Cartoon logic: You see a large safe falling toward you, so you pull out a clownishly-small parasol, open it and hold it over your head. Problem solved. The tsunami of humanity and its extractions washing over the natural world has just hit the proverbial beach, kids. We are just seeing the first few loungers being tussled.
6
Agreed with commenters who mention the issue of population growth. This is a measure not mentioned in the article, but is only common sense. Our current systems and behaviors simply cannot support the planet's human population, particularly as third and second world countries jockey to become first world countries, and first world countries continue to set an example of an unceasingly voracious demand for more of everything.
In a typical family, the larger the family is, the less each member gets of the family budget. The planet is the same, our resources are our budget, and our budget simply can't continue to be stretched to its limits due to unchecked family growth.
Yet demographers and economists wail when birth rates decline because, they ask, "Who will support the economy through consumerism?" The article listed 5 things that need to adapt to climate change...add two more: population growth and economic mechanisms.
9
It seems to me that every measure mentioned here is being done to accommodate more people. Yes, we could do these suggestions but it would seem they will have little affect if we continue to expand our population by another 2.5 million every year---and the world by another million every 4.5 days. In other words, I could eat less meat but the new citizen will simply eat the portion I gave up. With this rate of growth, we will not be able to make any gains. It becomes senseless. Nothing we do, it would appear, can offset, population growth. Now, toss in exponential economic growth and the mathematics becomes truly frightening. This article is painfully naive as it, like most publications, refuses to look at the disease but simply try to apply bandages to the cancer. .
10
In addition to energy efficiency and conservation, we need serious efforts to reduce world population. Standards of living are also rising, particularly in China and India, increasing our global per capita footprint.
We also need to extract sufficient payments from the fossil fuel industry to mitigate past and ongoing ecosystem damage and to discourage their use in the future. This can be done by a combination of liens against resource reserves, capital equipment, and financial holdings plus a carbon tax.
Should lying about climate change and global warming be a criminal offense, essentially eco terrorism, when done in an official capacity? Who knows. But a lot of real damage has been done to the planet and to people’s lives by decades of stalling on needed actions. It seems at least civil actions should be available.
11
How about a #6? STOP HAVING SO MANY CHILDREN. We need a worldwide campaign to encourage people to voluntarily limit their family size to one child. Contraception and sex education need to be made available everywhere it is politically feasible to do so. This need is particularly critical in developed countries such as the US where each person consumes far more resources than those in developing countries. All the other steps to addressing climate change are mere band-aids doomed to ultimate failure unless human population can be stabilized as soon as possible and then reduced.
18
The article uses a poor example to illustrate drought. Lake Oroville overflowed three years later. The climate does change.
Farming? What a joke. The new "breadbasket" of the world will be centered in the Canadian plains, not the U.S. plains, which I expect will go the way of the Dust Bowl, except it will last for 100,000 years. Flooding along coastal areas? Building is still going on full tilt. Is somebody going to start marketing homes on the "beach" built on "fail-proof" 50 foot tall piers? Yeah, right. California is still allowing development in forested and mountain areas. What's left of the once mighty Colorado River? Has Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, or New Mexico or parts of Texas halted ALL further land development because of lack of water and increasing desertification? Have we ceased to allow for profit companies to export our precious fresh water in polluting plastic bottles? We haven't done diddly squat when it comes right down to it, and we won't do diddly squat, either. It's "party like it's 1999." And we will reap the whirlwind.
14
John Kenneth Galbraith said his life as an a old man was a "case of the stills"... people always asking you still drink? you still chase women? our old life as Baby Boomers is a "case of the ever stills". as long as one person ever still emits 1/2 a ton of carbon per every hour of air travel, and solar radiation management is ever still only a partial mitigation of the negative forcings of "dirty" energy such as coal, with very short persistencies in the atmosphere (Guy McPhersons dimming paradox)... everything dies sooner than science will ever still allow by its principles to conclude until it is way way too late.
2
No doubt, if Barack Obama was in office he would be reading the National Climate Assessment from cover to cover, all 1,656 pages, and would then convene a special presidential commission, composed of the best and brightest in the country, to formulate an expedited plan of action to address this existential crisis. Instead, we have a Fake President who will not read one sentence of this report, and probably banish any physical copies of it from appearing in the White House. Trump will be more interested in scheduling the next tee time at his Mar-a-Lago golf course.
11
The reporter left out the most important adaptation...lowering world-wide population growth. Fewer people mean less pollution. It's simple but few see it and no politician talks about it. You just have to live in a state...CA...where the population has doubled from 1969 to 2018 to see what a fast growing population does to the quality of life, air etc.
15
People are saying reducing population growth: the only way that happens organically is when women receive more education. In developed countries pop growth is at or below replacement. Look this up for Italy and Japan. Only developing nations exceed replacement rates. Paying to educate their female citizens would pay off in many ways but patriarchal attitudes will prevent simple solutions. And then these countries would have the Japan problem of an old/young ratio going haywire.
13
You left out #6.
God's not going to help.
4
6. Immediately adopt a one child only policy in order to shrink the population by one half by 2100.
6
What must we do? Oh ye of little faith!
Would Jesus abandon the righteous? Would God forsake his likeness? Would His Heinous Donald Trump sacrifice his dupes?
Come on people! We don't need to believe scientists. We have our Gods, comic book heroes and political demigods to save the day!
All we need do is get down on our knees, pray, watch Fox News and vote Trumpublican. We don't need no educated scientists, we don't need to give up our monster trucks or our coal furnaces.
Let the sissy Liberals believe in science. We are real men who believe in the Trump.
Climate change is just a hoax. We know that because His Heinous said so. The threat to our lives, our future is not some Liberal hoax, it is the invasion of the caravan because His Heinous said so.
And while you pray, check out my website for a discounts on gas masks, boats, heavy weaponry, radiation suits and other survival gear!
www.dummies.for.trump
9
As far as agriculture is concerned, one aspect ignored is switching to other crops.
Industrial hemp is drought resistant, it can replace most of what we make out of wood pulp, it can be used to replace single use plastic containers, it can be used to replace cotton (it take lots of water and pesticides to grow cotton), the seeds are high in omega fatty acids and protein. All that and it conditions soil and is great for erosion control. It grows fast which sucks carbon out of the air too.
There may be other crops that would also be better for surviving climate changes coming, but we need to stop being so reliant on corn and soy.
16
Pray then that the die off is thorough enough to allow the planet to heal
5
The changes to be addressed are unprecedented in human history. We as a country should not delay any longer in determining what must be done. Waiting until the damage begins to become obvious will mean worse difficulties to address. The climate deniers are just too committed to not believing the science to be enlightened, the solutions must be addressed without them or we will all suffer for it.
4
One way to help minimize climate change is seldom mentioned:
Urbanization makes for more efficient use of resources, and allows an easier transition away from some of the worst causes of Climate Change.
We gave away our auto in the 1970's and managed to continue to live a comfortable middle class life. (We had figured out that living in the middle of NYC without a car was no more costly than living in the suburbs with one.)
Our grown daughters and their families have never owned a car while all moving ahead in their professional careers.
Plus we all have fairly low carbon footprint. Try it.
5
Of course the single most obvious move is totally missing from this article. Eliminate ethanol production in its entirety. There are 90 million acres planted in corn in the US and 40% of corn production goes to ethanol with no, absolutely zero, environmental benefits. This move would conserve an enormous amount of water, it will allow for other crops to be substituted in the evert the authors prediction of reduce yields materializes. Perhaps most importantly by fallowing millions of acres of crop land insects, butterfly's, bees and other very important species can make a very natural recovery. Oh and by the way, our automobile fuels will cost less.
13
Interesting article but the key problem is still the White Elephant in the room: overpopulation and corruption allowed too many homes and infrastructures to be built in flood zones. The water has to go somewhere.
8
Knowing is not the problem. We’ve known for years, decades, what to do. And mentioned nowhere is the elephant in the room - population, here and globally.
Because? Because capitalism will have none of that. Because there is no ‘profit’ in saving this world. Because, as Vonnegut said, we are too cheap to save this world.
13
When I step outside of the frame of my daily routines - as reporting like this forces me to do (thank you NYT!) - I realize that we are all traveling on a different planet than we were born upon. Can our current civilization mature quickly enough to practice self-preservation? Or will we revert to primal, tribal instincts and extinguish much of ourselves? It’s a philosophical question, but I wonder what path we effectively choose. How we re-organize and steer towards a common path depends upon decisions we can make as early as right now. All of our hands are on the wheel - or tiller - or “thruster”.
5
Don’t build so close to forests and other natural areas - yes it’s great to live close to nature, but it contributes to urban sprawl, reduces natural habitats for wildlife, and, as the recent wildfires have shown, it is difficult to protect from fire and to evacuate
5
It's not popular yet, but one you missed is that multiplying solar and wind as fast as we multiply fossil fuel use to maximize the exponential growth of consumerism, will turn out to be impossible. That's because solar and wind use so much more land area. A solar farm as big as Colorado, with no homes, cities or mountains of course, is about what we'd need to replace current US GDP fossil fuel energy sources. (calculation xls on request)
Then the booby trap of all booby traps is we'd then need to double that every 33 or so years, indefinitely, to maintain our exclusively accelerating so called "normal" growth. We'd run out of productive solar and wind land area pretty darn quick.
4
@Jessie Henshaw. If the population drops, we could have a respite. No new roads, no new schools etc. etc. Put the savings into renewable energy. Women’s health matters.
4
Here’s something that is easily doable by each of us: stop supporting animal agriculture. Raising and killing animals for food uses a huge amount of land, crops, and other resources; produces copious amounts of methane which contribute to the greenhouse effect; pollutes the environment (especially waterways), as well as fostering horrendous cruelty. Some of the Amazon rain forest is cut down every day to make areas for raising cattle, producing beef and carbon dioxide that we don’t need. Changing over to a plant-based diet is easier than you might think and extremely worthwhile.
37
@Carrie Field
And even if we don't completely give up animal protein, just cutting back will also improve your health and the environment. I used to eat steaks and roasts and and now more towards veggie stir frys and salads and feel much better in so many ways.
19
@Carrie Field
Absolutely. We have to figure out how to wean people off meat. I had my last hamburger 25 years ago and am now perfectly happy with a veggie burger topped with ketchup and dill pickle on a bagel!
8
It is heart breaking, thoroughly disappointing, and absolutely unacceptable that animal agriculture wasn’t mentioned in this article.
6
In “1. Rethink how we farm”, there was no mention of changing our chemically dependent farming systems to more organic/ sustainable systems. There are several major advantages to organic farming practices that all work together to offset the causes and consequences of the climate crisis:
The use of cover crops, manure, and crop rotation:
1. Reduces top soil runoff.
2. Deep cover crops break up soil below and bring up minerals and nutrients for better yields.
3. When plowed back in, cover crops increase organic matter.
4. Increased organic matter creates, absorbs and holds more carbon, releasing less into the atmosphere.
5. Organic soils with high humus content are several times more resistant to drought, meaning less impact on yields as droughts and less irrigation supplies get worse.
6. Can allow more local production of food crop for less.
7. Agrichemicals uses huge amounts of energy for production and transport, thus creating more demand for BigOil products and pollution.
8. In the long run, conversion to organic practices can produce more per unit of land than chemical, soil-depleting practices, especially under the coming severe climate conditions.
Farmers who began conversion from chemical to organic have seen steady yield increases with less investment in chemicals. The conversion process takes a few years. Agribusiness and chemical companies have spent millions every year for decades to convince us otherwise.
Organic case studies are available and valid.
34
The comments here are good -- we should all take personal responsibility for how we contribute to this. But I think reducing beef consumption and walking more won't be enough considering the gravity of the situation.
When the problem is this serious and this big, so too should be our solutions. What would it take to convince all of us who are concerned to boycott the system? Buy nothing, don't show up to work, do as much as possible to make the status quo come to a halt immediately until our leaders act and act NOW, not in two years' election time. Yet, I wonder how many commenting here today are on their way to buy Xmas gifts, contributing directly to the resource consumption, pollution, and waste creation that aren't "part" of the problem, but THE problem itself.
Our fate won't change until we do, but not with token acts of repentance that allow the destruction, waste, pollution, consumerism, and selfishness to continue on as before. We need to change dramatically if we want dramatic results, and that means giving up a lot of our privileges, comforts, and arrogance. It means sacrifice and risk.
If we worked together we could change the world overnight, but fragmented and focused only on our self-interests we'll all perish, ironically in a great act of solidarity in death that we couldn't achieve in life.
11
Trying to plan long term and taking a conservative approach is absolutely necessary. That said I would venture to say that no one at the end of WW1 could have predicted the microchip. At the same time, by 1924 more US households had automobiles than indoor plumbing. Yes...cars... those things that kids supposedly aren’t buying anymore.
Incidentally...I strongly recommend that people read the 2017 book “Death and Life of the Great Lakes” by Dan Egan. Nature systems are far from static and the unintended consequences of what appear to be relatively innocuous and small human interventions can be truly head spinning.
3
One can detest DJT but still realize that his climate denial is more of a symptom than a cause. There is a much, much more threatening issue for this country. Our President is just a pawn in the money game promoted by Citizens United. In her excellent and thorough coverage of the issue in her book "Dark Money", Jane Mayer reviews how even Republicans had started down the road towards dealing with climate change until the fossil fuel folks realized that such actions were inconvenient for them. Basically, it took only two people to turn the tide. Supremes, what on earth were you thinking?
26
This last week there were photos of 150 dead tortoises on east coast..another.sad casualty of climate change. There are photos of the search for remains in california. Non human species and humans attempting to escape through fire everywhere. Horrifying. Do the trumps, silent politicians and deniers of the world have no children, grandchildren or see the innocent among us? Finally this is daily front page news...keep it in our face. Our only hope are scientists, inventors, and a public eager and scared enough to change.
19
Important, interesting article. We need to get cracking!
6
@Eugene Debs get cracking or be crackling.
This last week there were photos of 150 dead tortoises on east coast...they died due to freezing cold sparked by climate change. And in CA the deceased are still being found...the numbers climb. In the same fire there were species other than humans racing through the fire along with the people attempting escape...so horrible and frightening... trump, fellow silent republicans, and other skeptics must have children, grandchildren , or at least know that the young innocents will suffer from immorality and denial by the so called adults. At least this topic is now front page...it needs to remain in our face. And the best or only hope will come from scientists, inventors, and a public eager to support new ways to live in and with Mother Earth.
8
@Maureen
"…Trump, fellow silent republicans, and other skeptics must have children, grandchildren , or at least know that the young innocents will suffer from immorality and denial by the so called adults.…"
Never underestimate the power of denial. Think of how some alcoholics can spend decades ruining their lives and those of others before they finally admit they are, indeed, addicted to alcohol. They are invested in not knowing or learning the truth, because they would have to give up something that's very important to them. Same with the global warming deniers.
12
I'm not aware of a word in the English language that adequately describes the prevailing mindset. Perhaps the Spanish word, "estupidez" might suffice given that it's quite a bit stronger than the English word "stupidity".
I'm sure that in the future when things settle down there will be apt descriptions for the early 21st century. Give it about 1000 years. That's what it took to sort out the disruption left in the wake of the disruption of the Roman empire.
On the other hand we might manage to salvage things with some brilliant carbon sequestration technology. Or, perhaps we are even yet underestimating what is looming and will end up with just remnant human populations.
Some of the adorable babies now being born will be around to discover the consequences of our estupidez.
11
No problem. Trump already told us it’s a hoax and he’s going to make the best climate. Or maybe he said “I’m a hoax and I’ll beat the climate.”
4
“Protecting pollinators could help...”. That’s the only mention of pollinators/insects in the entire food resource portion of this article?! Seems like a real opportunity missed to integrate a simple paragraph about agricultural chemicals and insect habitat.
15
While there may be some amount of time during which some portion of the human population can adapt to anthropogenic climate change ultimately if it continues at it's ever accelerating rate the only adaptation for our species (our children and their children) will be death.
3
The first thing let's do is get rid of big suv's.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/climate/suv-sales-global-climate.html
8
@A. Stanton - It's interesting, and distressing, that at the same time we're sounding the alarms about climate change, GM is closing all those plants that make sedans and other smaller vehicles, presumably because Americans seem to want only SUVs. Talk about a nation in denial.
12
6. Ditch for-profit, consumer capitalism in favor of an economic system that takes care of needs, but not necessarily wants. The planet is not inexhaustible. This also requires reducing the human footprint. And that means the end of luxuries like second homes, private jets, etc. etc. The one percent -- maybe even the top 30 percent -- won't like it very much, but tough. Their bloated way of life is not sustainable.
34
@Tony Long I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I surely hope you don't gain widespread political power.
1
@jgbrownhornet I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but why are you favoring their bloated way of life? Got a vested interest?
2
Meanwhile GM is closing plants that make small cars to focus on SUV's.
20
Good point...but don’t blame GM if gas prices are still so low that GM’s customers feel they can “afford” lower fuel economy.
Until carbon is aggressively priced into the equation, fossil fuels and the industries that rely on them ...including the smart phone and data “cloud” we all rely on every day...will continue to “free ride” on necessary and expensive future climate change related fixes.
10
In addition to the agricultural impacts described, there is the change in planting knowledge. Farmers know, based on generations of experience, when to plant crops and what they need to do to care for them during their life cycle. With climate change, the planting cycle will be disrupted as local weather changes. We will need to relearn the planting cycle in a generation or less to reflect the new weather conditions.
10
Even in the 70s I was wary about having children due to environmental concerns. Now I see families living around me of 2 or 3 children, I can only wonder what on earth they were thinking. But then I think: they were thinking "positively"... That change will happen - that things will be very all right. I wish. Meanwhile for myself, even if untouched by climate-change catastrophes, even from afar I don't think i could bear witness on how it will affect people (starvation/death), and wildlife (starvation/death).
16
@pealass - Fifty years ago my husband and I were at his family reunion with our toddler and 8 month old. A relative asked when we were going to have the next baby. I informed her very earnestly that we believed in Zero Population Growth, so planned to have only two children. She assured me confidently that "if the earth gets too crowded, God will send another war to thin the population." She was totally serious. I'll never forget that remark.
7
The thing that depresses and frankly enrages me the most is that an increasing number of "We the people" of America want to focus our science and technology full bore to save life on this planet; but our federal government, controlled by oil and weapons billionaires are actively preventing us from doing it. We just put a probe on Mars, we have landed on the Moon and returned. We have the science and technology to change our energy system, but we are not being allowed to use it as the clock ticks. We should be putting solar on every roof, and wind farms in appropriate places, funding research on batteries, clean power generation, mass transit and sustainable food production (not to mention population control). But, the greed at the "top" of our society spends our money and power on more wars, more weapons, more oil, more pipelines, more fracking, more corporate control and profit, more detachment from the rest of us. I can stop eating meat, which I have, plant wild gardens, which I have, support organic food production, drive a hybrid, fly less.....but it is not enough. Government is the institution of all of us working together to solve huge common problems, and this is the biggest problem we have ever faced. We are being prevented from acting together. It fills me with disgust and grief. Yet I continue to do what I can.
81
Well, if it’s any consolation, it’s too late now anyway. Several decades too late. I spose keep doin’ what you’re doin’ if it makes you feel better, but don’t fool yourself that - at this late stage - that it will change outcomes. It’s sorta like hitting the brakes at 100 mph when you are 20 feet from a brick wall.
3
@Matthew
It's too late to prevent significant climate change and its consequences. It might not be too late to prevent disastrous, irreversible climate change if we (1) take adaptive measures to buy ourselves time, (2) take serious mitigating measures to drastically reduce our greenhouse gas output and, (3) employ technology and natural means such as reforesting to sequester CO2.
I'm not saying we will do these things, but they are still possible.
4
vulcanalex it's not possible to do what has to be done to mitigate climate change without some pain. not only population but lifestyle is unsustainable.
8
Before the automobile led to the demise of our public transportation infrastructures people could go about their lives in a healthier way: more walking, more social interaction and less pollution. Convert the Interstate Highway System to solar collectors in tandem with transport. Shut down coal plants and invest in renewables. Do it in the spirit of getting to the moon in a decade. Mind you, I wrote in spirit, manned space travel is a boondoggle for the foreseeable future. Changing our energy infrastructure won’t please the oligarchy of oil barons but our posterity will thank us for our sacrifices in giving up our spoiled ways or we can go on thinking only of ourselves and be cursed through the generations.
21
As Senator Sasse alluded to, the Climate Mafia has scored an own goal with the constant crying wolf of doom and gloom. The only solutions I read in these comments are neo-Malthusian at best and targeted population reduction at worst.
All man-made CO2 comes from the ground so it's rather simple to just put it back into the ground. Using new soil science understandings it is technically possible that all man made CO2 can be put back into the soil within 50 years.
This increases net primary productivity up to 7x, eliminates the need for irrigation, essentially eliminates the need for all fertilizers and pesticides, increases bird, bees, and all forms of wildlife, and allows poverty stricken smallholders around the world to make a living on their stead.
The continual crying wolf of self-described climate non-deniers are denying the existence of a simple profitable solution.
3
@Mr. B Can you link to verifiable research/data about this soil science? Do you have any financial or other interest in it? Hard to believe that an option as wonderful as you allege has only managed to find its way to an enthusiast that is wildly skeptical of global warming.
9
@Mr. B would that it were so simple. Even borlaugs green revolution failed to increase crop yield - all it did was increase dependence on Monsanto seeds. So your claimed benefits if we just put ALL the carbon back in the earth is nothing short of ridiculous. We can't even stop using chemicals that kill bees, and what will we do when all the bees are gone - use carbon capture to recreate bees?
6
@Mr.B
Bejing has some of the dirtiest air of any city in the world.
If returning carbon to the earth is so easy, why hasn't Bejing done it?
2
This is all good and well. We absolutely need to start adapting to climate change because of the legacy CO2 in the atmosphere.
But ultimately, these measures can only buy us time if we don't deal with the root cause(s) of the problem. That delay in ultimate consequences might be valuable, but we can't take our eyes off the goal of eliminating our greenhouse emissions or we're just wasting time.
8
Those of us with children, or who expect to have children, should be beyond mortified by the impending catastrophe of global warming. What we thought was centuries away will be here in decades, and the quality of life on Earth will diminish drastically. Those of us reading this page might be dead by the time things get horrific, but our children will certainly live to suffer the consequences. Without hyperbole, the end is near.
Now, with the objectively verifiable fact of global warming looming large, imagine how callous and self-interested you'd have to be to say "I don't believe it," and place continued personal profit over the future of our species. We know that Donald Trump is a sick, pathetic individual, but for him to ignore global warming while his young son stands at his side . . . it's harrowing.
There is no depth to the depravity of political and business leaders who would put coal and oil profits over their progeny. In effect, Trump and the GOP are telling America, "We'll gladly burn our children alive if it means our pockets stay fat." It's disgusting, for them and for those of us who allow it, and will be to our shame for as long as human history lasts.
92
Changes are coming quicker then you could imagine. Extinction events tend to happen rapidly, quite unlike evolution. It took only a few years for the sea ice covering the Arctic to all but disappear during the summer months. Soon Santa will have to move his workshop. Greenland’s ice cap continues to dwindle. Before long it could completely melt away with the increased summer heat. Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, reached 24 Celsius in June 2016, and could be warmer this summer. And let’s not forget about the impact the warming climate is having on Antarctica.
25
you go Todd!@
4
@Todd. We have been trying to get Republicans out of office for some time (since 1988 for me) so that lives can be saved. Their supporters have been slapping our hands away as we try to pull them up from the cliffs they dangle from,
9
We're already living in an emergency. We either change the way we live now, or nature will change the way we live for us. The latter will be much worse.
31
The only way Trump ,his family and most of the Republican party will acknowledge the risks of climate change is if they find a way to rip off the country and the public for their own financial benefit
14
@cwt So right -- We should start a fund that will pay them each $1 million a year to believe in climate change. Ludicrous yes — but sadly it would really be cheaper and better for everyone in the long run.
4
1. A modest tax on carbon, then indexed to CO2ppm.
2. Every city in the United States must have a sustainability plan.
3. Every city in the United States must have dedicated funding for building resilience.
11
All these 1950's beautifully manicured landscapes need to be replaced by natural grasses and native flowers. It would provide a habitat for native species plus cut down on fossil fuels. The golf courses go next.
48
@Hareraezer
Good idea, but getting rid of golf courses will result in hordes of white men wielding putters fighting off cordons of police who arrive to enforce the eminent domain edicts.
2
At this point, it is painfully obvious that we cannot wait for government action to address climate change before it's too late (if it's not already). But we can…
6. Take personal responsibility for reducing our consumption and waste of resources, by (in no particular order):
* Don't eat beef - Actually, stop eating all meat, but beef's far and away the worst, consuming 600% more feed and 1100% more water per pound of protein produced than poultry. It takes 54 units of vegetable protein to produce 1 unit of beef protein. Beef production consumes 8X more fossil fuels than food plants do. In a world of 7.7 Billion people, on our way to 11?, 12? 15? Billion, we can't afford the inefficiency of feeding plant protein to meat animals.
* Travel less - 40% of our nation's energy use (of which more than 70% is wasted, per the DOE) is for transportation . Stay home, plan trips better, ride a bike or bus, carpool, buy fuel-efficient vehicles, inflate your tires, get a tune-up…
* Buy/build smaller houses, close off unused rooms, insulate, stop the leaks, don't over heat/cool, upgrade to LEDs, use energy strips to cut phantom loads…
We Americans waste nearly 60% of the energy and more than half the food we produce. By paying attention to our consumption we can save money, reduce GHG, attain national energy self-sufficiency and increase our national security.
We can help ourselves - if we care enough to do so.
61
@Miss Anne Thrope Nonsense on #6a. I can eat beef and sequester carbon by planting more trees. Win-win! I like the rest of your suggestions. Reminds me of BSA's Outdoor Code & Leave No Trace. Love it!
1
Sadly it is too late.
3
Great points, but they missed the most important one, that being reducing our population. There are also things to improve our grid to make it more efficient thus reducing the amount of energy needed. Lots of possibilities if government focuses on real improvements not carbon taxes, cap and trade, and global agreements that work against us.
25
@vulcanalex - 50 years ago, when we had our 2.0 children, we stopped at that because Zero Population Growth was a thing then, and "woke" people were ashamed to have more than two.
I babysat a friend's 3 children who, with my own two, were 5 little blond stair-steps. When I'd take them to the park, people would glare at me as if I were the irresponsible mother so selfish as to have 5 children.
When did people stop feeling a responsibility to not over-procreate?
3
Trump ignoring this climate report is the most compelling case for impeachment.
89
@FM Yes - it demonstrates a total lack of job responsibility to the residents who elected him and pay him - not to mention his oath of office.
22
@FM + a compelling case for each and every citizen to be actively engaged and vote at every election.
2020 = critical to elect leaders that understand science and can innovative/collaborate on solutions.
9
This is the issue. Our titular Commander in Chief is twittering away while a great deal of very valuable parts of the country burn and a great deal of very valuable parts of it flood. Brings Nero to mind. (I’m not sure historians of Ancient Rome actually thiinl that Nero willfully let the capital of his empire burn. Nonetheless, Nero’s reputation among in the popular imagination, as an abjectly irresponsible fiddler, is apposite.)
What are we going to do about this?
I don’t know what the law prescribes for such “depraved neglect” by a President of the US, but it is not too strong a term.
27
Preparing for climate change requires a massive intervention of government on effectively all levels. Having an ignorant, self-dealing and unfeeling POTUS is actually putting us on a reverse course. Moreover, people and corporations are by nature focused on short-term outcomes. Grounded scientific projections do not resonate. It will take more storms and heat waves and destructive weather events to mobilize national policies for mitigation and adaptation. In short, there’s now no stopping the effects of the carbon we’ve pumped into our atmosphere. We can only hope there are places where our grandkids can run and hide and that a febrile earth delivers more whimpers and less bangs.
13
Say, doc, to make life livable while it rattles us (climate change or no) how about we try a placebo called optimism? Action is a great way to manufacture it.
5
@C At what point does optimism turn into blind stupidity? I'm pretty sure we passed that point quite some time ago.
11
If doc’s warnings bare out are you going to crusade or wallow in misery?
1
If you throw a pebble into a pond it's pretty hard to see the water level rise but it does.
Now if you throw 7.3 billion pebbles into the pond it's a lot easier to see the water level rise.
With the population of the planet growing we need to understand that we are having an effect on the environment and if we don't do something the near future generation maybe the last one to have what we take for granted.
Trump says that he's smart but that is the last thing he's showing by his stance on climate change.
We need to get an administration that wants a future for the country, the world and especially the next generations.
14
Wow, crickets. Where do we start? I suggest nyt partner with climate central or other specialized org to create a resource that allows consumers to self identify and put themselves on a sustainable plan for change. This could be an app that allows the user to input their info (habits, practices, location, type of home, car, what they eat and buy, etc.) and returns a plan. User can modify their info and the app shows them the effects of their modifications in terms of footprint. How about it? Other ideas? Start thinking, people.
50
And... the app should be FREE for download
9
Oh gosh, that sort of information has been out there for decades and no one did anything. Currently lots of folks still think driving big SUVs is the best idea - see article on GM discontinuing the Volt but looking to add labor to build their big gas guzzlers. People are not changing their habits. They just refuse to.
3
"I don't believe it."
-Trump
What's the point in even trying to address ways for the country to adapt, when the President states he doesn't believe the climate change report that 13 government agencies issued on "Black Friday".
Trump also said he read the report, it's over 1,600 pages long. Another lie that can be added to his repertoire of falsehoods.
Hope we can hold out until 2020.
43
He can’t read more than 140 characters!
4