florida votes in coming elections. The state is being affected by climate change right now: red tides have depressed tourism on the west coast, Miami has water bubbling up from the porous limestone below, and the reefs off the Keys are showing the damaging effects of warming waters.
Will they continue to vote for unbridled development locally and against carbon mitigation nationally? If so, it's not a good bellwether for the rest of the nation.
4
@Elizabeth
Present effects of climare change are caused by decades of negligent policy. Trump is the worst. Everyone else is tied for second place. A logical Florida voter motivated by cumulative damage would support neither party and would vote to throw all the bums out.
There is no news story more important than this one. If even one less printed article or broadcast news item per day detailing Trump’s latest unhinged tweet were instead devoted to the environmental disasters we now face, perhaps citizens would be more inclined to rise up in protest. Climate change is destroying the earth’s environment. It’s more than an inconvenient truth—it’s a dire reality, and we are all living in the eye of the storm.
5
I'm curious, is there some way for states like CA and NY, which, according to this, "represent over half the population of the United States, over half the American economy and more than a third of its nationwide greenhouse gas emissions," to organize a rent strike or walkout against states that continue to support the federal government? Their power in terms of sheer numbers of people is a lot like the only power unions have. If they could somehow flex this power in an organized way, maybe states like Florida (voted for Trump by 1%), North Carolina, once it dries out, (Trump by 3.5%), and Georgia (Trump by 5+%) would recognize that their own well being depends on collective action in cooperation with other coastal states. I, for one, am getting sick and tired of subsidizing irresponsible, low-population laggards like Oklahoma, land of man-made earthquakes (Trump by 35%). What would a one-day freeze on all goods, services, and communications from the citizens of CA, NY, and other responsible states look like?
3
The problem is worse than most people seem to realize. Global warming will cause the extinction of all life on our planet in less than 100 years unless the United States makes a much greater effort to reduce fossil fuel emissions, and our media and politicians are not facing that reality.
6
Washington can listen or ignore.
Regardless, nature has the last laugh.
7
This is beyond belief. The science is sound and has progressed over three decades, the evidence irrefutable in view of the storms and heat waves we have had the past three or so years, the receding snow lines on mountains and glaciers melting, and we continue to bury our head in the sand!
10
The climate change problem is not a regulatory problem - it is a cultural problem. During the industrial revolution, nature was viewed as resource for human use and technologies were developed to exploit the nature to extract energy without any understanding of its consequence. This thinking was supported by the Christian Bible in the Genesis story - God created this world for the enjoyment of human. This short sighted view of the nature is still prevailing in the development story of all countries. The old cultural stories of the different parts of the world emphasized the mutual relation between nature and human - each support each other through reverence and respect for nature. Time has come to take the climate challenge as cultural issue - change the human behavior and make society sensitive to the needs of nature - conservation, less consumption of animal flesh, planting of trees, recycling, simplicity in life style,.... Please do not make climate change as a regulatory problem only - it is a much bigger challenge. I am sorry to say, media presents climate change as policy and regulation problem - it is a very minuscule solution of this challenge, it is a cultural problem.
9
@Kalyan Basu Yes, climate change is a cultural issue. Thank you for this comment. As long as there is no widespread respect or reverence for nature, especially in the halls of Congress, we should all push our 'leaders' hard as we can for meaningful policy and regulation.
3
Mother Nature is speaking in ways that noone can ignore, irrespective of political party. Weak kneed as many Members of Congress seem to be, due to the their fear of Trumps' minions voting pressure, in fact there are a great number of conservatives who would vote for a market based approach for green house gas reductions if the politics in DC were different. Proposals by Citizens' Climate Lobby, called Carbon Fee and Dividend, or by the Climate Leadership Council, called Carbon Dividends if enacted would solve the problem and create incentives for all nations to join in. Leadership must come from the House and Senate -- if only they would put their constituents, Country and the planet first.
14
At the same time that the Trump's EPA and Interior Department are unprotecting us, the oil extraction industry is arguing that we must open up our entire coast line to their drilling rigs because the rigs in the Gulf of Mexico are vulnerable to the increase in hurricane severity, threatening supplies. That the severe storms are the result of their industry's profit making seems lost on them.
Irony is dead. Our leaders in industry and government are suffering from macular degeneration and can only see a tiny bit of the world in front of them.
14
Worsening storms, fires, and floods are the least of the threats posed by climate change. What is rarely acknowledged is climate change's threat to agriculture and food production. Human civilization has never experienced a planet 2 to 3 degrees warmer than the baseline temperature over the past 10,000 years. If the world's weather becomes too extreme, too hot, too dry, too unpredictable, it will have catastrophic effects on global agriculture and food production. This will lead to widespread famine, a breakdown of civil society, wars, and global upheavals of millions of desperate refugees fleeing their uninhabitable home countries. We are already seeing the beginnings of this development. Do we really want to leave our children and grandchildren a future dystopia worse than any disaster movie? We need to get the GOP and Trump out of office and elect people who believe in science and in addressing climate change ASAP!
15
Among one of the most critically important steps we can take is to stop cutting the trees in our state and national forests. These forests, containing some of the largest and oldest growth trees, have enormous capacity to store carbon,yet state and now in the extreme, the federal government,are ramping up commercial logging at previously unheard of rates. This is insanity! Privately held wood lots provide ample supply of raw materials for the wood products industry. And the recent PBS Newshour piece on the rape of the Amazon forests through rampant illegal logging highlighted the FACT that the Amazon forest is fast approaching the point of being incapable of storing carbon! The importance of that ecosystem in regulating the climate is immense, yet it is being rapidly destroyed. And what of the oceans? When these systems collapse, what then?
6
We should nationalize the entire fossil fuels industry in the interest of national security. Take away the profit motive and you defang the opposition. We still need fossil fuels for the military and aerospace. Everything else can convert to green energy.
6
@DB
If we nationalized the fossil fuel industry I believe you would see an exponential increase in corruption. There would be so many places and means to siphon money out of it. Politicians would be rubbing their hands.
This is terrible. Customers should try to avoid benefactors where possible an push for more state regulations where realistic. On the other hand, NYT issues articles on how to fly to Europe on a budget this summer. There is still a lot we can do ourselves.
3
all i can say is it is way warmer and way more humid in the neck of my woods than it used to be and the last 20 yrs of my 60 yrs I can tell the difference of the sun also - it is like scorching even on a cooler day. Doesn't this president want to see his grandchildren enjoying life in the future? I guess not. Also my Republican governor doesnt seem to care about the future either. All these people care about is their political ambitions and letting companies and people with all the money do what they want - - - -
9
The forces of nature do not change, they cannot be convinced to be other than they are. Only in our imaginary realities can we bend them to the will of people. Science is our most reliable means of knowing nature and it tells us that the great amounts of carbon gases that man uses to power it’s technologies are causing heat to build up in the atmosphere and the oceans. It tells us to expect more extreme weather that will disrupt our lives profoundly and likely see our hard made works wrecked and our systems that support our abundant way of life unworkable. We know this as well as we know that the wonders of our modern world come from knowing nature because of science. But changing how we power our world will cost a lot and we will sacrifice our comfortable ways to bring about a sustainable world that is not overheating.
Trump is being silly undoing the efforts to reduce the release of carbon gases into the air. He has no real belief that the effort is wrong headed. It just confirms with the denial of climate change that Republicans maintain just because they don’t like it and Trump is just appeasing them.
Nature will do as it must and if we are not swift enough to act in response to what we know it will do, we will find it will show no mercy.
5
The Blight of Trump is so staggering—
The damage is incalculable.
Mr. Trump (while he's still in "office") must be confronted with the reality of climate change and the worsening of hurricanes and other dire risks and what the United States is doing about it.
Tell us, Mr. Trump, about the Paris Accords.
Tell us, Mr. Trump, about carbon emissions and the Environmental Protection Agency.
[The problem is, we are dealing with someone who by all accounts is functionally illiterate and certainly unable to grasp such concepts.]
14
The Global Climate Action Summit is a commendable attempt to convince the rest of the planet that the insanity demonstrated by the Trump administration is a temporary condition.
The next step: November 6, 2018.
3
Christiane Amanpour interviewed New York's Cardinal Timothy Dolan last week on PBS. I thought it was fascinating and depressingly indicative of no movement in the US Catholic Bishops' positions, despite Pope Francis's strong and scientifically detailed encyclical on climate change and the environment.
From my memory - she brought up two issues (besides abuse): climate change and immigration. He brought up two issues: traditional marriage and the sanctity of life in the womb. Though he appropriately responded that caring for nature is a Biblical command, his speaking style for politicians eviscerating the laws was utterly meek - "is this the best course".
The bishops are much bolder, of course, when the social subjects come up: you must vote Republican so abortion is illegal and we have the "freedom" to exclude gays from all religious - affiliated institutions.
Frankly, the news media has not publicized how much life is lost by air pollution, water pollution, toxic chemicals, and climate change. Perhaps the faithful would insist on the sanctity of lives of the born if they knew how many will be sacrificed to the fossil fuel industry.
14
Unlike some readers, I don't think Trump's motivation is simply to undo everything Obama did. I think he only gets pleasure when he is being adored by sycophants, or when he is being cruel to people--including immigrant children, non-Aryans, women, etc. His world revolves around him and he is completely incapable of empathy, even for his children. If they inherit an uninhabitable planet, it won't matter, because the world will end when he dies.
And almost all the extremely wealthy and all the Republicans in Congress are cut from the same cloth.
13
"Nature Roars. Washington Hears Nothing."
It's just an "Inconvenient Truth".
Where is Al Gore? We need him more than ever. These politicians are aiding and abetting climate change with their silence.
We need a voice, one that has name recognition and will stand up to Washington.
Al Gore, where are you?
1
As long as Trump is President he will fight against addressing human contributions to climate change. Once this man asserts anything to be so his ego cannot allow anything so insignificant as nature to prove him wrong. Climate change is something which he has denied exists, so he will oppose anyone addressing it.
Guess what neither the Republican members of Congress nor the rRepublican voters will address climate change from human activities, either. Nature is fake to them, too.
It’s a tribute to mesmerization in human group psychology. Millions of people joining in a mass mutual day dream.
3
It will take ages to roll back all the damage Trump and Republicans have done regarding climate change.
The current EPA is a joke. It should be renamed the Fosil Fuel Protection Agency.
10
As a rabid environmentalist, who has been driving largely carbon neutral (I make my own biodiesel) since before 9/11, let me say this. The future of our children will be wracked with natural catastrophes of our making. It's too late! Methane from the Arctic will accelerate this. My only hope is that those who are responsible be held to account! We all know who they are!
5
Wake up, grow up, or pack up and climb aboard Elon Musk's spaceship destined to establish a permanent colony on Mars, conservative Trumpians and his Republican enablers. That's your only choice. Regression to a long bygone era never has, and never will work. The world evolves just as surely as it revolves, and no amount of wishful denial or wistful votes for fantasized promises can change that fact. Trump and his Republican sycophants are a vote for a past which never again will materialize.
1
Experienced sailors who have crossed the Atlantic in sailboats will tell you that the Gulf Stream is not as strong as it used to be and that they already see the effects of Global Warming. On a recent sailing tour in the Baltic we were shocked by the high temperatures, drought and green Alge as far north as Lettland. I would not be surprised one day to read that the White House has been flooded after torrential rains. Of course if you live in a tower, then who cares that some people get wet feet once and a while.
8
North Carolina ignored it, too, outlawing even the study of rising waters. For all those who voted for these people, your vote matters.
12
@Currents Yes, you're so right, they did that in 2012. I'm hoping the catastrophe we're currently living through might help our benighted republican legislators come to their senses. But who knows if that's even possible. Voting matters. Alas, so does gerrymandering.
4
Where are the Dems on this? Not one voice to speak out? Where's St. Bernie? Why isn't one Dem speaking out publicly and loudly on what's happening with Florence and telling the American public this is the consequence of Climate Change and we need to do something about it now!
4
@Trumpiness
Did you read this editorial before commenting?
Democrats just had a huge climate science summit in CA.
They continue not only to speak out about this, but most of all to act!
What WE can do, in the meanwhile, is to make sure that we're well informed and get the vote out in November!
I'm sure many cynical Republican lawmakers believe in climate change; they're just too scared to admit such heresy to their corporate masters. And Trump won't admit it until Mar-a-Lago is under water, which I hope will be soon.
10
The Editorial Board's focus on the "elements" is timely and underscores the tardiness of the U.S. political system to address the huge threat to the well-being of the World population. President Trump is ill-advised on the issue and has delayed the necessary adaptation that all of humanity must do in order to survive.
Global warming is a very difficult problem to solve, not technically because there are plenty of solutions, we can extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, we can provide the required electric power for the projected 10 Billion population without using fossil fuels. We can convert all of the surface transport to electric power, think about the late Senator Pat Moynihan's idea for using Maglev to provide cheaper and faster surface transport for passengers and logistics and the fantastic idea of providing very cheap electricity by capturing the Sun's energy in space 24x7 and beaming it to Earth.
Given that we are engaged in a fight between the myths of Free Enterprise and Big Government, the wealth and power of existing fossil fuel industries are fighting very effectively to keep the existing system to protect their investment including the creation of a DONOR system of electing Congress.
Our wealth, most of the economic growth, improvement in our standard of living, and health are because the US and the developed World invented and created a World economy based on energy produced from fossil fuels. Now we have the job of reinventing our energy source.
2
We are already paying bazillions for the cost of climate change, not only in stronger storms that do immense damage to our physical structures but in the adverse health costs of higher temperatures, the growth of insect pests, crop damage etc. Republicans simply refuse to see it and when they see it refuse to pay for it. It is the consequence of being enthralled to big money.
3
Elections matter. During the campaign Trump, and for years Republicans, have been clear about their beliefs on climate change. No one on this editorial board, or any American citizen who has been paying attention to the news and politics the last decade or so should be surprised. If you voted for Trump and other GOP candidates who are now in Congress, this is what you voted for. If as a media outlet or reporter, Hillary Clinton's emails were more important than anything Donald Trump was spewing on the campaign trail, this is what you reported and opined for. A vote for a Republican was and is a vote for climate change denial and for deregulation of EPA policies that interfere with business's bottom line. If ordinary Americans suffer because of wild fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards and floods--well so be it. The only way to have a response when Nature roars is to vote for candidates in the mid-terms who will deal with climate change in responsible ways. If we send Republicans back to Congress and the White House, this is the response we will get as we deal with Mother Nature=silence and no action.
5
President Trump would like to see anything associated with Obama disappear! I notice a lot of "Obama-era" references in the media these days. President Trump will end up doing the exact opposite of what he wants. Mr Obama is standing taller because President Trump is pushing down the landscape. Obama will be remembered for what he tried to accomplish and President Trump will be remembered with shaking heads and rolling eyes!
7
Sometimes old quotations describe the situation best. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Republican support for "deregulation" boils down to this. Nothing more, nothing less.
12
If republicans are willing to let trump do whatever he wants, as they seem to be,
Then we are doomed. Not just this country , the planet. Even trump and his evil
Minions need air and water to survive.
He needs to be removed from office by congress for the crime, among many, of working to destroy the planet.
8
Let's not say "Washington Ignores." That implies to many uninformed voters that both parties are the same; both parties clearly are not the same for avid followers of politics. Obama and Democrats in Congress have worked hard to protect to the environment. The Republican Party, elected by partisan and uninformed voters, and funded by crony capitalists, are the ones wrecking our environment.
11
As bad as this is, I predict 2 decades from now we'll look back on the current conditions with nostalgia. Things are destined to get worse.
3
Washington doesn't believe in the nature or the elements. They believe in fictions.
3
Nonsense.
The past few summers have been no worse than many othe rsummers in the recorded history of meteorology.
Storms have been worse in the past, snow, rain, you name it.
It's not a rebuke on Trump or his policies.
It's just the way the planet functions.
It has been in a warming cycle for thousands of years.
When it is over, it will go into another cooling cycle.
If the NY Times still exists at that time, it would be amusing to see how they blame the coming ice age on a presidential administration.
The climate alarmists are becoming rather amusing.
@Objectivist - Yes, there is a randomness to weather (as opposed to climate). But think of it as a game of poker. If your opponent has a royal flush, well, that happens. If your opponent has 5 royal flushes in a row, well, that could also happen by sheer luck, but maybe at that point you should have a close look at what your opponent has up his sleeves. There have been summers the past that have been equally hot, but there haven't been too many summers in a row that have been as hot as the last couple of summers.
Plus, the recent climate has been in agreement with models that predict much worse to come.
7
@Objectivist
Better have that dum-dum wound examined.
Without treatment, such injuries can fester and expand, with devastating consequences, including delusions of intelligence, and pompous insignificance.
We're so glad that you're amused, however.
1
@just visiting
None of it is random, it is just complex.
The models are not predicting nearly as well when the unjustified arbitrary data normalizations are removed.
In my first submission, I point to the lesson learned from 400 comments by my fellow Americans- two NYT articles on Andover/Lawrence MA natural gas explosions/fires: All but 1 support the use of natural gas (NG) in MA and just want the system fixed.
Here I focus on examples from MA that show what has not yet been considered in MA to deal with the problems identified in the Editorial
Editorial: "Natural gas is not the bridge fuel to a cleaner energy future" with one reason being the methane release associated with NG production. Forget Donald Trump, ask what MA could do to reduce use of NG and reduce methane emissions in the state.
MA has a population 70% of Sweden's but almost certainly much higher per-capita production of food and solid waste.
MA has on display in Springfield a giant methane producing landfill. Sweden has a law forbidding landfills.
Why not in MA? Swedish cities are heated by employing incineration of solid-waste (after recycling) with the system in my city, Linköping, the most advanced in the world.
Food waste is converted in that plant to biogas, replacing diesel as the fuel for Linköping's buses, ending the need for garbage disposal. Human waste the same.
Heat pumps including ground-source geothermal (invisible) are extensively used in SE, in MA I saw very few. Solar is everywhere.
MA has at least one waste to energy incinerator - Millbury - know nothing about its quality.
MA could act. Will it?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
4
Ignorance, be it feigned or sincere, is not the cause of or excuse for continuing to destroy our country and our planet by this and too many other corrupt policies either already in place or soon to be enacted by this administration. It's simply wilfullness based upon greed.
Vote.
6
However great smartphones and nukes we can make, I've always known we weren't a very smart species. I've never seen a wild animal walking along and suddenly remember it left its baby out in the open--in danger. But I have seen big-brained humans forget that they left their baby in a car with the windows rolled up on a summer's day. We are brainy, but not smart---if we were smart we wouldn't be fouling our nest, our home, for the sake of profit. If we were a smart species we wouldn't overbreed ourselves and the other species on our planet---out of existence.
4
Beholden to the fossile fuel industry as the Trump administration is, also stubbornly determined to destroy Obama's clean energy initiatives, Trump will never tire of inviting one calamity after the other as to be seen in the devastation caused by the Harvey, Florence Hurricanes, or wildfires in California, the collective initiatives by the states, cities, and the industry, such as the "Coalition of the Willing" towards the clean energy future are not only a strong rebuke to Trump's anti-environment carbon obsessed policy drive but also a sensible grassroots initiative to confront and adapt to the climate change problems.
9
We have two systems: an economic system and a political system. I think there is another way of looking at the environmental issue.
Most articles, including this one, assume our political system (politicians) should create laws to lessen the environmental damage caused by our economic system (neoliberalism or capitalism).
It focuses the issue on the politician rather than on the source of the problem: the economic system. I am not saying we should change capitalism, but we should recognize that our economic system is causing the issues.
By neoliberalism I mean the belief that a corporation is accountable only to its stockholders.
5
@Ron
1. The fact that today corporations indeed are only accountable to its stockholders on many issues, is itself the result of very specific laws, written by and signed into law by politicians.
There is no "free market". That's a fiction, that has never corresponded to any reality - let alone a "natural" reality, as those who use this notion often want us to believe.
Either a government writes rules of the economic game that are such that everybody benefits from the hard work of its citizens, or that only a very small group benefits.
Those ARE political decisions.
2. All studies showing how to limite the damage of the current global warming, and how to stop the global warming from getting worse, show solutions that don't require us to change the current economic system. You only have to change certain rules of the game that have to do with how we produce and use energy. And that is exactly what all governments are doing for the moment, except for Trump who is trying to enrich himself and his buddies and doesn't care about America's greatness in the 22th century (he actually doesn't even care about the victims of hurricanes who die not on the day that the hurricane hits US territory, but a bit later than that).
Today already, corporations have to respect LOTS of laws, and some of those laws benefit stockholders, others benefit America.
Transitioning towards a non-profit economy is an exciting debate, but NOT the same as transitioning to a zero carbon economy.
7
If global warming continues we will have a deterioration of the environment in a gradual progressive way. Will it take 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years? Imagine a scenario with the Maldives gone, South Florida a larger beach, beginning in Ft Lauderdale and New York flooding and Venice building a new St. Mark square. Projections are that 40% of the worlds population will have to be displaced within 25 years and riots and conflict abound. What will the grandchildren of the Koch's say? Like John Belushi in The Blues Brothers when Carrie Fischer is pointing a gun at him "It's not my fault". Actually they will be trying to see how to make more money out of the situation. This is all about short term expediency and wealth vs the planet and the little people. But then this is what politics is all about in the area of Trump.
10
Trump and his billionaires buddies want to bring us back to the good old days of unbreathable air and undrinkable water.
Make America Polluted Again.
8
In the fight to stop "climate change", aka "global warming", what exactly is the goal? Is it a certain temperature, a specific ocean level, some ppm of carbon dioxide in the air?
If all that can be quantified is the certain death of the planet, some day, along, long time from now, how many converts do you expect to win over?
What is and when do we, reach the perfect climate change?
2
@Mike
The goal is to stop cooking the planet. How much physical evidence is necessary to get through to people who "don't believe in climate change"? Are monster hurricanes, melting permafrost and glaciers, fire tornadoes, bleached coral reefs, endless droughts, spiking temperatures, a growing list of endangered species, etc. not enough?
Why do I get the feeling that, if a consensus of scientists were to come up with a number for you, (say, 350 ppm of CO2) it would merely be something for you to argue about until we've crossed the tipping point? Our present monthly average in Earth's atmosphere, as of April 2018, exceeded 410 parts per million. What will it take?
31
@Mike It may be hard for Climate Change Deniers to alter their beliefs because they are not based in science, but that is no reason not to try.
The human population of earth only reached 1 billion people 200 years ago. Since then, 1818, the population of earth has risen to 7 billion. Even with a perfectly operating planet, we would be straining the limits of supporting the whole population. With a resource depleted planet, particularly through human caused climate change, we will face resource wars and dislocation.
Also, it is not the planet that will die. It will be fine. Earth just won't be a good place for humans to live.
But I presume no amount of reasoning or science will change your mind.
5
@Mike
Those are interesting and important questions, so let me try to answer.
1. The death of the planet.
Only what lives can die. For millions of years, there was no life on planet earth. So our planet, like all others, can continue to exist even if all life would be gone. Planets do disappear from the universe though, but that happens because of cosmic forces. In our case, it's the sun that will in the end get too close and blow our planet up, millions of years from now.
2. Animal and plant life can and has existed under many different types of global climates, but not ALL of them. Certain climates are so bad that it ends between 75 and 90% of all living species. Those moments in the earth's history are called "Great Extinctions". We had five of those. The first one happened 450 million years ago. We're now in the sixth one (mostly because of the current climate change).
3. There is no one single "perfect" climate. Certain species thrive under one type of climate, whereas others get extinguished. Human beings exist for about 300,000 years now, and the climate has changed many times during those years. Three of the four human species became extinct, but we happen to have survived. The last climate change was about 12,000 years ago, and that is when human civilization began.
4. For 11,800 of those years, the global climate has been stable. The same goes for levels of atmospheric CO2. And then carbon levels started to go up VERY fast.
(Part 2 below)
Not long after the close of the second world war, a gathering took place in the upper Mojave Desert; among those in attendance were Dr. Bertrand Russell and Dr. Edmond Jaeger, the dean of American desert naturalists.
Around the campfire one evening, the topic under consideration was Right and Wrong.
After listening to the discussion amongst his distinguished colleagues for a fashion, Jaeger turned to Russell, whose white wispy hair and pipe smoke were outlined in the flames, and said, "The environment, since it cannot run away nor defend itself, must be protected. And THAT, sir, is the difference between what is Right and what is Wrong."
Seven decades later and in the face of the greatest natural calamity facing the Earth since we humans arrived on the scene about 300,000 years ago — including the sixth global mass extinction in the planet's history, now well underway (and our very first to experience) — that definition of absolute morality has gained orders of magnitude greater currency.
Those who deny the reality of anthropogenic global climate disruption (which includes the acidification of Earth's oceans, other surface waters, the rains and therefore the soil), and its catastrophic consequences, still in their very early stages, are either ignorant of the facts, incapable of understanding them, blinded by ideology or vested financial interests, or are divorced from evidence-based reality (the textbook definition of psychosis)— none of which are mutually exclusive.
80
@AJ North "The environment, since it cannot run away nor defend itself, must be protected. And THAT, sir, is the difference between what is Right and what is Wrong."
Wonderful quote!
Thankyou for posting.
Conservatives conserve nothing but their economic, societal or political advantage.
Conservatives are resistant to any change in any area of commercial activity under attack for harming people.
They resist change is the harm is done quickly -- gun sales, nuclear weapons, opioid production, uninspected foods and unsafe workplaces.
They resist if the harm takes a few years to manifest itself -- sales of tobacco and opioids or boosting freeways over efficient mass transit.
The conservatives particularly resist if the harm takes a couple lifetimes to develop -- pollution from releasing particulates and chemicals into the air and water; global warming from relying upon fossil fuels.
If it’s a clear, sunny day, conservatives say air pollution is a myth.
If it’s a very cold, snowy day, conservatives say global warming is a myth.
One or two hurricanes with one or two bad floods do not prove climate change, but documented changes in the temperatures of oceans and increasingly violent weather spanning a few decades constitute proof of lasting change related temporally to human activity.
None of us wish harm to people from Florence or any other hurricane or typhoon, but at least these tragic events are a comeuppance to irresponsible conservatives who block all change.
37
Wind, cyclic process, heat, and lots of money capture and store CO2. Congress gave the rich the money to do this. :-)
It doesn't matter why temperatures are rising. Permafrost is starting to melt, releasing methane. Glaciers are flowing into the sea, flooding coastlines.These are not reversible. Tipping points approach. To avoid disaster, net CO2 emissions must be negative through carbon capture.
The very rich can get together and act now to capture ambient CO2, with existing widely used technology. Initial high costs will drop. Investors will make a profit in the end, or not, as usual.
The process will capture CO2 from wind by reversible reaction with one of many known capture matrices. Solar or nuclear heat will regenerate the reactive capture matrix and yield a pure CO2 stream for storage.
Stored CO2 will find use. A catalyst process driven by solar or nuclear heat can reverse combustion to yield valuable hydrocarbons and oxygen from water and CO2. Or something else.
Nuclear reactors produce heat with high efficiency and low complexity. Fast breeder reactors, banned because of potential plutonium theft, produce very little waste. But CO2 capture can be centralized. All the reactors could be located in a geologically stable site, surrounded by a well defended perimeter, and given effective security procedures (very few people allowed in, the plutonium never leaves the site); they would be an ideal heat source for releasing the CO2 from the capture matrix into storage.
19
@ejhuff "To avoid disaster, net CO2 emissions must be negative through carbon capture."
Is there a value that can be assigned to the correct amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? How do we know we have met the goal?
1
@Mike
Hi Mike, I will play this straight. The best estimate of the right amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 280 parts per million, the value that has existed for at least 500,000 years, longer than the existence of modern humans. It remained at this value until after 1900, when it began to creep up. It is now over 400 parts per million and rising exponentially. The CO2 gets removed from the atmosphere slowly, with a time scale of about 1000 years, primarily by dissolving in the ocean. The dissolved CO2 increases ocean acidity, and is damaging to life (especially shellfish). The amount of CO2 we have put into the atmosphere will warm the earth by about 2 C (3.5 F). In the Paris agreement, countries set 2C as a goal to limit damage to food production, limit sea level rise to a few feet, and slow the rate of extinctions. Having seen the effect of a million or so refugees on Europe, think about the effects of sea level rise. A 3 ft rise would displace over 50 million people in Bangladesh alone. They will go somewhere, and these mass migrations will start wars and disrupt food production. Much of the production of the US economy depends on coastal cities that will begin to flood in the next 100 years. All these mechanisms and maximum tolerable limits have been published and discussed, and that is why we have the responsibility to limit the damage we have and will cause.
Yes. CO2 capture must continue until food production is secure, and dangerous runaway processes are stopped. CO2 capture should probably stop when temperatures return to 1950 levels, arctic springtime arrives when it used to, ocean acidity drops, hurricane intensity decreases, coastland reappears, and other hopefully reversible changes are reversed. As short lifetime greenhouse gasses escape into space, CO2 will need to be replaced to maintain the temperature. There will be winners and losers, so international negotiations must resolve disputes.
6
Trump’s original budget proposal was devastating for the EPA. But once Congress takes over it has never approved the drastic cuts Trump has called for. So clean air enforcement will likely see only a marginal cut.
Until there is a signature on the bottom line, some will foresee the elimination of the EPA. However, anyone who has been paying attention knows that government spending and initiatives have been woefully inadequate for decades. Pollution is responsible, in part or in whole, for 9 million American deaths per year. That proves that we are not doing nearly enough.
The main problem is widespread indifference. Trump's attitude is unforgivable. But our decades long indifference is unforgivable, too. I urge you not to put all the blame on Trump, sending the message that returning to the status quo ante is good enough.
17
I pulled up the real estate ads for New Bern, Wilmington and other NC beach locations. Republicans may be climate deniers, but they are not real estate price deniers. What do you think those houses are worth today? How many buyers are there going to be for houses flooded or heavily damaged by the storm? How many people now believe that this will never happen again? What environmentalists were unable to accomplish, Florence and real estate prices may do more to accomplish. As I write this all roads, the airport, and the port are closed around Wilmington. No food is getting in. Florence may convince people that Al Gore could not convince.
47
The "covfefe" GOP will probably look at said prices there and say "See? Our President is bringing us the affordable housing that Democrats couldn't!"
There's no bottom to their barrel, after all.
Annual carbon emissions are increasing substantially decade by decade. Spending to reduce emissions falls short of what is needed every year. Nonetheless, research holds out hope that we have not yet reached the point of no return. Little, if any, research concludes that we are doomed. Of course, nobody could ever get funding for research to prove that, in fact, all is lost.
3
The dynamics of the atmosphere is driven by temperature gradients. It is a nonlinear process: a small increase of a temperature gradient can result in the emergence of a qualitatively new pattern. A good example is what we currently see, the emergence of hurricanes in the fall, when the ocean surface temperature reaches a certain value.
This year we have seen a significant weakening of the jet stream, which has globally affected the weather. Huge amounts of arctic ice have melted. This jet stream weakening may be a fluke, but it may just as well be a more frequent phenomenon, or even a permanent change resulting from global warming. As a result, the predicted effects of global warming could be significantly accelerated: instead of decades, they could take years.
Due to intimidation by unresponsible climate change deniers, who are either delusional or who, consciously or subconsciously, only consider their own perceived interests, money or social position, an open presentation of the predictions to the public is turning difficult. The link of denial with GOP politics is especially worrisome.
What is the advantage of having a billion dollars in the bank when the whole system collapses? When Manhattan is submerged? Or many generally, most cities of the world, typically found near the coast, are submerged? If everyone strives for more money in the bank, we eventually all end up with nothing.
33
Apparently, Trump thinks the military is a big deal. He wants them to parade in Washington, D.C. Maybe because the dictators of the world who he seems to admire also have military parades.
Would that he asked his military leaders what they think about global warming. Ask them about the preparations being made because of people being displaced and their own military sites affected by rising water. If Trump & the GOP won't listen to scientists, could we expect they would listen to the military?
15
@Rev Wayne Actually the US military is making preparations on its own for bases and facilities, it's just called "resiliency" instead of "climate change"
Nature roars is just the tip of the Manhattan size icebergs that are the cause of the increasing imbalance to our polar ice caps. A catastrophe in the making, with the destructive potential upon our planet that will make us yearn for the days, when we just had high winds and low land flooding to contend with.
12
Today was the sixth day in a row of record high temperatures in Denver. Today’s Broncos game was the highest gametime temp in Broncos history. We are at about 50% of average annual rainfall. Forest fires that were ostensibly under control in July have roared back to life this week. These things are exactly what climate change is going to look like in Colorado and the West.
40
Rollback = Mission Accomplished.
The fossil fuel interests know they can't ignore climate change forever. They are scrambling to get as much money out of their deadly assets as they can before the axe falls.
And if that cooks the planet, well they plan to be dead by the time that happens.
19
I thought Republicans valued the way businesses were run and want to adopt similar methods to improve government?
No business would risk losing 500 billion dollars and do nothing. That's the amount of insurance on coastal and riverfront properties on the East coast alone.
The current pace of global warming has put all these properties at risk and present policies from the GOP are simply accelerating the likelihood of catastrophic losses.
We are already losing billions on the present effects of global warming. It affects agriculture, fisheries, transportation, public health and a host of other areas.
Despite these costs, the GOP continues to be wedded to the fossil fuel industry and their short- term greed being pursued at costs that all of us are paying.
If the GOP has any doubts about global warming and doesn't believe the scientists, then ask the accountants, the insurance actuaries, and the economists.
Other nations are moving away from fossil fuels but our politicians seem to have their heads stuck in the tar sands!
32
@drspock
The insurance companies are different businesses from the fossil fuel companies. So the fuel companies need
not worry about insurance losses -- only about effects
on their own operations -- which they do plan for.
The insurance businesses also know how to avoid paying
claims, and know that they can go bankrupt while paying
their managers large severance packages.
5
Nature will roar louder ... and louder ... and louder. Ignoring reality does not, repeat not, work.
For those who claim to be religious, can you not see? Can you not hear? Can you not notice? Try the Gospels, or the Koran, or the Torah, or the Dao, or the Upanishads, or whatever. True spirituality includes stewardship and sharing, not exploitation, looting, pride, and greed.
Nobody survives an argument with nature. Nobody!
52
Perhaps these people can speak more eloquently than I can (celebrities for those who need fame to pay attention to the earth, the sky, our water):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8d_JvMpoY4&list=PL5WqtuU6JrnXjsGO4W...
8
@Susan Anderson;
Great link, Susan. Everyone should watch it.
A bunch of small measures from a "coalition of the willing" that barely add up to an emissions goal is probably insufficient to halt humanity's contribution to global warming. It is going to take federal action, including enforcing existing rules and rapidly expanding the use of nuclear power.
We, both as individuals and as a country, can take many beneficial small steps. When it comes to global warming, unfortunately, small steps are no substitute for big steps.
20
The air and the water are too warm. We've put too much carbon into the air. It's a political issue because it's an indictment of the idea that expanding markets are sustainable - the very primal force behind capitalism. It also implies that we're all in this together, contrary to the glorification of the individual that fuels our society. I suppose we could give technocrats and scientists a chance to lead. Our politics have failed us and cannot do otherwise.
25
its already too late for significant changes and getting late for catastrophic as the new normal - and anything will be too little too late - end all regulations for a lousy 1% or 2% in GDP - great idea.
20
I have been studying how climate effects resources and the society for decades. In the end Natural always wins.
24
Thank you for putting climate change back to the top of the page where it belongs, instead of Trump. I want to see more of it top left, capturing all the rollbacks and consequences, un-opinionated.
76
Trump's EPA it's like the world's population being on a train headed at 150 mph towards a brick wall and finding out that the train company put a crazy person in the conductor's seat. 20 or so years from now Trump and his cohorts will be seen as committing crimes against humanity — just on the basis of climate change alone. But the problem is not just in Washington. 30 years ago scientists were telling us about intense hurricanes, forest fires and permanent droughts. Only scientists and environmentalists paid attention. As a member of the latter, I can tell you we were dismissed by media, by all politicians, by most citizens. The human race is fully capable of reacting to a drastic threat to its existence if attacked by a foreign power: that's good business for the military-industrial complex. But when the power and profits of corporations, banks and stockholders are threatened, humanity is too enslaved by them to be able to respond adequately to a drastic threat. You know what the scientists have said: the remaining fossil fuels must be left in the ground. But just who has been supporting the efforts of environmentalists and First Nations to stop various pipelines stemming from the tar sands or coal burning? Meeting half of just what Obama promised to do does NOT mean meeting half of what it takes to put the brakes on climate change. It requires drastic action, and I challenge you, NYT, whether you would be willing to "rock the Wall Street boat" to do what it takes.
65
The title of the op-ed and its general thrust suggests
that it is only the (deranged) powers that be in DC that
heed not the loud and clear message from our mother Earth.
This is simply not accurate. Poll after poll tells us that
40%+ of the population still refuses to get it, is convinced
it's all just a lot of elitist hysterical hooey, and even if it isn't, they're
still not for the one single simple structural change that
would stop the madness, i.e., a fairly priced carbon
tax that would send a signal to one and all that
emitting CO2 will now cost you a very pretty penny.
When that percentage drops significantly, and when
the voting population decides en masse that a sane constructive
position on human induced global warming is a sine qua
non for choosing a candidate, then and only then
will the head in the sand posture of the trumpicans
running things change for the better.
But we as a society are still very far from that
needed tipping point. Unfortunately our climate
may pass its own tipping point long before this society,
as well as many many others, figures it
needs to do something to avert catastrophe later this
century.
So don't just limit your critique to elected representatives.
The fault, that is, the inertial resistance to significant change are within ourselves.
39
@bl
But the role of the elected representatives is central to this inertia. Seen from Europe, the level of denial and rejection of the existence of climate change by Americans is astonishing.
Here - while action is clearly insufficient - in virtually every country including those heavily reliant on coal like Poland, the debate has at least moved to the cost of the transition ahead. The science and the urgency are not really questioned any more. This is because none of the European mainstream political parties has taken an anti-science line like the GOP and given credibility to the deniers and conspiracists.
In Europe, to openly question the reality of climate change is to expose oneself to ridicule. I have the impression that the exact opposite is true in large parts of the US.
3
@Matt
The second and last paragraphs in my comment
underlie your point. Exposure to ridicule is
less probable in this culture due to the presence of a very effective and widely followed propaganda network called f-x "news" and its evil sisters such
as talk radio and sinclair network. These well organized chains of disinformation peddle doubt
through unending displays of cherry picking logic and straw men argumentative nonsense,
the limbaugh effect if you will...This distracts poorly educated minds (plenty of which exist herein) who know only what they are exposed to through such goebbelsian media, and reinforces the trumpican and carbon extraction industry message that it's best to do very little. Doubt
is less costly to one's pocketbook after all. There is also the pointless "big liberal government"
tirade that often is vented in such contexts.
Since enough of the population repeatedly has swallowed this elixir, the pressure needed to impose reality upon federal policy is severely
weakened. The nightmarish experiences
at EPA, Energy, and Interior Dept. are exhibits
A, B, and C of this.
When combined with the insufficient counter pressure that is required from that part of the population that is "concerned" but "unsure"
what to do, the consequence is trumpican
suicidal derangement.
It would help if other societies exhibited the
levels of response required to slow down
the tipping point's imminent arrival, but this
too is not happening as rapidly as needed.
We proceeded over decades through endless accretion to an over-regulated state that stultified economic growth and DISincentivized innovation, risk and prosperity. It was inevitable with electoral numbers that the reaction to this excess would be equally excessive. Indeed, if Republicans retain the whip-hand, Dodd-Frank will be dramatically moderated, and more environmental and financial regulation will be watered. But these things really are metronomes, and we’re merely seeing the career of the pendulum to its rightward extreme. Rest assured that it won’t stick there but must begin its inevitable movement left at some point. Liberals will argue that we need change NOW, as they always do; and their impatience is largely why they tend to fail dismally at their most ambitious initiatives.
Basic prerequisites need to be satisfied before Republicans join with Democrats to impose harsher environmental regulation. We need to find a way to keep an economy humming fueled by energy sources capable of doing so; and we’re not there yet. The oil and gas companies love to present thick PowerPoint decks that show the rise of global populations, their increasing requirements for energy, and projected growth of purely green sources over the next generation. Green won’t do it alone, not for a long time. But if we hobble or cripple carbon-based sources, we’ll drive up their cost to the point that we destroy their utility even as transitional sources.
Then, a mechanism needs to be …
… developed to hold ALL nations to account proportionally for climate change mitigation – a mechanism that does not yet exist, inside a liberal bubble within which all or most sacrifices must be made by developed economies.
We’ll get there, and it’s not unreasonable to keep the pressure high to getter done. However, this editorial is merely a snapshot at one moment in time of a metronome in action.
1
Excruciating. There is nothing “left” about fighting climate change. The Nordic economies are doing very well even with energy-conserving policies. The nations who succeed in developing innovative energy-conserving and efficiency-enhancing technologies will make money and create jobs.
What is the factual basis for Republican claims of terrible over-regulation? I’m glad we don’t have DDT killing our birds and happy that there are a few restraints on the big banks that almost brought down our economy. I started a business that’s created many jobs and wasn’t stopped by regulations requiring our company to have a safe workplace and offer paid sick days.
Are some regulations silly? Of course, but your pendulum fantasy assumes that the damage done by polluters can be undone. Not necessarily.
Please send links to specific unnecessary regulations if you want to be taken seriously as a person who cares about our one and only planet.
2
Simply put, it's up to the rest of us. None of our elected officials will lead anymore. (OK, so I live in California where Jerry Brown does lead.)
What are we doing as a family? I take the bus to work. For those times when we need a car, we are going to purchase an electric car and install solar to charge it. We'll eat less meat. We don't have air conditioning.
If they refuse to reduce the supply then we'll reduce the demand. In any case, that's what we believe we should do. Reduce, primarily, then reuse, and when needed, recycle.
43
@Andrew
If one rarely drives, getting an electric car may be an environmental disaster. Manufacturing a new car uses a lot of energy, and being more "fuel efficient" has very little value when very few miles are driven. The most "green" thing to do may be to keep an older car on the road to save the energy used to manufacture a new one, electric or otherwise.
There are likely better uses for that electric car and for your money.
9
Buy a second hand electric. If you choose right they can be fantastic value for money.
What about car share services...not uber or lyft...but we have Car 2 Go...Modo and I think at least one other. One joins and then pays by use. They vary in scope...Car 2 Go...is very local...you do not need to return the vehicle to the starting point. These services are very popular with millenials and avoids the major outlays with vehicle purchase.
1
Hurricanes and Typhoons can be summarized as a massive mix of wind and rain.
The wind component has its genesis in differential heating between the equator and the poles; between land and bodies of water.
https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/circ
Rain results from condensed water vapor. It takes 533kcal of Summer heat to transition a liter of water from a liquid to a vapor. As the summer heat begins to ebb, aka hurricane season, the water laden air cools and the water precipitates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat - See Section on Meteorology
I learned these concepts in Freshman Chemistry and Physics at a State University. How can Harvard trained Ted Cruz and Ron DeSantis deny that Hurricanes have nothing to do with global warming? Cruz, in particular, consistently voted against hurricane relief funding and held a grand standing Senate hearing in 2016 disputing global warming. Cruz became less vocal in regards to Global Warming and changed his votes after Harvey dumped 51.99inches/24hour in his district.
42
What it will finally come to is a dictatorship because most American consumers, businesspeople, stockholders, workers, taxpayers and voters will never agree to government doing enough now to possibly forestall calamity. Democracy and capitalism are not equipped to deal with any existential threat except war. We gladly spend billions upon billions to protect our lives and our property in the event of a major war but chafe at any expense required to reduce climate-changing gases. Only when a changing climate severely impacts our food supply will it be recognized as a national emergency and that's when the dictator arrives.
21
I would simply point out the irony of so many of the people today cheering the gutting of these life-saving environmental regulations fancying themselves as being the vanguard of a pro-life movement.
We today experience none but the opening notes of the prelude to the environmental catastrophe to come; and yet due to the deafening din of the culture of emotional violence and fascistic religious and political fantasy they remain immersed in, these cheering throngs refuse to hear a single note of this requiem for the existing species of the planet.
The god of Noah once promised that he would never again destroy the creatures of the earth through flood; but perhaps he only promised this because he realized that his 'faithful' would eventually do it to themselves - and thus his intervention would be unnecessary?
97
How about simultaneously addressing people continuing to move into or live in harms way.
No insurance.
Allowing protective wet lands to flourish.
18
This is what happens when the one time party of Lincoln devolves into the Know Nothings, with our 'commander in chief' making decisions that profit only polluting industries and based on nothing other than his instinct for making money, and enriching his loyalists.
Trump is anti science, anti reading, anti facts, anti humanity and anti all forms of natural life. His thinly gilded palaces attune perfectly to his true nature, which is vacuous and vapid.
Something which has astonished me is the power of the presidency when held by someone who is antithetical to reason, who has the ability to affect not only our nation, but all nations, people and life on our one and only fragile home. It is far too much for any one person to wield this kind of power, when unconstrained.
Those of his party could take steps to rein him in, but as they love their tax cuts and other Trumpian policies, it will take an election, the twin elections of 2018 and 2020, to end their reign of error and grievous miscalculations.
194
Except extreme weather events have not increased despite constantly being portrayed as such. As for the Paris accord, it allows Asia what is essentially a free pass as the West, especially, the USA, is held back and set up for massive liability to money hungry officialdom in third world countries. Though not a big Trump fan I'm glad he is pushing back and standing up to the pressure.
Meanwhile, why can't we have nuclear power like our Navy or like France? No carbon dioxide emissions.
1
@Tom
Given the simultaneous events of the past few days on both sides of the planet, where gargantuan storms of historic size have brought unimaginable destruction and devastation in their respective paths, is the ultimate in irony. Your apparent joy found in the fact that that Trump is "pushing back and standing up to the pressure" is astonishing and incredibly myopic.
This insistence on the continued investment in and dependence upon fossil-based energy sources is a recipe for global disaster. Renewable energy sources are well within our grasp, if we would only focus on their development. It goes way beyond any logical thinking to comprehend just how this moronic "leader" of ours inspires people like you to support him.
@BC Please keep in mind there were storms that big one hundred years ago. As for renewables, I am totally in favor of them so long as they are dependable and make economic sense. But wind and solar need always available backup and until the storage problem is solved renewables are found lacking. The folks on your side in Germany have been very effective in driving energy prices through the roof while still depending on coal and fossil fuel imports from neighboring nations. I would hate to see that in California, but that is where we are being led as we already import most of our energy from border states run by more level headed governments.
"The change in the methane rule is just plain dumb. The savings to industry would be trivial, $75 million a year by the Environmental Protection Agency’s estimates......The industry could in fact end up a loser, since captured methane can be sold at a profit."
When did logic ever stop Donald Trump from pursuing policies he thinks makes him look tough by killing the policies of his predecessor?
I'd love to poll those in Florence's path how they feel now about climate change being a hoax.
I can't imagine anyone witnessing these dramatic increase in intensity of fall hurricanes, summer droughts, wildfires in CA, blizzards in New England could harbor doubts about how much is due to climate change vs the vagaries of nature.
Mother Nature is desperately trying to make us aware of what's going on. Washington wears ear plugs.
The good news is, state and local communities seem more determined than ever to pursue energy innovations on their own despite the silence from Washington.
That this "Coalition of the Willing" could ultimately equal half of President Obama's global pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions shows what can be done when reason prevails over Trump's defiance.
51
Oh climate change is such a bore
Won't need our coal and oil no more,
So Hurricanes and icy storms
Become today the standard norms.
Do profits no longer come first
For billions no longer a thirst
For grandchildren we should abide
Right now it's also our own hide.
19
Global warming is equilibrium thermodynamics. When you discharge excess CO2, it starts lowering the heat Earth radiates to space almost immediately. The 'top-of-atmosphere-energy-imbalance' Earth experiences is thus immediately reflective of its CO2-content. On the contrary, 'climate change' is an illustration of planetary-scale kinetics (time-dependent processes). Think of a 'thermal' equivalent to Newton's 2nd Law, which describes a force accelerating an object, with the proportionality constant being the mass. Earth is a 'thermal mass' resisting a 'thermal acceleration' from a force called global warming. That 'thermal mass', mostly in oceans, is so big that any climate change we experience in the present is reflective of an energy imbalance (i.e. a CO2-content) from 30 years ago. This cannot be over-stressed: coral bleaching, fires in the US West, heatwaves and droughts, over-sized weather systems dumping unprecedented quantities of water on flooded lands: all of this we now experience as our climate-change 'present' was, in fact, 'dialed-in' by the global-warming (i.e. CO2-content) of the 1990s. And we won't experience what today's CO2-content will do to climate for another 30 years. This is why we simply have no time for people like Trump to 'get it'. By that time it may well and truly be too late. Trump likes to look impassive, but if you want impassive, watch what this planet does with our entreaties once the 'you-know-what' hits the fan.
84
@Phil
Newton's 2nd law? No problem.
Congress will hold hearings with expert witnesses from the Heartland Institute, the Flat Earth Society and the Creation Research Research Society. They will vote to repeal it, trump will sign their bill into law and the Supreme Court will confirm its constitutionality.
23
One of the most difficult things is communicating to the general public about climate change. In my profession, teachers are scrambling for curriculum and ways to teach about climate change. It is complex and the younger generations know nothing. The blackout on information simply makes matters worse. Please be aware. I applaud this article, but it is basically preaching to the choir. We need to reach out in ways and with messages that are not for us, but instead are for the general public and students in K-12 who do not necessarily read the NY Times. Below are some New England and national resources to help communicate and educate about climate change. We need to share every resource we can to the teachers and educators that will help at the grassroots level. reshttps://sites.google.com/shelburnefarms.org/climate-collaborative/resour....
46
@NYT Comments: Link above goes to “404 error” page. Link should be:
https://sites.google.com/shelburnefarms.org/climate-collaborative/resources
@Laura - Thank you for resource list. You may already know about another good tool, MIT’s Climate Interactive site, with a mobile app called Climate Simulator:
https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/climate-pathways/
@Laura
Teaching to the children may be an honorable attempt at improving the future but it really starts with each and everyone of us changing our buying patterns and personal actions.
Nature Roars and many of us hear nothing. Ten years ago it was uncommon for my friends on Facebook to vacationed in Iceland or Machu Pichu. Today, many of them have. My friends in Europe tell me there are more American tourists there than ever. We're burning up fossil fuels by flying all over the globe and we know it is killing life as we know it.
So while I'm angry at many elected officials (in particular Republicans but also corporate Dems), I'm also angry at most of my fellow Americans, at least the comfortable ones. And I'm also angry at myself because I haven't given up eating meat yet and despite reducing, re-using and recycling, I still generate about a couple gallons worth of trash a week. How many sea turtles have I killed with single use plastic? I don't even want to think about it. I've given up almost all hope.
But I am going to the polls in November and vote every single climate change denier I can out of office. It won't fix the problem entirely, far from it, but it can't hurt.
123
@jay
Air travel is a huge problem. I am dismayed that so many people who otherwise care deeply about climate change, hop on airplane for a vacation or for business without a second thought.
15
@jay
I try to make environmentally responsible decisions with every purchase or refrain from purchase, but corporate American does make it nearly impossible. My Husband would like to buy a simple small truck but they have been discontinued and replaced with larger jazzed up models. We call them ego machines.
We "fix rather than pitch" as much as we can. Very few products are now made to be repaired and a new generation of Americans don't even know how to do that. We are leaving behind as well a generation that has never taken a lift on public transportation. Our society is building out and chem-lawning prime farmland that took generations to improve. So unless more individual behavior changes I do not have much hope for abundant wild life on this planet and Humans will just find another source to exploit and destroy.
3
And in the future, when the children of today are paying the ultimate price for climate change denial, the ones who denied it will be gone. Buried in now flooded graves. Their massive marble tombstones, acquired with their ill-gotten gains, sinking into an endless flowing river of mud and effluence.
A monument to a ruined age.
People may be unaware that at a certain point, we will no longer be able to stop global warming, because will have triggered ecological mechanisms that, once started, cannot be stopped by human intervention. Once that point is reached, the damage will be irreversible. Many climate scientists have speculated that that date occurred sometime in 2015.
So, you could make the point that this recent folly by Mr. Trump is not all that significant, in the long run, because Republicans and people like him have already insured that, for the human race and a lot of other species, there won't be any long run.
Enjoy the decline!
42
@Chicago Guy
oh please. And just what are YOU doing about climate change Chicago Guy? Did you ditch your car? Commit to not flying on airplanes? Swear off public transportation? Decide to not heat or cool your home? Stop charging your cell phone?
Didn't think so. Climate change is the price we as a society have chosen to pay for maintaining our modern lifestyle. *Blaming* it on someone, or some Political party is completely specious.
Trump and the GOP are climate change deniers. The Democratic Party should be doing everything they can to put front and center serious policies to address moving readily to a green policies and to boldly counter Trump. Instead the DNC has just announced a rollback of their ban on fossil fuel company donations. They are also big backers of fracking which is disastrous for the environment and which adds methane to the environment contributing to climate change.
22
The US will get more solutions-focused on global warming imminently. Not because of political compromise -- heaven forbid! -- but because insurance companies will dictate some form of solution. Just the other day the former CEO of State Farm wrote in this paper that we need a carbon tax. As more outrageous storms lay waste to real estate along the coasts (surely Florence will be one expensive storm), the ball will be in the insurance companies court. They can raise premiums sky high or drop flood and water damage coverage altogether. Tough to sell a house in a flood-prone region without insurance coverage. Money talks....ideology walks.
96
@Brian Prioleau-Agreed. But technically the government, funded by us taxpayers, has been underwriting the devastation of climate change: covering the costs of longer and more damaging fires here in the West; higher category hurricanes lashing coastal states; rain, flooding, tornados in the midwest; droughts and heatwaves over wide swaths of the U.S. The effects of global warming are being felt by more and more Americans. Pretending won't work and rebuilding only works until the next event strikes.
3
This should has its link to the individualism, both the people and company. It is perfect fine for them to against any collective actions towards global warming, just because it is collective, even it can save us all. However, no individual at whatever level can do the magic to flip the increase of greenhouse gases, only collectively we can. Another implication is that, some people don't care much about the climate unless their house get flooded or burned down every other year. I don't think most people just skeptical about the climate science. Even millennial can feel these changes during their lifetime.
6
@Oscar. L
Indeed, the word "collective" along is enough to make some ideologues and short-sighted business persons lose their pants in shock.
10
Cap & trade, carbon taxes etc are dead in the water. American voters don't want to pay more for energy. They can't afford it right now. Every poll backs this up. Our country isn't moving in this direction anyway. The point of cap and trade was always to increase the price of 85 percent of the energy we use in America. That is the goal. For it to “work,” cap and trade needs to increase the price of oil, coal, and natural gas to force consumers to use more expensive forms of energy. President Obama’s former OMB director, Peter Orszag, told Congress that “price increases would be essential to the success of a cap and trade program. The majority of U.S. voters will never go for this. The overall reality in that climate change legislation is hard to pass even in good times. It's really a killer in an economic downturn where citizens & business fear higher costs, even slightly higher costs, & may see no concrete benefits. The US is extracting carbon & flowing it into the global energy system faster than ever before. We're trying simultaneously to reduce demand for fossil fuels while doing everything possible to increase the supply. Here are the key questions. Can we bring ourselves to prioritize renewables over cheap fuels? Are we willing to vote against our own self interests & approve higher taxes on fossil fuels? Can we muster the restraint needed to leave assets worth trillions in the ground? Absolutely not. It's never going to happen.
7
@Bill Brown This all depends on how you define "self-interest." Is living with constant fires, constant floods, perpetual droughts, super-charged hurricanes, massive rainfall events, etc. and all of the damage that comes with it something that Americans want to do? The people who don't want to pay higher prices for fuel will have a lot more to worry about when their homes disappear under water or fire or their communities become unlivable.
60
@Bill Brown
Can we bring ourselves to stop subsidizing greenhouse gases by paying oil and gas companies to increase extraction?
26
@Bill Brown: “American voters don't want to pay more for energy. They can't afford it right now.” Really? Then why are they spending more money buying the biggest SUV or 4x4 truck they can find, which will make them buy more fuel? If they really wanted to save money, they would be breaking the doors down to snap up hybrids or small compacts that cost less in showrooms and let them buy gas half as frequently. This is all about irresponsibility, which Republicans brand ‘freedom’.
36
If we do not all work to solve this problem we will cease to exist. It may be too late but we must try in case it isn't. Thanks to everyone working to keep the earth habitable.
61
According to Yale University and other climate change researchers, a ton of methane is at least the equivalent to 25 tons of carbon dioxide. To allow more methane into the atmosphere when it may cost industry so relatively little is a clear example of an ounce of prevention being cheaper than a pound of cure. And for what reason, merely that it's a reversal of Obama Administration policy? It's things like this that make me feel relieved that I have no children who would have to suffer the consequences of our era's mistakes.
108
@Tom Rostock
I too am thankful that I am childless. I am thankful that I am not young. I don't want to live to see what is coming.
Future generations will curse our greed and shortsightedness.
Here in Virginia our growing season is two weeks longer, at both ends. I've kept a garden all my life and it's obvious that climate change is here and now.
15
If it's true that people remember history by associating a famous person with important events, DJT could very well be remembered in the future not just as someone who did nothing to stop global warming - he might be remembered as the CAUSE of global warming.
I can't think of a more reviled character than the man who stood by as the earth cooked itself to death.
286
@Turgid - let's not overlook the GWB administration's tireless efforts at blocking climate action back when it had a better chance of doing some good.
28
@Turgid
Not quite fair, imho. Take a look at the long record of Senator Imhof - Trump is a rank (!) amateur compared with him.
3
@Turgid
Trump certainly has enough hot air to be a contributing factor!
1
Just another reason to get him out of office. NOW.
110
What is really a pity is that the US geography is already home to the most wild climate (Hurricanes, Tornados, Floodings, Droughts). This type of short-sighting will only turn the events exponential. I hope that some day we Humans learn that no problem is "somebody else´s" problem. We´re on the same -unique and only ship- on this. Big concern: what planet my kids will inherit.
31
Climate change stories get surprisingly few comments. Too few if you ask me. So here goes--Bravo Editorial Board for writing things necessary if not always popular. It's often hard to know what to do about climate change; I've had my own moments of helplessness and despair and shame for the future I'm leaving my own young children. But there's no giving up on this one. We just have to keep trying and keep hoping. I put my faith in the fact that when the consequences are clear enough (and sometimes it takes a bunch of tragedies to make that clear) humans are an adaptable and ingenious species. I'm not quite sure how we will survive, but I choose to believe that in some form and numbers we will.
144
@Hazlit
only one 't'? We will survive as the result of human ingenuity. The final chord will not be sounded for a few more millennia. Enjoy B.C. a perfect blend (as it should be) of British and Columbian - aka American - values. Victoria the Great.
Humans will definitely survive. So will jellyfish and rats and maybe cockroaches. Pretty well everything else will be gone.
1