this report will fit well in my scrapbook- the one I started in 1988 when global warming was front page news across the country. I knew the course that this we would follow, and we are still on it. Denial of the science is somewhat less fashionable, but we have gamely forged ahead in denying the need for serious and effective change - change that would reshape virtually every aspect of our economy and culture.
Ah well. I'll keep the scrapbook going, but I won't bother to save it from the fires.
3
Okay, NYT, put up or shut up. This is probably the most critical challenges human beings have faced in our history. Every NYT reader should be urged to cut their CO2 emissions. The fleet of the NYT readership is, I am guessing, still largely characterized by oversized, fuel-inefficient SUVs. Every NYT reader should take a hard look at what is sitting in their garage, or driveway, or out on the street and ask themselves whether or not they REALLY care enough about this challenge to do the right thing, maybe suffer minor inconvenience. That, as they say, is where the rubber hits the road. So, NYT, take a stand. Admonish and advise.
4
".....Mr. Trump thus reaffirmed his sorry role as an outlier in the global struggle against climate change." No! He's not an outlier, he's in the far extreme. His policies, based on ignorance, are actively accelerating the destruction of our planet with an anti-environmental agenda on steroids.
8
Words. The only weapon we have is words. Not enough. Those with closed ears wouldn't listen to whatever anyone says, no matter how intelligent or urgent their message.
The truly evil ideology that cloaks itself in "righteousness" is sent out over FOX and Sinclair daily. Lies are proclaimed to be truth, truth is called lies. Millions of people get their daily info from papers and TV that are pure propaganda and are told that the actual news is fake. There is nothing more dangerous.
The way to manipulate people is to leave them uneducated. Enter Mrs. DeVos, who is happy to speed that mission along. Then those who would see the continued weakening of our beloved country have an easier time slowly chipping away at what is left of democracy. Trump doesn't know the difference. They ply him with how great he is, how big his brain and his private parts are and how rich is he told he is, and he grins with self-approval. Meanwhile the nasty white men who run Congress are smiling as they continue to respond to the billionaires who want less regulation, less government of any type and more freedom to do as they will to make more money. That is truly evil.
As long as people do not understand that an earth in peril is humanity in peril, and as long as so many people do not vote even when they can, there will be NO change. Ignorance is a great evil and we are being blithely lead by ignorant, selfish and willful men into the abyss. Still, thanks for the editorial. More every day, please.
8
If you are a conservative and think that climate change is an excuse to take your freedom and money, imagine energy rationing as the only remaining way to manage emissions because we avoided doing the easy stuff for at least four generations while you indulged your paranoia and denial.
5
My question to the NYT is: why isn't this on the Front Page, rather than the editorial page?
8
The NYT editorial states that "The panel’s report concluded that the stricter threshold should become the new target." In fact, the report, which compares scenarios of 1.5 degree C and 2 degree C warming relative to pre-industrial levels, reaches no such conclusion and makes no policy recommendation. While I agree with the editors that more emissions reduction would be desirable, the NYT undercuts both its case and its commitment to accurate science reporting, by misleading readers about the content of an important scientific report.
It's about all of us. Most folks just can't be bothered to reduce their energy footprint. To wit, I attended an Earth Day event 45 yrs ago. Paul Ehrlich spoke to an enthusiastic, packed crowd. A couple of hours later, I walked through
the venue - filled ankle deep with trash. The attendees obviously didn't get it. Until people take personal responsibility for their energy use there is little hope.
That said,Trump adds to the problem with his asinine rhetoric and actions.
1
The time for dithering on climate change was over in 1976. We are short sighted fools and future generations will pay the price.
4
I appreciate the sentiment, but The New York Times is glaringly hypocritical here. Just two weeks ago, during Climate Week NYC, the Times' in-house marketing division, T Brand Studio, worked with ExxonMobil to produce a greenwashing takeover of the Science section and the digital homepage, the latest in a decades-long collaboration of advertorials to distort climate policy and delay action. Until the Times cleans its own house and stops accepting fossil-fuel advertisements, it is in a poor position to stand in judgment against the wisdom, intelligence, or ethics of others.
4
The increase in natural disasters and their severity are Mother Nature's wails for action.
Contact politicians at the local/national levels.
'Car people' need to stop rationalizing their need for street-hogging, gas-guzzling SUVs, and insistence that each family member have 'their own' car. People need to carpool or allow another family member to use their car while they use other modes of transportation now and then.
We don't 'need' plastic straws for our drinks.
Ban single-use plastic bags. How lazy/selfish are some people, that to carry a nylon bag is 'too much inconvenience'? You know what's 'inconvenient'?.... seeing plastic bags rolling around all our streets...stuck in homeowner's shrubs...stuck in our city trees...choking wildlife...
Stop buying so much needless 'stuff' as a form of 'entertainment'. Stop discarding perfectly good items and instead offer them up on Craigslist (Classifieds/Free), Freecycle.org and Trashnothing.org.
Complain when restaurants automatically stuff plasticware into your take-out food order. (Um, do we not all have silverware at home? Are you that lazy to wash a fork after use??!)
Homeowners need to stop the 'vanity' and install solar panels. Gardeners should only grow Native Plants. End the quest for 'perfect' lawns and the chemicals needed to accomplish same.
Buy a BPA-free water bottle to carry around with you. Enough with 'bottled water'.
Fly less and take the train, bus or car for shorter trips.
3
It’s not just world leaders. It’s pseudo-environmental fear factories Greenpeace, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund and others, which realize hundred of $millions in revenue by exaggerating the dangers of nuclear energy - the only zero-carbon source with the capability to make a difference. Not just for wealthy residents of the sunniest, windiest areas of the world, but for everyone.
And it’s the New York Times, which (with the exception of columnist Eduardo Porter) has maintained an irrational, anti-science crusade to replace Indian Point with non-existent renewable resources. It’s a crusade every bit as destructive to climate as climate change denial itself.
Physicists and climatologists recognized these permanent changes coming decades ago. We hoped it wouldn’t have to get to this point before the public was forced to face its own fears, but what’s past is past. Wake up, Times - it really is that bad, and without nuclear it will only get worse.
“Nuclear energy paves the only viable path forward on climate change.” - World-recognized climatologists James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira, and Tom Wigley. cgnp.org
1
I looked at one of my favorite trees as I was going home from work the other day and was thinking, this small pleasure is something that may not be available to the next generation. Besides the huge problems of food production and rising ocean levels and extreme weather and so on, there's a million tiny things that we are throwing away every day. And to think that just in the last ten years or so, that this is a bad thing has become controversial!
3
An inexpensive multi-nation transformative economic development plan that would put a damper on climate change and rising sea levels and atmospheric carbon dioxide retention is already known. Why isint it being implemented immediately?
Even if the nations of the world must band together to wrest control of the land regions needed for this project it must be done to preserve the economic well being of billions of people ,if unreasonably the nations that control the land resources needed were to object.
The Paul J Dougherty Inland Sea of Northern Africa would be one of the largest and most beneficial terra-forming projects ever constructed and would be a bulwark against the unplanned ill effects of rampant world wide economic growth, known to most as Climate Change.
1
There will be insufficient action on this as long as both political parties, economists of all persuasions, the entire business community, and even the man in the street, all agree that the desired endpoint of all our striving is to increase growth. This is patently unsustainable. The worship of growth is what underlies the trajectory of our civilization. It can't be maintained. I'm not the first one to say so. What leader who urges caution about too much growth would ever attract any followers? Can we not work towards a steady state instead of pure growth? Guess what: the resources of all kinds available to us are finite. Growth will ultimately be limited. How do we want to experience this?
8
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1049752648524673025
Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald
"On Sunday in Brazil, the world’s seventh-largest emitter of greenhouse gas, voters appeared on track to elect a new president, Jair Bolsonaro, who has said he also plans to withdraw from the [Paris] accord."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html
Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040
A landmark report from the United Nations’ scientific panel on climate change paints a far more dire picture of the immediate consequences of climate change than previously thought and says that avoiding the damage requires transforming the world economy at a speed and scale that has “no documented historic precedent.”
1:05 PM - 9 Oct 2018
2
We all seem to want to find someone to blame for this problem- Republican, greedy corporations, global warming deniers. The real problem is all of us, and our basic nature.
We all want more and more- more money, a bigger car, a bigger house. We as a species are never content with what we have. All politicians bow to economic growth, and no politician proclaiming that less was better would get elected dog catcher. Our path to destruction began with the discovery of coal, then oil, then the free market economy, which increased our consumption by orders of magnitude. We used to buy only what we needed, then marketing was created to get us to buy things we didn't think we needed, and credit was invented to get us to consume beyond our ability to pay.
People proclaim that 'green' energy is our salvation. Really? Studies have been published showing that an increase in solar and wind power merely increase the amount of energy available for economic growth, it is doing nothing to keep oil or coal in the ground.Look at Germany- they say they are 'green' because they burn wood pellets, but the US is destroying forests supplying these pellets. If we continue to require exponential growth, no energy source will be enough.
4
This is where guaranteed income should seriously be considered. Which is easier- paying people to live alternative lifestyles or buying a new planet?
4
Global warming has to be concrete for todays minds to grasp a tomorrow. But these people don't care. If people today understand that today, they can no longer live any where in the world that is eight feet above sea level or less. The government will not spend, or rebuild, protect and insurance will cancel on these properties, in violation. Why because you don't want to believe the consequences of global warming. The only funding should be to remove existing structures in these low level areas for us to use as recreational parks. You want to ignore global warming, pay the price today. That will be the price in the future because of todays failures. The polluters responsible should be made to pay today, not the innocent of the future.
2
I'm afraid this is one issue capitalism cannot absorb and turn into a cash cow, as it cuts against the fundamental grain of accumulation and expansion at the heart of the system. It won't be the end of humanity, but "Western" civilization as we know it, if unable to transform, will probably collaps at a terrible price in human lives, political, social and cultural breakdowns and all the ugliness that brings. It wouldn't be the first time, though the magnitude is exceptional. I suggest the Dark Mountain Project writers' manifesto and publications for some good reads on dealing with facing the inevitable.
As another reader noted, there are very few comments on this article a full day after its posting. I don't know if it reflects a denial or ignorance on the part of the typically educated and thoughtful NYT readers. But as an environmental engineer who has spent an entire professional career working on environmental and energy-related issues, it's very clear there is an increasing lack of leadership to address climate change. There is also a war on science by conservatives that further undermines our ability to do so. Even if climate change was due to natural processes (vs human-induced) why wouldn't one do everything they can to limit or reverse those trends? For the sake of your children and their children?
Perhaps the lack of comments reflect something more dire - hopelessness? I certainly feel hopeless. In spite of the overwhelming evidence and consensus that climate change is real and happening now, doubt and suspicion have only increased - predominantly in the U.S.. As another reader stated - "take a forest bath before they're all gone". Without leadership and a collective societal acknowledgement of this reality, future generations will not have that opportunity. The human species is destined to be a fleeting species.
5
For years now I've responded, "I sure hope you're right," to friends and acquaintances who deny climate change as seasonal cycles, etc. I'll now be saying, "You'd better be right. And I think you'd agree."
4
We're all baking ourselves with anger, born of increasing frustrations. The world needs the cooling effect of listening and love. More compassion, less importance on the material. Go hug a stranger, take a forest bath before they're all gone.
-A true California hippy
17
I laugh because I have no more tears to shed.
2
Maybe a hurricane destroying Mar-A-Lago will get Trump's attention. Although, he would probably find some way for U.S. citizens to pay for the damage.
8
October 10, 2018
These are wake up calls to the civilized world and we shouldn't want to live with the uncivilized rages as cascades of climatic devastation becomes unstoppable. Mother Nature is not to gamble with, but to respect her resources to live in harmony with the laws of physics, chemistry, as its all science in facts and verified for assurance that what we live with is what we deserve - so do the math for the body counts and then think what could have been having the weak up that is for all leaders on our shared Earth our home and our school all for what is true.
1
You need to look to Albany, as well as Washington, to understand the challenge ahead of us. New York's highly touted climate change program, call REV, at best would only reduce greenhouse gases by about 6%. However, REV seems to be falling short of its mandate, so about 3.5% looks more likely. In the meanwhile Albany plans to replace the carbon-free Indian Point nuclear plants with natural gas. If this is done, these gas replacement plants will negate the whole REV program; past, ongoing, and future. The excuses for doing this are two fictions : the need to evacuate out to 50 miles in an accident and greater seismic activity from the Ramapo Fault. A 50 mile evacuation is utter nonsense; 1000 times too large. If there were a very powerful earthquake, Indian Point's containment buildings would be the last structures standing. Where is the State's peer review of these false claims?
Put a carbon tax on everyday life for all citizens everywhere all the time. The rich guy flying a helicopter to work and going around the globe in a jet will be taxed accordingly. The poor guy with thirsty gasoline car will also have to pay his fair share. If people don’t feel it in their wallets it won’t happen.
6
Its time to do something and take back our government from the corporate interests that will destroy life on this planet. Whatever it takes, by force of persuasion, money, or by a force of arms. Before it is too late. The inertia of planetary warming will take time to remediate. We need to organize now, and persevere in the face of a determined and dangerous opposition.
Webetcha: Most leaders don't care and pushed the snooze-button.
We are witnessing a glaring and dangerous weakness in democratic governance at an important time for humanity. A substantial part of our population is unable to discern between truth and fiction and has elected a monster who may well lead the nation and world to ruin. The death toll will be staggering, but it matters not to self absorbed "leaders" who focus on short term mammon as their source of inspiration. As costs rise, conflict is assured, concurrently amongst ourselves and with the rest of the planet. Please vote, your children and grandchildren need you.
2
those that polluted most must pay.
Why aren't there more comments on this article? That alone terrifies me. Why aren't we all talking about this right now?
4
@maria
It's too big to think about.
And it's too late.
If only the media were ringing the alarm bells as loudly as the scientists are. Why the way down page article, NYT? We are all complicit in the fate that awaits us, some more so and some less so, but we will all suffer. We deserve what's coming for us. The plants and animals do not.
4
Yes the alarm is deafening. It has been for years, but remediation requires radical changes in the means of production and the social relations of production. That might sound like cant, but it's in plain sight. The issue is energy, measured in joules, but the self-appointed wise at the NYTimes, in Washington, in Brussels, and around the world, can only measure things in dollars. The metric that assures our damnation. The editorial is right, but tomorrow it will be buried under stories of palace intrigue in the Trump administration, or foreign policy gamesmanship. This game is for keeps, and it's time for the Times et al. to raise their gaze to the real challenge we face, which is not control of Congress or what's the best economic policy, or what "those guys" are up to. Deploy your resources to the effort to avoid the apocalypse, and that is what we are facing in only a few decades, and not according to the idiot bell of "market signals." I'm not optimistic.
21
For the good of the order, from a nobody with not much:
- Home is powered by wind & solar;
- Lights are turned off in empty rooms, heat & a/c used conservatively;
- Car stays in garage most days; bicycle or walk nearly every day;
- Proud to be child-free;
- And vegetarian.
That said, this elder won’t be around for the worst climate impacts, although the increased heat and air pollution in this Northern town is already too much. But I’ve done everything possible for the sake of younger generations. And it was no huge sacrifice. People, what are *you* doing?
4
In the long run, its going to seem pretty strange, to our grandkids, that we did all this over a source of energy that is running out. To people who say it will cost a lot of money to transition to renewable and nuclear power, I would ask them to prove that they can somehow avoid that cost. And if you think you can avoid that cost for some decades, what does it mean that the President of the United States feels the need to stump for coal? Or open National Parks up for drilling? Why the overdone geopolitical interest in the Middle East? Such desperation smacks of a simple reality: its running out. It's going to run out, and then we're going to have to do what we should be doing now. With or without a livable planet, we're going to have to make that energy transition, someday.
4
Republican and the Trump Administration's denial of science and of the reality of climate change has ensured that at least half of the US population is impervious to this message and will reject it as a liberal plot. The rest of the world will get no help from the US.
2
elephant in the room is the refusal to talk about the nuclear power generation option. The technology is there and it is carbon free. small scale thorium reactors are safe. just don't build them in areas prone to tsunami's and make sure all operational staff are qualified.
2
@Alison Cartwright - thank you.
More importantly: they can generate clean electricty when the sun isn't shining, and the wind isn't blowing.
2
Help will arrive when the Emperor Ming sends his Purple Ray to Planet Earth.
Trump cannot defeat MING...
1
The "alarm" is all well and good. What is to be done about the people who count, the American voters who installed Trump? They are ill-educated, or stupid, or immoral, or some combination.
4
@Avalanche
They're victims of fake news.
What to do about this is what any patriot in such circumstances should do: to start engaging in real, respectful debates with them, so that they too can learn how to think and fact-check.
@Ana Luisa
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response.
Well, yes, there are those that are victims of fake news who are thoughtful people and are able to discern the fallacies presented by the current administration. I have great success with those having open minds. I must say that those people having open minds, already know how to think and fact_check.
Then there are those that are stupid and cannot think but are easily led by their cultural values which are often racist or anti-intellectual. I cannot begin to compete with Trump.
Then there are those who are ignorant. So long have they been ignorant (a product of the dumbing down of the United States by Republicans) that they now have internalized the incorrect information and thought processes which was fed them.
I would as likely convert Pope John to Atheism than convince these people to take on the fight of climate change.
Likely, I may have much more success with the third group who are only immoral.
I have been at this task for some time (1965 - the year I entered college in the U.S.).
I haven't given up nor in. I have discovered the extent of stupidity, ignorance and immorality in these United States is well beyond my capability.
So good to hear such an optimistic recommendation. If only we could win back the ability to make our education system the premier system it once was. We would lead the planet in the fight.
Stupid, Ignorant, or Immoral.
Cultural bias - racist - anti intellectual.
Hey NYT! Be fair! The knowledge that human activity drives climate change has only been around since the 1970s, or even earlier!
1
"There's too many men, too many people, making too many problems....and not much love to go around"......Phil Collins...
Wake up "world leaders?" I think you mean WAKE UP TRUMP!
2
Right after 9/11 Robert Kenedy Jr. was on the news saying that no leader had asked the American public to sacrifice, pull together and make the necessary changes to combat global warming. He was brilliant, stirring and sincere. I had hoped he would be stepping in to his family legacy,however, I do not blame him for forgoing that path but this is what we truly need. A visionary, positive leader.
6
At this writing there are only 433 comments to this article, a day after it was first posted - far fewer than the standard for Trump opinion pieces, pro or con. To me, this indicates that even the educated and engaged people who make up New York Times readers are still in denial about the impact of climate change. There is, frankly, no more important story. Why not more interest?
57
@Bob G.
people are interested and terrified but there is no interest on the part of the "leaders" of our government. They are hoping to get all they can, please all their donors, rip and tear through what's left while they hold all the power. People are exhausted and hopeless and stunned because of the last two years of constant abuse from trump and his scorch earth policies and his minions who gleefully carry them out.
1
@Bob G. I’ve wondered this too, both in context of this article and the issue at large. I think for many people, we feel rather helpless at making any significance individual contributions. So the burden shifts to world leaders. And when the dominant country in the world shrugs off alarming reports like this, how are we to feel? America is ruled by corporate greed and deep pockets. They rather despise lower their earnings and expending their massive cash flows for saving something so arbitrary as our beautiful world.
1
Trump isn't an outlier, that's one of the biggest problems. Other countries issue lofty proclamations but are actually doing very little and not one major manufacturing country has even come close to achieving the goals agreed to in Paris.
USA, China, India, Germany, France and Great Britain don't do much more than talk. Norway will achieve their goals by selling oil to accomplish them.
Until there's big money to be made in addressing these issues, nothing significant will happen. Isn't now and don't see it happening anytime soon, if ever. Profit Trumps everything else.
3
One of the primary ways to combat climate change, and to simultaneously create better places, is to transform our cities into vibrant mixed use environments where people get around by walking, transit and bicycling. Forget about electric cars playing a large role. No matter what they run on, cars destroy cities by taking up huge amounts of land and utterly dominating the environment. And, even if you think electric cars are a good thing, where will the electricity come from to power them? How much of the electrical sources will be needed for cars? How many resources will be needed to trade out the world's current car fleet for electric cars? Now is the time to transform the world's cities into places built for people, not for cars.
7
@Mitch, when nuclear electricity is powering cars, buses, trucks, trains, container and cruise ships; heating/air conditioning homes and businesses, running computer networks, and driving commerce and manufacturing, all will be 100% carbon-free.
It will render efficiency, storage, demand response, distributed generation, wind turbines, solar panels, carbon capture, and hamster wheels irrelevant. And the sooner, the better.
2
Not one word here about population control. Why not? The constant striving for more, greater and bigger is justified by the moronic assumption that the population will increase and therefore productivity must be made to increase to feed the hungry hordes not yet born. I think the NY Times should feature a story on population control on the front page of every issue. The stupid taboo of never mentioning birth control is shared by every political party and candidate, and every religion on planet. What is wrong with saying enough is enough? Aside from the destruction to the planet caused by humans reproducing and consuming like locusts, the misery and poverty and subjugation of women world-wide would be relieved if they had easy access to birth control. Men would lose part of their control over women and women and their children could live better lives. But, just as women don't have the right to self-determination over their own bodies, men still control whether of not women must bear children. Blame overpopulation for the destruction of the planet. A saner, smaller human population might find it much easier to agree that this is a place worth preserving, and the planet is worthy joining together to save. That won't happen as long as women allow men to rule their bodies and the planet, Kavanaugh's elevation is the latest atrocity perpetrated upon women, and there is hardly a voice crying out at that injustice.
4
@rac
The NYT will start writing that population increase is the main cause of climate change the day science proves that hypothesis to be right.
For the moment, science has proven the exact opposite: countries with the highest population growth also happen to have the lowest carbon footprint per capita, whereas it's the US that has the highest per capita footprint.
Concretely, that means that you have to take out more than 10 African citizens in order to eliminate the amount of carbon produced by one single American.
So imho, it's wiser and more morally responsible to start at home and change our extremely damaging lifestyle, no ... ? ;-)
And remember, eliminating all poor countries and only keeping the wealthiest ones (knowing that population growth only stagnates in wealthy, developed economies) won't solve the problem AT ALL, it will simply take a little bit longer before the exact same climate change damage will appear, as CO2 rests an entire century in the atmosphere, so the accumulation would happen anyhow.
The ONLY solution to stop increasing global atmospheric CO2 levels is to stop adding more carbon, in other words to massively switch to clean energy in the West, all while using part our wealth to help poor countries developing their economy without going through our own dirty industrialization phase and directly using clean energy instead.
But THAT seems to be the real taboo here, no?
1
Not only is birth control never mentioned, but medical resources are being used through the fertility industry to artificially increase the population. There is no one whose DNA is so important that s/he needs to reproduce. It's just another example of narcissism at work.
2
@Ana Luisa I agree completely that the solution is to massively switch to clean energy. The reason I think that achieving women's human rights is necessary to make this happen is that people preventing this are men. They have all power; until women are empowered who cares about their children? This has nothing to do with how many Africans = 1 Western person's carbon footprint. All women have common causes but until freed from the bondage of forced child-bearing instead of becoming powerful people who have a voice in the planet's future, they are just the victims of male destruction. I don't make this point out of hatred of men, but as one of all of the woman victims of male stupidity, testosterone fueled violence, and their willing participation in the subjugation of women, silencing their voices which I believe would wish to save the planet.
World "leaders" are for the most part ignorant men. Trump? He's the last person he talked to and he surrounds himself with single focus partisans. What can anyone expect?
5
Friends, electric cars are NOT ananswer; building them will simply add to the carbon footprint, for one, and our roads will continue to be congested and in need of ongoing - you guessed it - carbon-intensive repair.
Let’s not bandy about the bush much longer; we’re at war - with climate change, and, gulp, ourselves, meaning our lifestyles. We seriously need to rebuild our ground-based public transit systems, and then begin using them. Mass transit does by no means have to be sardine-packed cattle cars...we know how to build luxury a/or decent, stylish comfort - just ask the auto makers. This goes for inter-urban transportation by rail.
Air travel, which is over-used and contributes to global warming as well must be limited to strictly necessary use. Is this a hard pill to swallow? Folks made do with restrictions during WW II and learned to cheerfully adapt. Maybe fighting climate change will bring us back together as a people, once the realization sets in that we’re battling to save the world we know and love.
4
The only one that counts now is Trump and his minions. Everyone else.on earth could go carbonless tomorrow and it would be almost meaningless.
2
Photovoltaics and electrochemistry are the core sciences of renewable energy. One wonders what Trump knows about these topics.
2
@Steve Bolger
Trump might show a positive interest in a scientific paper if you coated with chocolate and performed a Saudi sword dance.
1
"When a cautious, science-based and largely apolitical group like the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the world must utterly transform its energy systems in the next decade or risk ecological and social disaster,..."
...Donald Trump says, "I want to look at who drew it".
No, I did not make that up.
How best to describe Republicans (of whom Trump is just one example)? World class evil farce?
5
Thanks to the editorial board for yet another article predicting that the house is burning down to go with the others that imply the house has already have burned down. I don't buy this narrative. I have faith that the human race will figure out how to address this when the time is right (i.e. when it has to and probably not much before then). Humanity has figured out how to do a lot of tricky things. As described in Superfreakonomics, back in the late 1800's the climate issue of the day was the piling up in urban areas of horse dung such that "expert" predictions were that entire cities would soon literally be buried under several feet of dung (leading to a variety of very serious public health concerns). It never happened because someone figured out a better way to power the carriage than the horse. Note as well the many predictions over the years of mass starvation on account of the human population growing to a point where the earth could no longer provide enough food to sustain people. Look where we are today: developed countries struggling with an obesity epidemic because there's literally too much damned food! A world with 200 million less hungry people than there were 25 years ago (notwithstanding pop'n growth). I recognize the foregoing will not convince those who are inclined to believe the doom and gloom story, and maybe these folks are right and I'm the one that's wrong; if so, this little humanity experiment has had a nice little run, but nothing lasts forever.
1
@Bill, a couple points: (1) comparing global climate change involving complex and interrelated natural systems in the oceans, on land, and in the atmosphere to the problem of horse manure in the 1800s is a poor analogy (and therefore dangerous to draw conclusions from). (2) People ARE starving in poor countries, and the obesity problem in developed countries isn't due to "too much" food per se, but rather the wrong foods being pushed on us by government subsidies and the related food industries (I saw this first hand in the Middle East, where I spent a year; I'm convinced that fast food is one of our country's deadliest weapons).
I think the stakes are too high to place a lot of reliance on an attitude of "we'll figure out, we always have".
4
@Bill I have never before bought any of the disaster prophecies that have appeared historically. For four decades I have been following carefully the evidence on climate change. Do you agree that further warming of the earth temperature may become a non reversible problem problem if it is not addressed properly in the oncoming decades? The two largest contributors are China and The US. These two countries are the only ones which are not currently addressing the problem. How will the problem be solved in time? Miraculously?
1
@Bill
You're comparing random failed past predictions on issues where there was still plenty of time to find a solution, and at a time when experimental science was barely a century old, to 21th century science that has been corroborated for years already now, in order to argue that we should reject the currently available science too.
That's as rational/reasonable as saying that because of the fact that in the past some guesses about gravity were false before we got it right, you don't need to start any cancer treatment when today's technology discovers that you're having a very dangerous cancer, because well, "nothing lasts forever" ... you see?
It just doesn't make any sense.
Today already, there are 20 million climate change refugees. For them, past predictions about climate change weren't merely right, "humanity" (read: the US, as it's we who are having the highest carbon footprint per capita and as such are most responsible for the current disaster) didn't solve this problem in time at all.
So stop making excuses and start acting, rather than inventing strawman arguments that don't even begin to refute all the available science out there ...
2
Oil-for-food program, Syria and a soapbox for Hugo Chavez. Have learned to stop reading after UN.
1
I think our sense of entitlement that brought us here. Personal entitlement that says, I worked hard, I deserve what I have. Corporate entitlement that says, we deserve to make money by providing for the consumers willing to buy. Government entitlement that says, I was duly elected and must serve the interests of my constituents.
The subtext to all of this is, consequences be damned. Greed and selfishness have overtaken us, and our prideful thinking will be our downfall. We just may end up being the end of a failed line in evolution, and must make way for the wave of intelligent animals.
2
@Fredd R: Really like your statements here--however, if, as you say "we just may end up the end of a failed line in evolution, and must make way for the wave of intelligent animals..." which animals might they be that would survive in a world that would basically be uninhabitable? Selective annihilation doesn't seem to be a viable option.
If “All the News That’s Fit to Print” is the motto, then the New York Times should highlight a global warming or energy conservation story every day. Maybe give it an easily identifiable look to give warning to us all - and to celebrate achievements. We know where to look for the crossword or the sports. An environment/climate change section is now essential.
3
A total and permanent collapse in the food supply is what we're facing, when agricultural areas finally become too hot and dry to grow crops. Maybe ten years left? That seems optimistic.
2
@Tom Sage
Agreed. And believing agriculture can move north is tooth fairy territory. We don't have the soils for agriculture.
1
Frankly, if the US does not take a strong stand and implement real, effective policy changes, the rest of the world won't either. But when roughly half of the US does not believe in climate change (or evolution, for that matter), it is hard for me to imagine that we will all pull together to solve this problem.
While electing candidates that are in favor of fighting climate change is a good first step, it will take more than a single party trying to ram through legislation that half the country does not believe in. The recommendations of the UNIPCC are so dramatic that unless all Americans are on board, we will only get half measures, and as the reports says, half measures just isn't going to cut it.
4
Peaceful street demonstrations are no longer effective as they are now being called "angry mobs." We who care about humanity and all life on the planet need to come up with other demonstrations to show that we as citizens are ready to make the necessary sacrifices. What about a monthly dusk-to-dawn home blackout? Many of us already lose power during storms for days.
3
Since the USA government has its head buried in oil wells, why don’t we organize as citizens and plan rolling strikes — we could refuse to use our cars, boycott meat, no-fly days, zero shopping, zero plastic etc. through scheduled times, dates and grass roots solidarity. Legislators and politicians would respond because citizen actions like these would hurt America’s purse.
3
What hypocrisy! How can the NYT continue to market its luxury/educational vacations all around the world for wealthy people when it is well known that traveling on jet planes is one of the worst things for one's carbon footprint. Also, accepting advertising for all manner of carbon-producing luxury products. Staying at home in our tiny houses, eating a localized vegan diet (no more avocado toast), only buying pre-owned items -- this is our future if mankind hopes to survive until next year.
1
@Eddie: Yes, we need to figure out how to make a carbon-free jet fuel. Ammonia suggests itself as a low-mass extremely high energy-density carbon-free jet fuel but the safety issues it raises are complex.
The Dems have been looking for a clear and simple message for years. How about this: "If you want to live, come with us." One thing is for sure: no one will care about whether the Dems protected Medicare and Social Security when it is 130 degrees out.
1
Many people talk about the legacy we will leave if we don't wake up from our Trump induced dementia on the subject of climate change. If we don't wake up there will be no one left to HAVE a legacy.
3
In country after country citizens are crying out for action but our politicians refuse to act because they fear making decisions that would be in their nations, and the worlds best interests.
They would rather deny that climate change is real than accept the facts. These so called leader refuse to accept the truth of the evidence provided by experts and what the can see before their eyes.
By choosing to remain deliberately blind and deliberately ignorant they are the greatest threat to our future; the world can deal with climate change but we cannot do it while our leaders refuse to act.
3
"Unfortunately, no alarm seems loud enough to penetrate the walls of the White House or the cranium of its principal occupant"
Well said, NYT! Alas, Zombies can't hear the alarm because they are alarming themselves. Hopefully, their voters and enablers can hear the alarm loud enough to shift their perspective just enough to drive him out of power and clip his wings of destruction.
The US is the biggest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases of all nations. If it does not lead in carbon reduction, everyone else is made to feel that doing anything themselves is futile.
Trump has made the US the worst technological laggard on Earth.
1
World leaders? No. Sorry. These are paid to do as instructed by the super rich.
2
Newsflash: The world's biggest polluters don't care, and our president is at the top of that steamy, toxic heap.
Trump does not nor will he EVER care about the environment, because he can't put a Trump Hotel banner on it.
Although it is painful and tragic, we have to hope that we can right this once we vote Trump and his buddies out of office. We may be too late.
4
Fake news.
That is the place to which scientific discourse has been relegated in USA. It's not merely immoral. It should be considered treasonous on account of the number of people it will kill in this country.
In light of the dire message coming out of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I seriously wonder whether or not the U.S. House of Representatives could legally consider "climate change denial" as an impeachable offense against both President Trump and Vice President Pence.
We need intelligent and forthright leadership to deal with the difficult and myriad choices that will be inevitable in the profound changes needed to begin almost immediately.
A credible, highly respected statesperson will need to be at the helm of this "ship of state" to guide us through the much-needed emergency-level work to be done through a concerted effort made between the United States (as a chosen model) and the rest of the world in creating the necessary changes away from our carbon-based lifestyle.
Believers in hoaxes and political enablers of all carbon-related corporate power have held sway for far too long now--they are a literal danger to humanity and need to be replaced as soon as possible with responsive, trustworthy leadership.
4
A few ideas for climate actions you can take TODAY that are not covered in this editorial (and focus less on individual action and more on applying leverage to our systems):
1) Register to vote (or check your registration status) to make your voice heard in our upcoming midterm election. Back candidates (with your vote and your dollars if you have them) that have the endorsement of the League of Conservation Voters or Climate Hawks Vote. Don't forget down-ballot races as these are often the most impactful. Climate is often on the ballot in the form of voter initiatives. Look for those that support clean energy and carbon pricing (Washington state, you could pass a carbon fee!)
2) Write your favorite news outlets and tell them you would like to see more reporting on the issue of climate change (including feature stories and editorials), with greater frequency. Click on these when they are published so our media knows we are listening.
3) Pay attention to the government we already have. Comment on the EPA's proposed rollbacks to environmental regulations. Call and write your state representatives to tell them you support climate action and do so persistently. Attend every rally you can find that supports climate action or scientific research on the changes that are coming.
Do not let anyone tell you that nothing you do will make a difference. To paraphrase a hockey great, you definitely won't make a difference if you give up.
5
@ADV
The "they" you're referring to are wrong.
It's too late to avoid certain types of damage, but not at all to avoid much bigger damage.
No more excuses, time to act!
1
"...the world must utterly transform its energy systems in the next decade or risk ecological and social disaster"
Used to be that 'fiddling while Rome burned' was the definition of the utmost abdication of duty.
Here we are in 2018, as the Trump administration fiddles while the WORLD burns.
Not long ago, my son began a conversation with me by saying, "When I have kids...." and I had to turn away so that he would not see that his hopeful statement had brought tears to my eyes.
With all we know, and have marched for and pleaded for and fought for, only to watch as Trump so cruelly accelerates the abuse of our planet, I'm left with...
well, really, there are no words.
10
Know just how you feel. Both of my kids have decided not to have children...didn’t bother me at first...then later...I felt like I had nothing to strive for. Until, it dawned on me...this is way bigger than just my little family...our dishonesty in dealing with climate change effects every living thing on this planet. That thought just overwhelms me.
35
Struck by the line in the article:
"Global emissions continue to rise, albeit slowly."
Our problem is too much C02 already in the atmosphere. The CO2 added each year will stay (after the ocean has absorbed about 90%) for millennia. If our global emissions are held constant, Global warming will continue to rise. If we stopped all hydrocarbon use tomorrow, temperatures would rise for a while until equilibrium is reached (apparently about 1 degree C higher than now). Sea levels would raise for centuries if we stopped use of all fossil fuels tomorrow.
We need to drastically reduce CO2 emissions. The 1.5 degrees of total warming target requires actually reversing CO2 release rates via TBS methods.
We should not celebrate slowing the increasing rate of increase of CO2 release ("albeit slowly") when the existing CO2 release rate already ensures steady increase of global temperature.
@Mark Johnson
The bus is accelerating a bit more slowly towards the precipice. Let's party!
1
Anyone can start right now to eat only plant based food. The effect is direct and very effective in reducing carbon footprint.
3
@Yahi88
Especially knowing that in the US, the red meat industry is the main source of carbon emissions ... !
The initiative in Washington State is NOT a carbon ‘tax’ as stated erroneously here but a carbon fee. The difference is not insignificant: the funds produced by a fee in Washington State must be directed solely to the object in question rather than being allowed to be dispersed throughout the budget, as with the proceeds of a tax.
1
By next year world population will have tripled since 1950. A large share, 40%-50%, of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions has been driven by that increase, apart from the changing intensity of production/consumption patterns.
While population growth rates are slowing, there is an urgent need to stabilize population quickly, rather than having an annual increase of 80 million -- the average of the past 25 years.
That population growth usually goes unmentioned as a factor in climate change is stunning.
10
@John
There are powerful men who put on a pointed hat -- for an air of great authority -- and go on to oppose abortion and, incredibly, contraception. Too many people have believed them for millennia and have been very obedient.
An Italian woman reportedly shouted at the Pope that “if you don’t play the game, so you should not make the rules.” We need to pay more attention to this wise woman.
6
Even here in Youngstown, where the populace can’t even be inspired to approve a ban on environment –threatening fracking within the city (even as such a proposal faces its eighth defeat in the polls this fall, as ads financed by outside big money again attack the plan) the effects of inaction on climate change are being felt.
The GM plant at nearby Lordstown where the compact Cruze sedan is built is now down to one shift, and there is much concern over the plant’s future. Meanwhile, TV ads for the Cruze are sparse as GM continues to push for sales of its pickup trucks and other less fuel stingy products.
A carbon tax that would boost the price of gasoline would certainly help counter this situation. Thus the laid off Lordstown workers can point to lack of action on climate change as at least a partial cause of their plight.
As vehicles whiz past the Lordstown plant on interstate highways both to its north and south a very high portion of the traffic is composed of diesel -powered tractor trailers, or semis, and fatal accidents involving such vehicles are not infrequent.
Wouldn’t our car-traveling public be safer and the climate-change situation be eased if more of our goods were transported by rail, rather than by high-speed diesel semis? How many other countries ship such a high proportion of their goods by such lumbering trucks, some of them pulling two trailers?
2
Out in the middle of the country I have watched my power company increase its reliance on wind and decrease its reliance on coal in at a reasonable cost to the users. (https://www.midamericanenergy.com/our-renewable-energy-vision.aspx) One day in the past year, due to a really windy day, 100% of the power used was wind generated. (I wouldn't want that much wind everyday, but it was worth it to see that a power company could go coal-less for a day.)
6
These editorials have no impact. 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.
2
@Bill Brown: Carbon taxation motivates improved efficiency. Solid oxide fuel cells are not limited to Carnot efficiency, unlike heat engines.
2
@Steve Bolger Bottom line carbon taxes are politically unfeasible. There's no way they will implemented by Congress.
@Steve Bolger Bottom line carbon taxes are politically unfeasible. There's no chance that Congress will implement them.
The alarm is deafening to be sure, but covering the landscape with huge wind farms (we have one across the street) or replacing cars with EVs is not a solution. Problem is that there are several centuries of global industrial development to be replaced and that is not going to happen over night on anyone's dime. And given the accelerating rate of warming, I suspect it may be too late -- despite the rosy declamations of the greenies.
At this point I suspect the only sensible thing that can be done is to help those who are being harmed right now, not blocking them from crossing borders in flight. And looking at our built infrastructure and enhancing it to cope with the changing climate and more severe weather patterns.
Identifying successful replacements for our combustion-based processes will take a while. And we need to be careful that any solutions embraced are not irreversible. And recognize that rolling back our societies to a low energy agrarian idyll is not going to happen.
The climate is changing and we need to adapt to survive. We are a very long way, IMHO, from having the divine powers to change massive systems that I suspect we do not even understand. A little humility and practicality could go a long way to helping humanity survive.
The world's population doubles ever 61 years. Africa's population doubles every 34 years, and Afghanistan's, only 14.5 years!
The out-of-control population growth rate will be one of the major reasons for the increase in CO2 emissions and the acceleration of global climate change.
Population growth rate is actually one area that the developed world is the good guy - the developed world has a natural low birth rate, which is not even at a sustainable level. This is of course offset by immigration, which is the only reason why the population rate in the western world is increasing.
Japan and the Czech Republic are ideal countries that have low / negative birth rates and low immigration rates. These and similar countries will therefore be responsible for much less of the world's share of CO2 emissions than immigrant hosting countries, such as the US, and Canada, who continue to grow, exclusively because of immigration.
C02 emissions could be stabilized and reduced just be curtailing immigration to the western world. Our population growth would naturally decline below replacement levels were it not for immigration. This is one of the significant blind spots of the immigration advocates. It is better that the immigrants stay in their home countries, which have lower levels or consumerism and CO2 emissions than the immigrant hosting countries.
2
World leaders know this is happening. They are just refusing to do anything about it because they either profit from inaction or their donors profit from it. It’s that simple. The citizens of the world must vote these people out of office. Electing people like Trump and the Republicans is on the citizens. We must protect, commit acts of civil disobedience, educate our fellow citizens, and demand action. And we must make this issue a litmus test for candidates for public office. The people are the solution. The only question is whether the people will wake up in Rome or just commit suicide slowly. There is no savior. We must make it happen.
1
I don't know why some people hold so stubbornly to their view that climate change isn't real, or doesn't matter or can't be fixed anyhow. Is it because they think that responding to climate change is bad for the economy because it could mean taxes or regulation? But I would say this: Nothing is a better opportunity for making money than a problem in search of a solution. Even if the problem is "fake" or trivial, Americans still spend billions buying products that supposedly solve them. So you don't even have to believe in climate change to capitalize on its potential to make money. Look at folks making a killing on "gluten-free". Might as well get out there and start making and selling solar panels and electric cars...
5
Either Roland Emmerich's Day After Tomorrow will come true where we'll put in a new ice age or Christopher Nolan's Interstellar will come true where we have to send Matthew McCougnahey to find us a new planet or Disney Pixar's WALL-E where one giant corporation destroys our environment and Wall-E robots pick up trash in the future.
1
The Four Horsemen are saddling up. As the planet warms, Famine (due to weather-related crop failures), Plague (due to spreading ranges of insect vectors), War (over scarce resources), and Death are sure to have a field day. Malthus was right.
2
There’s no room for Trumpian mindset now.
It’s do or die
Thanks for this Editorial. The 50 year history of how we missed our legal chances reinforces the message of this Editorial.
Having come to Washington in 1966 to work on air pollution control in the U.S. Public Health Service, I had the privilege of working with honest and dedicated government officials.
I have provided documentation of legal landmarks over the past 50 years at
https://www.legalreader.com/50-years-of-legal-climate-change/
1
We were warned about this decades ago when the oil embargo hit in the early 70’s. President Carter saw this and tried to get Americans to conserve energy but was laughed at. We had a chance to begin the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy but didn’t do it ... now the alarm has sounded again in a much more urgent manner and unfortunately we have a Presidential administration so obsessed and jealous of his predecessors administration that he seeks to overturn any climate change initiative for no other reason than spite. This is the most anti scientific administration at the worst time possible. As a senior citizen it won’t affect me as much as my children and especially my grandchildren. Why is the US never proactive but always reactive.... and it will be too late.
3
The faster it happens, the better for the planet. It will recover without us. With us, it may not.
It's too late to change anything. It's too big to contemplate.
With the leaders we have, Donald and Mitch et al., there's no hope, but even with good leaders, it's too late.
The effects on life of even half-a-degree change are incalculable and unstoppable.
@Pecan
Fortunately, science has proven all those hypotheses wrong.
So no more excuses, time to act - especially knowing that it's Americans who have the biggest carbon footprint per capita in the world whereas it's poor countries who are already suffering most from the impact of climate change.
It's too late to avoid certain types of damage, but EVERY minute counts, as each reduction in CO2, however small, gives the next generation the opportunity to keep CO2 levels lower, by the end of this century, than if we decide to put our head in the sand and actively decide to do nothing at all, in other words, to continue to pollute as if it doesn't matter ...
So we raise alarms and put solar panels on our roofs and electric cars in our garages. Yet we get on cruise ships that burn about 80,000 gallons of the worlds dirtiest fuel (+24% carbon emmisions over gasoline) per DAY. Multiply that times 314 cruise ships. To get to the cruise you might take a plane which burns about a gallon per SECOND. The leisure industries for the middle and upper classes continues only to expand without one iota of regard to the damages done to the atmosphere, the ocean or the overwhelmed ports of call.
7
"Political will" is the most difficult part of responding to this cry for help from planet earth.
All anyone need do is look out the window or watch TV to see that 10 years seems optimistic because global warm I my is already here.
Every storm or wildfire or drought seems to be the "storm fill in blank) of the century", until the next one that quiickly supercedes it.
Donald Trump's intransigence on climate change is not surprising--but that an entire political party jumps on board with this wanton disregard for basic science will be a lasting legacy on their role on damaging this planet.
49
The headline is off. The majority of world leaders are woke on this issue. It's the so-called leaders of the US that must be enlightened. Given the unlikelihood of that, they must be changed in November and in 2020.
5
I realize that this is far greater a problem than individuals can solve. There is very little time left to change our course of destruction. Yes, world governments need to reach a consensus on approaches. But perhaps the individual efforts of those of us who are aware of our danger can work towards influencing corporate powers. I know, I know, hope springs eternal, even when intellectually I realize there is no hope left. But let the powers that be remain powers that be. Let them keep their riches. Just turn their efforts to sustainable energy and products. This is the only home we have.
1
The marketing of the environmental movement has to change. We are not saving the planet, we are saving the human race. If we destroy ourselves, the earth will be just fine in a few hundred years, maybe a few millennia at most. The earth will flick us off like an annoying fly.
10
What "world leaders" is the author referring to? There are none. Especially in the United States of America.
Just a reminder, when it comes to stopping global warming and climate change, and saving billions of people and possibly the planet - They. Don't. Care.
All they care about is short term profit, power, and hoarding as much money as they can. So they can spend it on technology that might be able to keep THEM alive, when the world is a burned out cinder.
The rest of us? We can just die.
4
Apt legislation today could tip the balance in everyone's favor of a cleaner and less warmer planet.
In the absence of political will and naysayers denying scientific research, the price of climate change is going to move the needle !!
Hope that's not too late for our children and grand children.
https://www.wsj.com/graphics/climate-change-forcing-insurance-industry-r...
Thank you for writing and publishing this. Please keep the NYTimes focused on this, like daily coverage, instead of making Trump the headline every single day.
7
Folks, it's too late. The tipping point was passed years ago while Big Oil did everything to lobby on behalf of climate change denial. The feedback loops are already in effect and can't be reversed. The greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere have extremely long half-lives, even if emissions magically disappeared entirely overnight things will still get worse before they get better for decades.
The group issuing the warning is cautious and "apolitical" meaning they're effectively neutered from issuing a more realistic scenario lest they be accused of fear-mongering and panic incitement. Notice how every prediction, updated with the most recent data and more powerful computers, is always worse than the prior prognostications?
We're already screwed, and the future is going to make the biblical prophecies of widespread death and destruction look like a picnic. The Bible didn't envision a future with 8 billion human beings on the planet. I'm not religious, but greedy human beings have basically done their utmost to make the ancient foretelling of the apocalypse self-fulfilling.
If that's not biblical, I don't know what is.
5
Oddly enough, those of you who believe in the future of earthbound fusion reactors must also believe in quantum mechanics (QM). The big furnace up there in space (Sol) won't fuse anything without QM. See: Wave functions; Erwin Schrödinger.
1
@HLB Controlled fusion is the toughest problem in engineering physics. I doubt it can be practical without enough QM insight to figure out how to reverse neutron decay to transform deuterons to two bound neutrons.
1
If we lived in a sane world, the problem of climate change would be a great opportunity for people to come together in a united effort to help each other avoid disaster.
3
I am done recycling, why bother?
1
@plons
Tell that the current 20 million climate change refugees, as an American, knowing that the US has the highest carbon footprint per capita in the entire world and that it's poor people who happen to live in the regions where climate change is having most impact already today ...
No more excuses, time to take responsibility and act!
How do we maintain a good quality of life while mitigating against climate change?
I can mitigate my home against floods and fires, I can mitigate my investments at risk of being affected by climate catastrophes. But there's nothing I can possibly do to prevent the next big storm from pushing infrastructure beyond the brink. So much of the worst damage will be done by and to corporations.
I would love to see better mass transit options. Modernized infrastructure and electrical systems that can withstand big storms. Municipal internet everywhere cutting back the need to commute. This is why we need leadership to spur some action on the business and industry level. Until this leadership appears all I can do is vote.
1
Forget going to Mars or space travel , even a probe to Mars.Does this fascination with space make sense when our very own earth is threatened with catastrophic storms and droughts.Low lying areas are already becoming uninhabitable.Major planning needs to be done in addition to carbon tax or whatever it takes to lower carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.This is no time to be a smug climate change denier.At the end of the year when we get a total of the deaths from all climate related events it will be sobering.If there were an epidemic of disease killing this many people, there would be an outcry to find a cure.
4
Trump, his anointed crew and his loyal base are now conditioned by their own propaganda to live in fantasy world where climate change is a hoax. Trump would have to have an epiphany and accept science over profit. Trump would have to admit he is wrong. Trump would need a new crew dedicated to the monumental effort needed. Trump would have to reeducate his base. Trump would have to aggressively work together with other nations to begin to put a dent in climate change. Trump would have to tell the American people that efforts to mitigate climate change will change their lifestyles in major ways.
None of the above, in part or whole, is likely to occur in Trumplandia. If the next administration accepts climate change and is intent on mitigating it, they will face enormous hurdles. First they will have to hit the ground running. Trump's base and donors will quite likely fight any efforts. This might not begin until 2024. Eight years wasted and more damage done.
Remember when Ronald Reagan ripped down the solar panels on the White House. Lead by example. That's not going to happen.
3
Have you ever noticed that completion date for urgent action, raised by international seers of the future, is always.. in the future? Good luck finding a scientific or political report that says action must be taken by late this afternoon.
2
The two largest world polluters, China and thee US, are deaf and blind to their deeds in order to protect large economic interests. While US was not deaf a couple of years ago, Trump's excuse is that China is the worst. The rest of the world first priority now is to make the big effort to enroll China and hope that then everything will be easier with the US.
1
Although considering this life or death issue and how existentially consequential the factual stakes are, our breathtakingly ignorant Fake President remains unable to act as a “world leader”, will never”wake up” to the global threat at hand, nor ever choose to hear its “deafening alarm”. Unless and until he is removed from office we are doomed. As important as the “Russian Issue” is, this Administration’s adamant refusal to protect and defend the country and the planet from climate warming eclipses even that crucial matter. Clocks are ticking! Our children and their children are his hostages.
2
I think that some people are more worried that pregnant women in Texas might have to travel to California to terminate their pregnancies ... than they are about climate change.
For them, the idea that these women might have to go to some other state for a few days, this is the end of the world.
1
One concern does not preclude the other.
3
The US is powerless to address global warming.
Most other nations will not cooperate.
Leading by example will do nothing but hurt the US economy.
5
Well, have fun telling that to your grandkids.
1
1. Nonsense.
2. Untrue.
3. I thought you guys said that we should never “lead from behind?”
1
So do nothing but watch the world die is your solution?
There is no doubt that the problem is imminent -- fueled by warmer waters, a Category 4 hurricane is striking Florida as I type this. Major action must be taken. But one huge problem remains a barrier: how can the enormous changes happen without placing a big financial burden on already strapped middle class and low-income people? Unless a way is found that does not hit those of low to moderate income, major changes will be a nonstarter with voters.
It's easy to say that electric cars will be the order of the day, or that people should improve the insulation in their homes -- unless you can barely afford your old car, and can barely keep up with your mortgage and taxes. It's easy to suggest using public transportation -- unless you live in a suburban or rural area where such options are nonexistent. I'll grant that we could all eat less meat without busting our budgets -- unless you live in a food desert where fresh produce is hard to come by.
There simply is no way to solve this problem on the backs of the little guy. Unfortunately, with Republicans in power, there is no likelihood of massive public investment, financed by taxes on investment income, stock buybacks, etc. I'm afraid that we are doomed.
2
We are led by a criminal psychopath, whos sexual depravity and offenses pale in comparison to his crimes against the American people and rest of the world. He deliberately destroys every vestige of decency, intelligence and environmental care that his puppet masters wish to destroy. There is an axis of evil and Donald Trump is its figure head, if not leader. Like all bullies he is a coward and weakling, seeking power by aligning himself with other psychopathic tyrants.
If there is not a civil war in this country I see no future for any of us. NY State could secede, as could many other states. The entire east coast could secede and join as a new country. We will get nothing but more thievery, hate, destruction of liberty from the criminal psychopaths who have grabbed power through gerrymandering, election fraud and collusion with our enemies, and manipulating the uneducated and weak-minded and superstitiously religious.
We just let a criminal psychopath put a sexual assaulter and offender on the Supreme Court, making a mockery of our justice system. And, the woman who told her story is openly mocked and lied about by the illegitimate occupier of the US presidency. Until Kavanaugh and Trump are both impeached I have no hope for any change.
19
And California will join you —probably Oregon and Washington would do so as well. Remember, CA has the 6th largest economy in the world. We would manage just fine. And CA has been managing climate issues on their own.
4
The recent tide of immigrants to Europe and the US are nothing compared to the tsunami of people who will be displaced within our lifetimes by drought, floods, fires and famine caused by climate change. In one way or another, it will affect every living being on the planet and it won't be pretty.
We can build a wall and wail by it as the situation gets worse, or we can take positive steps to shift our reliance on fossil fuels to non carbon based energy sources. And it sure would help if the Pope would declare that the world has now been filled, please everyone use contraceptives.
4
The deeply sad thing about our refusal to acknowledge climate change or do anything about it, at the same time refusing to fund or promote birth control and other sensible measures, is that if we humans don’t do something starting immediately, “nature” will inevitably do it for us with results we can’t even begin to imagine.
3
The denial of human-caused climate change and its effect on US policy is attributable not only to Trump, but rather to an even larger degree to the Republican leadership in Congress and their industry-benefitting supporters who feel their profits threatened by curtailment of green house gas emissions. The deniers and doubters are pervasive among the republican caucus and they have offered absolutely no resistance to the administration's policy and actions on the environment and curtailment of carbon dioxide and other pollutant emissions; on the contrary, they have enthusiastically supported these action. And this dangerous behavior predated Trump by decades and is the result of the enormous influence on the election of pliable congressmen by the Koch brothers and their ilk in the petrochemical and coal industry, an influence that spreads as well into the judiciary and in the choice of the heads of federal agencies. A bit of prior education on the issue and the ballot box is the only recourse we ordinary citizen have to correct this cancer.
7
No less than governor Jerry Brown of California said the other day that climate change might well be a problem that can't be solved by politicians. This is a problem that will be solved only when the people demand a solution, and the people will not make that. demand until there has been massive property damage, personal injury and loss of life as a result of climate events which are undeniably the result of climate change. Then the tide will turn, and the winning politicians will be the ones who promise the most drastic action, the do nothings will be gone.
1
@GBC1 If a politician can't solve a problem, how can a politician state the problem? See: moonbeams are free.
The alarm bells may be ringing, but many of you who are commenting are still driving big, "comfortable" and "safe" large SUVs. Except for Tesla, most EV sales are very light and need subsidies. Ford is getting out of the car business due to lack of demand.
As much as a government driven solution would help, there are hundreds of things each one of us could do: buy energy efficient appliances, change lighting to LEDs, only buy from net carbon zero companies, install solar cells, insulate our homes, separate and recycle trash, promote carbon taxes, cap and trade, and vote! This has to be a movement that each of us takes on to make any real change.
5
My gripe with this piece is that it assigns an unreasonable amount of blame on the individual and their gluttonous consumption habits. The idea that using an EV or installing smart meters will have a global impactful change is ridiculous and dangerous. About 100 corporations account for 71% of the global greenhouse emissions produced.
The problem is not technology or the over indulgences of the end user. The problem is Capitalism and our economic systems. We either need to make net carbon neutral technology (PV, Wind, Nuclear Fusion) achieve parity on the market, though voting with our dollars or dismantle the system....
107
@Jack There's a good reason why the nearest, working, actual-power producing fusion reactor is 93M miles away. And it doesn't take subsidies from the government. See: M = mega; m = milli.
@Jack Capitalism is an economic/social system in which the means of production and accumulation of wealth is held in private hands.
Which part of that have you not engaged in?
@Jack
Jack is correct. Individual efforts may feel good but only a coordinated, supersized international "moon shot" all-out effort could mitigate the coming Armeggedon.
Corporate interests and the governments they've captured will not permit such an effort.
Stop focusing on Trump and the Paris Agreement.
Whining about Trump is a waste of time and energy, it is not going to make one bit of difference.
The Democrats are just as much to blame for their inaction as the Republicans. Both parties have been beholden to their corporate masters for decades. Read the recent extensive report in the NYT. Decisive action on the climate crisis should have begun in the 60's or 70's. It comes down to a lack of leadership.
Obama had the opportunity in Jan. 2009 to announce a bold and far reaching plan for research, development, and implementation to convert our energy sources to renewables, similar to JFK's leadership on the Apollo program. He had almost 70% approval rating and both houses of Congress. By now, almost 10 years later we could be leading the world in renewable technology. But hey, we had endless wars to fight and banksters to bail out.
Bernie Sanders said during his campaign that this is the most urgent issue of our time, surpassing all others. He was mocked and dismissed as an alarmist, among other things.
The Paris Agreement is now and always has been a worthless piece of paper in regards to making an actual difference. It has unrealistic goals and no enforceable mandate to the signers. It is strictly more corporate and political theater to give the appearance that something is being done.
It is past time to demand action from candidates and legislators.
And let's start calling it by what it is, the climate crisis.
89
@r2d2
Call it what you want, but the fact remains that the U.S. still plays a significant part when it comes to its use of fossil fuels, and this president's single-mindedness is repealing every environmental legislation put into place by the previous administration, while allowing the E.P.A. to self-implode is doing nothing to help the situation along.
The Paris Agreement at least got many countries (even Russia and China!) to the table -- but now with this country backing out, it's become even less than "worthless".
3
@r2d2
That's EXACTLY the mentality that makes any real progress impossible.
Obama doubled the number of American solar energy jobs, took lots of other ambitious measures, AND was the initiator of the very first global climate agreement.
If you cannot celebrate this as hugely important steps forward, and only want to focus on ideals alone, you'll never get anywhere.
As Saul Alinsky shows, all real, radical, lasting, non-violent, democratic progress is necessarily step by step progress.
That means that you need to cultivate BOTH a strong focus on our ideals/end goals AND the patience and persistance to go standing in the mud and fight hard to get the next step done, here and now ... rather than standing at the sidelines and yelling "not enough!".
The very fact that part of the progressives in this country ignore this (or are, as Alinsky called it, "politically illiterate") is as responsible for the current GOP control of all branches of government as is the fact that many GOP voters became victims of Fox News' fake news.
The Paris Accord is in itself a U-turn, and that first step is always the most difficult to accomplish. Now that Obama managed to do so, it's up to us to build on it. And that begins with voting out the GOP, of course.
As to 2009: you cannot possibly understand how lawmaking in a democracy works and then imagine that somehow instead of turning around an economy shredding 700,000 jobs a month Obama could and should have focused on the climate first.
5
@r2d2 If you are going to mock and fault Democrats equally with Republicans, why should Democrats now bear the brunt of public rage when the cost of bold climate change initiatives hits their wallets and regulations hit businesses? Give credit where credit is due, even if it's a little credit.
The corporations who received the big tax breaks are also those who are primarily responsible for the trouble our planet is in. Instead of paying their fair share to implement positive changes they have opted to take the money and run.
In reply to SGM. Where climate change is concerned it is far past the eleventh hour. The consequences of our short sidedness are already upon us, and it is only wishful thinking that what Trump will, or won’t acknowledge, will make much difference at this stage of the game.
2
The most important action in front of those of us who care about the future of this planet, who care about lives of our children, grandchildren and beyond, is to go to the polls in November and vote out this Republican one-party government that places greed and power above every other human consideration. Trump and the GOP must be removed from office. There is no alternative for those who want to save our environment.
5
If I buy a Prius, it frees up Toyota to sell more Tundras. I remember when plastic containers were hard to come by. Now I throw dozen away. Fly to another place? Its soooo cheap! Methane from cows? from Fracking? I want another cellphone. I want my upgraded computer, my liposuction, nose job, my new wardrobe, my $5k arm tattoo sleeve. I want Chilean Sea bass, 1000 miles inland. The richest 20% of humans consume 74% of everything . Naps are free. Hugs re free. Beans are good for me, and about $1/lb. As Warren Buffet says:"Don't try to keep up with the Joneses-- they're broke". I saw a documentary on him, where he drives to work, and if the market is good, he buys the more expensive sausage egg and cheese. If its doing bad, he gets the cheaper combo. The changes in consumption has to come to everyone reading this post, or it won't work. Don't wait for engineers to save us. We must save ourselves.
2
If you're sick, you consult a doctor. If that doctor gives you a grim prognosis, you seek another opinion, maybe two, maybe three. But if 91 doctors from 40 different countries tell you you're sick, guess what?
What is wrong with our elected officials that they are beyond this common sense?
1
No one owes anyone an island.
2
The United Nations is a globalist organization that despises the West. They are not to be trusted.
Funny that they’re based in NYC, ain’t it?
I'm totally mystified as to why this paper is going to such lengths to protect China in word and deed. No mention here, no mention on the previous editorial. Somini Sengupta refers to the U.S. as "history's largest polluter" and mumbles the Chinese government line about "the world's factory," the excuse China uses for why China shouldn't have to clean up and the U.S. should.
What's difficult to understand is why a newspaper with such a slant would write enthusiastically about the Google employee petition, when, to use a Chinese expression, you've got callouses on your forehead. Self-censorship in a free country on behalf of a foreign power is what the President is being investigated and criticized for. As a paper of record, you should be held to a higher standard.
1
If political will is part of the equation to save the planet, then forget it .... our kids are toast ! The most powerful fossil fuel lobby (and there are many) in D.C. - is Russia. Their country's economy is totally dependent on selling oil. So Putin is pulling the strings. Vlad says jump, Trump says how high ? Vlad says pull out of the Paris agreement, Trump says yes sir. Vlad says squash all scientific evidence, and silence the free press. Trump says, it will be my pleasure. It's hard to feel optimistic, with such a short-sighted, self-absorbed fool in the WH.
Perhaps the People just don't want to upset the apple cart for the sake of a theory. Maybe the thinking is that we should wait to see what really happens and deal with it then. We humans have successfully adapted to all sorts of new circumstances in the past, why not this?
And, perhaps, the "leaders" aren't being stupid/lazy/evil (in this case). Maybe they sense the will of the People.
Democracy, after all, is about the will of the People.
(Also, if you read the summaries of this new report, it's obvious that most of the recommendations have NO chance of being adopted.)
The big gorilla in the room continues to go un noticed. Population ! The populationhas increased 3 fold in my life time. Global warming is a directt effect. We can do it ouselves by rational decisions , irrational decisions (wars) or just let nature do it for us how ever she chooses to but it has to change
2
Great Op-Ed. This should've been the cover story on Monday with BIG HEADLINES across the page!! .... instead of day after day of Kavanaugh.
1
These leaders are far too narcissistic and drunk with the desire for power to concern themselves with the planet — of all things! They care little or nothing for tomorrow’s children — even their own.
They continue to believe, as many Republicans and Libertarians do, that individuals should be free of any obligations to others through taxes or any other form of regulation. They will literally be the death of billions and destroy the ability of the planet to provide for our species. Humanity is too dumb to survive as a species.
1
Do you really wonder why so few of us pay serious attention to warnings about climate change? Here is a key sentence in the New York Times today: "The alternative is catastrophe — mass die-offs of coral reefs, widespread drought, famine and wildfires, and potentially conflict over land, food and fresh water."
Is this how you mobilize the public: the first "catastrophe" you name is die-offs of coral reefs?
As someone who has lived in tropical countries, I am more distressed by the appearance of big beetles climbing up the drains to my second floor kitchen; disease-carrying mosquitoes breeding in the cat's water bowl in my backyard; a really gross spider hunting in my bathroom, the possibility of tropical boils, the green fur-lined breadbox, having to teach kids to shake out their shoes before putting their feet in . . . .
Coral reefs! Are you serious!!!
1
If there was a human mission, perhaps viewed by a galactic de Tocqueville, it is to take the ecology, turn it into the economy hammer and tong, use it up for its ephemeral and energy value, then scat it back out onto the earth as waste.
We think the more good things we bring to life, the better life is. But those things break or get used up and get chucked into the landfill or pollute our oceans and seas. Then we dig up more ecological resources to make more good things, but these are better because the technology we refine increases the beneficial impact of these things on our lives because there are more of them. Then these things get chucked back into our ecological surroundings.
We get the idea that the future is brighter as time progresses because we erroneously see what appears to be the refinement of technology as the marker of society's advancement. Of course, it's just rubbish because such advancement requires the exploitation of billions of people in undeveloped nations, and it's only the industrialized nations that lay claim to advancement inasmuch as they lay claim to the unindustrialized nations' natural and human resources.
We dig and drill energy resources to power the machines that push back against the entropy of the universe. The minute we stop or slow down trees will begin growing up through the crack of our streets. It is a fallacy that we can forever hold back Nature building electric cars. Technology masks entropy, and the future is not bright.
1
Dear NYT Editorial Board,
Please be more specific. It is not enough to tell world leaders to "wake up". They are wide awake. They know what they are doing. Please speak more to the powers that are opposed to climate science. The Republican Party is in open warfare against the planet and public health and safety. Why? Who is driving this? The biggest threat to the environment and climate change in the world is the Republican party of the USA. Why is this? Who are the people behind this rush to doom and what motivates them? These resounding calls to wake up whenever the UN makes a report is too little and much too late. Stop dropping the ball. NYT Editorial Board, you need to wake up and lay off the platitudes.
1
Maybe we should just re-brand our planet:
VENUS 2.0
1
The contrast in leadership is striking. Obama would say "That stinks but we need to do something about it. Get working." Trump sticks his fingers in his ears and screams "la-la-la, la-la, la." You begin to wonder how all those flag waving "patriots" out there can square American exceptionalism with the abject rejection of responsibility. They seem as childish as our leader.
JFK said "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
Trump says "What moon? There's no moon."
I find our nation has become so very pathetic.
2
If the panel was set up in 1988, why aren’t former presidents Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama front and center calling out this abomination of an administration?
When I heard Nikki Haley was resigning yesterday I thought, good, maybe she will speak out, but nooooooo.... all we get is what an honor it is to serve with this buffoon, and how “fantastic” the ambassador is.
The most spineless “leaders” ever, both parties, all of you, Congress especially.
Keep fiddling while California burns and Florida floods, and may history treat you all as the greedy, selfish, short-sighted partisans that you are.
Shame on all of you.
I know a lot of Democrats who fly all over the world multiple times a year. Many of our climate change alarmists (Al Gore, Leonardo DiCapria, etc. also do this). How do they and you justify this if you believe we are doomed in several decades because of carbon emissions? Obviously, no one has to go on airplane trips for pleasure. Please let me know.
2
Do you want to feel righteous, or make change?
We're in the midst of a great extinction. It started with land use changes. It's now climate change. Tens of thousands of species, billions of organisms, disappear. They don't have a voice.
Most of the world lives on coastlines. Sea level rise won't be held back indefinitely, especially when chunks of Antarctica drop.
Governments won't sit idly by and watch $ trillions of infrastructure disappear, and half their country displace. Voters, or in dictatorships subjects, will overthrow a gov't that does.
And they'll do something. Pinatubo. The 1988 volcano spewed tiny sulfur particles into the stratosphere. Global temp. dropped about 3 degrees F. for 2 years, because they reflected sunlight back into space.
$5 billion can deliver the same, maybe over the poles, at 70,000 feet. No, Toto, they haven't been doing this in contrails. You need special planes. But dozens of countries are capable.
We should be planning. Making int'l agreements, investigating effects, deciding how much and how to ensure it's maintained.
Environmentalists won't have it. They claim it's a 'get of jail free' card that allows status quo. Based on ... intuition. Facts are, current enviro strategy fails, and why? Because when you corner people, they fight.
Give them an escape route, and they'll listen. Plus, let them know enviros have denied something too, like the Pinatubo fix, and they'll admit wrongs.
Or do you want to feel righteous?
1
@Brian WIN the fight. Don't have offspring. You can thank those of us who don't.
2
Unfortunately, we are doomed by an ignorant leader, who seems hellbent on making America "great" by destroying it. He won't pay any mind to a climate report by the UN because a) he doesn't believe in climate change; b) he doesn't respect anything having to do with the UN; and c) he doesn't see how any of this involves his re-election, so it is irrelevant to him.
Our only hope is to vote him and his party out of office, the sooner, the better.
Doomed. We’re all doomed.
Really.
@William W. Billy See: death comes for us all. Thank evolution.
Will Trump and his Republican supporters wake up?
1
What we're experiencing is natural selection. If humans aren't smart enough to evolve and change habits that will protect the planet, catastrophic events will eliminate humans. Starvation, lack of clean drinking water, disease, and war are the byproducts of an unsustainable climate. When the human species has dwindled down to a few, Earth will eventually regain balance. Mankind is creating the next extinction level event -- of itself.
3
Let's be honest, shall we? The only world leader that should be taking heed of this dire warning is right here in this country, and he is doing everything in his power to ignore the signs by abrogating every environmental policy put into effect by his predecessor.
It's bad enough that the U.S. is one of the main contributors to the greenhouse effect by its increasing usage of fossil fuels, but the worst part is that we have an administration in scientific denial.
That's why it will ultimately be up to each individual state in the Union to take steps to reduce carbon emissions, since we can't depend on federal regulations.
The clock is ticking, and time is no longer on our side.
2
Put solar panels on my LA tile-roofed house three years ago. Bought a used Leaf (still gets 70 miles on a charge.) Own a Prius (45/mi) and a Jetta (30/mi) which we use for longer trips -- I have to college aged sons. Use the Leaf as much as possible and really don't stop at the gas station much anymore... Cut my gas consumption by 3/4ths when I sold an old Lexus and Odyssey van (both @ 20/gal.) Isn't there a way for every American to have solar panels and one electric vehicle for around town driving (which is 75% of what we do!) It isn't the whole answer but a start! (A chicken in every pot becomes solar panels on every roof and an electric car in every garage.) By the way the whole family loves driving the Leaf!
3
@dfb, LADWP burns fossil fuel gas and coal to generate 40% of its electricity, so depending on how much you need to use the grid your gas-burning Jetta could be generating less CO2 than your Leaf.
Renewables aren’t a whole answer, but a start. In fact, that’s their problem - their intermittency forces us to remain dependent on fossil fuels to fill in the gaps when they aren’t available. Thus, their potential for making a real and lasting contribution to the fight against climate change remains as insignificant as it was thirty years ago.
The world can either wake up to that inescapable fact, or we can continue dithering with solar panels and wind turbines until it’s too late.
An issue that is not often raised is...There are too many Humans on this planet. The most effective way to reduce greenhouse gases is to have fewer children. Humans are the most invasive species. We go everywhere, eat everything up, use all the resources leaving pollution and environmental degradation.
The natural systems that support the life on this FINITE planet are being destroyed. "Intellectual" theories about constant growth do not make sense in a finite space.
3
This is what I’ve been thinking for more years than I can remember! Beautifully said. Thank you.
1
@Richard Fried Yep. Far too many humans. And the disposal problem is insurmountable, assuming society would let you quickly reduce the population to one maybe two percent of its current size.
As in so many things, where the USA leads, the world follows... In this case down the sump-hole of denial of science, the lording of profits for the few (coal mine owners and oil and natural corporations) as the ultimate "good", and utter and complete demagoguery about it all.
1
This has been too little, too late for some time on the part of world leaders. We are now approaching an irreversible crisis, with no turning back. I do not see anyone stepping forward with the rather aggressive solutions that need to happen immediately. We will destroy our planet in due course.
1
And yet, in the Seattle Times, doubters plaster the comment section with "hoax" and "read what an independent expert has to say," peppering each comment with "LOL." This is entirely the fault of industry-funded and denial-oriented opinion sources - I will not say "news sources" - such as Fox.
Slowing or stopping climate change will take a global Manhattan Project; getting through to the deniers and the LOL crowd will an even tougher job, especially given this administration and the cynical strangle hold the GOP has on us.
We speed toward the iceberg, but the captain denies its existence and calls for more speed; the crew LOL at those reporting the danger; the management doubt and say they're not scientists (so why not listen to scientists? one asks) - and we, the passengers hurtle toward disaster.
We need a Manhattan Project to change minds, THEN we can start to deal with the impending disaster.
80
@Nathaniel Brown
How?
I’m voting a blue ticket and volunteering for the democrats for the first time in my life.
I can’t afford a Tesla.
Set a target. Give every man, woman, and child a carbon quota to meet the target. Allow no exceptions for big shots and high flyers or those who think themselves and their work so important they need a larger quota. Allow the big shots(or their companies) to buy quota from those who don't use their quota, thereby reducing income inequality.
Yes, world leaders need to wake up regarding global warming. But what do they need to do?
Republicans tend to be in denial that global warming is even occurring. But Democrats see the irrefutable evidence of global warming but deny the primary cause.
Yes, we need to stop using coal. Yes we need to stop using fossil fuels because we will run out. But we also need to control population growth, because as the population grows the demand for energy will also grow, and poorer countries will have to choose between higher energy production starvation of their peoples.
For example, the population of Africa is expected to double from its current population of 1.2 billion by 2050. This will cause unbelievable hardship. Africa has already suffered from genocide in Rwanda, civil war in the Congo, starvation in South Sudan, corrupt governments in Zimbabwe and South Africa, and the last goes on. Population growth will make these problems worse.
India is also suffering from grinding poverty due to population growth. A description of the Mumbai slums is provided by Katherine Boo's excellent book, Behind the Beautiful Forevers.
Of course we should prefer noncoercive actions, but some individual freedoms may have to be sacrificed in order to get birth rates down. China's one-child policy has been criticized as repugnant by liberals, but it has led to an explosion in living standards in China.
In the US we need to stop illegal immigration and give incentives for small families.
1
Wake Up, World. The Alarm is Deafening. What can I do as an individual? Rather than better management of how we raise, feed and transport animals for consumption, we need to STOP eating them altogether. No demand. No supply. And if we were to stop, the level of outright cruelty in this world would drop dramatically. We all must start asking where our "food" comes from. It can all be supplied by plants. Those same plants that are now being used to feed animals that are raised in the most horrific ways and then taken to slaughter. If I want the world to change, I must change it. Each of us must change it. And the only way to change the world is through LOVE. Stop the killing.
Capitalism (or the form of it that we have) makes mandatory change impossible. No one is going to give up their trillion dollar piggy bank because they're worried about all the world's people. It will take bottom up revolution for change to happen. We must end fiat currency and make air, water, soil, planet our currency.
2
Today already, a whopping 1/3 of the world's refugees are climate change refugees. That means that 20 million people are displaced only because of the dramatic effects of climate change on their home lands.
And where is this happening most, for the moment? Unfortunately, in the regions of this planet where most poor people live.
In other words, the US, which has the highest carbon footprint per capita in the world and with only 6% of the world's population is responsible for a whopping 25% of the world's CO2 output, by chance is situated in a region where the impact of climate change is still relatively small, but... where people living in the regions that are most badly hit will HAVE to flee to.
Trump/FN are talking about a "caravan" of immigrants already when merely 2,000 people are arriving at the southern border.
What will they do when 20 million people simultaneously knock on our doors?
It's absurd to constantly tell your voters horror stories about immigration, and then try to make them believe that the most important cause of immigration actually doesn't exist, or that poor countries are "taking advantage" of the wealthiest countries when the Paris Agreement contains a passage that mandates rich countries to pay less than 1% of their GDP into a Climate Fund allowing us to help developing countries transition to clean energy faster than what we did during our own industrialization phase.
The GOP is MASSIVELY betraying its voters when it comes to migration.
1
@Ana Luisa Ana Luisa, I corrected you earlier but the US doesn't account for 25% of the world's CO2 emissions. It's around 17% -- and our emissions have been declining since 2007.
and look at this graph if you want to see why global emissions are growing.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.KT?locations=CN-US-IN
Yes, we are the biggest per capita emitter, but that is also declining.
Hilariously, Ralphie here was earlier bloviating about how we couldn’t possibly make major changes in our emissions without having our economy collapse.
Did you think that after we will be rid of Trump ( hopefully ASAP) that we will be able to amend all the horrors he has implemented: that children will be reunited with families, that trade wars will be resolved peacefully, that we will have a united nation undivided by partisan rancor, that we will make peace with former allies and honor former commitments to world organizations? Will we be able to shout gleefully, "Thank God. That evil man is gone!!!"
Think again. Climate will irrevocably have been damaged ; we have too little time to fight the severe heat and destructive weather patterns that are now being firmly entrenched in our entire world.
Our Supreme Court will be extremely conservative for many years beyond Trump, a disrespected institution , entirely out of the mainstream, all the way to the right--where final decisions are easy to determine as soon as cases start.
Trade alliances on which Americans relied prior to Trump and which were ripped apart will be very difficult if not impossible to replace as new trade patterns and new partnerships have replaced them.
There will be so much to fix, so much to repair, when we are finally rid of Trump and the party he dominates. Too much of the broken society, damaged environment, and government he leaves as his "legacy" will persist and linger for an inordinate amount of time.
2
I see plenty of supportive posts from states with Republican representatives in Congress and Republican statehouses.
YOU people control the only cure for Climate Denial Disease: Nov 6th: VOTE OUT EVERY REPUBLICAN IN YOUR RED STATE THAT YOU CAN FIND. Nothing will make them behave differently; they have to GO NOW.
Sensible climate legislation will follow very, very quickly.
4
The crazy thing about global climate change from an economic standpoint is that if everyone buys in, the development of green industries and technologies will eclipse any growth period we have ever experienced. We could usher in an era of widespread global prosperity.
Right now we have no leadership, but instead an ill-informed, bellicose narcissist who cares only for deals, however bad and disadvantageous. An essential aspect of any planet-saving initiatives must include removing Trump from office, by legal, peaceful, constitutional means. But rest assured, he must be forcefully thrown out.
This is a time to be courageous, to speak out, to work in definable ways toward a more sustainable and healthy future, or watch all of humanity die in a miasma of filth and pollution. It is also a time to vote, to choose candidates who stand for a healthy planet, not for hedge funds and fat banks.
Unless or until we join forces with all people of goodwill all over the world, we cannot accomplish the immense task of saving this planet for human habitation and for the proliferation of biodiversity. The planet will persist. We may not.
4
Trump and the GOP are too busy dividing the country in their perpetual reelection campaign (using tax dollars to do it). Trump's hardest core supporters believe that the "End Times" is near anyway. Meanwhile, on November 9th, the much vaunted "Millenials" won't vote; liberal Independents won't vote in protest of the "two-party oligarchy" and liberal Democrats won't vote for anyone who doesn't pass their ideological purity smell test. Which does, indeed, bring us back to Trump. We created him, we let him be elected, we will all die because of him. ELECTIONS MATTER.
2
It's difficult to think of any decision in the general area of risk management worse than the one to delay action on climate change. I can understand the owners of carbon assets (and assets which burn carbon) who effectively say, the hell with the rest of us. I can understand the stupid who are conned by these special interests. I can understand the weak and frightened who procrastinate. What I can't understand is why we pander to these people when the risk is so great.
5
We live in a world where the richest 10% consume about half of the enrgy, thus producing about half of our contribution to atmospheric carbon. The US alone is around 5% of the world population and it produces about 25% of the anthropomorphic greenhouse gasses. On a per capita base, an average US citizen produces about 3 times the amount of greenhouse gas compared to a Chinese citizen, and yet we bitch about the Chinese producing more total atmopheric carbon. Duh!!!! They have over a billion people. Lets face it, our country continues to be the biggest part of the problem, and any claims of US leadership on the issue is mere piffle.
1
Another suitably dire wake up call on the clearly impending global disaster that is the certain outcome of the global failure to credibly address human created, emission driven climate change.
The impact of the current American administration’s denial of the consequences and absence of relevant, concrete action is far more than just one nation acting as an irresponsible outlier. It diminishes the possibility of a global concensus and ramp up of countermeasures.
This inaction verges on criminal neglect and an abject failure to take what may well be the most crucial action to insure the national security in the face of what could well be the greatest disaster in human history.
This overt political inaction and denial makes it all the more likely that the next decade will fail to bring anything like a turnaround of the onslaught of human driven climate change.
1
It's very simple: we can't solve the ecological catastrophe that humanity has inflicted on the planet within a growth-focused capitalist economic system. And most world leaders aren't ready to give up on that system in favor of one that promotes real sustainability. Because of that, we won't solve climate change. Or biodiversity loss. Or eutrophication. Or soil degradation. Or species invasions.
Chapter 4 of the IPCC report notes that at a cost of between $1 billion and $10 billion annually the forecast warming could be stopped by injecting reflective particles into the atmosphere. That seems like a much better solution than trillions spent on "green energy."
In addition, Nobel laureate William Nordhaus points out that the costs of meeting the IPCC's goals for CO2 reduction far exceed the benefits thereof.
The problem is not the Trump administration, it's the poorer peoples of the world who would bear the brunt of the costs for CO2 reduction. They are the ones who need to be convinced.
@J. Waddell: Geoengineering, especially when it is for reducing solar radiation has problems: 1) It doesn't address the underlying issue, which is a carbon-heavy economy; 2) It is difficult to forsee unintended consequences of a global scale experiment. Side effects might include reduced crop production and aerosol interaction with precipitation processes.
1
Recognizing the effects of climate change and attempting to mitigate or adapt to it would require the "one percenters" to change their behavior. How likely is this?
3
I love it when people try to twist this to blame Trump.
Trump has been in office less than 2 years.
Obama did nothing -- the Paris Accord was nothing more than a photo-op. It didn't put any restrictions on emerging economies (like China and India). If emissions are an issue -- and that's a big if in my book -- the US can't and won't stop the major emitters.
Since we are only 5% of the global population, any reduction in our total emissions will be swamped by increases elsewhere. We're essentially flat with where we were in 1990 re emissions, while total global emissions have grown by 65%. Our emissions have declined significantly since 2007 but the rest of the world continues to grow emissions. And they will continue to do so due to rising population and demand for more energy in emerging economies. So blaming US politicians or a given party is silly. The fossil fuel economy has grown over 100+ years and I believe both parties have held power during that time have they not?
But let's make the assumption that in the US we all reduce our demand for things. We quit flying, reduce driving, buy only things locally produced, quit going to restaurants we can't walk to -- sell our over sized houses, etc. What do you think would happen to the economy? Our GDP would crash. If on the other hand we slowly shifted to nuclear and re-newable and use fossil fuels for things they can't be easily replaced (like airplanes) the economy would do just fine.
2
Yup, this is what Ralphie does.
1. Say something pseudo-clever about Obama, then turn around at the end and say the opposite. That way, he can attack, then claim that he’s oerfectly reasonable on the issue. But notice the remark about doubt that the whole thing’s real in there?
2. Ignore facts. Like Obama’s energy policy. Which included nukes and gradual reduction.
3. Cherry pick like crazy. As in the Paris Accords having actually gotten countries to accept restrictions, or China scaling back on coal and moving to renewables.
4. Refusal to accept reality. As in our fab economy DID crash massively in 2007. As in renewables are cranking out far more jobs and money than coal.
Basically, this guy’s either shilling for somebody, or so far gone in right-wing politics that he couldn’t find the planet with the Hubble. It’s simple hatred, using simple tactics.
2
@Ralphie - sure. Obama did nothing, so Trump's appointees have been working furiously to undo what?
Here's the Times' list of 76 regulations, many from the Obama era
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment...
China and India never agreed to limits until Obama got them to. China's commitments are seen as actually attainable, like ours.
"Since we are only 5% of the global population" is a diversion (you know).
BP shows that since 1965, the US emitted 16.1% of global CO2. China's tally is 3.7%
Here's some news that clarifies that Trump is fighting hard to keep America from leading what the world is actually doing:
"The findings of a study by the US-based Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis show India cancelled 464,727 coal-based generation projects planned since 2010. Next to India is the Asian hegemon China which abandoned coal-based projects totaling a capacity of 296,780 Mw. Vietnam ranks next to China with 30,750 Mw [..] followed by Turkey (29204 Mw), US (26873 Mw), Germany (18393 Mw), Russia (18048 Mw) and Poland (16783 Mw).
“Since the start of 2010, through postponements and cancellations, India’s coal plant pipeline has shrunk by 547 GW (or 547,000 Mw). To put that number in perspective, it’s helpful to remember that it amounts to almost three times Germany’s total installed capacity”
https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/india-tops-list-of-scrapped-coal-pr...
Robert and B Fagan
As they say in poker, read them and weep.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.KT?locations=CN-US-IN
I'm assuming both of you can read a graph (big assumption on my part) but this is pretty simple. Since 1960 when we had 3x the emissions of China and India combined, they now have roughly 2.5x our emissions. And the trend is up for both whereas our has declined since 2005 and we are now about 14% lower than were were then -- and essentially back to where we were in 1996.
1
I’m sorry, but I don’t think that humans are up to the task.
They are too short sighted, self centered, and insistent on instant gratification.
We will be having 150 degree days and 100 degree nights, and of course it will be too late.
I sure hope I’m wrong.
3
The permafrost is melting so the ship has already sailed for preventing climate change. Even dropping emissions to zero tomorrow won't going to change that. Our only hope is carbon capture on an industrial scale.
2
Or, rationality.
An anti-science, decades-long campaign to misinform and scare the public forces us to fight this massive problem with both hands tied behind our backs. You can't meaningfully alter the course of climate change by 2030 without nuclear power. Period. Nuclear power is 1 million times as dense as fossil fuels. Alvin Weinberg's molten salt reactor experiment of the 1960's proved there is a way to do nuclear that's orders of magnitude safer than today's pressurized water reactors. And MSR's can be mass-produced like planes and ships to drive the cost below coal. We can scale production of MSR's to address all new global demand for electricity by the late 2020's. It's possible!
1
Once again, climate leadership is coming from the EU, which has already agreed this week to cut car emissions by another 35% before 2030.
Good luck to Trump with his 20th century policies, American cars, for one, will be even more unsellable in the EU.
Canada and other civilized countries should follow the EU’s example and happily conclude free trade agreements worldwide whilst imposing 2nd line trade barriers against unhealthy foods (banning those with antibiotics, chlorine, hormones, ...), cheap low quality imports (mandatory 2 year warranty, quality standards, ...) and pushing out polluting vehicles (emission standards, city low emission zones etc.).
3
@Brewing Monk, The EUs efforts on car pollution are better than our own, but there is a darker aspect to this story. The rush to diesel technology for cars and the universal lack of any real monitoring of exhaust levels has created an air quality nightmare in Europe. Like China and India, public outrage is forcing them to move away from diesel and toward electric cars. This is sort of in the right direction, but Europe has much the same problem of unbridled capitalism and greed as we have here. Is there a lesson here, that we will move in fits and starts toward slightly improved quality of life?
Trump is the kind of man who will go down in flames, and take millions of people with him. Example: American obstinance on climate will lead to boycotts of US products, already being discussed in Europe (we just returned from a month in Paris). Nice going, Republicans.
7
Setting aside the political will aspect of the matter, I recall hearing about a simple 2 x 2 grid: either climate change is real or it isn’t; and, either we do something about it or we don’t. Assemble and analyze the four outcomes, and it quickly becomes clear which path we must follow.
1
Engineers and scientists in energy and environmental fields know that time has already run out. Humans are fast transforming Earth into a far less habitable planet. Parents should prepare their children to make life decisions with climate change in mind. The challenge for humanity will be to position itself so it can emerge from bleak years ahead to a world condition that is sustainable. This challenge can only be met if we embrace efforts now to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and restore ecosystems.
2
Wake up Times - New research has found that wildfires are likely to worsen if steps are not taken to combat people starting them!
1
This just in: Aristotle’s complex causality.
1
I've seen more than one report this year suggsting 4º C (about 7º F) is where human populations begin to collapse. According to these admittedly venturous forecasts, global population is expected to rise to 9-10 billion and could collapse to one billion a century from now. Nobody would be exempt from such a calamity. Such predictions are squishy and hopefully apocryphal, but who wants to risk it when even the Trump EPA says we will reach a 7º rise by the end of the century? Scientists have known for three decades that this was coming--they just couldn't quite say whether it was hitting in 2020 or slightly beyond. The fossil fuel billionaires and Murdoch's media have behaved like James Bond-level villains, and they may have "won". Time *is* out. It appears nearly too late to prevent a calamity for today's kindergartners.
3
Telling individuals to make changes to their commuting and dietary habits when action is needed on a systematic level to combat climate change is a bit like telling someone in the midst of a heart attack to drink more skim milk. We need nation-states to take action and start making changes to the energy system, not telling people to buy more Priuses.
2
Okay, let's immediately begin approving more nuclear power plants, as nuclear power has a zero emissions rate. No takers? That's how you know the left is more concerned with politics than tackling climate change.
4
@R.P.
Fission based plants do in fact have emissions. Aside from spent radioactive material, they emit a tremendous amount of heat in the for of hot post-turbine water. This heat is usually dispelled via outgoing water from the plant, that can have adverse affect on local ecosystems. There is also the "up front cost" in creating a Nuclear Power plant, lots of concrete and other raw materials which are produced by mostly coal and gas burning manufacturers.
5
@R.P. I agree! Let's start with one in Bridgewater, NJ. It will be ready by 2034. (Vogtle, started in 2009, will be online in 2025.) And *you* can pay the 15-20 cents/kWh electric bills for your new $25 billion plant, since that's what they cost these days.
Or you can get solar or wind for a fraction of the cost in less than a tenth of the time.
4
@R.P.Nuclear power is not clean. What do we do with the spent nuclear fuel. Where to store it, process it? This is why nuclear is not a viable answer. Solar and wind technology is far better. The electricity I use is completely from solar.
In 1986, I purchased a 4 cylinder Toyota Corolla, that if you drove 55, you literally could get about 40 miles to the gallon. However, most everyone was driving large SUV type vehicles that got only 15 miles a gallon. The government at that time was not interested in putting like a $500. a year tax on them, to tamp down the carbon emissions back over 33 years ago. Then, in 1994, I purchased a Toyota Camry, 4 cylinder that got 30 miles a gallon, which is still more than what many people today, who are driving trucks, SUV, or van get, and I still have that vehicle. Plus, for decades, people have known that the world is overpopulated, but still even educated women, and women from fundamentalist ones like Evangelical, Orthodox Judaism, and Muslim, see no problem with having more than 2 children. So, in a nutshell, more people means most of those people will be living in a modern society, and driving vehicles that spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. All of society wants digital devices, most of which are manufactured in Asia, and come over on cargo ships that spew lots of carbon into the atmosphere. We have met the enemy, and it is us. It really is too late, as this administration just yesterday in Iowa at a rally, lifted regulation on year round sales of gasoline with higher blends of ethanol. It is over, everyone! Voting in one's interest, rather than what is in the best interest of the survival of the species, is not something that the human animal tribe does.
5
Simply from reading the comments here it is clear that no consensus is possible. Moreover, 99% of the world's population hasn't got a clue about any of this, so hold onto your hats, the cake has been baked. That old Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times" is about to come to pass.
2
@pbh51
In real life, 94% of the world not only created the Paris Agreement but continues to support it.
No consensus is possible ... in the US alone, where a minority is holding onto power because of its massive tendency to spread fake news.
The best way to create common ground is to go for the truth.
All that is needed is that America's majority starts engaging in real, respectful debates with those still vulnerable to GOP fake news, and then we will join the other 94% too and make it a 100% again.
And remember, we do NOT need all of America's GOP voters to understand what objective science means, just a tiny percentage of them is enough, especially if the rest finally takes responsibility and starts voting, rather than waiting for the ideal candidate to come by.
Yes we can ... ! ;-)
1
I wonder when all these deniers will accept their role in destroying the future (and economy). These same people would act immediately if 97% of the doctors told them they had cancer, but they seem to think they can ignore scientist on climate change.
A vote for a Republican is a vote against our children and increasingly with the speed climate change is unfolding a vote against ourselves - simple as that. Shameful, ignorant and tragic. And unforgivable.
17
Hurricane Michael is an opportunity to by-pass Trump and the Koch brothers and educate people in red states suffering from multiple hurricanes about climate change. While the North Carolina legislature banned predicting rising sea levels based on climate science, South Carolina mayor Steve Benjamin said “climate change is real.” Trump’s politics is to protect his people, but he’s leaving them wide open to disaster. As the paper of record, the Times could push the link between climate change and catastrophic hurricanes. 24-hour news cycle CNN and local TV meteorologists avoid the issue. When people see through reality deniers like Trump on one issue, they can lose faith in everything they say.
3
Wake up U.S. republicans / climate deniers. While you may not care about the impact on the rest of the world, Puerto Rico, or even California and it's wildfires, these ever-increasing hurricanes, ensuing floods, and loss of life are pounding the states that voted for you: Florida, Georgia (especially South GA), SC, NC. Check out the voter tally's from 2016 and you'll see what I mean. So even if you, the GOP, only care about big business over humanity, at some point your own people are going to turn against you for your destructive policies and lies.
Perhaps mother nature is best poised to expose the fake GOP narratives about climate change through repeated truth and evidence. It's too bad that this lesson has to be learned in the hardest of ways.
5
The United States will contribute more than ever to global warming as long as our government run by an ignorant TV Clown, Donald Trump, and a Republican Party owned and operated by the Koch brothers..Vote these greedy polluters out of to save the planet. It is the only decent thing to do.
19
An example of our federal government’s plan to respond to the threat of climate change is a bill recently introduced by Sen. John Barrasso, R (of course) from Wyoming, “to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to terminate the credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles and to provide for a Federal Highway user fee on alternative fuel vehicles.” If this passes we can say so long to the federal $7500 tax credit for purchasing a new electric vehicle and hello to increased fees for drivers of these vehicles to make up for the gas tax they aren’t paying at the pump. Oil and gas industries are the second-highest sector contributing to Mr. Barrasso’s campaign. Surprised?
Another example in the long list of evidence that our government works for the people who pay for it. We have the Citizens United decision to thank for this wholesale sellout.
Don’t sell your vote this November. Mr. Barrasso and many others like him are running for office. Do your research and support candidates who represent your interests. All of us, and all life as we know it on this planet, have a powerful interest in controlling climate change.
5
@Wanda
So a question: how much carbon and pollution is created in producing electricity used by electric cars?
3
@John Xavier III
That will totally depend on your local utility and who they purchase KWH from. Here in NW it is mostly Hydro, but could be different elsewhere. I do agree that many Alt-E sources seem like an incredible turn-key solution, but it is important to release the hidden costs in them. For instance, pit mining in Africa is not so awesome, yet them is how the batteries in EVs are produced.
That is a great question. While I use a fully electric car, I also have a solar array on my roof, so it is my belief that this combination results in a net reduction in energy use on my part. Acknowledging that not all people can install a solar system, they can still support or invest in solar (or wind) technologies that reduce their use of carbon-based fuels.
1
Wait, that’s not a piercing smoke alarm from the kitchen. That’s just the fat lady beginning to sing.
2
It’s not just world leaders. It’s pseudo-environmental organizations which realize hundred of $millions in revenue by exaggerating the dangers of nuclear energy - the only zero-carbon source with the capability to make a difference. Not just for wealthy residents of the sunniest, windiest areas of the world, but for everyone.
And it’s the New York Times, which (with the exception of columnist Eduardo Porter) has maintained an irrational, anti-science crusade to replace Indian Point with insufficient renewable resources. It’s a crusade every bit as destructive to climate as climate change denial itself.
Physicists and climatologists recognized these permanent changes coming decades ago. We hoped it wouldn’t have to get to this point before the public was forced to face its own fears, but what’s past is past. Wake up, Times - it really is that bad, and without nuclear it will only get worse.
“Nuclear energy paves the only viable path forward on climate change.” - World-recognized climatologists James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira, and Tom Wigley
3
This editorial has been up since yesterday and has less than 50 comments. Similar editorials and articles about Kavanaugh last week rightly had hundreds, if not thousands, of comments within hours of posting.
The takeaway: people are, ironically, frozen. Many here surely agree with the views of this piece, the urgency of the IPCC report, and the existence of climate change. But how can our country possibly take this kind of action and show this kind of leadership? It would require a full industrialized press not seen since WWII or its aftermath, what with the Marshall Plan and the Interstate Highway system. I doubt either of those initiatives would be remotely possible today. They promoted common well-being, today skewered as "socialism," and required massive federal intervention at all levels, including the use of eminent domain, which is never popular. To say nothing of cost. Or of the massive cultural shifts necessary to support all of the above.
We can't even agree on facts, ergo we're stuck. Adaptation, not prevention, will be how we deal with climate change. Any attempt to transform our entire society—only drive electric, take the train, ration your intake of meat, pay this tax on carbon—would be attacked as technocratic top-downism by squishy PhD liberals. Freedom-loving individuals don't want to hear what's best for them.
Our current concept of "freedom" has maimed our body politic. It has killed our community. It may yet kill many of us as well.
4
Really. Love. The Science. However, when are those who fully understand the science and what's at stake going to wrap their heads around who has the power and why and how it all currently works? I'll offer the following in my best Bill Clinton impersonation, "It's the SYSTEM, Stupid!" Here's how I look at it and have for nearly 20 years. We're all sitting on a plane heading straight towards the metaphorical twin towers and we've been hijacked by power that doesn't care about your science because it conflicts with their profits/power, now! Maybe they think they have a parachute. They don't. But neither do the rest of us. So why are we all sitting on our hands?
6
If you want to "do something", start building nuclear power plants.
3
As with most solutions, we need to take a multifaceted approach. While I do not oppose the further development of nuclear fission energy reactors (though I would prefer, in the long term, fusion reactors), we should also been actively developing wind, solar and – perhaps most importantly – geothermal.
4
Nobody is building nuclear fission plants in the US. Why? Wind and solar are a pipe-dream. Small scale, inefficient in multiple ways, will never become mainstream energy sources. OK to maybe run a house - currently though not even there without government subsidy.
We humans have known about global warming for decades.
Those hoax master scientists are saying we only have two more decades to go before we have to change tenses (from future to past)
when we discuss the climate change.
We have known about the general principles of climate change for decades. As the science behind it has become more refined, detailed and nuanced, we have been better able within the last few years to better understand specific results and make much more detailed projections.
2
Colossal ecological and social disaster have occurred in America since Donald Trump won the election of 2016. How much further to the right can he pivot before Earth calls him to account for calling climate-change "a hoax"? His base doesn't "get" diddly!
5
Nobody is preventing world leader Obama to ditch his over sized house. Regarding CO2 footprint, Obama and Trump and Bill Gates and Al Gore are all equal. At least Trump doesn't want to block everybody else from living like he and Obama do.
2
Dithering, obfuscation and lies are all you can expect from the controlling leaders of the US government.
It's time for a change. It's time to save the planet.
VOTE!
10
Republican ignorance and greed will be the of humanity. We are the only country on the planet where climate change is a partisan issue.
10
I want to be optimistic that this warning just might finally get through to the naysayers that all the other warnings didn't. That with the dire time limit, we can finally put an end to the faux debates and start charting the kind of radical actions that might finally have some kind of real effect. Unfortunately, I just can't lie to myself.
Not when you have right-wing think tanks painting this study as an argument for wealth transfer (since their first concern is always profits). Not when we have a president that seems so totally impervious to facts and scientific evidence. Not when we have corporations who hold far too much political influence and craft policies that benefit their interests to the detriment to the rest of the world's. The evidence has been building for decades, but there has always been an excuse to avoid making even the smallest efforts to stop poisoning our planet.
Now we're at the point where small measures just won't work. But if we couldn't even get small measures off the ground, then there is no chance of getting the real action. We'll waste a few more years, watch as increasingly dangerous hurricanes wreak havoc and life will become increasingly untenable for ever more people. We'll lose thousands of species, diseases will run rampant and we'll reach a point where a good portion of our world might just not be habitable any longer. This is the end game, and most just don't see it happening.
3
It is interesting, and a tiny bit encouraging, to see how many companies and individuals are taking small actions to alleviate climate change. If everyone vowed to eat 1 less hamburger or steak a month, if everyone bought the high millage and electric cars that the auto makers are trying to push out, if everyone used their own shopping bags instead of the billions of plastic ones, if everyone turned their thermostat up or down 1 or 2 degrees (depending on season), if everyone just cared about the world of their grandchildren, we could do it - in SPITE of vote pandering, self-interested, rich backed worthless politicians.
9
The situation looks impossible, but we have an obligation to find a realistic basis for hope. I do not hear any such bases being proposed. Carbon taxes or carbon pricing don't address the problem directly. They try to use markets and greed to defeat their own purposes.
Governments have power. In the past, governments have simply and successfully outlawed huge parts of the economy. Slavery, for example. They have built solutions from scratch. Our problem is that we no longer believe in our own freedom, in government as an expression of our interests. We believe in the markets that created this problem, the same markets which prevent our politics from responding to it. The more urgent the warnings, the more the oil companies and the Kochs and all the others like them will spend to sow doubt and to keep voters impotently fighting over stupid border walls and transgenders in bathrooms. For them it's about business, nothing else. The only way to defeat them is to make it about democratic, not market, power, about the government acting in the public interest.
4
This is not a matter of our leaders waking up It's a matter of their willful, indeed criminal neglect. No one is more guilty of this than Trump and the Republicans. Their open scorn for climate science and their obscene embrace of the fossil fuel industry threatens the earth as a human habitat. Future historians--if there will be any--will need a complex accounting system to chart all the various crimes Trump and the GOP are guilty of. But none are greater than the ecocide they are committing.
6
Overcoming inertia among people who do not read, who are immovable and comfortable in their ignorance is unlikely to happen without some "crisis" to demonstrate the necessity for action.
Just ask any physician who has tried to move a patient to lose weight and lower his cholesterol BEFORE he has had the heart attack and the ICU experience.
Trump is the epitome of the unmoved, the denier who will smirk right up to the time the heart stops beating.
10
I'd rather say that it's unlikely to happen as long as "we the people" don't take responsibility and engage.
You can only have a government for the people if you have a government by the people.
If the 66% of Americans today who know that Fox News/GOP are lying, start engaging in real, respectful debates with those still voting for the GOP, FN may spread as much fake news as it wants, people will no longer be vulnerable to it anymore.
So in a sense, this is MUCH easier than asking people to quit high cholesterol food, as they simply have to learn how to debate and think rationally again, which anybody can learn merely by talking to someone eager to do so.
Studies show that food with lots of fat actually stimulate brain centra that increase a sense of comfort/soothing, and if you didn't have access to self-care tools yet, then the brain networks that produce those chemicals are absent, so you need to take them in through food (and alcohol, drugs, etc.) if you want to be able to manage high stress levels. THAT is why merely telling those patients to stop eating these things is so ineffective, as long as you don't show them how to train self-care skills at the same time.
In this case, however, ordinary citizens merely have to start debating together again, which is one of our most basic jobs as citizens. If we do, I'm confident that within less than a decade, conservative voters in this country will join those in the rest of the world and take science seriously again.
The backstory of this report is truly heartbreaking: Citizens of small island nations requested it because they wanted to know how quickly they should expect their homelands to be swallowed by the sea. These are people who have contributed almost nothing to global warming. Meanwhile, we Americans continue to burn several tons of fossil fuels per capita each year. This is a horrible injustice, and we're all culpable. Thankfully, the UN report suggests a first step toward redemption: Call your congressperson today and demand legislation that puts a price on carbon dioxide emissions.
6
Science is not to blame - political systems are broken, corrupt, and lack legitimacy in the US. Trump is only the disgusting symbol of the manipulation of democracy by the very rich in their own interests to make profits at the cost of the world, of the health, safety, and future of the people, while waging war on the poor and middle class. These billionaires, like the Kochs and Mercers, own the Republican Party - the GOP (Guns, Oil, Plunder, or Greedy Old Plutocrats). Rising sea levels, floods, droughts, wildfires, will grow fiercer, harvests will shrink, millions will stream out of their countries as refugees. And the profits these short-sighted rich old pillagers make will go up in smoke.
10
Come on, surely the UN could be more proactive and pitch to voters everywhere too, not just their weathervane governments, as in big flashy international ad campaigns bent on rallying people to the cause of act on climate change or get wiped off the map...
"Break through or two"; applied science seems to be saying fusion power is a technology on the brink of success, see MIT labs.
1
What are you talking about?
The problem isn't "world leaders". The problem is us. The US is not simply failing to address global warming, it is actively endorsing it, doing what it can to increase the effects, to hasten the consequences.
Blame Trump if you like, or Mitch Vicious, but its us. We want this, demonstrated by the fact that we aree allowing it to happen.
There is no outcry, there is no uprising, there is no mad insistence that we fix this now.
There is never-ending hand wringing and blame passing.
The refusal to hold people and corporations which have actively pursued climate change, with absolute knowledge they were doing so, for the sake of profit, knowing whatever the cost the poor and the middle class would pay it is proof enough.
If ever there was a cause for urgent action, civil action, maybe even extra-legal action, this is it.
There is no urgency. There is no action.
This is all about Americans wrecking the world out of greed and sloth.
5
You say that Trump is an “outlier” on climate change. More accurately he is a saboteur, a criminal whose actions on this, as well as health care, where he not only is sabotaging it but violating law properly passed by Congress, on his treatment of migrants seeking asylum, violate law which means his oath of office. His policies in support of his coal, fossil fuel and chemical donors who own this government are causing massive health issues and untold cost to infrastructure and the economy not only here but abroad. The US has a mere 5% of the world’s population but accounts for 25% of carbon emissions. If Americans don’t stand up, other governments should hold the US to account: charging carbon fees on imports, for example; island nations should sue for damages. The “success” that Trump claims on reductions in emissions, like the strong economy and jobs growth, were the result of policies put into place by Obama and others, all of which Trump is tearing down. Trump isn’t making America great – he is killing us and should be prosecuted. And neither he nor his Republican co-conspirators care.
10
Call me when China and India reduce their emissions. Oh, that's right. That piece of paper that Obama was so proud of, exempted them. What a waste of a photo-op.
It is virtually impossible to stop using fossil fuels immediately without destroying the global economy. Where is the cost-benefit analysis? In order to save ourselves from the horrors of MAN CAUSED global warming, we're supposed to immediately destroy the global economy? I'll vote for not disrupting the economy.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to move people off those islands that fear rising sea levels?
And here's the more important issue. This report is based on a comparison of temps in 2006-2015 vs 1850-1900. Great. Except the data for 1850-1900 is based on estimates. Most of the global land mass had no temp measurement stations and the oceans were sporadically and inconsistently measured.
So based on very dodgy data, the "largely apolitical IPCC" (really?) wants world leaders to act immediately. But how would that be done? Anyone have a global plan handy?
2
@Ralphie You're completely wrong. First, the past ten years were all warmer than every year in the 20th Century. No estimates here, just measurements.
Second, last year US emissions per capita were more than double China's, and about ten times India's. China had nearly double the electric vehicle market share of the US, and five times the solar installations. India's solar installations were 86% of the US even though their total electricity production is about one-third of the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production
(Of the countries with higher emissions per capita, Saudi Arabia has about one tenth our population, and the rest less than 1%, so they're much smaller overall polluters.)
India and China are both emitting less and doing a lot more than we are to reduce emissions. *We* are the obstacle to progress. And *you* need to get your facts straight.
6
I like the part where the Ralphies sometimes go off like this about the unreliability of our records of the past, and sometimes insist that our records of the past are completely unreliable. Here, he wants to scream at the IPCC’s warning about faster warming than predicted, so the data for the nineteenth century can’t be trusted; elsewhere, he wants to yack about the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period as “proof,” that there’s no general warming, so we know all about the temps in Lancaster on May 18, 1451.
But he consistently cherrypicks. Note the claim that the Report’s based wholly on a simple comparison. Betcha it’s not, and he doesn’t want anybody to notice the other data sets.
1
@Adam Thank you for saving me the trouble. Our Ralphie is typical. Doesn't do his homework but thinks he knows more climate science than climate scientists. A description that also applies to our president.
The alarm may be deafening to those with the ears to hear, but the hands on the leavers of power are the willfully deaf.
It's hard to hear much of what's happening on the surface when down in a coal mine.
3
In addition to editorials that galvanize political actions, please publish an editorial that provides 3-5 things the individual person who cares can do about climate change. Please act as a bulletin board and as a public service announcement vehicle to enable action at the individual level. We cannot wait for politicians or the government to sort this issue out.
4
@CP
I agree. We, the people must act. Each one of us must become responsible. Waiting for the government to do it is tantamount to suicide. Enough of opinions.
This summer 2018, one day reached 115 degrees on the "cooler" "sea breeze" Westside. I was fortunate to leave town but most people stayed for a brutal heat wave that left people perpetually wiped out.
Last year, I evacuated at 6:30 a.m. due to a major wildfire. I'd received a mandatory evacuation text alert from the city's emergency system. But I'd already woken to the nonstop sirens. I quickly gathered my computer, meds, change of clothes and left home. I could smell the smoke. See what appeared on the hill as skyscraper high flames. Like many Angelenos, I lost my voice for weeks. Smoke inhalation. A few months later, I was evacuated for another fire.
Mega-fires in California are the new norm.
I was born and raised and have resided in California for decades. We've never seen anything like this before. Climate change is happening.
We all must lobby for renewables, take the bus, carpool, buy fuel efficient cars, walk, and go toward plant-based diets. For the sake of something greater than our individual lives.
The planet and future generations are at stake.
It's now.
10
Just curious. Do people who agree with this editorial not fly in airplanes? Airplanes are a huge source of carbon. Please let me know.
Tell me about the alternate sources of fuels being used to power airplanes, and how you are utilizing them. Thank you. I look forward to being enlightened.
2
@Jackie
The alternative is clearly in part high-speed railways, fueled by clean energy sources (solar, wind, ...).
Such a trains take you in merely one hour 200 miles from where you are now. And you don't have to check-in, pass security, be there an hour before takeoff etc. So for all distances that are shorter than 400 - 500 miles, already today high-speed trains are actually faster than airplanes, when it comes to overall travel time.
4
Waiting for Trump to do something obviously smart is akin to hitting your head against the corner of the wall.
But *we* are the ultimate consumers of energy and we waste it like it didn't matter. And it does. Do we need anything more explicit than this report to get it through our thick skulls that the romance with gas-guzzling big cars and toy trucks has to end? That we can't run our air conditioners constantly in increasing summer heat to get our houses to 68 degrees? That we need to turn off the lights when we leave a room? That we can't leave computers running all night, doing nothing, because we are too lazy to shut them down? That we leave engines running in a parking lot while someone goes into a store, or to run the a/c while having ice cream at a farm stand (I see this all the time; it's so bad that the air in the parking lot is fouled with exhaust fumes). That we can't fly around in private planes or corporate jets? That a lot of short-haul flying needs to be replaced by much more efficient high-speed rail (1/2 the traffic in and out of Logan Airport in Boston is to/from NYC, 220 miles; but the Acela Express is only marginally faster between Boston and NYC than a 1910 steam train; this is nuts).
Every one of us can get smarter in our daily lives by just thinking about our carelessness and eliminating it. We all need to be better environmental citizens. Fast.
5
Has anyone taken a good hard look at the "world leaders" currently in power around the world? They range from delusional psychopaths to outright authoritarian dictators of all shades and a slew of sycophants propping them all up. The fact that climate change warnings are still most often relegated to the "opinion" section is telling in and of itself.
I'm starting to think that the time for action slipped by a number of decades ago, we are approaching a period of just hunkering down and trying to survive. Bunker digging is likely to be an emerging market in the near future.
5
So, we're supposed to think and act communally? Really? Now?
We've watched and helped inequality explode in America: so few billionaires, so many poor. We don't seem to care much. So what, we say, that's life. We cut taxes for the rich, we refuse to enact a wealth tax (the only real thing that can redistribute and create equality). Nah, we've been raised on selfishness and greed. Republicans are the best at this, led by their billionaire-daddies. Then, they hide behind Jesus and gun rights and abortion. So sick and hypocritical. Heinous they are. No 'leadership' for morality or decency, just greed.
We won't work 'together' on anything until we create a society that cares for us all, and does not let the few get so criminally wealthy at the expense of the many. This is our creation. Our bad, And now, our dying planet.
5
Our shortsightedness will have dire consequences. All humans who have a thought about something other than their own wealth and/or religious salvation know how disastrously irresponsible this presidency is many areas. Yet in another generation, the other idiotic policies and decisions will pale in comparison to the results of his disregard of climate issues.
Let's hope after November we have some responsible leadership that begins to address climate change seriously while there is still a tiny window to have an impact.
121
@SGM Where climate change is concerned it is far past the eleventh hour. The consequences of our short sidedness are already upon us, and it is only wishful thinking that what Trump will, or won’t acknowledge, will make much difference at this stage of the game.
@SGM The obvious dire consequences of shortsightedness is, and will be, the 100% fault of the deliberately stubborn and vindictive Trump, who will not under any circumstances take back his careless ignorant decisions regarding the climate. The present US Congress should also be lambasted for their ramshackle dereliction of duty to the people of the country, and this instance, to the world.
Natural gas has been touted as a cleaner "bridge" till we can move away from coal, and perhaps it has helped in that regard. But because of the air pollution around the drilling and collection sites and possible ground water contamination, I believe the risks outweigh the benefits. So I have a suggestion. Go all electric and run with renewable energy. It's easier than you might think. I've gotten rid of my gas furnace, fireplace and stove and have gone all electric run by solar. Is your furnace old and in need of replacing? Perhaps look into getting a heat pump for both cooling and heating (certain models work down to -17F), and with ductless mini splits you can get rid of the noisy and indoor air handler and raise your basement ceilings since you no longer need all that ductwork (which is really inefficient anyway). The heat pump is an outside unit and both the heat pump and mini splits are whisper quiet. We can all do our part by putting our money where our mouth is.
2
When will world leaders wake up to the fact that the US is not currently one of them, or at least shouldn’t be? They can act on their own, ignoring the US, and perhaps apply economic pressure to move us ahead, trusting that we won’t always be governed by a bunch of science deniers and that we will, at some point, resume our membership in civil society. If they wait for us, we are all doomed.
192
@Doug Elerath, the world does not admit a stable order with no leadership, so I guess I would ask you who you want that to be if you want the world to abandon the U.S.?
China, with its money requires coal policies and its frequently brutal noxious mix of Confucianism and kleptocratic "Communism"? It has never cared about the environment since the Shang dynasty hunted its largest indigenous animals to extinction.
Russia, which polluted all of Eastern Europe with coal smoke and toxified and eliminated the Aral Sea?
India, which frequently means well on the environment but can't build a safe city let alone a clean one?
Europe, who ended their roles as world leaders when their soldiers stood by during a genocide and said that intervening wasn't in their rules of engagement?
We have to change and change now. Otherwise, your "turn away" will just hand the waiting to see something done to another group of leaders who will talk nicer, but not do anything. As uphill as this battle seems, we have no choice but to do our part, albeit right now as we 50 states, without the conspiracy squad in the White House or the somnolent Congress or the terminally packed Supreme Court.
1
@Doug Elerath
It's more complicated than that.
The US is the wealthiest country on earth, and has the biggest economy. If the US doesn't invest in clean energy, countries who do will be at a disadvantage economically, and in that case the risk is for populists to take over there too, and then to start making their own people believe that it's all a hoax too etc.
We're all in this together, so the only solution here is a global solution.
1
They could, except that the other "world leaders" you would rely upon for sanity are increasingly the kind of selfish, ignorant, short-sighted autocrats exemplified by our own leader, Donald J. Trump. Witness the recent wave of replacement by such autocrats of progressive national leaders in Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador and Chile -- just to deal with the Western Hemisphere, and the same trend exists in Europe. Unfortunately our mainstream US media -- including the New York Times -- has not only failed to oppose this world-wide trend toward autocracy, but has actively promoted it by publishing blatantly false news stories and opinion pieces calling democratically elected progressive governments such as that of Venezuela "dictatorships." As one who has gathered his news of Venezuela largely from daily reading of privately owned Venezuelan opposition newspapers, I find it inexcusable that the Times should ignore the repeated exercise of Venezuelan voters of their freedom to choose their elected leaders through perhaps the best voting system in the world, over the past 19 years at the local, state and national levels. The Venezuelan government is far from perfect, but it certainly is no dictatorship -- Times news stories and opinion pieces to the contrary nothwithstanding. The Times needs to get an honest, competent reporter in Caracas.
I've worked in the land conservation field for the last eight years. We're already facing a mass die-off of the dominant habitat species here in the southwest (Saguaros, Cottonwoods, Ponderosa Pine, etc) within the next 70 years. While I know of research that is working hard to find solutions, it is soul-crushing to have an administration that is so anti-science.
The metaphor often used in the field is that our house is on fire, and the GOP not only decided fire doesn't exist, but also took all the smoke detectors out of the house just to spite the rest of us.
395
@Michael This is exactly how I feel. Thank you for putting it into words. I have put 28 yrs into a career of environmental science education and it is depressing, in the clinical sense, to deal with what our politics has brought us to. It's as if I have been speaking to a wall for a lifetime. It's awful to think of the greed, fear and selfishness that has brought us to this point.
9
@Michael
You live in a Red state and hold the only solution:
You and everyone you know must vote out all of your Republicans.
3
I definitely believe that it is a truth that you speak, but they do it to spite the rest of us. Most of those who oppose the GOP agenda, or on the coasts. They hope we all fall off into the ocean. Then they can run everything without us.
1
Yes action is needed. Time Faux News got on board... One need look no further than who owns the petroleum production in this country to understand why it is all "Fake News, a Hoax." Were it highly profitable to lead the world on carbon reduction we would be out front on the issue. The Koch Brothers need to change their holdings, they've had plenty of time to already do this. (they own the majority of petroleum production in the country, that's why coal is all so important.) Maybe we need an administration that declares a national emergency and nationalizes energy production, then puts a stop to coal production overnight. (Maybe give it a year to accomplish the transition.)
We can gear up and produce carbon neutral energy production—solar by requiring it on most every home. Government could actually RAISE taxes on the one percent to produce funds to support this endeavor. Somehow we can raise the deficit trillions to cover tax cuts for the wealthy but not to provide anything for the benefit of all Americans? In equal measure? It is long past time for America to return to "the needs of the many as they outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."
This is not a Test.
This is not a Hoax,
This is not Fake News.
This is Real.
Thankfully forward looking administrations are committed to carbon neutrality—Thank you, Governor Brown. The Federal Government can continue with it's head in the sand, but states can take the lead to address the problem, but it takes the will.
10
Here is another idea. The Robber Barons are putting OUR hard-earned taxpayer dollars into Elon Musk's ridiculous idea to move people at mind-blowing speeds through a "tube". He's spending the money right now - or rather throwing it away.
How about him using his supposed "smarts" to make nuclear power safe instead of finding a new ways to pollute and "speed up" OUR lives? I understand Bill Gates has been working on it. How about these "geniuses" use their intelligence for something positive for the planet instead of figuring out new ways to steal from us?
6
@njglea I am confused...wouldn't a magnetically driven form of mass transportation reduce carbon use?
1
At what cost, Lorin? It's preposterous. Perhaps in Japan or other countries with more population than land but that is NOT our United States of America.
It's just a new little "toy" for the boys to play with of little societal use.
With the current Administration that we have, nothing will happen. In fact, it will probably get worse. Republican leaders have helped foster the notion among their supporters that science isn't to be trusted, that scientists are in it only for money that they take from the taxpayers' wallets, and climate change isn't real. And yet, Republicans and everyone else benefits daily from science and the critical observation, careful data collection, and unbiased analysis that scientists are trained to do. People who sneer at climatologists believe the forecast by the weatherpeople on the TV. They believe in cell phone technology. They believe in their oncologist's recommendations. They even believe results of 23&Me. The results of careful scientific work is all around them each day and yet they have been programmed to believe that this one area, climate science, is wrong.
The oil and gas industry is making it very difficult for climate change to be combated. It is in their short term interest to keep on churning out oil, gas and coal from the earth. I assume that they are playing a major role in discouraging leaders from coming up with viable solutions that will help us survive for a few more centuries.
We are so smart. We have created amazing technology. A few brilliant men and women have come up with astounding ideas that make our world better and easier to live in. If our leaders faced up to the challenge, perhaps ....
12
A Saudi oil magnate is said to have told this to a Westerner:
"Before we found oil, my great-grandfather rode on a camel. After we found oil, my grandfather was able to drive in a car. My father purchased an airplane in which to travel. I myself fly on a jet. My son also flies on a jet.
"But his son - my grandson - will most likely ride on a camel."
He was referring to what would happen to his family once the oil under his country ran out, but this seems applicable to much more than just that.
26
@C. Austin Hogan
Well said! A story for the ages.
I'm sorry to say that most people will greet this report with either resignation or resistance. We will only meaningfully act when we are forced by circumstance or by others.
That's where leadership comes in. Good night and good luck.
6
@Slipping Glimpser
In real life, the entire word except for America's GOP signed the very first global Climate Change Agreement.
That's a HUGE step forward, and we should never forget it, but use the global momentum to build on it and get to the next step.
Let's not mistake America's GOP voters with the rest of the world, and start to imagine that nobody is doing nothing or everybody lost the courage to do something.
In most places on earth, people are stepping up. Time to do the same here!
Burlington, Vt already gave example, becoming America's first zero carbon city. Everywhere in the country, Democratic Governors are working together to get more done.
So let's not forget that a huge challenge may seem to be too big to handle, but in real life, humanity got a man on the moon and built the internet, so we CAN do this, if only we take a step by step approach, because that's how real, radical progress was made in the past.
The GOP refuses to lead, but all we have to do here is vote them out ... ;-)!
6
Anyone who is old enough to remember what pollution was like in the 1970s should know environmental regulations work. Without the restrictions to automobile and factory emissions, the hideous, brown clouds that used to hang over our cities would still be here. They aren't. God or shifting wind patterns didn't do that, we did ...with government regulations.
I pointed this out to my right-leaning, religious father and asked if he simply had a consumer choice, back then, would he have bought the more expensive, environmentally efficient car, or the cheaper, un-modified model. He admitted he would have bought the cheaper car. That still did not change his stance, however. This is what we are up against.
32
If only a few hundred votes in Florida had gone the other way in 2000, President Gore might have put us on the right course ... but there's no use regretting the past. Trump, if he chose to, could launch a new Manhattan Project to revolutionize our energy system, including plenty of new nuclear plants, which are essential to satisfy the energy demands of the populace. However, I'm certain that he will continue to promote fossil fuels, which is a crime not only against humanity but against every organism ever to live on Earth from this day forward.
Unfortunately, given the appetites and habits of the masses, democratically elected leaders, even those with understanding and good will (like Obama), may not have the political capital to do what is needed. The majority will start panicking about climate change only when truly vast catastrophes have hit them. By then, it will be too late to stop the death and migration of billions of people and the collapse of ecosystems around the world.
I will continue to do the little I can, but I have abandoned hope.
15
Just a quick note to the many commentators who wrote something akin to: 'future generations will judge us harshly...or...historians will look back at us...'
The IPCC doesn't say so, because they don't want to be fatalistic/ alarmist. But, please realize that many scientists are saying that there will be no human future. What we are looking at here, according to many, is mass human extinction - within a few decades. Unfortunately, several of them claim that it's too late already.
Personally, I'd prefer to think that we died trying. Regrettably many countries aren't even at the point where they acknowledge the problem - let alone start to immediately adopt the drastic changes that are required if we have any chance at all.
36
@Mike Bonnell - please document any science that indicates risk of "mass human extinction - within a few decades". Serious, published science articles. Extinction is a very specific word, but your use of "mass human extinction" sounds more like a deliberate overstatement of what could, "within a few decades" be the deaths of less than a percent of global population. That's a bad loss, but not what you make it seem.
Yelling "we're all probably doomed" is no more helpful a motivator than yelling "drill, baby, drill" is.
Will the human species become extinct from the climate change we're creating? How would you explain it, since pre-civilization humanity adapted to more different niches globally than probably any other single species?
Scientists do not toss "extinction" into the conversation when doing their work studying impacts on humans from our changes to climate, though they are also, helpfully, pointing out that a great number of other species are facing that event.
@Mike Bonnell I hope it is not that soon. That is terrifying.
1
@b fagan
You are right to ask for proof. I'll share what I've come across. I'm no scientist so I cannot analyze / confirm the data. Then again, I don't need to. It's up to you and everybody else to decide for yourselves. What I did is share what I've read / heard. The point though, is that few people are aware of these points of view - and I think they need to be aware.
The premise: most, if not all of the climate change computer simulations have not been accurate as they have not been able to properly model what would occur as a result of cascading positive feedback loops. As such, they've underestimated the actual temperature change that would occur. These scientists suggest that we'll be reaching 4°C rather quickly. So, forget talk of 1.5° or 2°. Which feedback loops have not been considered? The methane release from the thawing permafrost and blue arctic ocean events and their effects, for starters.
Massive human extinction? Ocean acidification and temp increase could cause massive ocean die off. A 4°C average increase, means that most if not all of our agricultural crops will fail, since crops cannot produce at that level.
Review the works of Paul Beckwith, Peter Wadman, Guy McPherson, Michael Mann for starters.
http://news.mit.edu/2017/mathematics-predicts-sixth-mass-extinction-0920
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/E6089
https://www.greenfacts.org/en/impacts-global-warming/l-2/1.htm
"Electric cars would become the order of the day.... They [the public] can insulate their homes, install smart thermostats, choose public transportation, buy more fuel-efficient cars and appliances, even change their diet — livestock are estimated to account for some 14.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions globally."
These changes, if implemented, would preserve the lifestyles and standards of living that people are accustomed to. Does it really matter if you drive to work in a electric car or a gas-powered Ford F-150? Does it really matter if when you turn your lights on the power is coming from a battery that has been storing energy all day via solar panels on your roof?
And transitioning to new technologies would inject growth into the U.S. and world economies that would be unrivaled in history. It would be like the Industrial Revolution to the nth power, where n is the 1960s moonshot project.
By contrast, continuing to do nothing or too little in the face of this existential threat will undermine every positive advance we have made as a species to date, not preserve it.
15
@Dan88 Electric cars only offset pollution from refineries, transport, and power plants (which source refineries) to.. power plants.
@HLB Engineering don't you mean "to ... solar power plants"? Electric cars only need to charge 2-4 hours/day, so it's easy to charge them from morning solar or overnight wind power, with zero emissions all around. As more renewables replace fossil electricity production, the entire electric vehicle fleet becomes cleaner.
We're having a major solar energy spill here in Massachusetts today. But unlike an oil or coal ash or fracking wastewater spill, we call this one a nice day!
@Dan88
you can have a great impact when you start eating for the planet! Just go vegan. I'm not going to give you the figures how much it would reduce your carbon footprint. Look it up for yourself and understand how it works. We all use our cars etc and cannot always find alternatives. But your diet can be easily changed !
We only need to look at the hurricane today in Florida's panhandle region which is unusual for October to see the urgent need to take climate change action immediately. Global warming is a global issue that needs strong action and leadership at local, state, and national levels as well as international cooperation to reduce emissions world wide.
Building a clean energy economy makes sense for our economy and our environment. The important first step is science-based legislation that will enable the country to cut heat-trapping emissions by at least 35% below 2005 levels by 2022 and at least by 80% by 2050. Such legislation would include a well-designed cap-and-trade program that guarantees the needed emission cuts. Policy makers should require greater energy efficiency and use of renewable energy in industry, buildings, and electricity as well as cleaner cars, trucks, and fuels including providing transportation alternatives less dependent on fossil fuels.
8
2022 is pretty soon. A 35% emisions cut is a huge number. That much by 2030 or 2035 is merely heroic as a state as rich as CA is grappling with.
Legislation alone can't get this done. We almost need an energy miracle, where carbon free sources become the cheapest fuels. Otherwise, it's not likely. This is a story that will be written far from registered US voters in places experiencing huge unplanned growth.
Sure. This makes sense. But our leaders continue to call climate change a hoax.
1
Climate Change itself is a problem, but another problem is the photovoltaic industry exploiting Climate Change to make profits. This puts off actually slowing down Climate Change in favor of "feeling" like we are slowing it down.
Can solar energy really work on a large level without a feasible battery storage system, that no one is close to producing? If not, wouldn't we be better off trying to make nuclear energy safer? You can't even ask these questions in the current environment because photovoltaic has been so oversold politically. Nuclear is not a "feel good" solution, because nuclear has safety issues, but perhaps there is no "feel good" solution, just a choice between two dangerous outcomes (Nuclear vs. Climate Change) that no one seems willing to make.
Also - in the United States, auto pollution is increasing its share of CO2 production, but no one questions shoving all industry into 20 or so cities in the U.S. , so that everyone sits in traffic all day, increasing this pollution. Ditto with increased C02 due to larger cars, larger houses, and needless electricity using industries like bitcoin.
We need to start discussing other options for reducing CO2 - instead of always seeing photovolatic as a cure-all.
5
@DWS
If you take a look at what Obama did on climate change, or what the Paris Agreement writes, or what Democratic Governors are doing, imho you cannot possibly believe that somehow the US or the world would be focused on solar energy alone.
In the meanwhile, Burlington (Vt) became already a zero carbon city, just like 39 other cities in the world.
We can do this, right now.
12
Hi @Ana Luisa - Burlington is 100% Renewable, not 100% Carbon Free. 30% of their power comes from biomass, mainly the burning of wood. 50% comes from hydro - carbon free, but not a viable large scale energy source as is only available in some locations. This leaves 20% for wind and solar.
My issue is that the country needs to focus on new carbon-free electricity that is "Large Scale.", and neither solar, wind, or hydro can supply this. For this reason, we should look again at nuclear as perhaps the dangers of nuclear are now outweighed by the dangers of Climate Change.
During the Cold War there was little political or private opposition to building all those systems of mass destruction, and ever modifying them to increase their deadliness. One could say that the Cold War itself was a political contrivance between between two countries that had an otherwise neutral and peaceful relationship.
But there is nothing contrived about the UN report, or the massive harm and unrest that will come from untamed global warming. However, we are still committed ( with little opposition) to "modernizing" our Cold War systems of mass destruction, at a cost of a trillion dollars. That trillion dollars could go along way for greenhouse gas reduction.
Trump, in taking his preposterous position on global warming (Chinese hoax), is turning the US into a preposterous nation. The US is now on the side of the warming, rather than on the side fighting it. That's a crime against humanity, at the wholesale level, and we seem to have no way of stopping it. Will there be a remission?
27
This all so gratuitous and self-serving. What's new from the NYT. Have you seen the leadership in Middle East recently? But to the point--call for grounding half the airline flights on planet earth today and then make your case. Till then, just a lot of bourgeois smoke about nothing. Bringing 90% of the world's population into the middle class has its costs--Jet-A is one.
3
@Alice's Restaurant
The Paris Agreement is about bringing 90% of the world's population into a middle class that doesn't resemble that US middle class at all, but instead uses renewable energy, remember?
The US has the highest carbon footprint per capita in the world.
So WE are the main culprits causing climate change damage everywhere.
Time to stop blaming others and to start doing something about it, no?
And that means dramatically lowering our own CO2 output, all while financially helping poor and developing countries to skip our dirty industrialization phase altogether and switch directly to renewable energy instead.
We can do this. We just have to stop being so cynical and start taking responsibility.
12
@Ana Luisa
Nonsense. US and EU contribute less than 20% worldwide. Propaganda to the contrary. Methane is a larger problem. Point is--the world wants what we have. Crippling the economies of the world is no solution. Wind and solar production depend on coal and natural gas--that's no small amount either.
There are no language that can describe the stupidity of man and HIS ruination of this once beautiful planet.
The greedy extractors will never stop. Missionaries, miners, lumberjacks, and farmers are protected species that get untold welfare as they destroy else to gain their quarry.
16
@eduardo You must bear partial responsibility for this.
Which products of miners and farmers do you not use?
Fossil fuel industry lobbying makes the tobacco scandal look quaint. Energy companies need to be leading the way with decarbonization. Seems to me there's massive profit to be earned by aligning new technology and build-outs to the clear scientific consensus. Society and government need to provide the signal in terms of a stiff and quickly rising carbon price that internalizes accounting as the pollutant it is. The proceeds can be used to fund research into solutions, mitigation and help for those who accordingly suffer due to loss of livelihood or their very homes due to disaster related to and compounded by climate change.
I also don't believe there is a realistic chance of decarbonizing without continuing and increasing pursuit and deployment of advanced nuclear power generation. Promising technologies are out there (small modular reactors, liquid fueled thorium, etc.). We must have the will to move forward with them instead of pretending that burning hydrocarbons is preferable, or a fantasy that all electric power can be supplied by solar and wind anytime soon enough to do away with nuclear and at the same time stay below +2C.
4
This is the crisis that will test our democratic institutions and the dedication of Americans to self-government and "liberty and justice for all." The test has already begun actually. Resistance from business leaders and consumers to even modest proposals to reduce carbon emissions and pay a small consumer price and curtailment of "choice" does not bode well for the survival of our democracy when the worst effects of climate change strike and cannot be ignored. Consumer preference for SUVs and monster trucks, to bigger and bigger homes that must be heated and cooled, to disposable products of every kind, tells me we are not prepared to make even small personal adjustments to our way of living. Without a majority of us signalling by our consumption habits and our votes that we are ready to confront this existential crisis, our elected representatives will not take the necessary action now and our democracy will fail. Is that prospect OK with everybody?
10
They NYT needs to stop the big lie, of calling this panel "apolitical".
It is hyper political. All the proposed solutions require people in America to radically alter their economies and lives, while people in Africa and Asia can continue for decades and decades increasing their population and energy use.
If this panel was truly apolitical it would call for a stop to population growth and energy use growth per capita in poor countries.
Instead all the required sacrifices are of America and a few other rich countries. That will never be accepted.
5
@Baron95 you truly don't get it when you talk about this in an "us v. them" way, as if the whole world isn't connected. You focus on the unfairness of allowing decades and decades of increasing population and energy use in Africa and Asia, but this new report confirms what other reports have watered down - we have very, very little time before everyone on this planet is impacted to a disastrous extent.
That means those people in poor countries who have no water or food due to drought will be migrating to other countries, and are more prone to radicalization. That means higher taxes in this country to support our own disaster relief. That means higher insurance rates - already the loss ratios are all upside down right now because they can't underwrite risk accurately when all the longitudinal models are breaking. That means higher food prices, higher disease rates and commensurate health care costs. The "sacrifices" that Americans would have to make to get behind reducing our greenhouse gas emissions pale by comparison to the sacrifices you will be making as the gravest threat to our economy continues to grow. No gated community will save you from this.
1
Yes, but the most of the babies in Africa don't require thousands of diapers, baby wipes, 3 outfits a day, bottles, formula, toys, princess dresses, etc.
I agree that population is a huge part of the problem, but our "consumerism" & waste is no better model.
Not political by any means.
2
@Baron95
Uh ... so you want to argue that if the country that has the largest carbon output per capita in the world, the biggest economy, and is the wealthiest, would finally start taking responsibility for what it is doing to the world, somehow that would be unfair to poor countries, even though you need ten Africans to produce the same amount of CO2 as one American does ... ?
Not very credible, isn't it?
And your solution would be to continue to be the world's major polluter, and to ask poor countries to remain poor. THAT is what you call an "apolitical" solution. A bit weird, no ... ?
As to population increase: that is expected to end when all countries have fully developed economies (because that's when population start to stagnate, as parents don't need their children anymore to be able to survive). It's poverty that leads to high population growth, not the other way around. Or does your "apolitical" solution also include forcing the rest of the world to stop having children and as a consequence die ... ?
1
Wake up world leaders? Let's be honest, the problem in leadership isn't with the rest of the world, it's with the Republicans. Trump is obviously incompetent, but where is the rest of the Republican Party? History, what history there will be, will condemn the Republicans for their willful ignorance and deliberate inaction.
32
There are 7,000,000,000 people on this planet currently. Worldwide the average peson produces 4 tons (8,000 pounds) of carbon per year. in just 20 years from now, projections are that the population will grow to 9,000,000,000 people. Thats an additional 8,000,000,000 tons. Without addressing the real issue, which is over-population, there can be no solution. If we could magically cut all emissions dramatically while the population continues to rise, the overall effect would continue our path towards oblivion.
14
@NYer
We put solar on our roof four years ago. We have produced a carbon offset of 56 metric tons of carbon. (Three people, we're in the green.) Time for everyone to install rooftop solar? No magic required...
2
This isn't just a US problem, it's a global problem. I live in Washington state and i support Gov. Inslee's inititiave. But the US has be a leader and with the current GOP leadership that won't happen. That's why we need to vote Democratic.
25
The rich must think a “GlobalWarming -Free Premium Earth will be available to those who are worth it.
6
The Water Knife by Paolo Bacigalupi - nail on the head.
Let’s face it. It’s too late.
8
@Nadir Something I was saying 30 years ago when I was a big system electric power engineer. See: the old New England Electric System, Westborough, MA.
Problem is, the party that wants to fight climate change is the enemy of our current administration. Any policy to curb emissions and regulate ANYTHING is some kind of Marxist plot that will take money from the noble capitalists. The GOP is so drunk on winning and bent on revenge, it can't see the forest for the trees anymore--who cares about the forest? Or as Trump said about the climate report, "Who DREW that?" When you entirely lose faith in science and expertise and can no longer interpret warning signs, ruled by the whims of the lowest common denominator, the future starts to look pretty bleak.
20
@Lelly it would be helpful if you studied the economics of these things. the recent nobel prize winner on this topic suggests that the costs would be astronomic and not worthwhile. and the paris accords, even if fully implemented, wont make a dent. these inconvenient facts are ignored by the left. the fact that nuclear power continues to be taboo just shows you how hypocritical and partisan the left/Dem party is. i mean, if the world is about to end, gee, wouldnt it be wise to take the risks of nuclear power???? to suggest that the GOP is the enemy and partisan means you are not listening, or you are a equally a hack. i have zero dog in this fight, and i care about the costs and facts. i suggest you do the same.
2
@ari
So if I follow your logic we should do nothing and save money. The problem with nuclear power is the life span of the reactors and the disposal of the nuclear waste. The nuclear power industry has done nothing in the past 40 years to mitigate either of these issues. So why trade one problem for another when there are other more productive ways to reduce the worlds carbon signature. First you need the administration to admit that there is global warming and second to back the programs to address this. If you don't have the former you will never have the latter.
2
@ari
"Maybe the costs are astronomic and not worthwhile," but our rooftop solar was affordable and should be required on every new home constructed. (Our carbon foot print went beyond neutral, we're in the green.) If every home had rooftop solar imagine the offset—oh wait, we have the Republican controlled state of Arizona that makes it cost prohibitive to install solar—as we don't want to effect the profits of the petroleum industry.
Sometimes it is helpful to look where the money goes to determine the whys of the no can do... Where were you planning on storing that nuclear waste again? Those steel canisters on the bottom of the ocean should begin payback pretty soon. Not to worry, the assets of the producers of that waste have all been protected from liability.
1
It is pretty strange to hear continuing calls for action when action is not going to happen. This is not like "Collapse" where the failure to take action doomed an full island of people. With global warming, our life will gradually get worse, but with no real action until Florida is covered in sea water. Great progress in feeding the world means that starvation will not be a factor, despite massive loss of arable land. Air quality will be OK in many locales, probably generally better than today as London and New Delhi pass increasingly strict controls. The major impact will be the mass migration of Floridians and Bangladeshis, and we can only hope that this really large migration does not trigger the same xenophobia that our present minor migration has done. I can live without ever visiting the gulf coast or anywhere in Florida, except while fishing. Rochester is unlikely to ever be under water, since the loss of Florida will push us to make enough change to gradually stop sea level rise. Solar and wind power will continue to advance because of economic issues and this will help in some ways like greater desalination which will make more remaining land arable. Stop stressing and deal with things by moving to higher ground, avoiding South Carolina and Florida. BTW this change will not greatly affect our politics as flooding will proportionately affect states with the most and least powerful voters.
https://wallethub.com/edu/how-much-is-your-vote-worth/7932/
2
It's ironic that a paper that publishes feverish, obsessive odes to consumption (see, e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/style/sneakers-balenciaga-triple-s.html) also claims to care about climate change. Sure, we can blame world leaders. And they are to blame. But we need to take a look in the mirror and ask ourselves what each of us is doing to make a difference. Climate change is driven by human activities such as energy production, manufacturing, agriculture, and transportation, which are all responsive to consumer demands. Environmentalism is an easier sell if we pretend no lifestyle changes are necessary--but that's also a lie. If you are promoting orgiastic materialism, you are part of the problem.
25
For the past 25 years, I've wondered where the tipping point would be for common people to take out their frustration with those that have resisted and delayed addressing carbon release due to financial and lifestyle advantages provided by the hydrocarbon industry. I've assumed it wouldn't happen until the average person was suffering personal loss and of course this meant the effects were dramatic and reversing course a matter of survival. I still doubt most people recognize the true risks even as forests on the West Coast have been burning up.
11
This is a perfect example of the tragedy of the commons. It can be surmounted, but only with the earnest cooperation of all major contributors. This will be an existential test for the UN and, ultimately, for mankind.
10
Sadly, our dear leaders in the USA have turned the clock backwards and are pursuing a policy of denial. They are aggressively pushing an agenda that relies on 'clean coal' for our energy needs. There is no such thing as 'Clean Coal Technology' ! That is the biggest hoax put forward by small minded (mostly) men who stand to make billions at the expense of everyone & everything on this planet. I ask, What good does it do to die with a large bank accogo. In addition, we need not rely on electricity, for that is still reliant on burning something to make. It is not based on renewable energy. Solar, wind, nuclear, & water are the only things that are carbon neutral.
New Zealand has closed the door on land purchase by foreigners. That is a place that these selfish idiots thought was their safe hole. Kudos to New Zealanders for denying them their plan A.
The populace of this nation needs to exercise their constitutional responsibility and vote for those who will work for the many at the expense of the few. Our wildlands need to be protected in perpetuity, as do our National Monuments and wildlife refuges. We need sensible people to do sensible things to try to reverse course to save this planet. We have no where else to ggo.
15
You got a problem with coal? Direct your attention to ‘green’ Germany, which is tmporting it like never before.
If the leaders of major corporations called for action, action would happen. The problem is the leaders of those corporations would heat the planet hotter than hell for a quartly profit.
Grifters of the public common destroying that which we all need to live.
26
I propose the erection of a huge black stone on which the names of all the leaders who connived at the destruction of the earth can be engraved in infamy.
10
@Chip Every year we can march around it 7 times.. counterclockwise.
We need to take a fresh look at nuclear power.
Today's fourth generation nuclear reactors, like GE-Hitachi's PRISM reactor do not GENERATE nuclear waste, they CONSUME AND DESTROY it in the process of producing emissions-free electricity. And we have abundant "free" fuel at for advanced reactors at nuclear power plants around the country. It is called spent nuclear fuel.
The answer to Climate Change is an all out conversion from coal to wind, solar, hydro and advanced nuclear reactors to produce electricity. That, coupled with a massive increase in electric vehicles will go a long way towards curbing the problem.
What is needed is nothing short of a "Manhattan Project" to transition away from fossil fuels. We have polluted our planet and now we owe it to our children to clean it up before it is too late!
45
I agree 100%, Bobcb. Nuclear energy - when made truly safe - is a constant source of energy. Imagine what a quiet, clean world we would have if everything ran on it. Wonderful.
5
@Bobcb The answer to Climate Change is, while anathema to consumer culture, to simplify our lifestyle. Our way of life has become far too elaborate and obscures what really matters. Nuclear power requires constant attention. It is not the answer to anything we genuinely need.
3
@Bobcb How much fossil fuel burning does it take to produce, operate, and maintain a nuclear power plant? See: mining; transport; fabrication; construction; retrofit; decommission. Signed.. graduate A1W plant, National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho.
1
The alarm may be deafening, but apparently it is still not enough. Neither the article nor the comments thus far mention population growth. This factor ultimately is responsible for much of our carbon signature.
It seems a little known fact that nitrogen fertilizer feeds almost half of humanity, and even less know that this fertilizer is made from natural gas, so when talk turns to the eventual dissolution of the oil and gas industry, we are talking about depriving 3 billions people of adequate food supply.
And sorry to the commenter here with two little kids: you knew about this carbon problem before you had children...now they will be consuming resources for the next 80+ years. The solution to carbon may be a political problem, but the cause of it is not.
Add to this the anticipated increase in concrete production, which has a large carbon signature, and the reliance on petroleum as a chemical feed stock, and it becomes clear we cannot just make this stop.
To the scientist posting here that this cannot be reversed, you are correct abut permafrost. To say "cannot be reversed" seems like a negative view of things, until one realizes that once permafrost thaws, it cannot be refrozen because of the energy input which was required to melt it in the first place.
The only solution in my mind is to spend the next 50-100 years relocating cities to higher ground, and to somehow educate all of humanity about the need to reduce out numbers.
10
Jim Skea is missing a point that the editorial board gets, it isn't up to governments or leaders, its up to citizens.
Citizens establish the market for energy through their selections and they select the priorities of their "leaders" and governments.
The days of looking to others to act has passed.
5
Agree - but that assumes an educated electorate. Which is worrisome.
6
@JMM those individuals who think their DNA is so worthy of replicating multiple times should be the ones to pay the highest price for their fecundity. Overpopulation after all is the engine behind this global warming spiraling out of control. A per capita brat tax would be just in the "developed" countries.
1
@Tournachonadar
I think overpopulation is not the engine and looking to it as anything other than a part of a multifaceted solution is misguided.
A look at a country by country breakdown of where populations are increasing will show the population in "developed" countries is pretty much flat. The population is growing in poor, underdeveloped countries.
Drawdown.org summarizes the potential savings from educating girls and family planning. It is a significant effect, but not nearly enough by themselves.
The burning of fossil fuels is a technological development which is the root cause. The solution is technological as well. There are alternatives to fossil fuels which are now technically and economically viable. Those alternatives include efficiency, reduction as well as solar and wind. See Drawdown.org for a listing of many different initiatives which can play a positive role.
In the same way we question how people from the past could accept such obviously destructive practices like slavery, our children and grandchildren will question how we could be so accepting of destroying the ecosystem in which we depend.
62
How, exactly do we combat overwhelming cynicism on the part of the the many, huge and intractable corporations who will sow environmental chaos in order to maintain their stock margins?
How do we convince a Christian, Muslim, etc. religious temperament that refuses to admit to human cause and effect, and will only see the growing weather disasters as "signs of the apocalypse"?
The Trump base already characterizes the meager restrictions President Obama put forward as "fascist."
These people aren't listening and refuse to budge. What do we do in the face of that?
Words are having ZERO effect.
5
When we place a higher value on wealth, greed and power, the planet and the people are the biggest losers. It is sickening to think that in ten years, we could destroy what has taken millions of year to create. Denial will be our undoing.
12
By the time Trump supporters figure climate change is not the hoax their dear leader says it is, it will be far too late to do anything about anything.
As we deal with catastrophic climate events on a regular basis, it will more difficult to deny climate change which is the most pressing, existential threat we have every faced.
While we are busy worrying about the scandal du jour of the Trump administration, we are ignoring the real threat to our very lives.
Most people know this is coming but since this country has decided to let the tail wag the dog, we do nothing substantial.
Maybe when the Trump supporters lose enough loved ones to hurricanes and wild fires- they might decide to start voting for responsible people who do not ignore climate change. By that time, it will be way too late.
10
I fear that in the pursuit of saving the planet while simultaneously trying to save the transnational pursuit of raw materials to drive the engine of global capitalism, we will end up neglecting the former for the latter.
8
The situation in the US is far worse than climate denial in the white house. The reason that person resides there is because one of our major political parties, whose members are mire active about voting than the other one, reject climate science. They buy books written by psuedo-scientists that support their views, and tune into radio shows, cable networks, and are facebook followers that espouse climate-change denial. I don't see any of this changing any time soon.
5
What do most organisms do when there are no natural predators or anything keeping the growth of that organism in check? They keep multiplying and using up their natural resources until the environment is ruined or the host is killed. Because humans are conscious and can understand the effects of our actions, we like to think we're above nature. But collectively, we have infected our planet like a destructive virus or cancer, and there is nothing keeping us in check. For all our technological sophistication, we have lost our sense of balance with the natural world.
The U.N. panel and climate scientists worldwide are our modern day prophets, telling us the time is near. Will we listen?
8
America is one of the largest producers of greenhouse gases and has been for years based on the way we live making us proportionally more responsible for the fix our climate is now in. Essentially America owes its standard of living to the emission of greenhouse gases, no doubt its most wealthy the definite benefactors of that. When many Americans hear the call for sacrifice, they understand it's only going to be asked of those nearest the bottom and not the top. It's not a matter of denial for many, it's parity. Bill Maher can brag all he wants about how he drives a Tesla, only because he can afford one. Anyone ever measure the amount of CO2 that windbag expels in a single show? Millions of kids in India could probably do their homework at night with a single light bulb on in exchange for him shutting up.
1
@John Doe He may drive a Tesla, but you could buy any number of Hybrid or Electric vehicles at very modest prices. Maher is correct, and if more people did it, it would help.
5
@Zeus, we do and without feeling the need to constantly berate others. Any positive message is often tarnished by the messenger.
I fear we are doomed by our own shortcomings, prove me wrong please. It's taken the NYTs almost 50 years to get on board in a still relatively ambiguous way. The majority of Americans are still buying SUVs and oblivious of their carbon footprint.
4
Sigmund Freud at the end of his life came to believe that humans are the most despicable species on the face of the earth. Our callous disregard for the plight of our common home shows the truth in this belief. The earth will survive our bad behavior, but human beings as well as many other species of flora and fauna may suffer and disappear. We humans are a blight on this earth, destroying everything in our path. Mainly for money. I don't have an answer for how to reverse this.
38
@Audrey. Blame it on free will. Without any such contrivance, species have lasted tens of millions of years. We're the unstructured species. And Trump is such a prime example.
Freud said no such thing.
I agree, and just think how much better the planet will become once we are all gone. The Garden of Eden cannot exist with humans in it. After all, that was God’s assessment. Perhaps, God knew all along that humans could never be trusted to tend and care for that pristine environment, and so, expelled humans from the Garden, forever.
1
What is the future of the planet and all life on it compared to Republicans' lust for political power and the fossil-fuel industry campaign money they need to keep their grip on it? Priorities, people!
7
htg says, in an earlier comment, "We - our society, our country - does not seem ready, willing, or able to make the sacrifices necessary to combat climate change"
This is a constant refrain and it's simply not true. As other comments, show hundreds of millions of individuals across the planet are doing their part in small ways. It's just not getting "news coverage". Destruction and the most recent hurricane/forest fire take up the space.
Those of us alive when JFK was elected know the power of a positive President. He urged young people to get fit. He gave us the dream of going to the moon - and we did.
President Obama tried to tell us how important climate change is but his message was not given the news attention it deserved and saving the economy, trying to prevent more mass shootings, trying to get a modicum of support from "conservatives" and other horrific things took his energy.
The Con Don and the current crop of Robber Barons love their oil and destruction of everything in their demented quest for supposed money and power. They will destroy it all then ask their "god" to forgive them before they die.
Sorry, boys and girls, the rest of us are not going to stand by and let you destroy OUR lives and planet. Not now. Not ever.
13
When the oceans heat up to a point when the oxygen producing organisms (which produce more than 70% of our planets oxygen) begin to die will anyone pay attention.
Unfortunately, due to the selfish nature of our species, only when the last gasp of air is exhaled will people wish to do something about our dying planet.
4
It no longer matters what any politician or entity believes or acts.
Let us focus on the main issue, and less on the kaleidoscopic array of side effects.
Population explosion: At 7.6 billion, increasing by 80 million annually.
This drives everything. This alone swamps out any and all attempts at 'damage control'. And we are not going to do anything about it. The population of this planet more than doubled in my lifetime. It's all over folks.
Climate change is simply one of many looming disasters.
The Keeling curve currently at 411 ppm CO2 and rising drives the rise in sea level, temperature, and acidity. This is already baked in, and will continue for many decades to come no matter what mitigating attempts are made.
We have already passed a number of tipping points. I'm not going to enumerate these any more. It is an exercise in futility. I will support any person or entity that will do the right things, even though it is utterly pointless at this point.
28
@oldBassGuy My own guesstimate is the planet passed the point of no return sometime in the middle of the 19th century. Curiously, the development of thermodynamics occurred at the time (no connection, though).
2
@oldBassGuy
You're wrong.
With only 6% of the world's population, the US is responsible for a whopping 25% of the world's carbon emissions.
Populations typically stagnate in developed countries, and grow fast in poor countries (in a subsistence economy, families live from their own work in their own fields, and you need lots of children to work on those fields to be able to survive).
The worst hypocrisy now is to claim, as Americans, that those poor people should stop making children, only to allow us, main culprits of climate change (which by the way has been hitting poor countries most, during the last decades, causing 20 million climate change refugees already ...), to continue to pollute as much as we do.
Science shows that the earth can easily feed 11 billion people, and 11 billion is the number where the earth's human population is expected to stagnate (= when all economies are fully developed) ... IF we in the West switch to a sustainable way of living, including zero carbon energy consumption, and if we can make sure that developing countries skip our own, dirty industrialization phase and switch immediately to clean energy instead.
There's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't be able to do this. All that is needed is the moral courage to act ...
1
@Ana Luisa You continually get the US carbon emissions wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Moreover -- US carbon emissions have been declining both in total and per capita since 2007 and we're basically at the same level of emissions (total) as 1980 and much more of a decline in per capita.
The probability of irreversible global warming is too risky to ignore. At the most basic level, counter measures must include global women’s education and equality (the key to controlling population growth); as well as the minimization of human generated waste of all types.
6
In order to achieve any substantial gains it has to become a personal not a political choice. Only individuals can make choices and reduce their carbon footprints. All the government regulations in the world will equate spitting in the ocean of change as compared to changing the thoughts and habits of individuals. Regulations can and hopefully will reign in corporate polluters. Price fixing would have to play some part in this recipe though otherwise we will end up in the cold and dark while the plutocrats in DC sip champagne and eat caviar flown in fresh daily.
3
@Indie Voter - it has to be both. An individual wanting to buy a more-efficient car has to have car builders selling more efficient cars (which are often less profitable).
Individuals can't call their power company and just say "Send me only solar-power electrons" and expect the utility to pay attention. But the combination of federal investments in R&D, plus federal, state and local regulations to push for cleaner, healthier power supply is what drove the changes in power generation infrastructure that now makes choices more available.
It's the normal pattern. Federal investment and nudging opens new developments that then over time become interesting (profitable) to companies, and that's what populates the consumer marketplace. From railroads, the internet and efficient LED lights, it's been a combination.
The government participation doesn't even have to be a heavy touch - EnergyStar is a program that's voluntary for manufacturers and builders, and results in huge cost savings for consumers. I'll note here that Trump's skyscrapers tend to rate near the bottom of the EnergyStar ratings for construction, and that the Trump Administration had floated the idea of ending the voluntary, very cost-effective EnergyStar program.
2
“Frankly, we’ve delivered a message to the governments,” said Jim Skea, a co-chairman of the panel and a professor at Imperial College, London. “It’s now their responsibility … to decide whether they can act on it.”
Largely apolitical, my foot. Our "governments," in every liberals dream, are a tool at their disposal. If the threat is so real then change must come from they market that will suffer its consequences, i.e., from the actions of every person in the planet. Governmental change will follow. "Governments" as agents of evolutionary change is code for "elect us, we know better than you." Until you don't.
4
Beyond say gosh, sorry about the science and all, thanks. It’s amusing to see deniers insist that governments should lead from behind, given how much nonsense got spouted at President Obama about exactly that.
2
@Russ Wilson Change can indeed be driven by the market, but only if you have a functioning market. There isn't one in energy. In the case of fossil fuels, the cost of the generated pollutants (especially carbon dioxide, but even extraction and refining is subsidized while ignoring the pollution damage caused where it is taking place in mostly rural areas) are externalized to society and the global environment as a whole. Until that is addressed profit is maximized by the energy industry by continuing to burn hydrocarbons and avoiding investment in new technologies and the infrastructure needed to deploy them.
3
Do not expect the US to do anything about this with Trump in office. Addressing this issue is going to cost money, and that is best done under Democrats who are known to always want to increase the National Debt.
<snark> We are so lucky to have the party of debt avoidance currently in power. </snark>
5
@jmac Actually, the GOP myth is that they're fiscally conservative, when Reagan was the first president in decades to put the U.S. in debt. Clinton had a surplus, then Bush drove the debt higher.
Now Trump makes Obama look like a miser as he is spending trillions and driving the country into further debt. Interesting how few people know this.
6
@jmac - the good thing is that states, cities and corporations are continuing to save money by doing the opposite of what the Republican "leadership" wants us to do.
The five states producing the most wind power include California (for now), but the rest of the list are places where eventually the voters will wise up and toss the fossil crowd over, or at least have them make room for the other energy industry putting money into pockets of rural voters. Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas.
1
The real reason Republicans and the Evangelicals who underwrite their power won't do anything about climate change is that they think all these catastrophes are signs that the Rapture is at hand. They actually want things to get worse because that will hasten the Second Coming of Christ. They think we don't have to worry about the environment because Jesus is coming to fix everything. Bonus: liberals and gays well be cast into pits of hellfire while the righteous will burst from their graves into heaven.
We need to start calling out prominent Republican politicians about their extreme religious views and how those view affect their policy decisions.
80
@john brehm
Unfortunately you are spot on. It's almost like they rejoice when a tsunami, hurricane, earthquake or wildfire wipes out massive numbers of people. Proves their point...God's punishment.
What a miserable way to live.
4
@john brehm Got any Republican politicians in mind? I couldn't name any.
@john brehm Agreed, but the time is probably coming when some part of the right will realize that climate change will work in their favor. How? Simple. Immigration, or should I say, climate migration? I checked out an alt right blog the other day that was already getting there. Close down the borders! Stop the browns and blacks from pouring in from their soon to be climate devastated lands, et etc. The bigger the climate crises the bigger the fear. The bigger the fear the more just the alt right position and so forth. Since there will indeed be climate migration and since indeed a lot of that will come from non European lands, this is a ready made issue for the right. Best the rest of us do hope they do not figure this out.
"When a cautious, science-based and largely apolitical group like the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the world must utterly transform its energy systems in the next decade or risk ecological and social disaster, attention must be paid."
All it takes is our President to say "The UN IGP on Climate Change is a TOTALLY- TOTALLY FOLKS- Political Body- okay, they are pushing far left conspiracy- and it's all about money folks- it's a hoax."
^ And just like that 35+% of the country will believe it, we will reach legislative gridlock, and the old white men will die while the air is still breathable, leaving our children with that cleaaaaaaaan coal air.
When do we change the tactics and realize that we are facing a person who commands a literal cult and can change their abject reality at his whim? I mean we started at pizza gate, now we've got mainstream Soros conspiracy...
The saddest part? To those people, a conspiracy about a pizzeria basement is more believable than anything printed in the NYT- oh and spoiler- you helped the guy who made all of those people distrust you more than Snapple facts become the President of the United States.
I would tell my children the story, but I doubt I'll be having any. Seems like they'd be better off as a twinkle in my eye than an asthma plagued youth on planet hellfire leftover by the fossil fuel lovers.
30
NYT. Listen to yourself. "The world must utterly transform"?
To most people, that's crazy talk. That sounds like the Bolshevik or French revolutions. That's scary stuff. Who gets to be in charge as we "utterly transform"? In times of radical change, it's usually the fascists that come out on top, not the nice squishy liberals with their global councils.
The future will be warmer. Humans can and will adapt. We should mitigate as possible. But "utter transformation"? I would call it silly but it's actually pretty scary.
2
Climate change is clearly the number one threat to our planet. Our government opposes any sensible measure to fix the problem. VOTE DEMOCRATIC
25
No, overpopulation would be my guess.
Let's all thank anti-nuclear power activists for helping make global warming all that it can truly be.
2
@Tucson Geologist Nuclear power plants (all thermal plants) are thermal polluters. See: cooling water gets hot. Signed.. USN nuclear power tech (1970s)
2
@HLB Engineering How many gigatonnes of CO2 are not in the atmosphere causing warming as a result of nuclear? There is no free lunch. All schemes of extracting power have consequences. Smarter people than I am have done the analysis and found nuclear the least globally impacting means of generating power. Hydro is pretty good too but involves changing and often major degradation of river ecosystems which billions of people depend on.
@Tucson Geologist You're partially right.
Germany's shutdown of nuclear power was ridiculously misguided. We should not have blocked plants like Shoreham, and the current nuclear fleet should be maintained for as long as possible while other zero-carbon sources ramp up.
But today new nuclear is a heck of a lot more expensive than solar or wind, with the most advanced new plants (Vogtle 3 and 4, Hinkley Point C) looking at 15 cents/kWh or more, compared with 2-8 cents for solar and 3-6 cents for wind. Even offshore wind, or solar or wind with battery storage, is cheaper.
@HLB Engineering yes they are thermal polluters, with noticeable effect on local waterways, but planet-wide that warming is minuscule compared to greenhouse warming from coal or natural gas production and combustion emissions.
1
The Climate and Community Protection Act would move all sectors of New York State to 100% renewable energy by 2050, retrain fossil fuel workers, and ensure protection for the communities most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The CCPA has passed the NY State Assembly several times; it has been held up in the Republican-controlled State Senate, which wouldn't move it out of committee even when it had 32 co-sponsors. This election is a crucial one for New York State and for all rational people who are concerned about climate change.
19
The U.N.'s climate change report is very alarming and yet it seems there is barely a ripple of talk about it in Washington. Our president is tone deaf on so many important issues, but especially this most critical one regarding our planet, our environment, our future. It's astonishing to think that there are still vast numbers of people, including Trump, who dismiss climate change as a hoax. It's not just world leaders who need to wake up. It's the world. All of us. We all need to do our part to contain this massive crisis.
6
@Sharon Representative government only cures problems of the long past.
As some of your other commenters, I fear for my progeny and theirs and theirs. They are the recipients of the seemingly dystopian future. We have wasted our planet. So. Now what? Each of us do what we can but the leaders Must step up! Hawaii is almost all solar. A beginning.
17
Climate change and environmental responsibility is THE MOST important issue facing humanity.
We need to hit every single politician with questions about how they will respond to this issue.
If they duck, dodge, obfuscate or deny, hit them again.
And again.
And again... until this dominates our national conversation as it should.
THIS election is the time. Do it now or who knows where we will be by 2020.
16
One can imagine beings in another galaxy watching us and placing bets on our survival. As catastrophic climate events take hold, political forces in favor of increasing carbon use and decreasing the means of population control are ascendant. From space, it most look like a species bent on self-destruction.
32
@Adan Schwartz If Mother Nature floated war bonds, I'd buy them. Then.. how do you redeem them?
2
Maybe a tiny part of the probably is the Ozone Hole.
The Ozone Hole was going to give us skin cancer.
And then they changed a few things, and now... more or less, the Ozone Hole scare is over.
Maybe people think Global Warming will be like the Ozone Hole. Not as big a deal as they were saying.
@David Martin
Uh ... you seem to have skipped the part where just like what is happening today, the entire world came together, and signed a political agreement that forced all countries to no longer use the chemicals that were responsible for the ozone hole ... ?
THAT is why the problem is solved now, you see?
To imagine that what worked with the ozone hole somehow should NOT be done today because it worked, as you're arguing here, is simply intellectually absurd, as I hope you understand?
If not: it's like saying that last time that a fire started in my kitchen, I threw water on it and it stopped. As a consequence, now that my entire house is on fire, I prefer to do nothing rather than urgently calling firefighters, because after I threw water on my kitchen fire the problem was gone and I wasn't so scared that I would lose my kitchen anymore.
That doesn't make sense, you see?
4
@David Martin I did research on ozone depletion in college. It was real. It was dangerous. It still is causing issues in Australia, and unabated would absolutely have done so in the northern hemisphere. The difference was that in that case there was a pretty straightforward solution in replacing CFCs with refrigerants that don't migrate to the stratosphere and destroy the ultraviolet light shield. Effectively that was a tiny pilot experiment which we got right. CO2 pollution is thousands of times more difficult to deal with. But still not impossible. Takes public support along with political courage, which is in extremely short supply.
1
No, no, no. How quickly you forget: climate change is a lefty hoax, the earth is only 6000 years old and flat, dinosaurs & humans coexisted. It it my god-given right to bury my head in the sand and deny all science and fact because my special holy book does not endorse it. (I know people who think this way.)
Washington Carbon Tax? I will vote for I-1631 (against my vote-no-on-every-initiative policy) but there is no certainty of passage, there are an astounding number of government hating, tax-phobes out here in WA.
However, in this state, unlike the nation, the urban areas (Olympia/Tacoma/Seattle/Everett/Bellingham) can and do out-vote and win elections (but not always) over the entirety of the rest of the rural parts of the state which lean right. In general terms think of the Cascade Mountains as the dividing line between blue and red. We are the USA in microcosm.
One hopes the WA carbon tax passes, it would be great to be on the forefront of this. And to be another poke in Trump's eye from the West Coast. CA, poke. OR, poke. WA, poke.
27
@Bailey Carbon tax only shifts the carbon burning to a politically favored entity. Only if the proceeds from the tax are locked away forever, can it be effective. Whatever you do, don't BURN the receipts.
1
The recent climate reports are showing that unless we world shifts immediately toward renewable sources of energy and the full electrification of transportation, the planet will rise in temperature enough that we will kill off most of the animal life on this planet (the sixth extinction event). The forces of this are already being felt with extreme storm activity (Florida today), wild fires and droughts. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and when harnesses in fuel cells, provides a strong enough power that it can propel trains, trucks, ferries, buses, cars and even small airplanes, with the only emission being water. And through multi-megawatt stacks, we can store excess renewable energy to feed the grid when the sun isn't shining and the winds aren't blowing. One Canadian company (Hydrogenics) is offering a Hail Mary pass solution to offset catastrophic climate change. I'm investing in HYGS because I'm literally betting my life on it.
5
@Vote with your $'s Much of what you say is correct. But hydrogen is not the answer, the electricity-hydrogen-electricity roundtrip wastes half of the energy and it's expensive to store. Production is also expensive from excess off-peak renewables, as capital utilization is very low, making capital cost very high.
For a good engineering summary with numbers, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY
1
This column should be full. All other discussions are like little ants running in circles when existence is threatened. The govt in power care only about tomorrow not a decade from now unless they have their hundred years stash underground and that won’t sustain them anyway.
10
All living things have a beginning, a middle and an end. This isn't a hypothesis or theory, it's a law of nature. Yes, there are actions we can take to prolong the onslaught of the inevitable but in the end it's akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. "Let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die".
1
@Kurt Pickard
Why would you answer something like that when we human beings just launched the Sixth Great Extinction, murdering species on earth at a pace that only happened 5 times before, during the entire period that life on earth exists ... ?
When you murder your neighbor, nobody will accept your "all living things have a beginning, a middle and an end, that's inevitable" to then let you go into the house of another neighbor, you know.
The exact same thing goes for climate change.
Each year that we don't act, things will become much worse even, for our grand-children and their children. That's because atmospheric CO2 is cumulative: a molecule stays in the atmosphere for an entire century, so causes damages for 100 hundreds (and then we're not talking about feedback chains yet). The more carbon we emit today, the worse things will be a century from now.
There's no way to excuse such an immoral refusal of responsibility here ...
7
"Unfortunately, no alarm seems loud enough to penetrate the walls of the White House or the cranium of its principal occupant..."
This is not the time for silly partisanship. The truth is, the Obama administrations failure to initiate any attempts to curb fossil fuel extraction - indeed, they even took significant steps to increase it - had the effect of outweighing the few positive climate policies they enacted. In other words, Obama helped speed up climate change - and he openly bragged about the increased oil extraction and fracking. Hillary, during her State Dept tenure helped export fracking technology to the world.
Yes, we must get rid of Trump and the Republican congress - but we cannot let the Democrats continue their friendly relationship with the energy sector that has resulted in a mixed bag of climate policies.
4
There’s a certain segment of the Left that spouts this nonsense no matter what and keeps spouting it no matter what, and will likely help Trump get re-elected just as they helped him drip into office in the first place.
Basically, they’re either agents provocateurs for this or that right-wing group or energy company who’re lying about who they are, or the good old Purity Police.
In either case, their “facts,” ain’t facts, and their politics are demented.
@Robert I guess that's what passes for a "refutation" in your mind. Since you didn't bother saying what you disagreed with, I can only guess on which area you're uninformed.
Perhaps you think Obama a great job with his climate policy. Here's Obama bragging about all the oil he helped bring out of the ground - his climate "legacy":
“Over the last three years, I’ve directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We’re opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth, and then some. . . . In fact, the problem . . . is that we’re actually producing so much oil and gas . . . that we don’t have enough pipeline capacity to transport all of it where it needs to go.”
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/obama-and-climate-ch...
Regarding your assertion that the only people who disagree with you are "agents provocateurs" and "their “facts,” ain’t facts" - you sound a lot like our current president.
Regarding your assertion that I must be part of some "right-wing group or energy company", I guess you missed the part where I stated, " we must get rid of Trump and the Republican congress".
You're reasoning abilities are in need of strengthening.
This report cannot be clearer as the emphasis ofyour editorial states. Former President Obama's statements and speeches could not have been clear several years ago that Global Warming was the challenge of our future. Not only should Global Leader wake up, but our Governors, and Mayors in the United States should wake up and make anew priorities, planning and polices for infrastructure change NOW. Boston, New York City, and south to Miami...wake up and do your jobs to provide for the common defense of your citizenry...wearing boots is not an answer...
3
The depletion of the Ozone layer was THE issue of the time 40 years ago, and the world rallied to restrict the use of CFCs and other chemicals that were destroying our protective shield against solar radiation. Trump and those who believe they have the right to pollute the environment have always been charlatans, and we'd be fools to follow their lead today. I hope America will rise above the greed and bizarre rejection of science as though the Middle Ages was enlightening.
14
It's going to be hard to change the tune of the current administration as long as they believe that "thoughts and prayers" can fix anything, and as long as their focus is on the wants of the uber-rich.
November 6th. For the sake of the earth (or more accurately, life on earth), please vote.
7
Regarding global warming, we had a chance with Obama and Kerry. But forget Trump, barring a sudden epiphany. Right now it's not looking so good for humanity's chances -- climate change inaction, ecological threats, unresolved enmities, nuclear arms, obsessions with one country "winning" vs. others losing, "America First" idiocy, etc. I remember Carl Sagan saying the odds of a technologically advanced civilization surviving its own self-destruction were maybe 5% at best of the planets where this occurs. Will we make it? Time is speeding up now. I think we'll know one way or the other by about the year 2100. [Readers: Take a fresh look at Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" summary, written in 1994.]
6
Dear Republicans:
We all know that freedom and profit are synonymous to you. Here is how you can make money off of this deafening alarm that you reject. We all know that markets are driven by emotion and reactions, not logic. As good Republicans, you would never let emotions get in the way of turing a good profit.
If you own coastal property, sell it to some sucker who thinks climate change is a hoax and there is nothing to worry about. Take the profits, move inland and build yourselves a house with solar power and high efficiency. Take your wealth and invest in companies that build solar and wind equipment. Most of those are foreign entities but no matter. So long as they turn a profit, who cares.
You will make a fortune. Someone else will be stuck with your flooded out property. It doesn't get any more Republican than that. And to top it off, you can still claim that climate change is a hoax and you made a killing off of it.
15
@Bruce Rozenblit It's already happening, Google "climate gentrification".
1
We have needed urgent action since the climate conferences of the 1970's.
Meanwhile, one of the simplest actions we can take as individuals is also one of the most impactful. "Consume less meat & dairy". This month 50% less than the month before. Next month 50% less than this month, and so on for the coming year.
Ref:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-da...
4
An important one was left out of this: "Individuals have a great deal more power than they think: They can insulate their homes, install smart thermostats, choose public transportation, buy more fuel-efficient cars and appliances, even change their diet "
People in many parts of the country can choose who produces their electricity, which is then delivered by your power utility.
Look for companies that feature all renewable, or the highest ratio of renewable and/or nuclear they can, and select them - after checking BBB and other sources for complaints. There are some shady vendors as deregulation hit the industry.
But buying from non-fossil sources sends signals just like the price of natural gas sent signals to power plant owners to switch from coal. In the middle of the country, it's cheaper to build new wind turbines for a given amount of power than to keep an existing coal plant running.
13
@b fagan, many don’t realize the major city with the lowest carbon emissions in the U.S. isn’t San Francisco, Palo Alto, or Los Angeles. It’s Chicago, IL, which derives 85% of its electricity from zero-carbon nuclear fission - and has, for four decades.
So I’m not surprised there’s someone who lives there who hasn’t succumbed to the irrational fear of nuclear gripping California and other parts of the country.
1
@BobMeinetz - I'm buying my power from a source that buys 99% from wind farms, but I think that keeping well-run nuclear plants running while we cut away from fossil makes lots of sense. Germany made a big mistake, but power is politics, too. Here, we made a deal to support the nukes for a while, a nationwide price on carbon emissions would help elsewhere.
So yeah, Illinois gets most of our electricity from nuclear right now.
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=IL#tabs-4
But where it gets interesting is that the department of energy projects that Illinois will be the second-highest producer of wind power by 2050 - with only Texas leading us. Our wind resource isn't as good as in the high plains, but we've got good flat land and great big markets - and that's all that's needed.
https://www.energy.gov/maps/map-projected-growth-wind-industry-now-until...
People should look at the above map and follow the growth in wind generation just from 2000 through 2013. Building a wind or solar farm sure isn't like building a new nuclear plant - or trying to. Nuclear may survive, but will have a lot to prove, especially as developments in multi-layer and film-based solar mean that practically any surface can harvest watts.
But Illinois sits on huge coal reserves we need to leave underground, and California is a high-ranking oil producer. I wish us both success in moving on from that past.
Climate scientists were sounding alarms in the 1970s. I know, because I was one of those scientists.
We need to realize now that it is too late to avoid all and perhaps much of the disaster that awaits the world, and move quickly to mitigate as much as we can for the next generations to allow the time to survive and hopefully fix the atmosphere.
We need to realize that the permafrost that covers most of northern Canada and Russia is going to melt, and there is nothing we can do to stop this at this point. Once this happens trillions of tons of methane and CO2 gas will be released causing an exponential warming of the planet. Again, there is nothing we can do to stop this scenario unless a new technology is developed to clean up the atmosphere, and reverse not just stop the warming. If not, we are well past the point of no return.
36
Trump will not and cannot consider climate information, such as the recent U.N. report. This would require him to reverse course and admit he was wrong, something he is unwilling and unable to do.
8
Does no one in this government think of or care about their progeny? I have grave concerns for my grandchildren - I have 8 - and my great-grandchildren - they now number 5. What kind of world are we leaving these children?
6
The ultimate irony is that the climate change denying Right will seek to benefit politically as more calamities befall us.
Though currently denying climate change, in the next generation the Right will use its havoc and financial depression as a means to install a true autocracy in the United States.
6
Source: NOAA
There has been a 2 degree C rise in average monthly temperature in Philadelphia since 1948. Over the same period, that rise for Phoenix has been about 2.5 degrees C. Nearby in Pittsburgh, that rise has been recorded at only 1 degree C since the late 19th century.
+++
Do your readers think that adhering to the Paris Climate Accord is going to spare major U.S. population centers from catastrophic consequences by concentrating solely on average world temperature rise since the industrial age? After all, focusing on temperatures in Antarctica isn't going to spare New York City from the ravages of its own environment. See: average.
1
@HLB Engineering What is your point. Global Warming impacts the entire globe, more immediately in some places than others. Temperature increases will impact global circulation systems in the atmosphere and in the oceans. We cannot continue what we are doing, that is the message. We need to move away from fossil fuels and work to get exponential population under control.
4
@John Warnock The point is apparent. Philly is responsible for its own slow destruction. Adding its "magic number" to that of McMurdo Sound -- and dividing by 2 -- isn't going to help the citizens of eastern PA.
@HLB Engineering
So now we apply Trump's anti-globalism schtick to climate change to claim that the climate of the planet is not inextricably interconnected but instead, each city/town/enclave creates its own climate?
When does the madness end?
"attention must be paid." Why the passive voice when what we urgently need is ACTION.
WE MUST PAY ATTENTION.
18
@Roger The current occupant of the Oval Office and his administration are INCAPABLE of the action, as you correctly stated, needed to confront this problem and invest in technologies to get us completely off of carbon based energy. Vote people. Vote for the people who understand and care about this issue.
4
Not long ago we all read the anonymous op-ed letter claiming that we should not get too worried about the mess in the White House because, the letter claimed, there are plenty of adults around the president to prevent him from behaving in too outrageous a manner.
Where then are those adults now?
Those so-called adults are *required* to act immediately.
45
When droughts and floods decimate food supplies in large areas, as new pests and new growing conditions shift agriculture to new areas and new crops, as blood is shed over food and water, as tens of millions are forced to migrate or die in place, will more weapons and walls be our last resort?
How short-sighted we are.
History won't look back at us with disdain. Any who are left will be scrabbling for their own survival to worry about what was.
6
Transit. I wish the people writing these articles would understand that for most cities, especially those in the center of the US, transit is not an option... because of our zoning laws. We can't simply seek out more transit, our cities are designed for the auto and against transit use, because of the zoning laws. All the transit funding in the world could not fix that until the laws are changed. Please say something about the zoning laws and help us have a voice in trying to get them changed. Pedestrian/bike friendly cities and thus transit are essentially illegal. We can't "transition" to transit until the laws are changed and nobody in these types of articles even mentions the zoning laws. Zoning laws that say "If you have this much square feet of retail you MUST have this many parking spots" "It's illegal to have mixed use buildings like living over retail." "Put your neighborhoods here, shopping there." etc. etc. All kinds of regulations that make it so that you have cities where people can not walk or bike, won't want to walk or bike, where there can not be enough density, etc. for transit to even dream of working. Again, first thing first, until the laws are changed, transit won't have a chance. But I never hear mention of zoning laws needing to be changed in these discussions about climate change. Those of us who try to get them changed here in this part of the country could use a little help from other corners like the media and press. Please.
35
How about those large developing countries like say China, not increase their emissions and be audited somehow to assure they are counting correctly? The US is not going to pay bribes to make stronger competitors, and will use the private sector, states, cities, and individuals to meet or exceed our goals, not the federal government.
1
@vulcanalex
How about we lead the world in converting to solar and wind generation since it's cost is already on par fossil fuel energy generation and below cost of nuclear power generation.
4
You're confounding developing and developed economies.
The countries with the highest per capita carbon emissions - in other words the countries most responsible for the current extremely high atmospheric CO2 levels and the subsequent climate change - are DEVELOPED countries.
With only a fourth of China's population, for instance, the US is emitting the exact same amount of CO2 as China does.
Hunger and poverty are so bad, in developing countries, that it's extremely difficult for their governments to slow down the developing of their economies, and quite frankly immoral to ask them to do so (even more just because "free market" supporters would now want to artificially eliminate "competitors" by keeping their citizens poor and sick, as you're suggesting here ... idea that by the way directly led to WWII, remember?).
And China is the world's leading renewable energy country, so is already today doing MORE than the US to stop climate change.
But yes, it HAS to develop its economy, so ANY global political agreement will have to accept that developing countries continue to emit a bit more CO2 in the near future than they do today. For them, the challenge is to to stop doing so as soon as possible - and knowing that even then, they'll produce less CO2 than we do ...
In the meanwhile, the West has to dramatically lower its massive CO2 output. That's only possible if the federal government stops bribing fossil fuel companies and imposes new rules on the entire country.
6
@vulcanalex It’s hypocritical of us to demand the billion+ populated countries to reduce their emissions when Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Accord. Why would anyone listen to what we have to say? And we need to look in the mirror and clean up our own house before casting demands on others. Leading by example is a great motivator for others.
6
Of course, we are destroying this beautiful blue planet, How much taxpayer money is going to be diverted from already struggling schools and hospitals to mop up natural disaster after disaster. Whether it be fire, floods, droughts or cyclones. Are people so unconcerned what the future will be like for the generations after them that they fail to vote or vote for those who are hell bent on sucking Mother Nature dry. Again those in the lower socioeconomic classes will bear the brunt of political negligence. All the military might in the world is not going to win this war.
225
Apart from voting (and getting out the vote of our family members, neighbors, friends, colleagues, ...), which of course is crucial (as we need to get back on track when it comes to the Paris Agreement, so that the second round of talks can take off), there are a lot of other things we can do:
- read about climate change, so that we know WHAT might happen, and can have concrete arguments and information to offer to those who are still misled by cynical and corrupt politicians
- be careful about using energy at home (in other words, try to live closer to nature, instead of shielding ourselves from it in all kinds of unnecessary ways)
- STOP EATING RED MEAT (and if possible, all kinds of meat, if not all meat except for fish and seafood). The US has the highest carbon output per capita in the world, and the main culprit here is, contrary to what one might think, NOT cars and plants but ... the gigantic production of meat (see Nathalie Portman's new documentary for the details).
And you don't have to start radically changing your life. Just leaving out meat for one day a week, and then, when you get used to it, two days, for instance, will already have a huge impact, if we are millions of people doing this together.
WE are the ones who have produced this horrible amount of atmospheric carbon, which means that there's actually no reason to panic or become discouraged, as what we do, we can of course also undo and replace with better technologies, better ways of living, etc!
21
@Ana Luisa your proposal to eat fish and seafood instead of meat will just depopulate our already struggling oceans, seas, lakes and so on.
2
Come on, do you think that Trump even read the report? Even if the report was reduced to five bullet points for him, Trump's anti-science, "hoax" stance on climate change, and his promotion of coal energy places him squarely in a no-man's land of denial. That way, he doesn't have to do anything about it and keep his base happy, while the rest of us have to live with the consequences. We will pay dearly for this, and so will the next generation, long after these willfully ignorant leaders are gone.
57
More alarmism from the IPCC. Mostly saying that 2 percent warming might be worse than 1.5 percent. D'uh! NO consideration of the cost-benefit of their proposals. No consideration of other major issues that are at least, as important. and could be addressed at far lesser cost.. The cost of this ridiculous proposal to eliminate CO2 emissions by 2040 or 2055 is just appalling given any cost-benefit analysis.
2
@Gary according to the cost-benefit analyses from various think-tanks, it is far cheaper to follow IPCC recommendations and mitigate global warming than it is to pay for the damages and necessary adaptation to climate change.
It would have been cheaper still to have divested from fossil fuels and animal agriculture 4 decades ago after the first international climate summit. We have to pay more now for historical lack of action on this issue.
7
@Gary err... what kind of cost are you talking about? The focus on money in some of these posts is both tragic and hilarious.
5
@Gary Who cares about the cost benefit analysis except for greedy, greedy people? We spend trillions a year for military weapons and wars the world over but somehow it’s a cost benefit analysis issue when it comes to nature either burning up or drowning people all over the world? Incredible.
5
Trump and the profiteers who support him have likely planned the means to escape the environmental dangers and profit from them. When the media discovers a bit more critical thinking analysis, there will be stories about who profits from Trump policies. Who profits from environmental degradation, from tariffs, from growing National debt, from exploding health insurance inflation, from predatory pharmaceutical pricing? Does anyone think that the corporate “lords” are not devising ways of profiting from our corrupt President?
15
Well, maybe you guys shouldn't have been so obsessed with Clinton's emails and not treated every potential bad story about Trump with skepticism.
You can't close the stable door after the horse has bolted.
82
I think it is too late and global warming is by now beyond the point of no return. The world leaders sat like lotus eaters, doing nothing, instead of promoting the utilisation of solar energy.
4
Things aren't that black and white.
Yes, for certain types of damage (current and future) we're already beyond the point of no return, as science shows.
But how reasonable is it to take only one part of science into account, and not the rest?
Science ALSO shows that we can still, each and every day/week/month/year that comes, prevent tons of other, horrible types of damage. THAT is what we should be working on, rather than getting discouraged.
As to solar energy: China is a world leader in this field, and Brazil is doing a lot too, whereas thanks to Obama and the Democrats, the number of solar energy jobs in the US doubled already (which means that we're now having twice as many people working in solar energy than in coal).
The only thing we must keep in mind here is that all real, lasting, non-violent, radical, democratic change, is step by step change.
What is needed now is a steady and clear focus on our end goals, combined with the patience, persistence and hard work that will take us just ONE step further, and then the next step, and so forth.
Remember, that's how the civil rights movement obtained its most important successes, it's how social security came about, AND it's how the first global climate change agreement has become reality.
Today already, 40 world cities (2 in the US!) have become entirely zero carbon. Democratic Governors are working hard to get more cities onto that list too.
Now is not the time to go standing at the sidelines ...! ;-)
12
The hurricane in Florida will help wake people up in two ways.
1. It will cause a lot of devastation, fueled by warm water from climate change.
2. That area of Florida is mostly Trump supporters.
58
@Keith
Good point Keith. We'll be sure to remember that the next time our democratic brethren on the left coast suffer from wild fires, mud slides and drought.
@Keith
Yep. And Trump will visit the devastation and leave telling everyone to "have fun."
Just like he told the people in North and South Carolina as they were standing in the water looking at their mud filled homes, knowing that the rivers were about to flood them from the other direction.
3
@Keith Sadly, I suspect these poor people won't know what hit them. Because they have had their brains pickled by Trump, Faux News and right-wing radio, they will probably blame the hurricane on the Democrats.
4
You cannot fairly analyze the detrimental effect of climate change and the hypothetical cost of ignoring it in a vacuum without also considering the cost of implementing climate change controls.
Efficient and cheap energy from hydrocarbons has sustained a much larger human population and, in general, a higher standard of living.
Where is the cost benefit analysis of climate change reduction, particularly on poorer populations?
3
@Jeff k
Poorer populations are already bearing the biggest costs of the effects of climate change.
4
@Jeff k the monetary cost is a far less important consideration. You can’t accumulate or spend money if you and everyone else is dead.
6
@Jeff k Renewable energy today is cheaper than that from fossil fuels. See for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXw38SaGmOk
That said, you bring up a good point: electric vehicles, home solar, batteries, better home insulation, efficient appliances, Ice Bear A/C etc. save money down the line, with big up front costs now. That means they are affordable for those who can borrow at low interest rates, i.e. good credit scores, i.e. not the poorest people.
It's a well-known problem with some partial solutions, like Solar City's 3rd-party ownership of solar rooftop energy production, but we'll need to deal with this more broadly so the poor don't get left further behind.
4
Wake up world leaders? When The Con Don is telling the world America doesn't care?
The vast majority of Americans do not agree with him. As a matter of fact WE THE PEOPLE strongly oppose his stance.
However, it's clear he is only talking to the top 1/10th of 1% who are controlling the world economy right now. The International Mafia Robber Barons.
They are about to get booted out of OUR governments at every level around the world. Time's UP for them and their world destructive ways.
NOW.
16
@njglea. From your mouth to God’s ears and the tushes of millions of voters who can’t be bothered to vote but have no problem complaining afterwards.
1
How can we hope to make changes when we can't even face the coal miners in this country and tell them that they flat out need to find another way to make a living? Hillary tried saying that gently, and all heck broke loose.
I'm so tired of hearing about how people in this country are "too busy trying to scrape by" to care about the climate, or social justice, or anything else that doesn't throw an extra $10 in their pockets each week. Wait until the Midwest turns into a dust bowl and the food riots start. Then you will have something to complain about.
417
@MarkKA
It's easy to tell SOMEBODY ELSE they should lose their jobs for the greater good; it's another if someone is telling YOU that! How would ANYONE react to that?
The real failure of government -- and of globalization -- is the failure to use the huge profits of companies and huge wealth being created for retraining and creating new (and better) jobs on a massive scale.
Instead, the profits get tucked into the pockets of the few, the uber-rich. Government is supposed to take account of the needs of the many too -- part of the basic social contract.
And the carrot of Globalization was supposed to be the use of the wealth created to crate new jobs and benefit all the people whose jobs might be displaced. Somehow this has utterly fallen out of the equation, as Jeffrey Sachs, among others has argued persuasively.
THAT'S why people are angry around the world and that's why miners and others are susceptible to the demagoguery of Trump and his gang.
1
@NYer People are told EVERY DAY in this country that their jobs are no longer needed. How should someone react to it? By not being ignorant of what is going on. By demanding help and support for retraining, instead of voting for an orange haired nightmare who insisted that he'd save their current jobs, and vilifying the woman who suggested that they need to be retrained. THAT's how I expect them to react if they aren't ignoramuses.
Don't expect anything from Trump and work at a State level with the Blue States; the International Community should find a way to jump over the US Federal administration and connect directly with the Blue States.As far as Canada is concerned a reduction of the Tar sands businesses and a new push for the transformation of the transport means to electricity is a must within the next 5 years.
49
Something to keep in mind as you contemplate this warning about climate change.
You produce 1.6 lbs of carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt hour of electricity you use.
If you leave a 100-watt bulb on 24 hours per day all year, you will have used 100 x 24 x 365 watt hours, or 876 kWh of electricity.
878 kWh x 1.6 lbs. = 1,402 lbs. of carbon emissions.
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator
28
@artbco Not me, I have a massive nuclear power plant that produces most of my power, and we have solar and hydro as well. Do you???
@artbco, burning the electricity doesn't make the CO2, making the electricity does. I can sit in the dark all day and night and my local utility is still chugging away round the clock because my neighbor's house can't be anything other than a perfect 72 degrees every moment, not to mention downtown Los Angeles' skyscrapers lit up like a Christmas trees 24/7 especially at the tops of the building where nobody is but the big corporate logos are. Also something to keep in mind while all we lowly peons sit in the dark.
4
@artbco
So we're to wander around in the dark? Candles and animal fat produce less carbon emissions? How are we to warm ourselves, with wood? That certainly doesn't contribute to carbon emissions, does it?
This is how the America and the world will collapse without sensible United States leadership. Many Americans lack the capacity for rational thought and believe anything the republicans and Trump tell them. They believe fictitious stories about a Chinese hoax and cannot tell the difference between truth and a lie. The USA is being pushed out of the it's leadership role in the world even as we willingly give it up and turn our backs to the world. No matter how we look at this America is in for a scary ride.
126
@Mark
Thank you for cutting to the chase, Mark.
Do you have any ideas on how to extricate these
blind members of the DJT cult?
@Mark
"Many Americans lack the capacity for rational thought and believe anything the republicans and Trump tell them." Most Americans are smart enough to know that all living things die, Mark.
@Mark
The 60 million who elected Trump can't be wrong. And as Will Rogers said, "If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
I come here to an empty message board, and I can't help but feel we are at that point: What do you say? What can you say? Is there anything left to say?
Talking to my wife last night, I laid bare my true feelings on this report. I will continue to live my life with environmental conservation at its forefront, continue to vote for politicians who will promote a clean environment and who are committed to combating climate change, and most important will teach my daughters to value, respect, and conserve the resources of our home.
But with the current political and social climate still refusing to accept the changes to our actual climate... With the lobbying groups staunchly controlling our process... With climate change continuing to take a back seat to other, more immediately apparent social concerns (consider: how much press did Justice Kavanaugh receive, and how much frustration did he warrant, relative to this report)...
We - our society, our country - does not seem ready, willing, or able to make the sacrifices necessary to combat climate change.
So I will also be teaching my daughters how to survive in a world ecologically different than what they grew up in.
The alarm bells are ringing. Thing is, they are starting to sound more like storm sirens instead a cry to battle. It's time to prepare for the worst, even as we continue to fight.
Prove me wrong, America.
196
The term existential threat is used often when describing foreign powers who threaten our national security. Humans can now be considered such a threat to our planet. The denial by this administration and systematic dismantling of the EPA and tepid support of alternate energy sources is putting future generations at risk. The live for today approach to policy making on the environment is just one more reason to vote next month for leaders who recognize this issue as one of the most important agenda items for our government to lead on aggressively.
65
@Dennis W The "planet" will be just fine, it survived much worse climate changes. Now species and many humans might be a different story.
2
@vulcanalex Point well taken!
I think of my children and their children every day and have done much to ensure I limit my carbon based use of energy through second hand purchases, home energy reduction retrofits and practices and food choices.
It is time for our world of profit before people to an end; it has become a death sentence. Money means nothing when this beautiful planet can no longer sustain life.
91
@V .
I am terrified for our children.
It's all about Money.
We've become the United $tate$ of America and worship at the Church of the Almighty Dollar.
1
"Wake Up, World Leaders. The Alarm Is Deafening"
Shouldn't this be, Wake Up, American Leaders? Ever since Kyoto, the Americans have almost single-handedly kept the world from dealing with the problem. This includes Obama, who forced a dilution of the Paris Accords - all the while cheerleaded by the NYT editorial board, so how it thinks it has any moral authority on this issue is beyond me.
10
@abo So the world does what we want? I greatly doubt that, and the developing world needs to not increase their emissions without any bribes if it is really so serious.
2
"When a cautious, science-based and largely apolitical group like the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "
....
Wow! In your very first sentence you spout the "Big Lie".
That panel is not "largely apolitical". It's hyper political. The parts
that are not are hyper-cynical.
No one will believe they are apolitical unless they call for all countries to equally cut their emissions ... especially China.
The most critical part would be to tell the truth: to stop climate change, if in fact their models are correct, currently poor countries will have to stay that way, forever ... or else, of course, cut population drastically.
Rich countries will have to have draconian limits on ordinary people .. only the rich elites will be allowed to own cars, or travel by airplane.
Does the NYTimes really, actually, believe is such Big Lies?
6
@Doug McDonald
Below is the entire count of published reports by scientists that are skeptical of climate change by humans.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php
you can click on each name to read their paper and the site also has a lot of info that refutes their studies quite nicely.
6
@Doug McDonald you forget that Chinese emissions per capita are less than one half those of the United States. Last year, China also had nearly double the electric vehicle market share of the US average (though half that of California), and added *five times* as much solar energy as the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country
We are by far the biggest obstacle to reducing world emissions.
Oh - and developing countries are quite happy to buy cheap solar energy and leapfrog us with lower energy costs, many of the poorest ones are near the equator and get terrific sunlight.
5
Some day, history and our grandchildren will judge this administration's indifference and politicization of this issue with utter disbelief and disgust. Forget the imbalanced tax cuts, Kavenaugh, the tariffs, the despicable retoric, this is THE issue of our time, and anyone on the wrong side of the debate deserves to be extricated from power now.
473
@D.N.Not just this administration. They'll judge all of us. Because we are all guilty. I have two little ones. We have all known for a while that this is coming, but the increasingly dire reports and the shrinking timeline for changes that will affect our access to food and water are truly frightening. We all know that no one in the GOP will lift a finger to help America get out in front of this.
11
I agree it's important, D.N., but NO - do not forget everything else. OUR entire system and social safety net are under attack from inside OUR government.
Every single American who loves democracy and the lives we have lived since Teddy/FDR/Elanor Roosevelt must step up and pick the one thing they value most then fight like hell to preserve/restore it.
7
@njglea I did not mean to imply that the other issues were unimportant--certainly, they are. But if the planet is imperiled, leading to massive destruction, famine, war, and who knows what else, not much else will matter.
Climate Change is almost universally accepted as fact except by:
1. Rich industrialists
2. Republican politicians
3. Scientists on energy company payrolls
4. K Street lobbyists
5. People who believe everything the right-wing echo chamber tells them.
Keep burying your head in the sand because it's not your problem... until it is! 100 years from now future generations will curse us for not having acted when something could still have been done.
237
I would hope - sincerely - that Republican politicians in the privacy of their hearts and minds can accept climate change as fact, which it is. Whether their ulterior motives allow them to recognize and act on that fact is a different story altogether.
2
@BassGuyGG
Minor correction. You wrote: 100 years from now future generations will curse us…
It's actually 50 years from now.
1
Read this again, remember, what we do is for our kids and the future. Let do it.
38
"The world must utterly transform its energy systems in the next decade or risk ecological and social disaster."
To which the U.S. replies: "Who cares?"
74
@Michael To which I reply it is impossible unless you destroy a large portion of the world's population. There is not sufficient capacity to do that.
@Michael. Isn't that what Mrs. Trump's jacket said?
3
It is not only that Trump won't do anything, and supports coal, but he has given license to authoritarians that will not do anything to stop climate warming. When Trump is out in 2020, will world tyrants take the US lead and limit emissions? It is not likely. Hopefully, the nations that are onboard with change can make enough on their own to curb the path to destruction.
40