I was nine years old when I heard H.V. Kaltenborn report, from wire dispatches, Pearl Harbor (I also heard Upton (not so) Close, an early version of Fox News for the America Firsters of his day. say there must be some mistake.
There wasn't, nor is there a mistake in fearing climate change. Rather than WWII, an evident attack on the U.S., I believe the most important historical parallels to the looming horrors of Climate Change are the Great Depression and the Marshall Plan.
In the first instance, FDR rallied the country to his efforts to combat what by then everyone knew was something to be feared. In the second, a moment very like the present, Truman said, speaking of the Congress and, I believe the American people, that if it's important you have to "scare the hell out of them".
To get to the FDR stage, when an administration can rally the vast majority of Americans behind a grand effort, it is necessary for the facts to "scare the hell" out of Americans, to the point they ignore the counsels of cupidity from the Koch brothers, K Street and the Heritage Foundation.
With the author, I believe crying wolf when there are many wolves, is the strategy. Flood the zone with facts and the deadly images of climate change.
61
Even if worse comes to worst, that last person, whose premature death reduces world population to a sustainable number, will have one consolation: "At least we didn't have nuclear power!"
11
Just imagine if thirty years from now an asteroid were to strike earth and, if not for global warming, would raise enough dust to cool earth to catastrophic levels. Saved again by man's foresight and ingenuity!
7
We don't need a wall. We need an ocean-to-ocean greenhouse.
14
Paul Ehrlich helped get the ball rolling with his 1968 blockbuster “The Population Bomb,” which begins with these dire predicition:
“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”
A biologist at Stanford, Ehrlich had no scholarly credentials as a demographer or an economist.
Then came Zero Population Growth, an NGO co-founded by Mr. Ehrlich. Then the United Nations Population Fund (1969), Then the neo-Malthusian Club of Rome.
Its 1972 report, “The Limits to Growth,” sold 30 million copies.
Mr. Ehrlich, trained as an entomologist may think of humans as a type of insect.
In India in the 1970s Indira Gandhi regime forcibly sterilized 11 million people. Robert McNamara, World Bank President, at that time, praised her for “intensifying the family planning drive with rare courage and conviction.”
An estimated 1,750 people were killed in botched procedures.
That's where "human engineering" takes you.
14
I think the most important reference the writer makes is to his own ideas about the future of his children. I decided young that I would not have children because I saw that overpopulation was the greatest fundamental threat to the welfare of the planet. The people who did have children - well, they are the ones who have the explaining to do - I didn't contribute to this at all.
I know a lot of people with children. What I don't ask them is how they could be so selfish as to bring yet another carbon-burner onto the face of the earth. We still live in a weird, skewed world where billions of people want to have as many children as possible, through whatever weird belief they have or ignorance of the kind that makes people selfish.
Go ahead, sit down and think about how you're going to explain the chaos of tens of millions of climate refugees starting wars all around the globe. Many Westerners seem confident that it will only mean a few days in summer when it's not wise to go outside at all because of UV off the charts and record temperatures - but that's not going to apply to tens of millions of people living in Florida or Spain.
There are fundamental issues with democracy - which has only existed in human history for a relative blink of an eye - which make it incapable of addressing a problem so fundamental. We aren't going to vote our way out of climate catastrophe because democracy doesn't work. That's the problem - there is no mechanism we know that will fix the problem.
27
I’ve been a radical environmentalist since at least 1970. And I’ve walked the talk. I’ve lived a simple life. During these years, I thought of myself and a few others as a voices crying in the wilderness. Now that environmentalism has proven to be a mass movement, I can breathe a sigh of relief. I have done my part. And, ironically, because of the simplicity of my life, I now find myself quite wealthy. My responsibility to the world has ended. I will enjoy the rest of my life and pass on my wealth to those who really matter to me—my daughter and grandson. That may be to no avail, but I've done all that I could.
25
The best research being done to quantify the impact of climate change is by the Climate Impact Lab. Take a look:
http://www.impactlab.org/
A lead researcher at the Climate Impact Lab is Solomon Hsiang. He co-wrote an excellent paper. Read it:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1362
He estimates that U.S. GDP will be about 2% lower in 2100 due to climate change, compared to a situation with no climate change. Overall, U.S. GDP per capita would still be higher than it is today, even with climate change.
The sky is not falling. But a carbon tax equal to the social cost of carbon is a very good idea because the economic cost of such a tax (its excess burden) will be very small. Tax proceeds can also be redistributed to every citizen in an equal sum, making the overall burden of such a tax/refund plan progressive. The tax needs to be implemented worldwide at the point of first purchase of coal, oil, and natural gas. The U.S., producer of 14% of world carbon emissions, can't do much to arrest climate change by itself.
Me, I'm not too impressed by shrill nonsensical cries to panic. But if you think the average American will respond positively, then go ahead and lie to them. It worked well for Trump, after all.
10
Thank you for this article. I have some good news to share: the Healthy Climate Alliance and the Foundation for Climate Restoration came up with solutions and a pathway to restoring a safe & healthy climate by 2050. You can listen to a recent interview here: https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/podcast/restoring-climate-health-through-innovative-solutions
7
Catastrophic thinking is another phrase for hysteria. Broad opportunities exist for adaption combined with reasonable modulated efforts at carbon dioxide reduction strategies worldwide and this risk management approach provides the best path to addressing the challenge. In history cries of catastrophe are most the vehicle to concentrate power and change power equations serving the agendas of specific winners, not the general public. Please see the Smerconish.com essay "Organizing Against Doomsday".
7
Meanwhile, Bill Gates was in an interview this weekend, talking about the fact that Africa will have half of the world's younger people living there, and they already, have a problem with human waste, as the amount of people they now have, and will have, the costs are too expensive for the type of sewer systems that we currently have in this country. They are however developing a toilet that is now very expensive, but they hope to bring the cost down to $500 which composts the sewage right in the toilet, and put those in public places. What I admire about Bill and Melinda Gates, and their foundation, is that they are meeting the issues the currently affect the populations, disease, vaccines, eradicated malaria, and India is relatively polio free, etc. The focus of the foundation is first on disease, and preventable vaccines, on climate change, and clean energy. It is right that private foundations tackle these issues, as governments, mostly bureaucratic, are known for wasting money, and deciding by politics, which place, or issue should take priority. Meanwhile, in this country, we are the ones because of too lenient state laws, that have a resurgence of contagious diseases like measles, that was eradicated after the vaccine in 1963, but is now back with a vengeance, because of the politicians being in charge. Politicians, in charge, not so much, private foundations making progress!
17
We're now learning how global warming will impact us decades sooner than previously thought. Lately, I've noticed some things, little things, but to me they speak volumes about what will happen in the near future:
I could not visit a friend last November due to flooded roadways. The rain two days earlier had not been that heavy. I had never seen so many roads blocked before. So, in years to come, bad storms will tie up transportation and impact commerce. What about getting food and medicine?
The summers are becoming hotter very quickly. There are not many places one can go to escape the heat. Using air conditioning makes the problem worse environmentally and we could be browned out or have grid failures. Last summer was the worst I experienced in forty years. Will we be living in basements for months on end? (If we have basements.)
Streams and ponds in the neighborhood are continuously holding water through the winter. Come summer, these will become breeding places for mosquitoes. They will need regular draining and spraying, thus higher local taxes.
Many people are in denial. It seems impossible to convince them using scientific information. Those of us who care need to wake them up. We could form local groups and start with walking around with our neighbors to observe changes and then bring them to the community's attention. People need to notice what's happening right where they live. People should brought on board to get government action. We can't just give up.
15
To simply rally for and come out in support of the Green New Deal is not enough. And this is because it is merely a statement of goals, for the US to be virtually carbon free in 10 years. However to get people serious about getting it implemented supporters of the "Deal" must take it to the next level. And that is to set forth a detailed plan of exactly what it is that must be done so that the US will be carbon free in 10 years.
To do that we must first get a precise figure as to how many megawatts of power the US needs to produce each year, and how much of that power is being produced by non renewable sources. We then need a detailed plan laying out how all of that power will be produced by renewable sources within 10 years and not take no for an answer if experts say it is impossible.
We must also set forth a plan as to how we will develop electric motors along with the batteries that go with them that are powerful enough to replace the diesel engines that currently power trucks. This plan must explain how these electric trucks can be on the roads in 10 years.
In addition we need to develop a plan for a high speed train that is fast enough to be a suitable replacement for jets, as current trains max out at 250 mph, which would make a trip from NY to CA take 18 hours.. These trains need to be able to travel at least 500 mph.
Because unless we can show that the New Green Deal is a realistic plan nobody will take it seriously.
10
Just as Mr. Wallace-Wells suggests scientists should be more vocal in the call to climate action, so too should scientists be about the solution: Nuclear power.
Scientific consensus is that decarbonization without nuclear power is either impossible or makes any scenario much more expensive. That's the nice mild version. Practically speaking there's one solution: nuclear power.
The fact that AOC's talking points advocate for reducing nuclear power to zero exemplify the extreme impracticality of her vision.
Just as history will not look kindly on the "climate-deniers" who obfuscated the crisis, history will not look kindly on people like AOC or organizations like the NRDC who wage anti-scientific campaigns against nuclear power with catastrophic results.
If there is good news it's that there's opportunity for a compromise. Build the nuclear power plants and both sides get something. The left will get action on climate change and the right will get a solution that works and doesn't require draconian measures.
It won’t be easy: Anti-nuclear bias is strong. However social opinion often changes quickly. Just look at the Me Too movement, or for example opinions toward tobacco.
Research shows that the deaths per KWh for nuclear are very low. Lower than wind power, and many times lower than fossil fuels.
If the necessity and safety of nuclear power was more widely known we'd be well on our way to addressing the climate crisis.
10
@Stephen: What do we do about the lunatic craze of humans to make nuclear bombs?
3
I'm not sure. Does fear really mobilize people, or does it simply paralyze them with, well, fear? I think it would be better to propose workable solutions than keep shouting, the end is near.
15
This is a challenging problem precisely because the warning signs are weather, and weather is not the same thing as climate. And so all it takes is the next snow storm for the non-scientist to exclaim: "so mush for global warming". Worse, people generally do not rise from the couch into action until they see the living room walls are on fire. And of course, there is our zero-sum politically polarized discourse which rides over the surface of self-interest. Carbon extraction for energy companies (CE Cos) have the most to lose; CE Cos contribute to the political party that will carry their water (in this case the GOP), so the GOP gives CE Cos a pass and repeat industry talking points all for political gain. They accuse Democrats of crying "wolf". Of course we recall, people said the same thing about the little boy until the wolf ate him. Look, if the GOP won't listen to the Department of Defense which has cast climate change as a national security threat, do not expect them to rise from the table of their engorgement until the Sin of Gluttony has killed them.
7
@G James: Weather and ocean dynamics are the processes that transport excess heat heat absorbed around the equator and temperate latitudes to the poles where it re-radiates to space.
2
The good news is we have learned how to prevent ice ages.
Now we just need to be smart enough to prevent a fry up.
2
@Richard Mitchell-Lowe: I suspect annual burning by humans maintaining grasslands, open forests, and farmland maintained the relatively stable climate of the last 10,000 years that facilitated the development of civilization. This recycled carbon that otherwise tends to accumulate as peat.
One can have too much of a good thing.
Some informed minds believe the "Tipping Point" is already in the rear-view mirror and it's not just Climate Change. The Sixth Global Extinction is huge. As well as driving it all, the general blind ignorance and agression of our species.
14
People ask why we should believe scientists when they're often wrong. That's only on the bleeding edge of research. That's when they're still sorting things out about new things. But there's also established science, which is not like that. Here's the man to explain it to you himself. Watch through at least 6:15.
https://youtu.be/QmOT6-MfK14?t=189
which is TimesTalks: Neil deGrasse Tyson
2
Unfortunately, one cannot expect to appeal to or foster pre-rational or non-rational emotions like fear and expect to be able to use them in only beneficial, targeted ways.
Thinking we can harness fear for positive change is dangerous and astoundingly silly.
Fear, like all primal emotions, has a mind of its own. One cannot "use" it without releasing it in unpredictable ways.
This is a terrible column.
6
What makes global warming a unique existential threat ?
1. There are no enemies to defeat. No Hitler, No Stalin, No Mao, NoOne. No country.
2. There are no unique expensive defensive weapon systems to deploy, no armies to construct, no new theory to discover. The second law of thermodynamics has been around for over a century. It points the way to decay. The only question that remains is time. How fast, how long?
3. Physics is not biology. Disbelieving evolution is unlikely to affect one's grandchildren.
4. Politicians understand many things. Almost all have no understanding of physics or climate science. They often do not respond effectively to immediate emergencies(eg., Katrina, hurricanes in Puerto Rico etc. ) Humanitarians, eg. Bill and Melinda Gates, work to prevent infant mortality and thereby increase world population.Projections indicate 10 billion of us in by 2050, about half of the growth coming from Africa. Dealing with global warming means working with the UN, an institution deeply distrusted by many Americans including our current President.
5. Predictions, in general, are wrong as often as they are correct. There is generally a low cost for choosing heads over tails.
6. Significantly slowing global warming will be costly and involve significant life style changes.
10
Twaddle.
The conventional position on global warming, of which this article is an example, implicitly legitimizes all our other depredations. Fishing out the oceans, burning down rainforests, eradicating other species, strip-mining the planet. It's all ok. Only we really need to change the power supply for our project of global expropriation.
Well, it isn't all ok. Global warming is just one facet of planetary and potential catastrophic human-caused changes. A fundamental part of the problem is the scale of the human project. There are just too many people. And there will be 50% more in about another 40 years.
Yet this inconvenient truth is resolutely, systematically ignored by politicians, religious leaders, celebrities, universities, think-tanks, NGOs - in fact by everyone in a position to speak. Including op-ed writers.
Time to panic? How about time to start talking about overpopulation? Don't hold your breath.
31
@r a
The best comment today! Population must be reduced.
There are three ways to do this:
1) Just allow the poor to starve. This is unjust a cruel and is sort of the world policy right now.
2) Not allow anyone to live past 65 years of age. This would greatly reduce the population and also medical expenses etc.
3) Stop having so many babies.
The last one seems the easiest to me. Although I am open to number to as well. Every new human is another species on it's way to extinction.
6
Our disease is Ego
Is what we buy that is the culprit
The main one. “ cars as big as our ego”.
150 years ago we needed one horse now we got to have 300.
Unless we realize that we are nuts there is very little we can do.
Equilibrium is the answer.Who is going to do it?
A planet with few of us would do it in a year. The culprit is definitively Growth.
11
Excellent and much-needed essay. I’ve been making a similar point or two to friends and family members for some time now (though not so eloquently), particularly about the moral urgency that climate change imposes on us. Thus when Wallace-Wells vigorously contends, “In other words, it is right to be alarmed,” the force of “right” can not only be understood in environmental, historical, or economic, much less logical, terms, for example, but can more powerfully—and perhaps more persuasively—be taken to impose moral and ethical obligation.
Now I’m not so naive as to believe that moral obligation per se is an effective motivator of human behavior—at least not when construed, à la Kant’s moral philosophy, where an action is right or wrong dependent on whether we have followed our absolute moral Duty.
But if moral obligation is understood as part and parcel of self-interest, of one’s own general happiness—along the lines of Aristotle’s virtue theory of morals—then one might have a powerful motivator, a compelling framework within which people can proactively respond to climate fear and panic. The framework would pose and help answer at least one straightforward question, such as: Why is it in my best self-interest (or happiness) to take climate change seriously? While the answer will seem obvious to many, keep in mind that one of my main objectives (and Wallace-Wells’) is to convince the unconvinced with rational argument.
7
Thanks for an outstandingly innovative and unusual way of looking at the problem of climate change, rather than the usual trotting out of masses of data, graphs, photographs and doomsday images.
I hope that every voter, in every country that holds elections, reads this, and feels panicked and empowered, simultaneously!
1
While the evidence of a science-based prognosis for climate change's devastating effects - and our collective inaction to curtail it - speaks of a real "national (and global) emergency", the president has just declared a "national emergency" to build a border wall.
3
A population of a few million human hunter-gatherers was apparently beyond the carrying capacity of the planet as most places where we showed up the megafauna disappeared.
Around 10-12,000 years ago, when large climate oscillations settled down, we developed agriculture which allowed us to double our population many times into the billions.
But agriculture faces big challenges if we don’t change our ways soon (1), as do our fisheries, and if they both decline significantly, forcing us back to being largely hunter-gatherers, history tells us that out of every 1,000 people you see maybe one survives.
Except this time it won’t be meat on the hoof with mastodons, large flightless birds and picking lobsters off the beach. No, going back to trying to hunt and gather during the 6th mass extinction isn’t the best timing so one in a thousand may be wildly optimistic.
1 IPCC Western N America drought 1900-2100
http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2013/drought-western-us-1900-2100.png
1
Having read as many of these comments as I could in an hour, I failed to see mention of reigning in human population growth, much less reducing it, as a primary and necessary solution to anthropocentric ecological destruction. Procreating is such a basic and largely thoughtless animal desire that we may as well ask humans to quit eating, yet the quadrupling of our population within my lifetime has arguably been one of the major roots of our earth's ecosystem destruction, accompanied by expansive technological prowess. China limited parents to having only one child, at least for a couple of decades, but it required a dictatorship to bring this about.
Being opposed to dictatorship, I nonetheless believe that only a "philosopher king of the world" can save our species from extinction in an unimaginable hell on earth. Having such a ruler would be dangerous, be we are living in a most dangerous time.
4
@D Morris
The problem is not population so much as it is the burning of fossil fuels by those like us who can afford a computer.
1
@D Morris: I've been writing here since this newspaper opened these blogs about population, religion, climate change, energy technology, and fiat currency economics. These things are lost in the pervading noise.
3
@D Morris
Actually, the issue of population growth was mentioned repeatedly in the comments. And it was cogently rebutted in a reply by C Wolfe to Cromer. See the Readers' Picks. Cromer's comment is high on the list.
1
Panic will set in only when there's no food in supermarkets. Then people will look up from their phone screens in surprise. Way, way too late to do anything.
6
Fear saves no one. Truth and beauty point to what does save. Piling negative on negative fears will result in unforseen consequences. Warming is playing itself out and will die of its own accord. As will the corporations that enable it. To hasten this, fear is not the right weapon. Create an exodus. Led by truth. And Beauty. The young know this as well as billions of others who are wise and silent. Move to comfortable altitudes. Build new, integral, sharing communities. Why entrepreneurs do not see this baffles me. Ford would have leapt at #cybercommunities.
@Stephen C. Rose: The most accurate measure of of climate change is heat accumulation in the oceans. That is accelerating. The truth and beauty of physics calls you out.
2
@Steve Bolger I have no argument with your statement. Or with anyone. I simply argue that Fear saves no one. I have been proposing solutions to no apparent interest for 50 years. The answer is to redo our along lines I propose on Twitter #cybercommunities. Our world based on fear has has difficulties forever. We can minimize them by the change that is underway simultaneous with the intensification of the climate challenge. Argue with my ideas if you like. Few have even seen them.
Why succumb to fear when you have the comfort of self delusion to fall back on?
2
Vote against every Republican on your ballot.
When Republicans are reduced to a ignorable minority, vote against every Democrat lacking conviction for GND.
5
Now this is a real emergency which needs immediate funding. Trump who has nothing but a useless wall on his brain who disastrously will realize that there is real flood, a flood of water. Imagine his beautiful wall floating as flotsam in the torrential waters. Oh, but it'll all be Democrats' fault!
2
humanity does not deserve to survive we destroy everything we touch.
2
Will the times create a front page section on climate change led by a climate editor, aggregating the best information about all aspects of climate change, including political action?
4
We already have the technology to virtualise business meetings efficiently, which can save companies and politicians time and cost. Flying 800 delegates (not sure if the number is correct) to a climate meeting in Poland is absolutely inefficient.
I was about to ask my football team if they had considered travelling to a recent match by train rather than by plane. However, I felt too stupid and too much of an idiot to actually send that email.
My native country's president recently flew to the Galapagos Islands in his private state jet, demonstrating against climate change (no joke).
This shows to me that we do not yet have the awareness. Politicians, sports people and people in the public eye could be good role models.
5
I fear that Homo sapiens are like the proverbial frog in the pot of water being heated from below. And I think there are still enough smart readers who know what happened to this frog.
one of the best articles yet about the looming horrors of climate change and even you do not dare say what must be said -
stop having so many children.
Human overpopulation is behind every single looming crisis yet we dare not speak it's name.
3
Notice that the Global Carbon Project start date of 2000 is also the year that the Supreme Court handed the election to Bush over Gore. That decision has had global consequences. The chance for US leadership on climate at a critical time, was lost. As climate science becomes more accurate it should be possible to quantify some of the catastrophic consequences of the decision in terms of lives lost. Yes, that is what I said. Pick your poison: hurricane deaths, wildfire deaths, heat stroke deaths, famine deaths, deaths fleeing areas that where a livelihood is no longer possible. Our science is getting good enough to count the "additional" deaths a part of the responsibility lies there.
3
I urge everyone to read this.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610457/at-this-rate-its-going-to-take-nearly-400-years-to-transform-the-energy-system/
This is not just about listening to the scientists. This is also about choosing options and gaps in technology, construction and engineering, manpower and materials, massive project management possibly conducted while disasters are occurring regularly causing displacement of large populations, the coordination of a worldwide effort, economics and economic disruption, politics and geopolitics.
The right does nothing, the left claim what they think is higher ground advocating laughably inadequate solutions. When the panic hits, the poles will reverse, the right will spearhead the action, the left will be opposed, aghast at the loss of basic freedoms.
2
Paranoia about climate change is suggested by the title of this article, and the photo by Jules Julien showing the red-tinted photo of a woman's eye. In this context the psychology of observing things we don't have much control over is a very interesting psychological topic.
Psychologists tell us that when we lack control over something, we tend to construct patterns out of random events. This is most often the case when the observer is under severe stress, or becomes paranoid. This phenomenon also seems to be at work in situations where there is a lack of control in the observer's environment. In these situations the observer will tend to grasp at whatever straws are available to him or her, even imaginary ones. This will also happen when the perceived (believed) agent is non-existent, such as in apocalyptic religious groups where the end-of-the-world does not occur as predicted.
According to Whitson et. al. (2008): "These six experiments demonstrate that lacking control motivates pattern perception: Experiencing a loss of control led participants to desire more structure and to perceive illusory patterns. The need to be and feel in control is so strong that individuals will produce a pattern from noise to return the world to a predictable state." (p. 117)
Cite:
Whitson, Jennifer A. and Adam D. Galinsky. Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception. Science Vol. 322 (2008), p. 115-117
1
@W: I am not paranoid about climate change. I am aware of my own individual lifetime contributions to it.
I find it a complete bore to watch Donald Trump founder in his own control issues.
@W What is the point of this comment? Are you claiming that climate change does not exist, and is simply a pattern we have constructed out of random events?
2
To imagine that 7 billion people can suddenly put aside millennia of tribal hatreds, of fear and loathing of The Other, and of addiction to personal comfort and convenience is beyond the bounds of naivete. A couple of Enlightened centuries of rational thought aren't going to overcome those forces. What arrogance to think that we can stop, much less reverse, the destruction of our planetary home that we ourselves put into motion, just because an infinitesimally small group of rich white people have begun saying, "Oops." It's the same arrogance that brought us to this point in the first place. Why would more have have a different result?
All those barren lifeless rocks circling distant suns that astronomers keep finding? Maybe we're not the first organisms to have evolved into civilizations that also destroyed their planetary homes, unable, like us, to stop hating each other long enough to cooperate to put out the fire on the roof.
Perhaps it's time to start accepting that the Human Experiment has failed (vindicating Voltaire, Swift, Mencken, among others) and to move on.
To what? To being kind to each other and compassionate to those who need compassion; to taking one last look at the remaining natural beauty and the beauty we made because we were lucky enough to have had a Beethoven and Michelangelo and a few others walk among us.
Is despair, then, the inevitable new order? That's a personal decision. One does wonder, however, who will be the last human?
4
"That is what is meant when politics is called a 'moral multiplier.'” Or an immoral multiplier in today's trump-world. Look at the damage one single man can cause to the planet in such a short time. Again, the most effective first move we can do to salvage this true planetary environmental EMERGENCY is to remove this man from power ASAP. Until that happens, very little good can happen.
"That is the purpose of politics: that we can be and do better together than we might manage as individuals." I fully agree, yet it is what the right and anti-conservation conservatives will slam as "socialism."
I want to pick out one point here. He mentioned the “self editing” pulling of punches by scientists and media. We know quite well why that is. It is the ferocious continual pushback by shrill paid conservatives making the world safe for the power of status que.
Eric altenberg describes this as working the refs particularly when aimed at media. There constant derision is effective, with them it’s about power, Democrats are more concerned with arriving at agreement on policy that works for people not power centers like Koch. Obviously there are dangers and variations in these generalities but the prevailing focus is different because the goal is different, on the right it’s usually corporate funded think tanks, it takes money for research and the easiest source is pleasing your corporate overlords. On the left it’s non profits or universities.
1
As someone in my later 60s, the impending environmental cataclysm will not so much affect me but my children, grandchildren and their progeny. I find it sad and ironic that my Baby Boomer generation - which held such promise when we were young - is leaving the world in such a mess.
Talking with people about the coming severity of the effect of climate change is a bit like talking about the next “Hurricane of the Century”. People blithely assume that the weather forecasters are wrong, overstating the harm and the risk, so they don’t prepare properly.
Similarly, our 9bn person world is not preparing for climate change, hoping that the weather forecasters will just be wrong or that some technology miracle will enable us to complete a Hail Mary pass before it’s too late.
2
Indeed we are in trouble. Though the specifics are complex and perhaps too tedious for widespread comprehension, the summation is rudimentary:
Young America has reached its adolescence with a near religious conviction of its entitlement to its historically accidental good fortunes. That prodigal attitude breeds a defiant contempt for the realities of the hazards it foments. It will accept no challenge to its habitual self indulgence.
For the keys to its character, one need look no further than America's national icon; its chief executive. Though not widely approved, the timidity of its continued acceptance is equivalent to a reluctance to yell "Fire!" in a burning schoolhouse, lest there be a disturbance.
Another icon is that wall. . . essentially useless except for the implicit handwriting upon it for those who can read.
3
The single most pervasive and ... perverse reason behind the inaction that should've been taken more than 1 or 2 decades ago is "the other side" factor. Climate change is global and oblivious to frontiers or "walls".
It's the aways blaming "the other" or waiting for "the other" to act first or jointly at best.
I am convinced based on facts that life extinction is approaching and approaching faster than we think. I do so based on scientific facts and not make believe. Climate change deniers don't believe.
It would be like saying: "I believe that 2x2=4.52."
And the funny thing that demonstrates this phenomenon is how easy is to fall into denial. I find myself all the time conducting actions or planning moves that belong into a future that will not come. Things like teaching tasks to kids or building a new closet.
What's coming is gargantuan, final, cataclysmic and total and we did it as the masters of creation, self-considered the most intelligent species ever existed.
This column is the "wake-up call". Global warming and the human species contribution to it is nature's way of recalibrating, or adjusting things.
During a family dinner 10 years ago, I found myself sitting across from a retired professor of geology, chatting about earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, and eons. His perspective was such that he casually referred to the earth after the ascendance and eventual decline, or extinction, of the human species. He was very matter-of-fact about it, even outside the context of climate change, which was not mentioned as a factor. I brought up a recent book entitled "The Coming Plague", referring to human density and the inability of humans to respond to evolving bacteria and viruses.
The wonderfully well-written and revealing part of this column explains the prevalence of human denial of an oncoming catastrophe as a way of coping. It's sort of the image of an ostrich hiding its head in the sand, or an image of lemmings running off a cliff.
Nature and the natural sciences will simply follow its own law, without sentiment, and without concern about societies world-wide or whether, in the states, liberal Democrats or Conservative Republicans are making policy.
5
Having grown up in the 80s and 90s, climate change was always on the radar. We recycled. In the Aughts, we calculated our carbon footprints and paid offsets. We rarely ever drove, opting to live in cities with large public transit infrastructures. We did everything we were told to do. And yet here we are.
I'm grateful for the author finally saying it: there is practically nothing that we, as individuals, can do in terms of lifestyle changes that will make a large impact. Change has to come from the political-industrial superstructures.
I grew up in fear of global warming. Now I'm living in the panic knowing full well that there is exactly nothing I can do except agitate and vote.
9
' Last fall, in Britain, an activist group with the alarmist name Extinction Rebellion was formed and immediately grew so large it was able to paralyze parts of London in its first major protest.
I live in London and yet I don't recall that. Last week a 100 of them successfully blocked a road. Hardly paralysing the capital though
It may be time to panic, but it's not yet time to start imagining things.
3
Mr. Wallace-Wells makes a strong case for taking collective action against carbon emissions. But in arguing that fear can be useful in motivating such action, it is ironic that the Times included a picture of the Three Mile Island partial meltdown to show how fear can produce useful results. The IAEA, The Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Paris Agreement all recognize that nuclear power could play a useful role in reducing our dependence on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. Sweden currently meets 35-40% of its electric needs through nuclear power and France 75%. To the extent there are still safety concerns with nuclear technology, we can address those concerns through research and federal oversight of nuclear plants. Are the risks posed by nuclear plants really greater than those posed by a warming planet? Until those alarmed by climate change embrace nuclear energy as an obvious alternatives to coal, gas, and natural gas, they will have a hard time convincing the general public that we are facing an existential crisis.
6
This article is correct to point out that individual commitment to ending global warming such as buying electric cars (as if most working people can even afford to buy a new car;) or taxing everyone a dollar a month, will not solve the problem. But I can't, for the life of me, understand why the multi-billion-dollar corporations and their insanely wealthy CEOs are exempt from, not only carrying the burden, but from making the kinds of changes that could repair and prevent the damaging pollution their businesses produce on a massive scale. The argument, that it's “not good for business” is an obvious cop-out. The fact is, business, i.e., capitalism is not good for the world! We need to build a democratically planned, worldwide socialist society to take the profit out of pollution and produce for want (for what all people want and need to live a healthy life,) not the private profit of the tiny few.
4
Any solution carbon emissions must be worldwide. Californians pay much higher energy costs and deal with onerous regulations. The result is slightly lower carbon output but for every pound of carbon eliminated here 7 to 10 lbs is added elsewhere in world. People want prosperity and most will develop coal and oil..they have no viable alternative. The US must lead the world in developing smaller portable modular nuclear systems on the scale of the Manhattan project,ready to share globally quickly. There is no other solution. Wind and solar have their place but cannot address the problem worldwide fast enough.
2
Carter knew better but failed to teach about installing a humidifier if heat is fanned or how to keep core warm regardless of heat of air on face etc.
platinum was 400 last year and remains cheap at Twice that but hello who uses hydrogen catalytic heating the lowest hanging fruit of the 33rd of a human thick thin film sputtered on anything by hundreds of watts at a board not as back then mere watts for more then hundreds cost now even though then it was cheaper that carbon releasing fire? NOBODY. the heaters developed and produced like nuclear got Madison Avenued into extinction preceding and causing ours duh. the guy who gets the girl not just beach home and labrador in Catch and Release the lady made blockbuster is a Mad Man par excellance. what is taking you so long? he tastes so good or not get on with it!!!
If Mr. Wallace-Wells really wanted to induce real concern, he should have included this, from his great July 2017 article in New York Magazine:
"[T]he many sober-minded scientists I interviewed over the past several months — the most credentialed and tenured in the field, few of them inclined to alarmism and many advisers to the IPCC who nevertheless criticize its conservatism — have quietly reached an apocalyptic conclusion, too: No plausible program of emissions reductions alone can prevent climate disaster."
That may be the scariest thing I've ever read.
3
@JBS
We need to reduce world population from 7 to 4 billion. Reelect Trump.
This article reminds me of another statistic I heard on NPR this week:
In the immediate aftermath of the mass shooting that killed 17 people on Valentine's Day, 71 percent of Americans said laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter. Now, it's 51 percent.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/14/694223232/poll-a-year-after-parkland-urgency-for-new-gun-restrictions-declines
As this author article discusses, unless fire is at your neck or someone you know has been injured, you quickly forget the urgency of the issue when faced with day to day troubles. I find it incredibly difficult to focus on the real issues, such as climate change, when every day we are confronted with so much "news" that must be processed. I appreciate this article and wish that the media would spend more time reporting on these real issues instead of dissecting every tweet.
4
it isn't simply the extreme weather. insects are disappearing as well, vital agents in the food chain. what happens to human civilization is the food supply collapses?
6
Re "Last fall, voters in Washington, a green state in a blue-wave election, rejected even a modest carbon-tax plan. Are those people unwilling to pay that money because they think the game is over or because they don’t think it’s necessary yet?"
Most likely it's neither. Rather, voters in Washington understand that they could pay all the carbon taxes they want to, but unless a meaningful share of the rest of humanity joins in, they'd just be saps wasting their money. They're right about that: The Tragedy of the Commons is now global. If history is any guide (and it often is), expect the worst.
4
Republicans have no political will to change the status quo except to move backwards. We have seen this in deregulation of auto and other emissions. Air quality in my area has only been measured in the past year and is not yet published "due to lack of historical data."
Locally floods have raged for three of the past four years since I moved back to coastal SC. Twice, flooding in nearby NC was so bad that trains were stopped and highways were closed, including the North-South corridor, I-95. Whole towns were under water, including Nichols, SC, less than an hour's drive away. Lumberton, NC, suffered devastating floods as well.
Yet the SC government is considering a bill to stop regulating 2/3 of dams in SC, even though dam failure led to some of the worst flooding in recent years.
If we want to address climate change in a meaningful way, we must muster the political will to get it done. We must get rid of "good ole boys" and elect forward-thinking younger people who are willing to do the hard work and even raise taxes to get it done.
1
Part of the problem confronting those of us who want to deal with the issue is that deniers deny as an act of faith, not reason, not science - but faith that nothing is happening, faith backed by those who stand to loose money if we act.
Then there are people like my late sister-in-law who remarked that "It doesn't matter - Jesus will come soon and make it better."
It is time to demonstrate that new industries and new jobs are part of dealing with warming.
It is time to ignore faith and listen to science.
4
I'm not into military mentality, but I get what SEAL training is about. When an emergency happens, one can panic, or one can focus.
2
Only a panic will stimulate the action necessary to fight this effectively. One often sees reference to a WWII level effort in describing what will be required. What this means is complete economic disruption, all production is devoted to winning the war, labor is conscripted, factories are commandeered, civil rights are suspended, quotas are imposed, rationing occurs, taxation rises to the maximum, it is directed under a military-style organixation conducted in cooperation with similar organizations formed in other countries. Carbon taxes do nothing, like throwing snowballs at tanks. Trump's denial and inaction is setting the stage for the panic, like loading a slingshot, when he is thrown out and the enormity of the situation strikes, there will be a huge surge opposite. Ironically liberals will be aghast at the loss of freedom it causes, conservatives will embrace it.
3
Without a habitable planet, NOTHING else matters. There are so many maddening aspects of the climate change deniers litany of denials. An overwhelming majority of highly educated scientists around the globe continue to sound the alarm about climate change while the vast majority of the opposition are not scientists, possess no science background and don't demonstrate any particular interest in science overall. Polling demonstrates that an increasing number of Americans do believe that climate change is real and poses a threat. Similar to gun control measures supported by a vast majority of Americans, no national legislation has been implemented to stem the advance of climate change or implement gun control laws, so the disconnect between what a majority of Americans want legislatively and what they actually get resides with the politicians in power and the enormous power and influence of lobbying by giant corporations and institutions. We need a sea change of new elected officials from the top down who will support the demands of the electoral majority and not the deep pocketed lobbyists buying influence. Without the elimination of Citizens United, the power and influence imbalance will continue to disfavor the majority demands of voters.
3
I agree with David Wallace-Wells on one level that "the effects of individual lifestyle choices are ultimately trivial compared with what politics can achieve." And while that is true, small individual actions can still have unintended and profound amplifying effects.
I reject the dismissive attitude toward "individual lifestyle choices."
Consider the "butterfly effect" in chaos theory, as demonstrated by the actions of one man in Tunisia in 2011. Bouazizi''s actions (relative to the greater Middle East) and subsequent death was the catalyst for the Tunisian Revolution and then the Arab Spring.
We can still live individually by our values and walk, bike, choose a vegetarian diet, share this article and otherwise vote for green candidates with the possibility that these "trivial" choices may perhaps be a catalyst for something bigger leading to the desired "collective action" that is ultimately needed.
All actions are welcome in the age of the Anthropocene.
4
@Yusef: The collective result is the sum total of all individual actions.
The most important lesson of chaos theory is very simple: To avoid chaos, apply negative feedback. It works even when one does not fully understand a system.
1
All living things seek to achieve what they want with the least expenditure of their body’s effort. Humans have achieved this with great effectiveness using tools.
Almost no advocate for addressing the problems our way of life produce address this fact with the least seriousness. They almost all advocate making life more energy intensive and taking far longer to do less. They understand that our problems result from how we achieve our way of life but not how our way of life came about and why. So the don’t seek to make it better just to end it.
2
Remediate reasonably now or pay the ultimate price, sooner rather than later!!!
While I agree with the author's tone of urgency, and that it is probably time to act as if our home is on fire, I'm not sure panic is the best action (even if our home were literally on fire), nor do I believe it to be the best motivator, as people tend to instinctively turn away from fearful things.
And while I appreciate the New York Times published this author's essay, because I believe we need our media to highlight what I believe is humanity's biggest threat (presidents will come and go but we only have one planet) I strongly disagree with the author's assertion that "conscious consumption is a cop-out, a neoliberal diversion from collective action."
Yes, certainly we need collective action. But where does collective action start? Typically with one individual, or a small group of individuals, that then grows in size to encompass a collective, which can then hope to help direct action from their representatives in local, state, and national politics to affect the even larger collective.
Small change adds up, as I suggest in a piece I wrote following the smoke and fires in my region last year: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/12/10/accident-fate-fires-paradise.
The author tells readers that what they do individually doesn't matter. So why does he feel writing an article matters? Ostensibly, he is hoping to motivate. And so am I when I write an article about how small changes add up, and can help motivate us to make larger changes, all of which matter.
Scientists know that they don't know exactly what is going to happen. For example, data is now showing that areas of California's Sierra Nevada are going to see increased amounts of snowpack, not reduced amounts.
And then there is the "solution". "Decarbonization" is never going to happen in the timeframe that is being described here. Most scientists clearly recognize that. So shouting the alarm is kind of like screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre with no exits.
1
@Paul: Quite so. Many scientists see a need for technology to take CO2 out of the air. One way or another, it seems we may have to geo-engineer the Earth.
Great, important article. Though I don’t think scientists’ reticence to be “alarmist” was fairly addressed. This 2015 article delves deeper into that issue. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/
Already last summer heat waves and floods killed thousands of livestock in the US and this doesn’t take into account crop losses due to heat and fires. Though you probably didn’t notice this at the grocery store because we import a lot of foods.
At a certain point rising temperatures will devastate a lot of crops. We could loose an entire season of wheat, fruit, tomatoes just to unpredictable temperatures.
Major disruption in our food supply will be what get climate deniers to finally pay attention. At by that point all those willfully ignorant people won’t be prepared. But they will have guns. Think about that.
336
Many of us had hoped a species more intelligent and moral than Homo sapiens would have been found on Mars and ultimately been able to colonize Earth. We now know that that won't happen, but with poetic justice, perhaps after humans are extinct, it will ultimately be the descendants of birds or honey bees.
1
Reminds me of a scene in the Police Squad movies , where Leslie Neilsen is standing in front of furiously burning building, saying, "Nothing to see here, move along."
In reality, we have the traitor, not Neilsen (who would have been excellent in that role).
1
And while Rome burns, for the next two years, Nero (Trump) will be constantly fiddling on Twitter, in our White House, acting as the Climate Change Denier In-Chief, styming every attempt to slow down the disaster we are hurtling toward, and his fellow deniers in Congress, and his rabid 40% supporters will be cheering them on, until some undeniable and unchangeable climate related related catastrophe stops them cold.
Of course by then it will be too late; in fact it is likely already too late.
1
We won't meaningfully address the crisis of climate change until we somehow stem the torrent of propaganda spewing out of the nation's plethora of right-wing media outlets.
Those media are fueled by special-interest money. Money in politics is poison for a democracy. Money easily turns voters into bots.
4
It's too late . We are doomed. The world is overpopulated. Reduction from 7 to 4 billion is what is needed to save the planet. Nuclear war and climate change will accomplish this. That's why it is vital to reelect Trump.
1
Even you, David Wallace-Wells, have a few too many "could, might, would"'s. Why not just come right out and say, "At 4°C we'll all be dead" instead of giving us a timeline? I think because you are afraid, for what is panic but fear.
There are billionaires in the back rooms planning for climate change. They're not stupid. What do you think their plan is? That perhaps is another reason to panic.
1
The two greatest threats to human life are both growing in likelihood: Global warming and nuclear winter.
So here's a cheerful thought: perhaps they will cancel each other out.
Oh, wait. Maybe that isn't so cheerful?
4
Humans aren't intelligent enough to follow the superior logic of this article: 20 murdered students in Connecticut, two presidents elected against the majority of nationwide voters, houses under water, forests and homes burned to ash -- these have led to a zero net will of the people to bring about positive change and abandon beliefs that no longer work for the planet. Well, maybe the planet will be fine after this doomsday, but what I really think the article is talking about is the extinction of the human species. We are either too dumb or too stupid to save it -- apparently.
2
I now realize that Trump does believe in global warming! that's why he wants to build the wall....to keep the xlmate refugees out of America. he wants them to burn up down South. immoral, but practical. he doesn't want to panic us, but he is planning ahead.
1
I've lived through a number of large fires here in California over the last 50 years, each of which destroyed an average of 300-400 homes. Their frequency is increasing. Each has scared the heck out of my family, yet we still seem to view our future in fairly rosy terms.
The author of this article is spot-on in assessing the danger we face: self delusion. We are Americans! We have before, and will continue to face, all adverse forces—and come out victorious! No. Probably not, this time. Unless we can quickly get over our self delusion.
To that end I can suggest the book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" as one way to kick ourselves in the butt about the reality of an entire otherwise successful society falling apart.
Or look up the "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire". Another sobering tale of complacency.
I am, however, encouraged by the new wave of young politicians who are seemingly not afraid to take the challenge of global warming head on!
@SDaley
Corporations rule. No change will occur.
Nonsense. Anything this serious requires cool, calm heads. Panic is for zealots. It alienates rational Americans. Enough panic. Time for some reality-based thinking.
1
The use of fear to motivate a population is scary and, in human history, has mostly ended badly, e.g. Nazis. Reason is so much more compelling for thinking people. For instance, since the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago the earth has been warming, albeit in fits and starts, and the water level rising along with moisture in the air. So give us convincing reasons why, and to what extent, warming now is so significantly different than the natural warming in past millennia. Because if people believe that the earth is going to warm no matter what we do then why would they sacrifice needlessly trying to stop something that can't be stopped?
1
@THOMAS WILLIAMS it's happening much, much faster
Time to declare a national emergency to build walls to hold back the invasion heading for our eastern border.
Yes... uninhabitable.
1/2 the world's people live next to the water.
David Wallace-Wells, suggest you map and count... if you book has not done this.
Billions must move... Venus is gone. New York City?
Washington, DC.
Seattle? San Francisco and LA?
Rio? London? HK?
New Zealand?
Any one counting?
Nuclear energy solves the problem tomorrow --- if conditions are as you say and I have no reason to doubt ---
--- then please campaign to realistically fix them now
1
Sounds like there may still be time brother, but we only have about 18 months to get seriously started. THIS IS THE REAL NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY.
We are so not prepared for the future under this buffoon-in-chief.
American's can be procrastinators and somewhat complacent
when fear based emergencies are laid at our doorstep.When
warnings about Japanese intentions in the Pacific were ignored
the result was Pearl Harbor. When the warnings about radical
Islam were dismissed, the result was 9/11. However To America's
credit we mobilized, everyone was on board and we took care of
business. What's it going to take for this country to take a hard look at climate change? Miami being submerged, by the next super hurricane or say Northern California turned to ash? By that
time it will be to late.
94
@cbarber
It is going to take getting rid of the present GOP.
45
To imagine that 7 billion people can suddenly put aside millennia of tribal hatreds and fears of The Other, and unite to save ourselves is beyond naive. A couple of Enlightened centuries of rational thought aren't going to overcome that. It's time to accept that the Human Experiment has failed, and move on. What arrogance to think that we're too smart of a species to let this happen;
1
I hereby challenge climate deniers to look at the CO2 chart at the top of
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
and notice the vertical line at the right. This represents an incredibly fast rise in CO2 levels that has not happened for hundreds of thousands of years. Can a climate change denier explain what natural event that hasn't been debunked (like increased solar radiation) that might be the cause? Adding to this the fact that CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas as far back as 1862,* I think the climate change people have a pretty good case! Now, add to that all the other evidence. Add to that that Exxon's own scientists found that climate change is happening. Add the recent extreme weather events. What more do you need?
* https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/why-we-know-about-the-greenhouse-gas-effect/
1
The problem is that the author, and most commenting here are victims of confirmation bias. They only read what already confirms their preconceptions. There are tons of data that suggest that any climate change occurring is benign or even beneficial - for example over the last several decades global plant mass has increased by 25-50%. Since this data does not fit in the climate Apocalypse prophesies it is ignored by most here including the author - thus confirmation bias.
2
"But conscious consumption is a cop-out, a neoliberal diversion from collective action, which is what is necessary."
Counterpoint: Both collective action and conscious consumption are required to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change. Every person I know who is politically active on this issue is also a conscious consumer. I do not know one person who owns an electric vehicle so they can pat themselves on the back and go about their lives, oblivious to the advocacy steps and political actions they must take (and are taking) to push our political system in the direction of action. But as long as our politicians refuse to represent us on this issue, we have no choice but to take matters into our own hands by making better consumer choices and changing our diet. Yes, we want to create better policy that has a much bigger, top down impact, but it's dangerous rhetoric to tell people that their personal choices are meaningless. If half this country refused to buy a gas vehicle, that shifts the market. That shifts supply and demand. And that can happen while we seek political change AT THE SAME TIME. Further, when we achieve the political change we seek, people will have to change their behaviors accordingly. Why not start now? It's exhausting to see these two things constantly pitted against one another when the answer requires both.
2
The author could not be more dead wrong. There is a reason there have been no major new environmental laws since the 1970s -- the very "sky is falling" tactics that worked so well in the 1960s and 1970s stopped working by the 1990s. In the Rachel Carson era, "rivers on fire" and the silence of dead birds resonated with a pre-internet, pre-social media public. After the Reagan presidence, this strategy not only ceased to capture the public imagination, it became the wedge that drove Republicans against environmentalism and alienated disaffected independents. The empirical proof of this shown in survey after survey, poll after poll. But the strongest empirical evidence is that there has been no new Clean Air or Clean Water or Endangered Species Acts and to the contrary, rolling back the landmark environmental laws of the 1960s and 1970s is now the hallmark of the Republican Party. This is a massive shift from the bipartisanship that established those laws in the first place. The author seems completely to have lost the fact that what worked then -- alarmism and catastrophe - fails now. In the social media era, "rivers on fire" is met with a collective yawn by mainstream America and cries of "fake news" from the right. The author is oblivious to the fact that the "politics of fear" tactic Trump has used with the (false) border crisis has utterly crashed and burned. Why should environmentalist adopt such a cynical, failed strategy for a crisis that actually matters?
3
Reagan absorbed his so called conservative ideas from archconservative, reactionary, business executives who considered themselves to gifted to be restrained by democratic institutions which gave inferior people the same political power as they. Having grown up under FDR who he admired, Reagan clothed this political view in the terms of FDR. His don’t worry be happy towards environmental concerns was well received but stupid.
Environmental regulations definitely helped reduce the environmental problems that we were experiencing. The strategy to develop industry in China and India without those kinds of regulations have not just polluted the air and water to the point of appalling ugliness but the impact from the damage to people and the civil environment have cost their GDP to the tune of over 6%. That erosion of economic expansion is driving them towards green solutions.
@JI1..I agree. Those of us in our sixties have heard so many dire end-of-world stories over the decades that we have tuned them out. Weren't we all supposed to be underwater by now according to Al Gore?
There is realistically only one possible way out of this mess. We need a massive removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, most of which will need to be done with new technologies and engineered solutions powered by clean energy, and then combined with economical use and storage. The bathtub is already overflowing, we know how challenging it is to turn off the faucet, and still we rarely speak about opening the drain! And in anticipation of the response I expect from many, this doesn’t mean we just leave the faucet running - we still need to turn it off as much and as quickly as possible.
2
Can you please make sure Bret Stephens reads your column? He seems to take it as a matter of granted common sense that extensive measures to forestall climate calamity are absurd.
It confuses me that conservatives, whose very label derives from the urge to conserve, shirk the responsibility to protect from harm from our own actions.
12
Thank you for this article, especially for the part that points out our own instincts and how they are thwarting progress. The time is past ripe to understand how we act against our own self-interest time and time again. In this light, one factor we should all consider is our immediate rejection of any proposal from our political foes. Climate change is not a liberal or conservative problem - it is a human and planetary problem. We need to challenge ourselves to drop our biases, open our ears, and consider any good proposals like the Baker-Schultz Carbon Dividend Plan. In almost all aspects, climate change is a larger, albeit slower, threat than WWII fascism. We need to get in that mindset immediately.
2
Humanity is doomed. How can I say this? Regardless of the way human beings treat nature and the natural world in general, it is the anthropocentric behavior which will be our undoing. Example. Many communities try to recycle. Most do no. Those that do have a recepticle for recyclable aluminum, plastic, and paper. Next time you see one check out the plastic bottles on the ground a mere twenty feet from where it could be properly placed. TWENTY FEET. That's how I know. That and human beings who have no self-control and continue to have families of multiple biological children. It is as if these people have never heard the words "birth control." He will never say it publicly, but rest assured Pope Francis knows. Francis has seen the abject poverty and squalor overpopulation has led to.
If scientists are reticent about being "alarmist", you and your brethren in the non-scientific, mainstream media, are largely to blame.
For decades scientists who uttered climate warning to the general press were regularly chastised for being "alarmist" by the press. Then, to add insult to injury, the general press would scrounge around and find some scientist to offer an alternative view -- no matter how bizarre or out of the scientific research mainstream that view might be.
This newspaper was one of the worst offenders in their quest for "a balanced view."
The first Earth Day in April, 1970 should have been a wake-up call. But it wasn't and those who participated and were derided as "hippies" went on to become scientists who study the climate.
Knowledge of where the climate was heading has been known for many decades; much of it easily accessible to anyone with a high school education.
6
Thank you Fred. I am one of those scientists.
Scientists complain that the public does not heed the climate change evidence but when ordinary citizens try to understand the complex pieces that feed into climate change--ocean warming, acidification and rise, increasing number and strength of storms, the carbonate-silicate seesaw, past extinction patterns, the problem of disturbed wetlands-- most of us find the scientific articles a collection of frustrating. Impenetrable sentences that seem written in a private code. To make it worse for non-academics just getting to the scientific papers so often blocked by greedy publisher pay-walls takes considerable effort. JStor is an especial hurdle. There seem to be only a handful of writers who can translate the gobbledegook into understandable prose. It still takes two to tango.
1
When I was 12 years old I had a terrible bike accident on a loose gravel road, cause by the fact that my biking partner, riding ahead of me, made a sudden decision to make a turn at an intersection when I wasn’t expecting it. I was on an unfamiliar bike with hand brakes (I was used to coaster brakes) and couldn’t slow the bike sufficiently to make the turn, but naively tried nevertheless to negotiate it at the speed I was traveling. The worst happened, of course, and I suffered some serious injuries crashing and skidding a very long way on loose gravel.
I can’t help but picture our current climate change dilemma as a planet-level version of that episode. We are traveling very fast on our chosen course of traditional human progress, lured by economic benefit and increased comfort and convenience, but it has become clear that we must negotiate a very sharp corner up ahead. The collective will is completely absent to slow the “progress” we are making in order to negotiate the inevitable turn.
I can speak from a long life’s experience that we will react to the looming turn and we will try vainly to keep upright and moving forward. But we as a species and the earth as our home will suffer enormous damage and setbacks as a result of our failure to plan the turn and adjust our speed to negotiate it safely. It is becoming clear that we will never be quite the same again.
2
Frankly, seems to me that things will have to get quite a bit worse before major polluters decide it is worth their while to do something about it.
In the U.S., we tolerate hundreds of thousands of easily avoidable deaths each year (work accidents, transportation, smoking, medical mistakes, etc.) because we are willing to allow specific industries, professional groups, or other constituencies to block regulations, often over trivial costs per life saved.
An interesting counterexample is air travel where maintaining an almost unreasonable level of safety is the norm. This is a business where controlling fear is key for the bottom line. Our irrational expectations mean that air travel is remarkably safe, but only due to a concerted effort by government and industry to achieve the impossible. Of course, it is not cheap to be this safe, but the incremental cost is still small.
So, unless and until a strong connection is made in every reasonable person's minds between their carbon footprint and a risk of their own death, significant progress requiring real concessions won't be made. Given that, we are more likely to blithely continue on our current path.
3
While the author correctly points out that drop in the bucket measures are senseless he fails to understand that any measures taken even on a national level here in the US are also drop in the bucket. Because while carbon emissions may go down slightly here in the US they will be offset many times over by ongoing emissions particularly in developing countries. So the only way to in any way seriously reduce emissions is on the global level. And on this front we have the Paris Climate Accords. And since there is no chance of calling all the international community together now and producing a new accord in light of this new approach of getting in "panic mode" what is this new panic mode supposed to accomplish.
1
When I was young, another I young man I knew expressed the opinion that his stopping of smoking of cigarettes was pointless because the air was already polluted by smog. You might reconsider your opinion if you can see the flaw in his logic.
1
When people ask me about global warming, my reply is to buy an electric or hybrid car now instead of regular car. In five years a car with a gasoline engine will be vilified and people will be freaked. I also recommend planting as many trees as possible. I lived through the gasoline shortages of of the 1970’s, as well as volatility in food prices during that time. Not at all pleasant. People stocked up on everything they could to avoid unstable, quickly escalating prices. Better to be prepared for the worst. Something our current politicians are doing in their own way, that is, taking all the money they can get and not looking out for the American people.
3
the changing climate, as I see it, is symptomatic of our impact globally as the human race becomes ever more "successful," both in terms of increasingly resource-demanding life styles to just more and more of us extracting from our one planet. We could solve the climate crisis and still leave our planet largely uninhabitable. Maybe there is a solution, and we don't yet see it. I don't know. When I stop and get present to what appears to be happening, I despair.
1
Global catastrophe has been coming in slo-mo, like a runaway train starting downhill. A few folks in the passenger cars toward the front realize there's no engineer in the cab and are trying to get the door open. Folks in the cars farther back have begun to look up from their phones, wondering, hey, aren't we going kinda fast? Some are supremely confident that the engineer knows what he's doing, since he has said he knows more than all the engineers put together, believe me, so they're not worried when the train starts to rock. Others know that there's a ravine at the bottom of the hill, and the train is going to sail right off the bridge and into the abyss unless it can be brought to a halt. In fact, it may already be too late; the best option now is to derail the train before it reaches the ravine. Time to pull the emergency brake.
1
I recommend Naomi Kleins book "This Changes Everything"
The corporate complex has known for YEARS the harm they are doing to the environment.
2
@S Norris
And?
So curb your consumption...stop driving your cars...stop having kids for a while.
The "corporate complex" only does what the insatiable American appetite collectively allows it to do...
This excellent piece by David Wallace-Wells places his forthcoming “The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming” high on my reading list, BUT, he dances around the issue of the SCALE of the problem. SCALE is the discriminator that makes the solution so extremely difficult. An examination of the global warming emissions evidence shows that the problem is fundamentally strongly related to population and our improved standard of living -- mainly from the use of electricity as an energy form and a strong addiction to internal combustion engines for transportation and thousands of other uses of the internal combustion engines from lawn care to industry.
Considering how dependent our current population of 7.2 billion humans is on market miracles of electricity and internal combustion, the projected growth of the human population to an estimated 10 to 11 Billion by the end of the century -- all with an increased desire for a better life with electricity and the necessity of moving billions of tons of food and goods to an increasingly urban population -- clearly shows that it will be the greatest challenge in the history of humankind to shift to a non-fossil source of energy.
Clearly, a cheap source of electricity that the market will accept as better than the price of fossil-generated electricity will need to be invented. Dr. James Powell discusses several technologies in his books, "Silent Earth" and "Spaceship Earth" which I encourage World Bank and UN decisionmakers to read.
3
Stop mourning, start organizing, suing, electing green-only candidates, buying electric cars, installing solar panels, spending every waking hour glorifying life on earth. We can reverse this. It will take an AOC-like President. Sooner rather than later. 2020 can't come fast enough. We need AOC-like leadership in a thousand places.
Become animist. Become animated. Life in its myriad forms is good. Fossil fuels....need to stop. Period. Right now.
4
What is missing in the larger public debate is that climate change is an existential crisis. We are not talking ultimately of 4 degrees Celsius. We are talking of hundreds of degrees. We are talking Venus. No less a mind that Stephen Hawking wrote of this concern before his death.
At a certain point, and no one really knows when this come, climate systems will collapse. No one speaks publicly enough about the trillions of tons of methane trapped in the Arctic sea ice. No one speaks of what continuing massive deforestation will really do.
Its not just cars planes and cows that are contributing to the end anymore. The larger issue is that we unquestionably killing the planet and humanity in the process.
Cixin Liu deserves a lot of credit for writing the kind of Science Fiction novel our world needs right now. Anyone running for President in 2020 ought to be required to read it. He speaks about the profound failure of mankind to care for our home, even as he points to the despair of top intellectuals at even being respected at their word. Indeed, he starts his novel at the start of the Cultural Revolution in China, when intellectuals were murdered in the name of communist ideals.
The short answer: Until we rip the Republican Party down to below its core and rebuild a true partner to the Democrats, we as a world will continue our slide towards the abyss.
1
Humans are a mistake of evolution and will disappear. The earth will then be transformed into a peaceful planet.
@David Kesler
Hawking was not a climate scientist. The likelihood of a Venus Express where our ocean is lost to space is very small due to Earth’s distance from the Sun.
Previous huge global warming events in the past like the PETM and end-Permian event didn’t lead to runaway warming and this one won’t either.
@Erik Frederiksen
Yes...and no
Hawking is taking some rhetorical license here," Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the Pennsylvania State University, told Live Science in an email. "Earth is further away from the sun than Venus and likely cannot experience a runaway greenhouse effect in the same sense as Venus — i.e. a literal boiling away of the oceans. However Hawking's larger point — that we could render the planet largely uninhabitable for human civilization if we do not act to avert dangerous climate change — is certainly valid."
2
I agree with the teenaged Swedish climate justice activist Greta Thunberg that our house is on fire and we need to act swiftly and yes even with some panic. But as someone whose two grandfathers were fire-fighters, I must say that what drove them to run into burning buildings to save children and old people from the flames was not fear but it was courage and it was love.
Love seems like it should be a greater motivator than fear. I love my home so I don't want to foul it for myself or future generations.
So I grow a garden, hang my laundry, buy less, share things, walk and bike instead of drive... It is all meditation on what I love. Prioritizing love for our home and community by our daily actions can be a beautiful way to live, much more beautiful than the consumeristic, dog eat dog, almighty dollar culture that currently dominates.
"Our greatest responsibility is to be good ancestors." - Jonas Salk
4
Any of us fortunate enough to have escaped the brain disease plaguing climate change deniers need to spend a few moments trying to imagine what life on earth could truly look like over the next few years (forget decades).
Consider all the data coming out on biomass loss, acidification of the oceans, drought, wildfires, floods, heatwaves, hurricanes, mudslides...
Consider the lack of political will - and therefore, resources - to handle all of the multiplying threats.
Consider, even, the ability of foreign adversaries to greatly exacerbate these threats by, say, hitting our energy grids with cyber attacks during destructive events, and the fact that the Trump administration seeks to divert money from beefing up cyber defense to pay for his wall.
After you visualize the horrors on the horizon, sit down and talk with friends and family and ask them to do the same. And then start demanding action from your political representatives. And finally, vote for the right candidates in elections.
In the Midwest we need to start planning for the worst now and as a native Midwesterner I think we build our own wall. Projections show that the Midwest will still be pleasantly habitable. However, the south will be nearly uninhabitable and this will wreck economic havoc that will only bring out the worse in its inhabitants as their morals start declining and they begin making more and more bad decisions. Within decades these future thieves, rapists, murderers and drug dealers from Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and elsewhere in the South will start forming caravans and streaming north. This will imperil the Heartland of our great nation. For example, these future illegal immigrants from the South will drive down wages for native Midwesterners and overburden our jails, schools, hospitals and shopping centers. My proposal at this time is modest. We do not need to build the wall at this moment, that would be wasteful, but we can start building cash reserves over the next few decades. Fortunately, we can take advantage of natural barriers such as the Mississippi and Ohio rivers which will hold down costs, although we will need to strengthen our coast guard. In the meantime Illinois, Indiana and other border states can start devising counterfeit proof identity cards for native Heartlanders. And finally, we can start debating the criteria and screening procedures to help determine which petitioners for entry to the Heartland will be worthy contributors to society.
4
@Keitr What do you mean by native? You grew up there? Maybe your grandparents or great-grandparents immigrated there? Unless you are one of the First Peoples on this continent then sorry to burst your bubble, but you're not "native."
Or are you making a "modest proposal" like Jonathan Swift's? In this age of Trump, satire is often hard to distinguish from some people's opinions.
2
The modern GOP has assured all of us thousands and thousands of times over, that there is nothing to worry about.
That climate change is a hoax.
So, either is it, or they are. There is no second option.
Remember that on election day.
3
Mr. Wallace-Wells, it not fear or panic that will force America to do something about climate change. America will do something about climate change when the party of plutocrats, the GOP decides it deserves attention or they become irrelevant.
When the overwhelming majority of citizens, especially scientists warns us about the consequences of global warming and America appears unable, always follow the money. Those plutocrats who benefit from the status quo are the major shareholders of the GOP. Climate change solution will ONLY be implemented in this country, when the GOP becomes a political minority. Take a look at California as an example.
3
Actions such as the Paris Agreement are undeniably ineffective in the face of mostly token global actions. This is further exacerbated by significant instances of the wanton, exponential increase in coal burning emissions that are currently expanding at an alarming rate in the largest offending emitters of such greenhouse gases — India and China. There are many other instances of highly negative polluting activity verses the few notable successes — indicating a one step forward two steps backward trend.
No argument with the assertion that a climate crisis of planetary proportions is real and exponentially worsening in the face of a lack of commensurate alarm and, or measures even marginally adequate to halt what presently presents as an inexorable march towards an unmitigated global catastrophe.
The notion that, ‘We have probably squandered the opportunity to avert two degrees of warming, but we can avert three degrees and certainly all the terrifying suffering that lies beyond that threshold.”
This assertion diminishes the core point of this writer’s appeal for the utility and urgent necessity of embracing a sufficient level of fear for the catastrophic impacts that are already undeniably presenting.
Climate change is a real threat to us and future generations. Majority of us know and realize that.
We also know who stands in the way of corrective measures.
ELIMINATE them.
1
Unfortunately, nothing is going to change. Humans have known about global warming for decades and have basically done very little. We also have a corresponding overpopulation problem that no one wants to talk about. The faster that the human primate becomes extinct, the better for planet earth.
1
I posted a comment earlier re problems with the global temp data set. I have attached a link to the Berkeley Earth data set which is primarily composed of temperature stations that are part of the Global Historical Data Network.
The link directs you to a list of Texas stations. I suggest you look at the longest lived temp stations -- those with over 1000 months and that have reported well into the 21st century.
Please look at particular at the Waxahachie and Cleburne stations. Wax reported for 1315 months; Cleburne has reported for 1209 months -- their reporting virtually overlaps. They are about 40 miles apart, at the same elevation and about 30 miles south of the Dallas FW area. You would think that both stations would show similar temp trends. Not true. Waxahachie shows a temp increase of .6 C per century for their raw data but Cleburne shows a trend of -.08 C per century for raw data.
Now if this was the only locations that conflicted, I would dismiss this as an anomaly. But I've mapped all the long lived stations in Texas with over 1000 months of reporting (there are over 100) and you find this type of conflicting trends for adjacent stations all over the state. And the average for all isn't upward -- the trend is slightly negative.
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/station-list/region/texas
Which doesn't square with NOAA that shows Texas warming.
And I've found this same issue in other areas -- Africa, S. America. Parts of Europe.
@Ralphie Well I have to say, this has been up 3 hours and not a single reply? Does that mean no one wants to go look at the data? Or that people have looked and now question their beliefs about CC?
Greta Thunberg, a 16 year old Swede, has mobilized hundreds of thousands of young people to shout the panic through the world. Let's hope the adults don't treat this young prophet like Cassandra.
3
There's a new tool in our arsenal - declare a national emergency.
2
Can we get some other timelines? Climate is 50, 100, 500000 years. We keep looking at 50 years. There is no historical perspective.
@Scott
Here it goes: by 2026 there will be no complex life on the Earth.
Check climatologist Guy McPherson on YouTube.
Climate Change? Pardon my pessimism, but fear and panic of imminent, instant annihilation by Nuclear Weapons has not led humanity to rid itself of these tools of ultimate destruction. On the contrary, we have expanded, "modernized" and refined these monstrous killers to the point that the "taboo" against their use is vanishing in current visions of "dialed down" nuclear warfare. Given that we have failed to end this always imminent threat over the last 74 years, do we really expect our "leaders" to do what is necessary to end another threat, Climate Change, that is, also right before our eyes?
1
Biggest science hoax in the history of hoaxes. IPCC predictions of warming levels and their effects have been wrong, every time. Their own modeling shows their theory is mistaken. So now they are left trying to sell the only thing they have left. Buy some fear.
2
Robert, a review of most estimates over the last 40 years, from IPCC or other organizations and researchers have actually understated the extent and trajectory of the problem: temperatures have risen faster, more Arctic ice has melted and more disasters have occurred than the overwhelming percentage of scientific studies predicted.
5
If you look at all of the data, it’s clear that the proportion of carbon gases in the has risen due to human activities and global average temperatures have risen accordingly. But believe what you want. Natural forces don’t know nor care what you want to believe.
It was time to panic in 1968 when Paul Ehrlich published the Population Bomb, which predicted that many humans would suffer starvation if population growth continued.
At the time, people said Ehrlich was a crackpot. Why should we stop growth, which was the engine of the economy. And truth be told, growth made many people rich, including landowners who could divide up former farmland into plots for homes and then condos as the population exploded.
And although the starvation occurred it wasn't as bad as predicted, because new technology allowed more intensive farming. Instead of a few cattle here and there sprinkled around the country, there were massive feed lots, providing an ever expanding population with Big Macs at McDonalds, long after they had lost any hope of feeding themselves on individual farms. The institutions of society evolved to handle larger densities.
Even today, Americans believe the fiction that there is no starvation and Ehrlich was just plain wrong. While arguing against income inequality in the US, many Americans will take a trip to India and benefit from the inequality of staying in a fancy hotel as they visit the Taj Mahal while the majority of Indians live in squalor.
World population has doubled since 1970. So future generations will suffer climate change in addition to widespread poverty.
We ignored earlier warnings. Why should we change now? Life will become harder, but people will pretend that growth can continue forever.
3
Advice to Democrats, Progressives, Republicans who haven't let Trump con them into turning off their brains:
Never again say the words "Climate Change" without mentioning in the same breath the word "Jobs."
Repeat after me, "This is a jobs issue."
Millions of local, sustainable jobs.
Worldwide.
Jobs in the next wave of jobs.
The simple, unified, endlessly repeated message on climate change should be this:
The new energy technologies that will create millions of new jobs around the globe, which will help economies in every nation - especially poor ones where migrants come from - are the exact technologies which will solve the climate issue.
Solar panel and storage batteries installed in homes and businesses are all local.
Same with weatherization of millions of structures to make them energy efficient.
Local jobs requiring various skills in countless communities.
Wind turban production.
Electric cars.
All kinds of research.
On and on.
Industries that will flourish with a little push from an intelligent government.
This is a JOBS issue with the happy side effect of keeping our planet clean, livable, safe.
There's a reason the US military has called climate change our number one security danger. Say that every day Congresswoman AOC! Say it!
We solve the problem by creating jobs.
It's the "Green Jobs, Wealth-Creation New Deal."
Jobs in places that need jobs and new wealth - wealth to the little guy!
AOC and everyone else:
Repeat:
JOBS!!
Ya got it?
3
I have a friend. An old man I call Don Poco because he's certain after all his years; incremental change is the law. So he would say sagaciously "poco a poco" which means little by little progress over any endeavor that required persistence an patience.
Really, the greatest game changer is the trauma and suffering of those enduring these changes. We see climate events so extreme that everyone getting their "heads up". Soon the facts will be undeniable simply because we being so overhelmed already we can't can't believe what's happening.
Big Oil is in the way and has been for almost 50 years. I learned about their tactics early on as a products liabilty lawyer suing Shell and other minor high distilliate epoxy solvent manufacturers. Basicly they have keenly aware for a longtime of the effects of the products across the board and if justice might be had through the courts in actions brought by states and governmental entities; BIG OIL WOULD PAY THE DAMAGES.
THe damaged and displaced numbers are snowballing. Movements of entire peoples are forming and we are becoming very afraid. Very soon complacency will be an impossibe position to maintain.
Course, it's already too late even if "civilized" nations did an about-face; third world India, Africa, China, etc. will provide the coup de gras.
Pathetic and humorous: our plans to live elsewhere in this Universe. There will no infrastructure .
Read "The Uninhabitable Earth-Life After Warming" Wallace-Wells & BE AFRAID!
The article says: “Fear can mobilize, even change the world.” So Trump policy should work too.
Suddenly we recall "sayings"!
"What goes around comes around" or "every action has a reaction".
This article makes us look for culprits and actually "the enemy is us".
We look down on dinosaurs with a bit of contempt for their inherent lack of adaptability but, here we are, next on the chopping block.
Walking and chewing gum at the same time, the two-bit version of holding two contradictory thoughts at the same time will not be good enough.
The world is demanding more than that from our intelligence and not just the creation of more technology or the going back toward more theology or ideology.
We can't seem to be able to see beyond our nose, meaning anything longer than a lifetime will always kill us. Look at the gilded age and the robber barons from the 1900's. A hundred years later we are back into it.
The Bible and the Constitution are just not good enough. There may be new iterations that will take us to the next level but things are going to get ugly for a while.
The angry white men on this side of the earth will get very mad when they realized how conned they have been. Hopefully they will turn on the "powerful" rather than on the weak but I do not have much hope from people with limited brain power and fear driving their core instincts!
Education was, is, and will always be the key. But go tell that to lazy minds who do not want to pay taxes and do not mind enslaving themselves to the first "god" they see.
Amid terms like hyperobjects and moral multipliers, lies the bare truth: governments have been blind to comprehensive change as there are as yet no penalties. If every country made a difference it would work, but too many countries do not think rapid action on their part will dent the problem. Hence inertia.
The good news is carbon capture is here today and could be rapidly rolled out to the new polluters in China and India. CCS, or Carbon Capture and Storage, is a low carbon technology which captures carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of coal and gas for power generation, and from the manufacturing of steel, cement and other industrial facilities. The carbon dioxide is then transported by either pipeline or ship, for safe and permanent underground storage, preventing it from entering the atmosphere and contributing to anthropogenic climate change.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) states that CCS could reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by 19%, and that fighting climate change could cost 70% more without CCS.
Write to your congressman and tell him/her to google CCS. Even if this limits the rise to 2C, we have achieved something.
http://www.ccsassociation.org
I had recently rewatched The Day The Earth Stood Still and it caused me to ask people I knew or ran into if they thought humanity might come together as one and take appropriate action to save the earth . No one said yes .
I predict mankind does too little too late. We aren't as intelligent as we think we are.
2
Global warming/climate change demands a Green New Deal. It’s the young who will have to live with catastrophic weather changes, drought, famine, starvation, mass migration, and world war. Why? Because the oil gas, coal Hydrocacarbon industry has allied it self with the Banking and National Defense Industries to maintain their profit centers. Because their vast wealth controls elections. Because their personal greed surpasses their concern for their progeny, country, and the human race.
How can we strip the power of plutocrats? Outlaw plutocracy? Educate plutocrats.
It was plutocrats who engineered and profited from the Great Recession. It’s time for a Panic that unseats them.
249
If you generate a political revolution, there will be no addressing this crisis until after the worst effects of climate change have occurred. This what if thinking instead of addressing the specific problem is not useful.
4
@Joseph Huben
The problem with AOC's green new deal is that is doesn't explicitly endorse nuclear. In fact the talking points talk about getting rid of nuclear power.
While the left if correct that climate change is real and needs to be addressed, they are dead wrong about the solutions. Scientific consensus is that decarbonization without nuclear power is either impossible or makes any scenario much more expensive.
Just as David Wallace-Wells suggests scientists should be less moderate in their warnings about climate change, the same can be said for the solutions: The answer is clear as day- the path to decarbonization is nuclear.
The problem with acknowledging this reality is that since the 1970s environmental groups such as the NRDC, funded by the left, have worked to oppose nuclear power. Even now that we understand the risks of climate change they continue their environmentally destructive campaigns: Recently the NRDC won their lawsuit to close California's one remaining nuclear power plant- Diablo Canyon.
We also have groups like Patagonia partnering with the NRDC to oppose hydro in Chile. Their best reason: They think the transmission lines would be ugly. History will not look well on these organizations.
If there is good news it's that there's opportunity for a compromise. Build the nuclear power plants and both sides get something. The left will get action on climate change, and the right will get a solution that works and doesn't waste resources.
6
@Strphan,
The actual costs of any system used for a long time includes not just design and construction and the costs of producing the deliverables but maintenance and disposal. Nuclear power is clearly the most efficient and cost effective alternative until it comes to disposal. Then the costs become indeterminate because of the centuries long half lives of radioactive isotopes. The danger of having these materials circulating through the environment is known to be highly destructive to living things. Thus the materials must be sequestered for up to hundreds of centuries. Those costs make nuclear power a poor alternative.
35
The Earth's population has TRIPLED since my birth in the 1950s. Even if everyone is conservative in their use of energy this kind of exponential population growth is going to smother our grandchildren's generation.
3
Stop having children. My adult daughters have made this decision and I support it. Fewer humans, fewer human consumers, might make a difference.
3
The NYT published an article in 1988 about Dr. Hansen's findings.
Sea level rise — over 6 feet.
Northern latitude temperatures increasing by 20º.
Both of which should be virtually a done deal by now.
Well, except for absolutely not.
If Climate Science was, in fact, a science, the epic failure of these predictions would matter. Yet, instead of coming to terms with that, we are just faced with even more hysteria.
Or propaganda. Take your pick.
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html
3
Your article doesn’t matter. Our fear doesn’t matter.
Look at the science and look at the trends in CO2.
It is too late.
Pity the newborn.
3
Fear is the great motivator.
@American Patriot - I would rather see humankind die out entirely than export our stupidity and our greed and our arrogance to other planets. We deserve the same ugly fate we are inflicting on this planet and all of the other lifeforms we share it with.
But I am sure we will try to save ourselves and mount a last minute effort to flee the destruction we've caused. The irony is that the cost and the effort involved in colonizing space will be thousands of times greater than the cost and effort that would be needed to take the actions necessary to save our own planet.
2
"On the age of extinction, only love remains"
- Guy McPherson
Climate changes is essentially about greed and capitalism run amuck. Its about the values of American independence and individual freedoms. These values were understandable in the beginning, but are now outdated and loathsome. I agree with the other posts that suggest 'supporting a country that works for all and begins the development of a green economy.' But, this requires a paradigm shift of enormous magnitude, vision, and qualified leaders.
What may be essential now is to begin by getting the dark money out of politics. Recently I listened to my co-called Senator, Barrasso rail on, and the lethal Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney claimed Tuesday that the Green New Deal seeks to “outlaw” airplanes, cars, gasoline and “probably the entire U.S. military.” They both are funded by oil and gas money.
2
Notice that little or nothing is said about the real problem: overpopulation. And overpopulation in the third world where people regularly drive cars without emission controls, heat their homes with wood or charcoal from shrinking forests, and cook with kerosene or cooking oils, all of which pollute at very high levels. But what is being done about rampant procreation in the third world? Nothing. It is too politically incorrect to pin the blame where it really belongs.
1
We'll know we've hit peak GOP will be when the Republicans convert - en masse - from "there's no such thing as climate change! it's all a hoax!" to "we must make America an impregnable fortress of walls and guns! climate change is real - and only the strong will survive!"
1
A completely unorthodox solution: Take climate change out of the hands of progressives, who are prone to hysteria and utopian thinking, and put it in the hands of realistic, sober eyed Americans. At this point, capitalism may be a more productive avenue than the non-starter "World is ending as we know it!" hysteria that exists today.
1
"Due to his great experience, I believe this fox is the most qualified possible guard for our henhouse."
4
“Climate change is so big we can barely care about it.”
As for concrete proposals, here’s one that’s at the very top of the list, developed by one of the greatest visionaries in climate science, Dr. Alexander “Sandy” McDonald, former Director of NOAA’s Earth Sciences Research Laboratory in Boulder, CO.
Think of climate change *just* as a national-security imperative—that ought to get Republicans’ attention. Here’s a little background on the issue:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2968/064002007
One of the most distressing absences from the GND “plan” is that it doesn’t say a thing about electric-grid security. Say what? In a nutshell, if North Korea (e.g.) really wants to take out the US, by far the easiest way is to detonate a high-altitude nuke over Kansas and destroy our grid—look up “Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse” on Wikipedia for clarification.
Do this is mid-January and just wait for half the country to freeze to death: Advantage, Kim Jong-Un.
The solution? A high-voltage DC transmission network criss-crossing the US—look up “High Voltage DC.”
We need it anyway, but what’s the GND connection? HVDC is an enabling technology to transmit power—green or otherwise—from where it’s generated to where it’s needed. Wind and solar power are the big winners. It’s all spelled out in Sandy McDonald’s proposal:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/images/u33/Macdonald_space weather 27apr16 v0.pdf
Birth control measures were needed to stop the explosive breeding since the 1960s. Everyone knew this then. No one did anything. And here we are with DOUBLE the human population: 7.6 billion useless humans destroying the planet and all other species along with us.
1
Shame on us for leaving such a catastrophic future for our children and children's children.
Get ready for mass migration from southern climes. No wall will stop it.
1
In World War Two, which I remember well, the entire nation was mobilized, from top to bottom, for victory, which in 1942 seemed at best a 50/50 proposition. Sacrifice, and that was the word used, became mandatory, universal, and believe it or not, glamourous and fashionable. We had rationing of sugar, butter, and many other consumables which were actually not really in short supply. It was promoted by people who believed it helped our boys and scared Hitler; it was concocted by people who knew it only psychologically necessary, but who realized that mobilization required constant reminders and creating "high morale." In other words, our leaders practiced a sort of noble denial to achieve sincere ends. And advertising and Disney were on board.
One great pep rally, 24/7 from sea to shining sea. It worked.
Now, paradoxically, we must mobilize against an existential nightmare that is real and impending. No need to invent or lie or exaggerate. But now we have a small global cadre of those who know too much, surrounded by grow- up children who want bright toys and larger hordes of the desperate and the ignorant. Impossible perhaps to get them worried about a great probability next month when they are not sure they will make it through the night.
So what is the great altruistic denial/delusion combo the world needs to at least try against such a dreadful relentless machine of annihilation that we have created for ourselves?
'Tis a puzzlement.
4
Over history species come and go. We will go and then carbon overproduction will fall.
2
For heavens sake, the reason we don't see panic in the general populace of the World is easy, the average person living in abject poverty, (about 3 billion persons) cannot do anything about atmospheric CO2 and in fact if given a chance to enjoy the benefits of energy use, would gladly burn more fossil fuels, even if they believed the nonsense in this article. Second those educated, fairly well off person in the first World economies, (about 2 billion persons) know that society has overcome far worse than is being portrayed in this article. For over 150 years the Worlds food production has on average, increased 14% annually. Human creativity finds ways to cope with change and of course will again. Only wealthy societies clean up after themselves, poor societies never do. Energy use is directly tied to economic well being, higher use per capita energy use leads to higher per capita GDP, period. Energy use will continue to increase for the benefit of the poorest among us, it is our job to find mitigating strategies to offset the impacts of warming if they do indeed reach the levels indicated in this article. Of course we will, no question about it.
Fear will indeed do it, but it has to be real, compelling, fire down your neck compelling. Except to a few unfortunate souls, it isn't that urgent yet. (And they are unable to grasp that excessive greenhouse gases generated now are not reversible.)
A Midwest water conservation engineer recently pointed out to me that is it is easy to convince people that a river has run dry or that a reservoir is empty, but they won't believe that underground aquifers are being depleted at an alarming rate. Moreover, they will continue not to believe it until there is no water at all coming out of the water taps. Then they will ask why "they" didn't do anything before, even though they elected moronic representatives who told them that global warming and climate change were a "hoax generated by the Chinese."
346
Exxon KNEW in 1977 that their products would destroy the earth, but by the mid-1980s they had decided they would rather have money than a planet.
3
@William: People decided to populate the Earth beyond sustainability with the available technology.
2
I believe in science. My wife and I are 60+ and childless. We live on a street with mostly liberal Democrats, including several who planted We Believe in Science posters when Trump was elected. Whoopee for me, I bought a hybrid to replace my old car a few months ago. I see my neighbors with kids and grandchildren driving massive vans and SUVs. A few of them walk 10 minutes or more to do various errands. Most of them drive everywhere. A lot of them turn on their cars on cold mornings and let them run 10-15 minutes to warm up and defrost the windshield.
My wife and I have respiratory issues that aren't cured by ripping out carpets, running air cleaners, using unscented products, etc. We run the air conditioner most of the time in the warmer months. I didn't describe my neighbors' actions to rat them out or make me seem better. I think part of every problem is the human nature to say, if they're not going to tighten their belts, why should I? If I saw my neighbors buying a fleet of Priuses they can share, running car pools, walking back from the supermarket, etc., I would be more tempted to reduce our air conditioner use and walk more (which would be good for me anyway).
Food for thought? I sure don't know the answer. Off topic, Jimmy Carter was ridiculed for a lot of things, but he was prescient. I remember a summer job in the federal government in '78 where half the light bulbs in the hallway were turned off and the thermostat was in the high 70's.
2
@Carl: Jimmy Carter was the only US president with a physics education.
3
maybe people are unwilling to "spend" money to "fight" or "combat" climate change because the correct response, not often discussed but obvious, is to cease consumption. Not purchasing a car beats any low mileage or electric tool. Not flying beats the bus. Not building in the South and Southwest and shifting population to air-conditioning dependent zones with zero water means surviving, maybe, but also economic collapse. that's the choice no politician in a democracy is going to make.
Almost all articles on global warming never mention what I believe to be the central problem regarding the destruction of our planet. It is: there are too many people. Our species, and the way it treats the planet as a dumpster, has already exceeded earth's carrying capacity. Think of any environmental problem and it can be helped/solved by reducing the human population to 1/10000 of the current numbers. If it is an existential threat (and it is), governments need to step forward to figure out how to do this - they eventually will anyway - better now than before earth resembles the surface of Mars.
2
@Rachael
I don’t think there’s enough information out there for people to make decisions around sustainability. If you do some research you realize how much money you can save, and how much time you get when you live more sustainably.
Bret Stephens raises several good points regarding the New Green Deal and climate change, as does Ross Douthat's insightful Feb 9 column "One Cheer for the Green New Deal".
The hard science, however, predicts unavoidable catastrophic effects of certain climate change if we do not embark on a major, likely disruptive and expensive campaign to mitigate them now. Climate change is an evolutionary earth process but is growing at a historically alarming rate because while we've been aware of its magnitude for over 40 years, we've been quibbling among ourselves, wasting our time and resources while fighting between true believers and non-believers.
The latest data suggests that Stephens and Douthat probably are correct in asserting that by now our only pragmatic approach is to mitigate the impact of global warming; the window for containing it to acceptable impacts before the end of the 21st century likely has closed.
Already, coastal cities, particularly in South Florida, have been dealing with lowland flooding due to rapidly rising sea levels caused by massive polar ice cap losses. Our West Coast has contended with extensive draughts and wildfires which until now primarily had been seasonal. Occasional extreme weather events in our interior and along our coasts now are becoming the norm.
We need to act without further delay, and the New Green Deal serves as a prescient if perhaps extreme alarm. We're left with little choice other than to work together to minimize its impact.
1
Knowledge enables us to address problems with which we have not previously experienced. Trivializing or denying threats to our established way of living may seem just avoiding panic or overreaction as many who deny climate change think. But facing severe and rapidly worsening conditions unprepared is the worst thing that can happen. Panic and anarchy and violent suppression can be expected to dominate human responses to the crises.
That humans can predict the results of processes which they can describe with great precision is the reason people can act to address global climate change. If anyone has studied the sciences with laboratory work, one learns how our understanding from what we learn about natural forces with our marvelous imaginations enables us to accurately anticipate things which we have not yet experienced.
With understanding and well considered plans to address our challenges we can increase the likelihood of manageable adaptions to the changes ahead. But continuing to deny what our reason tells us is true, that will assure that as the inevitable progress of extreme conditions persist fear will dominate and we will make it worse for ourselves..
It's not enough to say "it's time to panic", and back this claim with statistics and photos.
The "true believers" in global warming already know this, and tend to be activists, and less frequently, politicians.
But to affect change in the non-believers or the complacent takes grassroots outreach to local citizens, worldwide. This takes some dynamism and organization.
People often want to help, but don't know how.
Organizers can first, teach them about how each person can lower their carbon footprint, be it by using cloth shopping bags and clean-up rags at home, buying products in glass containers, giving up beef, biking, taking a bus or train to work. If they can afford it, buy electric vehicles and install solar panels or roof wind turbines.
Many will say they can't afford these things, and that's where government comes in. We've been trapped with a fossil fuel loving, climate change denying administration.
But with the House now Democratic, and some state legislatures, people can now push (via petition, direct testimony, letter) for government incentives to reduce the cost of home solar and wind systems, and electric cars.
The oil-rich Hoch brothers have gone city-to-city, dismantling plans for electric trains and buses. They must be stopped.
Funds can be made available for start-up green businesses--like, glass and cardboard packaging producers, home solar and wind installers.
Change and pressure starts at the grassroots level before electeds act
1
It is never a good idea to panic - trying to solve problems with intelligence and discipline is the way to create a well thought out long term plan. Panic is similar to entropy, which causes disorganization, breakdown and death. That is not how the human race progressed, and will not serve us well now.
2
"Last fall, voters in Washington, a green state in a blue-wave election, rejected even a modest carbon-tax plan. Are those people unwilling to pay that money because they think the game is over or because they don’t think it’s necessary yet?"
As a resident of WA I really take issue with this statement. The opponents of Initiative 631 raised over $31.5 million for the sole purpose of defeating this initiative. Guess where the money came from. The fossil fuel industry, mostly from outside of WA State. BP Industries, $12 million, Koch Industries, $995,000, and dozens of others including Chevron, Phillips 66, American Fuel and Petrochemical Industries. With the amount of funds at their disposal, the "no" campaign where able to spread their false assertions 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
WA is a green state, and the legislature is in the hands of Democrats once again. I anticipate that a legislative solution to the climate crisis will be forthcoming. These are representatives that will stand up for the people of this nation, not oil companies standing up only for profits.
3
Few of the comments here get close to the taboo subject of uncontrolled human population growth. It's politically dangerous territory, but is intimately related to every facet of our climate and to the environment of every living thing on earth. Simply put, there are too many of us. And what we have in numbers actually makes us less able to manage our world.
We are going through one of the great extinction events in the history of life on earth -- and it will eventually take us out along with the collateral damage being done to the rest of life. The "success" of a single species has often resulted in a general disaster -- it's a self limiting law of evolution and we are not immune to it simply because we have temporarily developed larger brains than some other species. Ironically it is our larger brains that have doomed us. We are an interesting evolutionary experiment that has failed.
I have no idea if there is anything we can do to avoid the catastrophe, but perhaps out of a love of God and reverence for her creation we can take a few steps to insure that a few other species do survive the implosion.
3
@Daniel Knutson
Hmmmm, Daniel, I must have missed class the day they taught about the "success of a single species resulting in general disaster". When was that? What was this super species that wiped out the other competing species? Are you going to tell us it is human beings, if so we have to wait for that story to unfold because no person, none, is able to forecast the future for human beings.
The one pure data set we have, i.e. a clear uptick in CO2 PPM from Mauna Loa, combined with the role of CO2 as one of, maybe the most important (maybe not-depends on more data to come on Sunspots and changes in the Sun) DOES make a prima facie case to invest heavily in energy storage and start to decarbonize in a measured way that does not justify redistribution of wealth or other socialist goals.
So there's that. Suggestions that would enable an electoral college majority to get behind reasonable steps:
1. stop assuming without causation data that recent destructive events are caused by AGW, i.e.
a. there has been no increase in the occurrence of hurricanes and a couple of recent severe ones may or may not have anything to do with AGW;
b. there is no data that oceans are rising more rapidly than they have over hundreds of years;
c. California events, which come in the middle to end of a widely-forecasted 2-yr drought, may or may not be materially affected by AGW!
d. satellite warming data has a longer period of reliable reporting than manipulated buoy temps and does not show the same increases in global atmospheric temperature;
2. Explain where the $ will come from to "require" cattle to be fed seaweed and harvest enough seaweed and get it into edible form and transport it to the cattle; and
3. Tell us how to get thru the U.S. Senate any change that destroys the Midwest economy containing millions of acres of corn.
@SonomaEastSide
You made a number of factually incorrect statements. As projected the Earth is warming rapidly, ice is melting and sea level rise is accelerating.
2
Given that observations continue to show impacts arriving sooner and with greater amplitude than expected, it may be that “exaggerations” will prove the most accurate.
1
If you want to change your lifestyle to reduce your carbon footprint, have at it. But hectoring others to do the same is counterproductive.
We are mostly the "economic man" of economics texts. We tend, strongly, to do what is best for us individually in the short run, driven by whatever knowledge of lack of knowledge we have plus the full range of human emotions, wants and desires.
And individual effort in the face of such a large problem is, essentially, meaningless. WWII is mentioned as an analog to climate change in this article. Imagine the results in that conflict if we'd eschewed collective action and relied solely on individual effort to fight the axis powers.
The solution here lies in collective effort. That will be easier for people to swallow if they're not told, repeatedly, what they must give up or not do to correct their incorrect lifestyle.
We have the president we have largely as a backlash to this sort of behavior. Imagine if things were somehow reversed, and science told us that the lifestyle choices of urban elites were a significant problem and the solution was for those folks to buy and drive F-150s, eat more red meat and go back to coal-fired furnaces. Those elites would resent that treatment and fight against it in all kinds of irrational ways.
We need to focus less on what individuals choose to do in their own very personal lives, and work on strategies that help us do the right things collectively, even while going the wrong way individually.
@Terry
I changed my lifestyle and I LOVE IT. I work from home I’m saving crazy money not commuting every day. I don’t need a new car or expensive things because I don’t commute.
Not to mention all the time I save! Because I have so much free time I can cook real food. Go for walks. Engage in constructive hobbies. Love my garden. My home is nicer. My quality of life is better. I still play video games!
Living more sustainably is NICE. It’s a win-win. I feel sorry for those who don’t have the free time I do because they are slaves to their car, commute, and their jobs.
3
@Terry
This article acknowledged that we need political changes and that individual action cannot have the effect that laws mandating for example mileage standards would have. On the other hand there is a right and wrong here. The motto that NY has adopted is reduce, reuse, and recycle. That you cite people rebelling against being told what is the right thing for us collectively, for example recycling, is a result of decades of principally conservative media criticizing government and simultaneously promoting selfishness. There were many slogans that were adopted during WWII relating to patriotism. We should do the same now relating to climate change. The stakes are just as high.
1
@Studioroom perfectly said! My life (and it's joys) are an exact copy of everything you wrote. I'll just add that my stress level has been lowered as well.
Here is how we slow global warming. First, we need to impose a worldwide one child policy. This may sound radical, but one of the biggest issues we face is overpopulation. If we could rapidly cut back greatly on fossil fuels we could also do a lot of good. But eventually we need to face the reality; WE CANNOT STOP CLIMATE CHANGE. We can slow it down, but we can't stop it. After much research, I am betting in space colonization as our best bet in the long run. We should severely increase all space colony funding and expand our presence far beyond Earth.
2
How many of us would support a law requiring every car to have a minimum of two passengers every time it is driven?
1
I would. It’s shocking to me, living in Boulder, a city where environmentalism is a core part of the population’s identity, how few people are actually willing to get out of their car (or, more likely, giant luxury SUV). For those who are willing, it’s primarily a rich white man’s bicycle culture or an Uber alternative, with little or no interest in creating a safe pedestrian-friendly infrastructure or a state-of-the-art public transit system. We need to integrate all the parts of the system that moves people around and make solo driving the least attractive option instead of the default.
2
Does anyone remember the TV movie The Day After? It came out in the early '80's when I was in college. It told the story of a family surviving after nuclear war. I remember one scene quite well. In the days before the nuclear attack the family was preparing for an upcoming wedding. The day of the attack the mom was cleaning and frantically preparing for guests while the dad was watching the news. Just before the bombs struck the dad was pulling the mom from a bedroom and dragging her into the basement. She cried out that guests were coming and she had to finish making the beds.
I think that is where we are now with climate change. Some of us are making up the beds and some are preparing for survival. Those making beds are denying and obstructing: the Earth has experienced climatic changes before, the scientists are in the hands of green globalists, the real problem is population growth, yeah, but what about China?
It is time for us to respond to the threat of climate change like that dad doing his best to prepare for life after a nuclear attack. We can do this. With will and determination, we can think and innovate our way out of danger. Of that I am convinced- but, we must stop making our beds and realize the early distant warning has sounded.
2
The Marshall Plan, the Green Dream - don't care what you call it. But it has to be done with breathtaking changes to the American lifestyle.
1
It took the disruption of a normal climate to bring into question the lauded notion of human progress. The usual history ignores those developments which now govern our fate. Our modern civilization, we now know, was promoted by replacing into the atmosphere the vast carbon that was geologically sequestered. The question of what would be the effect of placing all that carbon back into the air was conveniently ignored, because it's a discussion that, if taken seriously, might interfere with where we are headed: Unimpeded population and economic growth (hence, denialism). In the way we lauded the blessings of abundant fossil energy, we lauded the parallel advances brought by capitalism, which has distorted social relations in the way overuse of fossil fuels has distorted the climate.
We call indigenous peoples primitive because they didn't embark on the industrial course were on. I read recently that there are records of 19th century native Americans predicting that in the way European immigrants were decimating the indigenous peoples, they would eventually do the same to the planet.
1
Unless you support nuclear energy you are not serious about dealing with climate change. It can be done safely, France has been doing so for decades, reprocessing something like 90% of their spent fuel and locating facilities in safe areas. But the environmental movement has demonized nuclear to the detriment of the planet. Wind and solar aren't going to get it done. Hydro power has it's own problems. I suspect 90% of the people reading this article are opposed to nuclear power. You need to reassess that view or accept rapid global warming of the planet. You are part of the problem!
6
David asks: "how can we be this deluded?" I would argue it is a biological problem. Unfortunately, evolution does not favor holistic perceptions of reality because natural selection depends on optimizing survival fitness in the present moment, shaping our sensory systems toward adaptive behavior and not truthful representation; hence our short-term needs negate the cost of long term consequences. In the simplest of bio-evolutionary terms, the sole rationale for our very existence is to stay alive long enough to pass on genetic code, thus favoring those who are best adapted to their environment in what has now become the ultimate human survival paradox: as the primal aggressive mentality that drives the socio-economic world continues to spread, effectively destroying the natural balance of the earth's ecosystem and imperiling our own survival, our unconscious, short-term biological response is to adapt to the death spiral of environmental destruction we are responsible for creating. Oops.
1
Doing something about climate change would require that people in the fossil fuels industry - and their political allies - make less money.
They can’t allow that to happen.
2
The notion that all the people and all the nations of the world can somehow come together in some vaguely Utopian sense to “fight climate change” in a manner that can actually make a difference (assuming the enormity of the alleged threat) is a huge chimera that could never be achieved, and the impossibility of achieving it should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of critical thinking ability, not to mention common sense.
It’s not just that the desired solution is impossible, it’s that the very notion that it MIGHT be possible borders on insanity. Which tells me that those trying so hard to convince the world that we desperately need to “do something before it’s too late” are not only wrong, but far worse: they are arguing in bad faith. Because they HAVE to know, and have to have always known, that such efforts would be an exercise in futility.
1
It's long past time we began to seriously address Global Warming/ Climate Change. Let's talk a ten-year plan to move completely away from fossil fuels.
(Instead of declaring a national emergency at the border, Trump should declare a Global Warming National Emergency and use the 5bn as a downpayment on conversion to solar.)
We went to the moon, so we have the technical prowess to do this. But the problem isn't technical, it's political. The electorate needs to elect representations willing to get the job done. As global warming effects become more and more apparent to the electorate, candidates will respond.
One can only hope that it's not too late, however, as the earth responds to increased carbon in the atmosphere in a NON-LINEAR fashion. Which is to say, we don't have until 2050 for some plan to kick in. By then, it will be too late for homo-sapiens and we will be on the road to extinction.
2
DDT is an unfortunate example. It is not at all clear that the net effect of the ban (after taking into account substitutes) was positive, and if the international DDT ban had actually been enforced, the resulting additional malaria deaths would have made the net glaringly negative.
1
For those of us that think it is too late, a couple positive thoughts.
According to David Quammen, a nature/science writer, the Earth will repopulate with new species after 2 million years.
Also, the sooner our civilization collapses, the more diversity islands will survive for other species to repopulate.
3
Homo Sapiens evolved under conditions of extensive Ice Ages broken by short interglacials. We are and have been living through the latest interglacial for the last ~13K years. We are presently embarked upon a climate trip to a place the human race has never evolved in. It is as if we collectively boarded space ships to another climate planet. Not "as if" - that is precisely what we are doing at present.
5
It will take a major disaster to wake us up to this looming catastrophe. The League of Nations was created out of the horrendous carnage of WWI; the United Nations out of the even more extensive horrors of WWII.
I fear it will take a devastating cataclysm of similar proportions in terms of suffering for the world to come together and formulate a solution - and act on it.
Meanwhile, like Nero fiddling as Rome burned, the most powerful man in the world continues to deny the very existence of climate change.
2
Our governments subsidize fossil fuel extraction and combustion. We do not have political systems that price the true cost on putting GHG into the atmosphere.
We're not yet at the point where the extent of the existential crisis is so obvious as to force that change.
Given how quickly weather is changing and the rate of extinction of insect and other life, I suspect it will be too late for most of humanity, when that inflection point hits.
By the time such changes will be forced, the zone of habitability and where food can be grown will sharply constrain how many human beings can be supported.
2
Thank you, Mr. Wallace-Wells.
Total emissions = emissions per person x number of people.
If we don't reduce emissions per person, we have to reduce the number of people.
And if we don't reduce emissions per person or the number of people, the climate will reduce the number of people for us, only not so gently.
Among the easiest, lowest-cost opportunities we've squandered is slowing population growth by having fewer children. But it still matters. The world population grows over 220,000 people per day. https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/faq
5
From the article:
"That is the purpose of politics: that we can be and do better together than we might manage as individuals."
Replace the word "politics" with "government" and the meaning becomes clearer still. Yes, we individuals need government and government is comprised of us. We individuals are like the cells in a great body. For the body to live, we have to care about the good of the whole, not just ourselves.
3
Is climate change at the top of your agenda?
If it is, are you donating a proportionate share of your charitable contributions to nonprofits that are working to accelerate our transition to a zero-carbon economy?
If it is, are you giving a proportionate share of your political contributions to organizations/politicians that are lobbying/working for measures to address climate change?
If it is, are you investing a proportionate share of your savings in climate action funds that support businesses that are working on climate change solutions?
If it is, in summary, then make it the top priority for your money.
3
Entertaining piece. Orson Welles already did this 1938.
7
@Alice's Restaurant
Welles’ version was fiction. This one isn’t.
1
The carbon cycle for the last 2 million years was doing 180-280ppm atmospheric CO2 over 10,000 years and we’ve done more change than that in 100 years.
Paleoclimate records indicate that mass extinctions followed much slower increases in atmospheric CO2. The end-Permian event turned Earth into basically a lifeless rock for millions of years.
4
We had two scientist friends the other night for dinner. Climate change came up. There is apparently nothing we can do at this point. Feedback mechanisms have kicked in, we are looking at mass species dieoff the likes of which the public does not comprehend, etc. I suppose it is a great honor to be alive in this epochal moment. Let's enjoy the ride, and be kind to one another.
12
Of course, I didn't mean "for dinner," I meant "over for dinner!" Things aren't that bad. Yet.
1
I remember cartoons making fun of dooms day people saying ""The end of the world is at hand." We don't see cartoons like that now because the end of the world IS at hand.
3
I now live in VT and I followed the fight against the nuclear reactor in SE Vermont. All the while the do-gooders were forcing the reactor to close it was obvious that the plan to replace its power was natural gas. The do-gooders explained that it was much better as it only put 1/4 of the CO2 into the air. I can understand that argument, when CH3 burns you get 3 water molecules of H2O and only 1 CO2 but I don't think it considers the latent energy of the reactions and I no longer can remember them. Now I see they have come to realize that natural gas won't do it so the hills are sprouting solar farms They still face the problem that the sun is only on us in the daytime but we use power to light and live during the nighttime.
But all that said there was sno stopping the do-gooders and even if that ancient engineering degree told me we had to have a full solution and it was not fracking the Marcelus shale deposit or covering the planet with rare earth based solar cells that position was drowned out by the anti-nuclear mob. I certainly was left with the feeling there was nothing a thoughful person could do but die of old age before the real warming struck.
6
The best way to deal with panic is to take effective action. The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, now submitted to the House and Senate, gives us a chance to do just that. Charging an escalating fee on the extraction or importation of carbon and returning the fees to collected to Americans in the form of a monthly dividend will reduce greenhouse gas production, add jobs, and stimulate innovation in generation and conservation of energy. The Act's provisions have bipartisan support and are endorsed by 27 Nobel Laureates in Economics and by every former Chair of the Fed and Council of Economic Advisers (WSJ Jan 17, 2019). It's past time to take action, so let's take this one, a thoughtful effective bill ready to go.
1
The time to panic was 50 years ago. And the other problem is that most people over 50 (and especially politicians) know they'll be gone by the time climate change's effects become irreversible. So nothing significant gets done. Our children and grandchildren, however, will die agonizing deaths.
5
We have the means to turn this around and fix things, but we don't have the ability to pick the right leaders. The way we pick leaders or let our leaders get picked for us is the defining weakness of our civilization.
With a combination of modern birth control and green technology, we'd have a fighting chance, especially as the green technology improves. We still have to figure out how to have an economy that works for everyone even as it remains static or shrinks in the face of declining population. And we have to endure the inevitable geezer glut that comes with decreasing population, without simply importing more people from places that do not decrease their population.
This would require real leadership, which we do not have.
6
Very sad to say that I see no hope. Governments around the world are becoming more dysfunctional. Population increases unabated. And the best response we've been able to muster - the Paris Accord - is woefully inadequate, and not even being met. There is no reason to believe that people will get any smarter.
6
Here's just one example of the problem: Arizona, the sunniest state in our country, has just 2-5% solar power use according to an article I read recently. How crazy is that? Still, not as crazy as the irresponsible man-child in the White House encouraging and enabling climate science deniers and installing them in his cabinet to more speedily deteriorate our long term survival for short term profits.
There is no immigration border crisis. Climate change is a worldwide crisis that transcends borders and doesn't stop at checkpoints. That Trump is still in office proves that America has not yet reached a critical mass of understanding, caring or both. (He certainly hasn't.) This excellent article may help, but more likely its message will be swept away by the next ooh-ain't-it-awful news cycle.
6
Charting a successful course to avoid the climate change threat requires a realistic understanding of not only the technological boundary conditions but the real global social, and economic/financial constraints that apply.
This author's hyperventilation and promotion of panic is unhelpful. If we are going to chart a successful course, it will be though sharply focused, expert analysis of what is possible on this enormously complex problems. And it must start with realism about where the problem lays.
This article clearly is aimed at what "consumer- culture" Americans must do and makes but passing mention that international participation is necessary.
The biggest problem is that the US produces but 14% of world carbon emissions, a proportion that is declining as China and the rest of the developing world prioritize their catching up economically with the developed world rather them being willing to make great sacrifices today necessary to solve the climate change problem.
An honest assessment of the changes being advocated is that it would wreak havoc with the US economy. But it is said that it would be worth it if it saves mankind. However, unless the rest of the world joined the US, heroic efforts by the US would hardly make a difference, making the US economic martyrs, crippling us to the advantage of other countries.
This author ducks the real problem--it will be the response of developing world that will make the difference as to our planet's future.
1
Thanks David,
As for panic, not the best approach for producing optimal results. It is time to get cold-blooded and clear eyed about our clear and present danger, which is hampered not by creeping Socialism but by creepy anti-Socialists.
Though it will take decades for us to re-wire the grid and transport systems, it will happen. Resistance is feudal. However, if we, that is the government (perhaps you've heard -- We The People -- it's our government, so love it or leave it) would like to lend a hand, then a Carbon Tax is the single most beneficial way to do so. The Price of C in China will probably do more than anything else to stem the ocean's rise, but there are a few things we civilians can do while we watch the CO2 climb come to a halt. Buy an EV. Multiple sources of domestic energy are a better way to go, even if the cost per mile weren't substantially less, and even if the 20 moving parts are certain to outlive and outperform the 2000 moving parts in your current ride. Then, of course, it is better to buy a single PV panel than to curse the oil patch.
Keep calm and carry yuan, since that is where the solution will come from. We Americans have lost our wits, somewhere between the punch bowl and the safe.
The author correctly states the obvious- Most Americans are unwilling as individuals to promote positive change for the common good. I can't blame anyone for this perspective. The author suggests that governments must force change onto the populace. While there's not question that's the most expedient way to improve the situation, it's politically simply not feasible. Even left leaning Americans don't trust the competence of their government.
I haven't waited for my gov't- it's been relatively easy to reduce my hh carbon by >50% by simply upgrading insulation, purchasing community solar, installing a heat pump and buying a plug in hybrid. All of these investments earn more than bonds and carry much less risk than stocks. It takes capital to so these things, but when a Prius costs 5K less than the average car people obviously can afford to make at least some changes.
The main problem with a "carbon tax" is that most of us are pretty sure that the taxing authority, at whatever level,will not spend the money to improve the climate. Like tobacco taxes they will see it as a windfall and spend it on whatever---so we will end up with very high priced energy, much higher taxes generally, and nothing to better our lives at all.
2
@Bill Clayton The purpose of a carbon tax is not to raise money to spend on climate improvement. The purpose is to discourage CO2 emission. It doesn't really matter what you spend it on.
1
@Bill Clayton: At least we now have smoke-free offices and workplaces.
No mention of the carbon dividend?
I just want the wealthy to stop pretending like this isn’t their problem.
The rich got us into this mess and the rest of us can’t afford to get us out. Any solutions for climate change that involve taxing anyone but the 1% will meet popular resistance.
7
@Studioroom: The wealthy are the problem. The richer one is, the more compelled one is by culture to do things that consume a great deal of energy.
1
This is scary stuff and I agree that politics has to be "the moral multiplier." Individual actions are not going to be enough--political action is needed nationwide and worldwide in the immediate future. There is currently a very smart bipartisan bill in the House (H.R. 763 The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act) that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% in the 1st 12 years and targets 90% by 2050 while also creating new jobs--get involved at www.citizensclimatelobby.org .
8
The premise that cutting carbon emissions will stop the earth from heating up even more is that there will be less heat trapping gasses in the atmosphere. However this premise assumes that heat trapping gasses clear out pretty quickly. However the fact is this is not at all the case.
According to NASA; So far, land plants and the ocean have taken up about 55 percent of the extra carbon people have put into the atmosphere while about 45 percent has stayed in the atmosphere. Eventually, the land and oceans will take up most of the extra carbon dioxide, but as much as 20 percent may remain in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle
So 45% of the carbon released since the industrial revolution is still up there. So if we cut emissions by 50% the only difference this will make is that it will take 20 years to increase the amount of heat trapping gasses that without any cuts would have accumulated in 10 years. Now matter how much we cut sooner or later it will only serve to delay the inevitable.
In addition we do not know how long the trapped heat keeps heating earth. The reason earth keeps getting hotter is also because each year more heat gets trapped so even if the heat trapping gasses do not get thicker, with each passing year more heat will get trapped, which will cause earth to heat up even more.
So it makes no sense to spend trillions without at all knowing whether doing so will make a difference.
1
@Michael Stavsen I recall as a kid overhearing adults faced with the bewildering, ask, "Well, isn't there a spray?" Sure enough, the entrepreneurial response is to start spraying stuff into the stratosphere. You seem to get it how much of this is unpredictable. Humans dubbed themselves God's envoy on earth. Aren't we continuously augmenting the faith that nothing is beyond our capabilities?
What most people will find difficult to grasp is that large complex systems like the weather that seem to have a stable range of states can actually change radically through the accumulation of many small changes working together. This makes it very difficult for many people to believe that a 4 degree rise in temperature would make any significant difference in their lives. Unless you are a scientist or at least highly technical it is difficult to see the big picture effects from scientific discussions on the difference between a 2 degree change and a 4 degree change in average temperature. While it may seem strange or simplistic, one thing that I think might help is if the entertainment industry created more climate change disaster movies based on sound science about what could happened. I am talking about movies like the “Day After Tomorrow” but with more science behind it. They should include scenarios that would result from the political instability like famine, mass migration and conflict zones with marauding military groups. If well done and followed up with a social media information campaign it could really help the average person understand the dangers we face and the urgency for action.
10
The fundamental problem is overpopulation. More people on the planet with expectations of a more comfortable life, based on easy availability of transportation, food and appliances.
Over population is draining aquifers that supply water for our food and converting more and more land away from farming for housing, commercial and industrial use.
More population results in more energy use from easily available fossil fuels. Fossil fuel usage had led to the warming climate which threatens food production, destruction of vegetation, and the need for air conditioning to make human life more accommodating in hot climates.
Medical research is constantly working to extend human lifetimes by fighting diseases but increased lifetimes results in more demand for resources: food, water, shelter, etc.
Climate change has resulted in migrations of people from drought afflicted areas in Africa and the Middle East to other countries. This is exacerbating the culture wars and xenophobic behaviors in several European countries and will only continue as weather caused crop failures impact more nations.
Mother Nature and Human Nature will address all these problems with widespread famines and world wide conflicts over scarce and declining resources. Populations will decline by billions of people to more closely match basic food, water and shelter availability. The growing impact of climate change will keep reducing the number of humans that can be sustained. Is that limit zero?
10
Humans do NOTHING sustainably. Zero is the inevitable population.
1
You want to do something about this. Plant a tree. I am amazed at how many people I come across in life that have never ever done that. Simple: plant a tree. Challenge yourselves and your neighbours. If you've never done that, just try it; plant a tree. Instead of buying cutout trees for xmas or plastic ones, buy a real live one (live? heresy!) and then once the season is over, go to nearest park and plant it. You'll be amazed at how good it feels. Do that over and over and encourage your friends and neighbours. Be the example of the change you want to see. Plant a tree.
6
@Okuribito
Great idea. One problem; where I live if the rangers catch you planting a tree in a public park you are looking at a citation and a fine. At the least.
@Okuribito But I live in a Vermont forest. Within a 100 feet of my house there are probably 1000 or 10000 new trees sprouting every year. Me planting one seems pretty insignificant. But even if I did plant some trees it would not balance the 10's or 100's of thousands of trees being cut down or run over by the excavators clearing for new solar farms.
As a trained Engineer and data scientist, what I find most illuminating when looking at the data is a comparison of the actual data to the adjusted data.
When looking at the adjustments made over time, the intent is clear.
Now we have groups “improving” the “science” of their adjustments in a competition to present the scariest looking chart around. Ever novel arguments for lowering past temperatures and new excuses why the recent temperatures were recorded too low and need to be adjusted higher.
All in hopes of getting a slice.
10
@Ken
Exactly! These "scientists" have every incentive to make their models biased toward warming which is why the models do not reflect reality.
2
@Ken
One of my past incarnations as an engineer involved structural analysis modeling using NASTRAN and ANSYS.
(Forget the complexity of something like computational fluid dynamics (CFD) which would be more akin to modeling climate if that was even doable to any level of accuracy)
The structural models one created were wholly dependent on the various source data, constants, boundary conditions, and elements used.
Errors or biases in anyone of them would render the model inaccurate but I regularly saw people presenting ‘results’ from erroneous and biased models as fact.
I believe we now have a climate change industry in which a dangerous combination of flawed source data, bogus models, group think through intimidation, and political agendas are driving results.
1
@Ken you are right on. Global warming is a fraud perpetrated by fake "science". We must prevent these people and also the green new deal people from ever getting their hands on the levers of government.
Game over. We are way past too many people, and the infrastructure, food and energy demands required for us all.
Although all those disease vectors frozen in the soon to be thawed permafrosts may make a difference in the population...
6
It is not deep-seated psychological avoidance that has us hog-tied on climate change; it is a deliberate propaganda campaign of Fox News. While nearly all of scientists agree we've got a crisis on our hands and action is necessary, Fox News gives 70 percent of its coverage of climate to denialists. That is where all these denialist comments saying the science is not certain come from. It is the reason Republicans react with blithe indifference to this imminent threat. Because of Fox News we have Republican sneering at any action to reduce carbon pollution. Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House; Ronald Reagan tore them down. If Al Gore had won in 2000 we would have been able to do the 2% per year reduction in pollution; instead we got GWB. Now we have another climate denialist in the White House, and denialists as heads of all agencies in charge of energy who not only don't want to curb carbon pollution -- they want to increase it.
We do not have to change our way of thinking to combat climate change, we have to condemn Fox News and reject Republicans who trade in ignorance, recklessness, and irresponsibility.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/23/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
13
It would take a runaway greenhouse effect to make the Earth literally uninhabitable. I know of no reputable climate scientist who worries about a runaway greenhouse. That said, the article is right that it is past time to take drastic measures. Nuclear power has to be part of the solution. Work on making it safer, yes. Solve the disposal problem, yes. Guard against terrorists, yes. It may turn out these problems are not fully soluble, in which case we will have to choose between the concomitant risks and more greenhouse warming. But anyone who rejects nuclear power out of hand is living in a fantasy. They are part of the problem, as much as any denialist.
2
@Cynical Jack: They've been working on the disposal problem for 50 years now. Is it solved yet?
Modern reactor designs are much safer, unlikely to melt down in the face of multiple failures. But they need to solve the disposal problem and prove it before nuclear reactors will get widespread support.
5
@Cynical Jack The disposal problem seems to be solvable if we separate our waste. They make me do it with my paper and plastics yet the nuclear reactor industry puts everything that came out of the reactor in one container. There is only a tiny bit of really dangerous waste and it has a short life span. So reprocess it to separate things. We started to do that during the Carter Administration but he stopped it because some of the small amounts of dangerous stuff separated could be made into weapons. Instead of guarding the few places that could do the separation he banded it and thereby as a side effect destroyed the industry.
These polls are disheartening. It is distressing to hear even Nancy Pelosi, de facto leader of the only sane political party in this country, dismissing this issue with flip remarks about the “green dream.”
This is the only issue we should be focusing upon. It is literally existential. Climate change denial on the part of business (fossil fuels) and conservatives (the GOP) has become suicidal.
History shows that human civilizations can and do collapse when they decimate their environment. It has happened over and over again. It will happen to us if we don’t act aggressively.
As other commenters remarked, we won’t kill the planet. Earth is on geologic time and will go on. Other species will rise over time. We’ll just kill ourselves and the other species present at this snapshot in time.
18
I highly doubt that if the United States were to implement and enforce the solutions put forth by Mr. Wells, regardless of the cost, it would make but a tiny dent in the earth's temperature. China and India are leading world polluters who show no interest in reducing their carbon footprint. India wants financial aid in the amount of $2.5 trillion and China isn't required to curb their peak carbon emissions until 2030 under the Paris Climate Agreement. We live on the same planet, drink the same water and breathe the same air; it's going to take the committed work of every nation in our world to solve these environmental issues. It's short sighted to think that the efforts of the United States alone are going to bring about sustainable climate change.
10
Panic? Why?
The planet isn't going anywhere. Living beings may, but then again life has come and gone from this earth for a long time. Hubris keeps us from changing our way of life. We are unwilling to change our way of life and how we live to save humanity, we will instead blame everyone else for convenience sake. What better way to feel better about ourselves than blaming others.
8
@Chris
You are correct. "The planet isn't going anywhere - WE ARE" George Carlin
Thanks for confirming the fact that individual action is not going to help us, no matter how well-intentioned the few of us are.
Climate change must be the number one political topic on everyone's list. All other issues depend upon our dealing with this catastrophic reality now. Conservatives who ridicule the Green New Deal deserve to be ignored for their phony disdain.
Back to the beginning of my comment, even though I know my efforts are a drop in the bucket I am still planning to install insulation under the siding of my old house come Spring, replace my oil burner with an electric one and sign up for wind and solar with my electric energy supplier, install a smarter thermostat, replace my front lawn with a vegetable garden, increase my donations to environmental lobbying groups and maybe even trade in my 2004 car for a new hybrid. All this will put a big dent in my savings but these efforts may be more important than anything else I have ever done.
On an optimistic note, another opinion piece in today's paper suggests that the radical Republican Party is quickly losing ground with voters. This is a good thing. It means there is a good chance that come 2020 our government will enact decisive measures to deal with climate change.
12
An approach that I haven't seen get much press is planting trees. Trees and vegetation that soak up CO2 and also produce oxygen in return. Most of us have room to plant at least one tree. We also must put a priority on reducing deforestation elsewhere, especially the Amazon.
5
@cannoneer2 Sadly, the Earth is not large enough to plant enough trees to absorb the excess CO2 that we have produced. It would require about 2.5 Earths covered in trees at this point to absorb all of the CO2 and projected CO2 emissions of the next few decades. But yes, it's a start and can be part of a much larger plan.
7
@cannoneer2, replacing some amount of lawn (I've replaced 100%) with native or near-native (same genus as a native, for instance) trees, shrubs, and perennials is a multi-crisis step in the right direction, to help address climate chaos, the disappearance of beneficial insects, the loss of bird habitat, drought and water overuse, local herbicide pollution, and urban heat island effects.
2
I am always amazed at the followers of these profits of doom. Who are willing too over look their personal use of oil, water and other resources and preach against big oil, coal etc. Who do they think made to oil, coal people so powerful, the individual consumer, who wants gas for their car, power to run their computers and natural gas to heat their house.
The Brits are bragging about shutting down there coal consumption to zero and using sustainable bio product, what they are doing is cutting 1,000's of acres of old growth forests in Georgia and shipping it and burning wood pellets and calling it green energy.
Hypocrites like David Wallace-Wells (who logs thousands of air miles in the promotion of his books and stories), Al Gore who uses private jets to fly all over the world and oversized SUV to be ferried to and from the airport (and if the sea rise is as bad as he claims why did he buy a second mansion just 20 feet above sea level in California) even Harrison Ford who went on a rant about global warming a few weeks ago, has a fleet of 10 private planes, including a G-3 (jet) and bragged about being able to fly down the coast 150 miles and pick up a hamburger and bring it back to eat.
Yet all the rest of us peons are expected to revert, I guess to cave dwelling to survive.
16
Fear will not be enough. The greatest difficulty in addressing climate change and its consequences is simply acknowledging that:
1. we have already passed the point of no return: while neither climate nor weather are 100% predictable, they do operate in a model construct of system dynamics, which establishes there is no "reset" button—we are never returning to "the good old days" of weather patterns; the exercise now is about adapting policy and practices to address the known anthropogenic cause-and-effect in detrimental climate change; and
2. there is no will to do what is necessary, because it comes at too high a price politically, socially, and personally to generations that still expect lifestyles established through the Industrial Revolution and the addendant evolution in capital and labor markets; the "American Dream," now pursued by much of the world, was defined by 20th-century material consumption, as much—if not more so—than by political freedoms articulated in the 18th century; to challenge the very factors of production that have created this climate crisis challenges baseline expectations of lifestyle that liberal societies have honed over four centuries.
Regrettably, it is going to take an existential level of suffering within advanced economies to motivate any beneficial change that curbs adverse-climate impacts. By that time it will be too late to salvage anything we recognize as society. It is, in fact, already too late.
10
@GuiG
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson TRUTH of what human species faces; "What is intended with extra 9 billion humans in 2100, when agricultural reality involves fact 1/2 billion survive?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6TUcOsAwd0
Cutting carbon emissions is the most important thing we can do to ensure human survival, but not the only action needed. For example, the planet's insect life is declining rapidly. Climate change, industrial scale farming practices, and the widespread use of pesticides and herbicides are all likely culprits. We could stop climate change dead in its tracks and be destroyed because we've wrecked the environment by some other means.
Our capitalist system depends on consumption. Economic policy discussions – even among progressives – often center around how to keep consumption high enough to provide full employment. But capitalist enterprise has never had to count the true cost of goods and services, including CO2 emissions, water pollution, and the destruction of agricultural land. Just over the horizon there was always more land, more water, and the air was always free. Useful resources could be cheaply acquired via colonialism. 'Fear not the natives, for we have got, the Maxim gun, and they have not.'
Not anymore. Now the bill is coming due.
Efforts to respond realistically are undermined by people who are convinced that if you are making $10 million a year, it's imperative that nothing stand in the way of your making twenty. (Does the world really need more private jets?)
At least the advocates of a Green New Deal recognize that fundamental changes in our values and ways of doing things are going to be required for humans to survive and have lives worth living.
6
One factor not discussed in the column is that in addition to all of the policy inertia hurtling us to climate apocalypse there is an active opposition spending lavishly to protect their financial interests at the expense of society’s survival. In Washington state, the carbon bill was heading toward passage when a large infusion of negative advertising from the oil industry shifted opinion dramatically. Until we get the public and politicians to acknowledge that this lobby is civilization’s greatest enemy, our pace of positive change on climate action will continue to be too slow.
8
Bold steps are called for. New York can lead the way by closing JFK and other airports. Air travel is terrible for the climate, and what’s worse, losing a few jobs or dying of climate change? All tourism should be strictly limited and regulated.
5
@RLS, you cannot close airports until alternative means of transportation to be constructed. The foot-dragging on the Hudson River Rail tunnels has inhibited reliable alternative transportation means. Rail is the most efficient short- and intermediate-distance form of human transportation but rail travel must be plentiful and available as well as reasonably priced. This means that government participation (subsidy) is required, but because of that, so-called conservatives will scream "socialism" and other fear-inducing words, and so little to nothing will be done until the existing infrastructure collapses, which it will then be too late to fix. Sorry for the run-on sentence, but it is a run-on series of problems with no comforting pause.
The time to fix this problem was decades ago, but starting now is better than starting tomorrow.
@RLS but how will you get from California e Paris when there is no air travel?
Levitation or teleportation, whichever is least harmful to the environment.
Mr Wallace-Wells seems to believe that there are book sales to be found in hysteria. It's not hard to see the marketing strategy for a book entitled "The Uninhabitable Earth".
I guess it is no accident that the author features James Hansen, who is popular with the media because he has always been the most strident voice in the debate. But even he has apparently not attained the level of arousal that the author requires.
No matter how dire the state of affairs may be, there is absolutely no advantage to be gained by panic, alarmism, and catastrophic thinking. They only impede rational coping and cause people to tune out. Few have ever seriously proposed that a sound strategy in any situation is to "freak out".
An interesting question is where the dialog could go when this doesn't work and no one will listen any more. Running around in tight little circles?
2
It seems to me that to address the climate issue humanity needs to address three other issues at the same time:
1. Political corruption: Unfortunately, some of the countries with the highest emissions--the countries that count in the fight to reduce them--suffer from intractable corruption. Including the US.
2. Overpopulation.
3. Chronic global underemployment and poverty. The world seems permanently awash in overproduction, and people who are trying to simply survive care less about what may happen in the far future.
The contradiction seems to be that when employment and economies rise, there is increased demand for that which causes global warming: cars, air conditioners, travel, electricity. Much of this was invented and exported to the rest of the world by the West, especially the US, and US companies must expand into new markets to keep growing--it's an economic imperative. We are aggressively marketing and exporting our desires for a high-carbon lifestyle precisely at a time when the world needs to scale back lifestyle expectations.
4
Global warming is rooted in human overpopulation. If the population were 2.5B -- what early 20th century demographers considered "carrying capacity" for humanity - the problem would not exist or not be nearly as bad. Over one-half of total anthropogenic CO2 was emitted since 1970 -- during a doubling of the human population. The author says "get serious," but is only half-serious without addressing that.
11
@MKR, climate chaos is rooted in the long-term, heavily subsidized infrastructure we've created around fossil fuels. A re-engineered infrastructure more compatible with life on the planet would support a lot of humans.
How do you suggest we go about a massive short term (10y, say) reduction in the human population?
I'm sick of this silly excuse for doing nothing.
I read an article a couple weeks ago in the NYT or WaPo about an organization that advocates for positions in governments to deal with long term planning built around climate change. Their prediction (which considered many of the issues raised in this article) was that it will probably take until roughly 2040 before the world's populations will seriously take on this problem. A tipping point must be reached. For the moment it would be nice if we took gradual steps to reduce the impacts, ie fuel efficiency, less coal usage etc., but as we see with this administration, they insist on going the opposite direction and many Americans agree with them. Given human nature, I'm afraid their prediction is more realistic.
1
While this article correctly makes the case for urgent action to address climate change, it ignores the equally catastrophic environmental crisis. Yes, deforestation, species extinction (as in recently released research on insect population collapses), soil erosion, ocean species population declines to name a few, interaction with climate change attributed to greenhouse gas emissions. But they constitute a crisis in their own right. We need to adopt other policies, such as restorative agriculture.
8
Apparently, fear mongering is okay if progressives engage in it but is evil if trump and republicans engage in it.
3
@R.P. The difference is that one fear is real and other are manufactured.
12
Haha. Hilarious article since we're heading towards a minor Ice Age lol. Its not getting hotter but colder.
So you can stop worrying about this :) It's not gonna happen.
1
On this issue alone we can base the impeachment of Donald Trump as a corrupt United states President. He hired Scott Pritt and his successor and allowed the EPA to take down its archive of online historical data.
Donald Trump is anti-regulation anti-fact-based governing President. He recently tried to get the TVA to keep two coal burning power plants running which get their coal from a coal mine operated by a Republican donor.
On so many fronts, Donald Trump is a menace.
9
Maybe Trump will build a wall to keep out the climate change.
6
If you really want to see our future under Trump’s climate change denial, please see the movie “The Road,” starring Viggo Mortensen. I promise you, you will believe.
4
Probably 98% of those who want to fix the problem actually cannot see the forest for the trees and here is why: I find it very interesting that the majority of those who support the fact that global warming is happening and affecting us right now with the worst yet to come cannot see the forest for the trees and hence avoid answering the question: What is the primary cause of this warming trend?". Are you ready to learn of this primary cause? Well, here it is: The primary cause of global warming is SEX. If the human animal did not have the instinctual needs to procreate at a rate far greater than that which Mother Nature could handle, then this is what results. We now have the choice to let Mother Nature increase her retaliation or we begin to lower the birth rates worldwide before she speeds up her response to reduce life expectancy via having far more deaths related to starvation and disease. Now, after learning this have you changed how you might begin to deal with this unquestionable human failure?
8
Who taught the Western World to finally act only out of fear? Remove the saint teacher and reason will be used as it should.
How about compassion?
Have we tried that yet?
Yes, we have. And it can work here, too.
FACTFULNESS, (Hans Rosling, et al.), NOT FEAR.
*
Time to Panic via @NYTimes
Catastrophist thinking = catastrophist politics.
Star Treck's fantasy earth would have them benign.
World history says otherwise.
This is such a critical time and the American people continue to be distracted by a con man, grifter, fraud, and arsonist
Wake up America! There is much work to do. Stop seeking revenge and start building - something
2
Yeah, I guess ... but doesn't the sheer number of people on the planet have anything to do with it?
2
@Tom, that is the reality we must deal with. So let's stop wringing our hands and get going. Every little bit helps; "a dollar is made up of 100 pennies."
Fret no more – in the latest draft of the Lime New Deal, free Transatlantic e-scooters for all…
Oh, you say – nothing’s free until AOC says it’s free…
Well, what about 2-day shipping – and now someone’s not smiling at all…
Well, we hear there’s already a newer shiny object on the horizon…
CO2 scoopers…
Anyone driving a fossil-fuel SUV will have to periodically get out, scoop up the CO2 mess it’s continually leaving in its wake, and bundle it into a re-usable CO2 scooper bag…
By next Tuesday, an edict outlawing all sorts of plastic scooper-bags – even the ones that roadside volunteers use to scoop up all types of other plastic bags – will be issued…
Followed by another that all pet food must be fully-rechargeable by the end of the month…
To counter the favorable publicity and polling this will sustainably bestow upon her – Trump is going to declare a global emergency and bombard Krakatoa with thermonuclear devices until it erupts again, blanketing the planet with environmentally friendly sulfurous particulates until it cools…
Just kidding on that one…
Not the last one – one of the earlier ones…
PS
If she changed her first name to #AmazonToo, do you think Jeff would reconsider…
Homo sapiens are an infestation on the planet. However population control doesn't work as in the 20th century perhaps 300 million were killed in wars/flu yet we quickly recovered and more than doubled out population.
I won't morn the loss of homo sapiens and for me it can't happen fast enough to save the flora and fauna on our beautiful diseased planet.
Thankfully I choose to not bring children into this world.Of course I care about the horrible deaths awaiting our species but I am more broken hearted about the complete destruction of all life on the planet.
Greed is winning the short game. Stupidity is winning the short game. Willful ignorance is winning the short game. We all lose the long game. People's inability to think systematically, to see beyond their own tiny piece of the world and to concede that their originally held assessments and beliefs on climate change (or, for that matter, vaccination or assault rifles) may have been misguided are, collectively, just about impossible to overcome. Witness who is our president. Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of their planet.
2
We are a rapacious species and the world will rid herself of us in due time. She will invite the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse as the cleanup crew. Our fault. Sorry kids.
3
It's like the frog in the pan of water. Too bad! If it were an astroid heading for us at a specific date, say 2020, we'd be spending trillions to stop it. Gradual warming, nah. Maybe if a huge ice sheet breaks and drowns a few billion people?
2
And once again religious belief is going to be a major cause of suffering on this globe. Greed as a cause, most definitely, but why is religious belief never mentioned? At the zoo last summer I expressed concern to a woman standing next to me about how global warming would drastically affect the future of our planet’s wild animals. Her reply, which would certainly be echoed by millions of fundamentalists was "Oh no, that’s just not true. God would never allow that to happen. And besides, it’s not in the Bible.” (Reason and Reality, Not Religion - Science and Sense, Not Superstition and Nonsense)
4
30 years of panic.
And now we need to panic.
Why dont you try science?
Okay. So, if we don't "do something" the end of times is near. But to "do something" big enough to make a difference, we will need to have some kind of central, one-world-government control over all humans on the planet. Therefore, we'll probably need to have a world war bigger than any we have ever seen before so that we can pull all nations and people together into one big, happy family, committed to the betterment of all. We'll all be vegetarians, live in government controlled "sustainable" housing, and accept that any ambitions to improve our own standards of living are but the selfish remnants of attitudes long past. And a bunch of former bartending campus lefties will form the new "democratic socialist" ruling government elite. Who's ready to get started?
Forget climate change for a minute and consider the immediate negative health effects of the poison being spewed into the very air we breathe, every minute, of every day. And Mr. Trump wants to declare a national emergency over poor people trying to enter our country while encouraging polluters to emit even more of this garbage into our atmosphere? His insanity knows no bounds.
2
Jacques Cousteau got on the airwaves in the mid 1960s with articles in National Geographic explaining that his extensive findings concluded we were in the process of killing planet Earth, our mother, and nobody listened.
Jimmy Carter came in the 70s to reiterate those findings and more in his message https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal77-1203738
Carter's complete message is not easy to locate on the internet now, the solar panels Carter installed on the roof of the White House disappeared and then were discovered in China, housed by a collector there.
Everyone witnessed the film of Al Gore in a cherry picker pointing out the evidence that we'd be in the cookery we are now, the cherry picker raising him higher and higher on stage to get to the top of the graph showing how warm we'd be.
Will Rogers had a few things to say about this America. So did George Carlin. Betrayed and embittered. The disaster has started, the disaster will continue, the think tanks will determine areas hit hardest and the numbers who will die.
You'll see how it feels to go knocking for help at a door on a border rightly soon.
4
Sensationalism is a great way to sell books. And newspapers, I guess.
1
Emergent Complexity Apocalypse ... climate change is a symptom of exponentially accelerating complexity, which includes exponentially accruing knowledge.
Too much nitrogen in the oceans is another symptom.
Diabetes and sugar consumption are symptoms.
The amount of sugar the average American consumed over 5 days in 1822 is now in 1 can of soda.
Our biological coding can't process the new relationships. The body breaks.
Add ~6 billion people since 1900, give billions access to exponentially more powerful / impactful tech and we have unprecedented relationships, with the sky, insects, oceans, waste, etc.
Our cultural coding can't process the new relationships—bio and eco networks break—the sky, ocean, etc.
We're coded to process local environs in a relatively short-term manner with mostly linear dynamics.
We’re not coded to process complex global relationship information with exponential dynamics & myriad long-term consequences — which are emergent phenomena.
We've literally generated environs that we aren't coded for.
No one planned these alien environs. They emerged.
Insufficient code example: world culture's dominant app, the app that generates vast, complex relationship structures in-&-across Geo Eco Bio Cultural & Tech networks, & across Time.
That app—people deploying monetary code—lacks information process Reach Speed Accuracy Power & is often used to throttle Creativity.
ALL of those information processing criteria are fundaments of passing selection tests.
Humans are arrogant beings. We look down on dinosaurs as extinct even though they reigned on earth quite successfully for 150 million years, a vast scale of time compared to the 10,000 years of our civilization. We with our big brains thought we owned the earth and thought we could do anything we wanted with it. We look to touching the stars while we pollute our nest. Arrogance is the attitude that blinds us and even scientists are prey to it. Look at the president we have allowed to dominate our news, so full of himself as he thinks he knows best for this country and the world. He may be the worst example, but can we say as we have failed to take action on climate change that we as a society are not much better?
1
Global climate change deniers like Trump, Putin, all Bushes (those elected Presidents and those that who were not) may be seen as world criminals worst than those who caused the Holocaust of Jews, if the holocaust of the planet is not averted. Fortunately the green clean economy is on truck to smother dirty fossil fuels out of existence.
Trump's 26 November 2018
Asked outside the White House about the findings that unchecked global warming would wreak havoc on the US economy, he said: "I don't believe it."
Putin October 5, 2018:
“The so-called anthropogenic emissions are most likely not the main cause of this warming. It could be caused by global changes, cosmic changes, some changes in the galaxy that are invisible to us –and that’s that, we don’t even understand what is actually happening.”
Jeb 2011
"It is not unanimous among scientists that it is disproportionately manmade. What I get a little tired of on the left is this idea that somehow science has decided all this so you can’t have a view."
Those comments put Jeb Bush in lock-step with the other climate deniers in the Republican party.
W. May 2002
Bush expressed disdain for a State Department report to the United Nations that pointed to a clear human role in the accumulation of heat-trapping gases; the president called it “a report put out by the bureaucracy.”
H.W. March 2001
Kyoto was rejected by the Bush administration, which said mandatory pollution reductions would harm American economic interests.
1
What an interesting scientific experiment! But I'm glad I wouldn't be around in 40 years. Anything that makes Texas and the middle east unlivable can't be all bad though? And I'm glad its so much warmer in the winter in NYC now. More seriously, the thing that gets missed is how relentless global warming is. Bit by bit the CO2 goes up, it gets a tiny, tiny, bit warmer every year. They say May is the new June in Alaska. All this nonsense from the right wing kooks about errors in models and temperature records and so on. Its just nonsense, those details don't matter. The basic physics of greenhouse gases has been understood for a century. All the weather models do is tweak the clouds around changing how much sun light is trapped or reflected into space. But it is a small effect. its going to get warmer. The ocean has been soaking up a huge amount of heat, but that is fueling stronger hurricanes. Maybe disease or war will change the course, but I don't see the countries of the world uniting to make C02 sequestration work. Hang on, its going to be a bumpy ride.
3
Seaweed is the old growth forest of the sea and the nursery of all life in the sea. Feeding cows seaweed is fine, but only if it can be grown on land for that purpose. The oceans are under great stress and harvesting great amounts of seaweed will certainly hasten the demise of all the life in the sea.
1
As counter intuitive as this may sound to most people, it is not wrong to say that this is the earths way of purging what ails it. We humans have not respected the life network that is the earth. Most don't recognize or care that we are using the earth for our own personal enrichment without regard for any of the other inhabitants we share it with. I think you will find many people feel that if we can't take care of it then we do't belong to the systems it supports.
And in addition to feeling, and being alarmed, fearful, panicked, anxious, and many other valenced terms, words and processes, which can serve as sources of paralysis as well as a stimulus for relevant DOINGS, ourselves and with others, there is a need to demand personal accountability. Of ourselves. Of others. Surely of the endless numbers and types of policymakers, elected, selected and self-selected ones, whose policies have been, and remain, an enabled barrier to needed viable weather/environmental changes. And whose policymaking is critical for creating sustainable bridges to needed, relevant changes.
I am not sure how to respond as I've written this before and I feel so depressed about our response. Part of me knows I can live a green life and it will make no difference. This editorial is perhaps the first thing in the last 20 years that gives me some hope.
Twenty years ago I was in faculty governance and this led to lunch with a fellow committee member, the climate scientist Steven Schneider. He was generally an optimist on what we could do to reduce the impact of warming. I pushed him to give the worst case outcome. He said we could have as few as a couple million people on the planet with civilization as we know it gone in 2100. Or a tipping point gets crossed that leads to massive release of methane and game over.
What needs to be done. I think government as we know it will never successfully act. We don't deal well with consequences years out. They must be immediate. We need one child families yesterday and encouragement for such a world policy. Tax breaks for no children or one child. Limit jet travel. Requirement to live near work. Stop endless wars. Transition to renewable energy. Solar panels on every new construction. I come from a University. More online classes that don't require students to drive to the campus. Every new building a green building. Majors in areas that are relevant to our future. That is, a major in botany to develop plants for warmer temperatures, genetics in animals and plants, emphasis in psychology to change consumerism. On and on.
4
It is harder now to create a visual splash given that we are atomized and electrified and cabled in our media sources -- but, if premier news sources like the NYT put climate issues only on the "front page" no-matter-what and relegated all the normal silly and serious news to metaphorical "back pages" it would create notice and conversation...particularly if it continued relentlessly over time.
Our latest human doings preoccupy our minds...to the exclusion of any long term effects of our human doings. We need help - lots of it - in getting our own attention and keeping it. One day, not so far in the future...climate will be overwhelming all other topics whether we organize our "front pages" around it deliberately or not.
Repetitive and sustained Hail Mary's passes seem appropriate at this point in the game. And, if they don't change the game...sad for us all. Our psychology will have defeated us and all (or most) of the living world..
1
I think of David Suzuki who raised the alarm a decade ago when few people listened. Many are not listening now. I have been alarmed for at least 15 years. There are many people who will die in a catastrophe caused by global warming and who will deny it to their last breath. We need lots more education at all levels and we need it to be insistent with planning to be implemented at all levels. We need government insistance. We need a global uprising that demands change now. We need big oil and oil related industries to join the fight, or be legislated to join. We need government regulations that actually make a difference. We need to be shaken out of our complacency. We need to leave the deniers behind and move on.
The alternative is a catastrophe that will just simply wipe us off the planet in short order. And sooner than we think it will. We should be able to work together for the sake of our children, if nothing else.
4
I've noticed a strange, somewhat schizophrenic divide in the media and public discourse, including the NYT: on the one hand an increasing voicing of concern over climate change and the environment, on the other a glorification of the profits to be derived from the exploitation of fossil fuels. A couple of weeks ago, the Times published an extensive report by Clifford Krauss, entitled "How a ‘Monster’ Texas Oil Field Made the U.S. a Star in the World Market". The second paragraph reads as follows:
"A combination of technical innovation, aggressive investing and copious layers of oil-rich shale have transformed the Permian, once considered a worn-out patch, into the world’s second-most-productive oil field."
The article deals in detail with such issues as market shares, prices, job availability, and the profts to be made by local motels and fast-food restaurants.
In the entire article, not a single word is said about what this massive exploitation of fossil fuels will mean for the environment. Fortunately, many of the 90 commenters made that point.
Part of the problem may be that the article was published in the Business section of the paper, in the somewhat oddly titled subsection on "Energy and Environment". That's where the apparent schizophrenia comes in.
7
"The ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage."
- Mikhail Gorbachev
“There is no major problem facing our planet that would not be easier to solve if there were fewer people and no problem that does not become harder — and ultimately impossible to solve — with ever more.”
- David Attenborough
"Whether we accept it or not, this will likely be the century that determines what the optimal human population is for our planet. It will come about in one of two ways:
Either we decide to manage our own numbers, to avoid a collision of every line on civilization's graph - or nature will do it for us, in the form of famines, thirst, climate chaos, crashing ecosystems, opportunistic disease, and wars over dwindling resources that finally cut us down to size."
- Alan Weisman
No great technological breakthrough is needed to save our species (and planet). We just have to stop having so many babies.
9
Yes, complacency reigns, Mr. Wallace-Wells, and as long as existentential threats and doomsday alarmism and climate delusions abound, we (humankind, fauna and flora on the entire planet) will continue to undergo environmental trauma till the last dog dies. Will fear and panic rescue us from obvious climate change?
.
So, what can do about our wobbling Earth warming to such an extent that humankind's goose will be cooked within recorded time? How can we mitigate climate change here in America, especially since many people (flat-earthers) believe that climate change is a hoax, that fossil fuels are making America free of foreign oil?
President Trump is blinkered to humanity and our planetary crisis. Political action by him and his pet GOP Senator Mitch McConnell and his deluded base is out of the question, though political action now might help save our lives on earth.
Climate warming is a partisan issue. The Democrats' environmental activism -- their Green New Deal climate change resolution -- would wake us up, but the Republicans laugh at the idea of fixing a planet that doesn't need fixing.
Human beings need to understand that we're in a war for Earth's survival. Fear won't mitigate environmental trauma. Planetary survival isn't being cooked up by aliens like "Mars Attacks!" Past time we "turn and face the strange!", as David Bowie sang about "Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes".
4
When I was an 18-year-old college freshman in 1975, I began to look for ways to live sustainably. It's impossible to do everything you might want to do. However, most of you have done NOTHING AT ALL.
Edward Abbey described our economic system, "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell", and he was right Innovation no longer drives Progress; social media have changed us into warring tribes (think Afghanistan) and smart phones have made us stupider and lazier and, therefore, easily to manipulate.
Statistics and family history predict I will be dead in 15-20 years. I'll continue to live sustainably until I die. But it's not my problem that YOU younger working folks today are destroying the planet as fast as you can.
We’re being told that CO2 levels have to be reduced by such and such a percentage by such and such a date, but no one has a clue as to how that could be achieved, short of a major worldwide revolution followed by the imposition of universal martial law so onerous that no society anywhere would be willing to accept it. Nor does anyone have a clue as to what the effect on the climate would be if such a revolution WERE possible and the required reductions achieved.
As I see it, the bad faith exhibited by the high priests of climate science with respect to the extreme demands they are making reflects back on their “science” as a whole, making the skeptical position regarding the climatic effects of fossil fuels even stronger than ever. I have no problem “doing nothing” because I have no faith in anything the alarmists have to say and see no need to “do something” when I see nothing to be alarmed about.
Oh, and by the way: there has been NO correlation between CO2 levels and temperature for well over 100 years: http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/05/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-6-let.html
@Victor Grauer Your views are fortunately quickly becoming marginalized. Maybe you should read the article again. Mr. Wallace-Wells is not talking about the need for a worldwide revolution. He's talking about concerted government actions to encourage initiatives to deal with the emerging catastrophe. Are you aware that your view relies on a kind of fatalism that you accuse climate scientists of ("the imposition of universal martial law"!!!). Hahahahaha!!! Funny.
@Victor Grauer
nope. just plain wrong.
LEAD BY EXAMPLE - What can we as individuals do to lead by example. We all need to stop using air conditioning in our homes during the summer. My wife and I gave up our AC and use it max three times during the summer. IF the United States can pull back on AC usage, perhaps other countries will do the same.
This is important because 86% of the world's population is in Emerging markets. The NY Times has highlighted in multiple articles that as global income inequality declines, there will be increased usage of air conditioning by all those populations. See https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/15/climate/air-conditioning.html)
There has been such an enormous reduction of global income inequality over the past 30 years that by 2030, 58% of the populations in Emerging Markets will be termed "middle class". Many of these people already have the income to buy air conditioning. Usage of energy for air conditioning has already skyrocketed. The Times writes, "The number of air-conditioners worldwide is predicted to soar from 1.6 billion units today to 5.6 billion units by midcentury, according to a report issued Tuesday by the International Energy Agency. If left unchecked, by 2050 air-conditioners would use as much electricity as China does for all activities today." For everyone who agrees it is "Time to Panic", it is time for some personal self-sacrifice.
2
@Pls I agree. Maybe are lucky to live in a town with a lot of trees and space. But it does get pretty hot now in July and August. Even during the worst heat of the summer we keep our house livable by closing our windows and blinds during the day, opening the windows at night, and having ceiling fans. Sure, it can get uncomfortably hot at times but I'd rather sweat and take a cool shower if necessary than waste energy with air conditioning.
I’m not panicking and most others agent either....we’ll find a solution. Money solves every problem and we have tons of it in the US
@There'r
i sense u might be sarcastic with the money conment, but assuming you were serious, what if a major weathee related catastrophe caused a sudden drop in world markets and the us was thrown in to another 2008 times 100 depression. wheres all our money then tomsolvw the problem.?
Fear doesn't seem to be working very well.
We are like the ostrich with his head in the sand. Deny, Deny, Deny. This is why there are still some anti climate changing people out there. It is easier to deny than do something.
3
Here is what's going to happen, and this has been clear for years: the catastrophes will increase in frequency and severity until enough people become frightened and furious and force our cowardly politicians, bought off by corporate deniers, to tackle the problem. By then of course it will be too late for many people and many regions. That's human nature and the nature of our political system. It's just too bad, but that's the way it is. Vote green and take your precautions.
3
We are doomed as a species (note, the planet will survive, it will just look different) because our constant election cycles ensure there will never be a push for long term gain for short term pain, the problem belongs to "someone else", we don't want to cut back on anything, technology will 'save the day' and your Mighty Leader with the "big" brain, hands and um, other bits believes that climate change is either a Chinese hoax or insufficiently proven so can be ignored.
2
The opening paragraph seems to indicate that Mr. Wallace-Wells is unaware that wildfires and hurricanes have afflicted the world long before last year.
He should study the Peshtigo (Wisconsin) Fire of 1871, that killed 1500 and the Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900 that killed approximately 10,000.
Fortunately, nothing remotely as destructive occurred in 2018.
I wonder what our climate condition would be if Ralph Nader and the USSC right-wingers had not cost Al Gore the Presidency almost two decades ago.
7
As the author suggested, the term "we" is much too narrow. This article, good as it is, will only be read by English speaking people who subscribe to the New York Times. Meanwhile billions of poor, non English speakers all over the world, will go on demanding their villages be wired for electricity. They won't care if the electricity comes from coal fired power plants, and they certainly won't feed their cattle sea weed. So unless "we" Americans can get China and India, and Africa on board "we" aren't going to solve this problem. As Golda Meir once said, "If a problem has no solution, then it's not really a problem. It's a fact of life."
1
All of these comments are interesting and helpful, but you'd need every nation's government on board in a Big Way, Full Stop. In the US, we're struggling to even build enough consensus to dump our insane "president" and ridicule of any meaningful steps to take, and now it's time to panic? About a global problem that requires global cooperation? And, that we knew was brewing decades ago? My money is on the roaches, too.
4
We will simply wall ourselves off from the rest of the world,
adjust our consumption as necessary, make changes
when it is way too late for most people elsewhere,
and live as much as we can, from can to can, by the motto,
"devil take the hindmost."
Mostly, it appears obvious that we are just animals.
Our greatest fear (of death) goes from the collective to the individual, and the individual believes in myths about immortality, based upon the sale of fraudulent dreams,
and we do nothing.
Everything happens according to God's plan right?
And then along comes the second coming,
and the chosen among us will be exalted.
1
The New York Times article this week describing impactful climate change remediation measures other countries are taking is a must-read for anyone serious about tackling this problem. Please read and pass it on:
How to Cut U.S. Emissions Faster? Do What These Countries Are Doing. https://nyti.ms/2E7x2cV
3
This isn't science this is fear mongering bologna. The author, who is clearly not a scientist, is basing his climate apocalypse prophecy on a misunderstanding of the science. The climate models predicting increasing temperatures have consistently been wrong, overestimating the magnitude of warming. There is confirmation bias in the models.
Barry Commoner warned of this in the early ‘70s. In his book, “The Population Bomb”, he predicted the problems we are having today. Overpopulation is causing today’s environmental and social problems. This logical theory led to the popular mevement of ZPZ or “zero population growth.” Many college educated couples refrained from having children to save their offspring from Doomeday. Now in our 70’s my husband and I are relieved that we made that decision long ago. We even fear for our own longevity. The wake up call of the effects of overpopulation was sounded in about the 1850’s by Thomas Malthus, the British scientist. We need a leader who will save the human race from extinction.
2
@Sydney: And the first thing the Trump administration did, as did George W. Bush, was to put a global gag order on non-profits from speaking about birth control and abortion, if they wished to receive American funding.
Why do the Republicans despise birth control?
1
When will institutions like governments, corporations, universities, and media, like the NYTimes, realize that their continued existence increases the scale of this problem?
If I was a climate scientist in a government, a journalist for an organization that "heard out both sides" of a closed scientific debate, or anyone else who honestly believes this problem to be real, I would quit my job and engage in non-violent protest to bring about change.
It's that simple.
If you see there is a bomb in the room, you do everything you can to get out. The one thing you don't do is continue to act like the bomb isn't there. It undermines your position to do so.
1
Dear News and Hollywood People,
Please don't incite panic yet. I've not yet fully fortified myself against the masses I foresee will bombard the most-likely-climate-change-friendly-place that shall go unnamed (even if I could update my location on NYT online) and that I've recently retired to for safe haven.
Please, Hollywood, keep making inconsequential movies rather than realistic climate catastrophe movies that might awakening people before I'm fully prepared. And please, NYT and other news media, keep reporting on Amazon, the joy of standards , and the king of pop and other relative minutiae so the all-important climate threat gets muddled in the mix.
Thank you in advance,
Susanne
p.s. I anticipate that before long countries will war over my sweet spot and I am hurrying to prepare as fast as I can.
1
If, at any time in the next two years, meaningful, political action to address climate change is to take place in America and perhaps beyond, then your current president’s palace known as Mara Lago (sic?) will have to find itself under water up to its parapets. The only way to get that guy moving on anything is for that anything to get personal.
One can only imagine his strategy to deal with such a personal disaster: divert some of that wall money he’s already stolen and build a much higher wall around his own properties. (His) problem solved!
1
I am an eternal optimist but it seems pretty obvious to me that we have passed the point of no return regarding our planet. So much for our vaunted "intelligence" and "can-do" spirit. We, the premier animal in our planets history, is just another failed species.
2
Yes, complacency reigns, and as long as existentential threats and doomsday alarmism and climate delusions abound, we (humankind, fauna and flora on the entire planet) will continue to undergo environmental trauma till the last dog dies.
.
So, what can do about our wobbling Earth warming to such an extent that humankind's goose will be cooked to a fare-thee-well? How can we mitigate climate change here in America, especially since many people (flat-earthers) believe that climate change is a hoax, that fossil fuels are making America free of foreign oil? That there's nothing wrong with throwing plastic in the seas?
Climate warming is a partisan issue. An inconvenient truth in America. President Trump is blinkered to our planetary crisis and humanity so political action by him and his pet GOP Senator Mitch McConnell and his deluded base is out of the question, though political action now might help save our lives on earth.
The Democrats' Green New Deal climate change resolution might do good, but the Republicans laugh at the idea of fixing a planet that doesn't need fixing.
Human beings need to learn, to perceive that we're in a war for Earth's survival. Planetary survival isn't being cooked up by aliens like "Mars Attacks"! We need to turn and "face the strange!" as David Bowie sang about "Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes".
We should all be panicking. For those who are not:
Some refuse to act because they still think climate change is a liberal myth, and prefer the made-up view of Trump and Fox News. But if you choose to reject the overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus behind this global catastrophe for your own sake, give the benefit of the doubt to your children and grandchildren. If you are wrong (which you are) and we don’t fix this, they are doomed. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of our survival.
Others who may acknowledge global warming refuse to act because they think they can't make a difference, or more cynically, because why should they inconvenience themselves when others around them can't be bothered. Well, we are all on a sinking ship. Would you drown because others aren't paying attention? For heaven's sake set an example for others to follow so we can make a difference.
Then there is Trump and the sickness of his mind and actions. Isn't it a crime against humanity for a person with the power to do so to willfully destroy the planet?
1
A crucial difference in the pending disaster of global warming and other looming crises is the human nature to assume that it will happen to "someone else".
Since that rationalization tool can't work here, denial is the only other comfort mechanism, hence president Trump and his band of merry, hoax trumpeting troglodytes.
Come on. Donald Trump has told us that all this stuff about climate change and the planet being in peril is nothing more than fake news. Surely he must be right about this, since he has a "very good brain," as he has told us. What more assurance do we need?
1
This as most of our counties dilemmas can be laid at the feet of the Republican Party. Who’s see no ,speak no ,hear no mentality who lie cheat and steal to achieve their agenda and will stop at nothing to keep power have convinced a small group of sheep to believe Global warming is a hoax. And rather then admit they are wrong they will watch parts of the country burn while other parts flood and still other parts freeze. This new Republican Party must be voted out for the survival of our nation and the world.
No mention of greatly expanding nuclear energy? This just proves that this whole “movement” is a leftist power grab that will make us all more miserable, less free and do nothing for the climate. No one who really thinks that “climate change” is man made should ever reject the greenest of all fuels, nuclear.
1
What do you say in an emergency?
The level-headed say: DON’T PANIC!
Don’t panic because when hysteria short-circuits rationality, you don’t make good decisions, don’t listen, you run away, join a mob or you shut down.
Prescribing fear is Trump-think. If you scare people they get desperate, hostile and belligerent. They elect dictators, tyrants. Fear is detrimental to democracy. Fear poisons resolve. Fear makes people deaf and compliant.
Humanity’s progress is measured by a journey from fear to knowledge if not wisdom.
Weaponizing fear hardens denial and provokes aggression against both knowledge and wisdom, as well as the agents of reason.
Sadly Climate Change is also for a growing number of attention addicts and narcissists a once in a lifetime chance to cash in. The worse it sounds the more important they feel.
They’ll have to get in line behind the petty tyrants, strong men, Trump-a-likes, the Bezos and Schultz’, the Peter Theils and Elon Musks and other Superheroes or Dear Leaders ready to save the world from ourselves.
A consummate example of mobilized fear is Trump and the invasion of the job snatchers. Spooked by gangs, rape and dangerous babies, his people herded into nativists and haters. Now their defining purpose is agitating for a wall that makes less sense than the celebrated bridge to nowhere.
Climate Change is real. Saying we can't do anything about it is self-fulfilling pessimism.
The sure route to doomsday is to yell doomsday.
2
People like this do everyone a disservice. For one, the author has few credentials; the scientific community regards this piece (and similar others) as extreme and error prone. Panic is never beneficial - in fact the opposite. Little wonder the conservative right tends reject climate change data.
This is so insane. This week it SNOWED in Hawaii. 190 mph winds in Maui. Snow at lowest levels EVER seen. Seattle last week, unprecedented cold and snow. Wisconsin last month-- -40F.
AND, the entire Russian scientific establishment believes we are on the verge of a new ice age, with good statistical evidence for it. Are they all crazy or disreputable? in fact, the Astrophysicist who is head of the int'l space station has published papers on this.
Russian solar physicist Dr. Zarkova has shown strong statistical evidence, going backwards and forwards (unlike ALL the AGW models, which have had ZERO predictive value - remember NOAA telling us in 2006 that the North Pole would be ice free by this year?) that we are about to enter a 50 to 250 year Ice Age, starting this very year.
there is great correlation between the lack of sun spots between 1615 and 1815 and the Little Ice Age, while the number of sunspot in this solar cycle is at an all time low. Which says,hey maybe there is something there?
And, yes, it was very hot in Australia this year, but that is just indicative of a dynamical system on the verge of breakdown, along with the extreme cold in the north we have experienced.
But, facts don't lie. The Earth's climate is in a CONSTANT state of change, as shown by the Greenland ice core samples.
It has been MUCH hotter in the past, and much more often, MUCH colder. Time will tell. in a very short while. Is the Sun as the main driver of climate, or us?
@BabaO How dare you refer to Russian scientists? In addition to being inherently unreliable and evil, they are not toeing the Western client "science" line.
Of course, the Russian results should be evaluated scientifically, but that would undercut the "97% of all scientists recommend Crest" mantra. And your observation about the difficulty of distinguishing man-made climate warming from natural climate warming and cooling is the crux of the problem with this article's call for us all to "panic."
The sky is failing! We need to pay attention.
May be we should have made more climate-related disaster movies to alert people the catastrophic consequences of climate change. No wonder the #1 movie during the Lunar New Year Festival in China was "Wandering Earth", a movie describing the fleeing earth from the hot Sun. It probably made awareness to and eduated more people than normal TV news or newspaper.
Now that you are sufficiently panicked, what can you do?
This: today…find a local climate change organization and go to their next meeting. Your community has one, maybe dozens. They are hoping you will join them. You can choose how you participate: there's lobbying, social media campaigns, or marches and protests (so much more fun than you might think). You are needed. Get your fear on and turn up.
I believe there is nothing as perverse in human behavior than killing the host that provides you with sustenance. Nevertheless, there are economic and religious interests promulgating the notion humanity should gorge itself while it can. And to prevent reasoned scientific reasoning on climate change to be accepted by society they argue it is not "man-made" and anyone saying otherwise is a social and religious deviate. That senselessness spooks me.
1
We are a species that cannot even agree on the basic tenets of life: we say some people (i.e people of African descent like me) are not really people and deserving of the title "human." We squabble over who gets to live and die and pay terrible prices for it (i.e genocides). We argue about whose god is best (in truth there's no such thing as gods). We can't even get people to agree on taxation or giving up their obsession with guns. Bottom line: we humans are simply too juvenile of a species to tackle something we created like climate change. We are long out of "search and rescue" and we're now into "recovery." And I'm not sure climate change is something we can recover from.
1
It's hopeless. Humanity is not reasonable.
2
We have abdicated our responsibility as stewards, instead becoming rapists. The planet will go on without us, in some manner; nature adapts. But the planet we all know as home may well be unrecognizable, and perhaps some far-future anthropologist will find an Ozymandias-like monument to the greed and lack of vision of our species.
Thank you, Although many of us feel the real emergency here in the USA is the lack of leadership. I stand by a booth at malls , home shows, and festivals encouraging people to change the way power is being made from fossil fuels to renewable sources. The change here in Massachusetts would cost less then two cups of coffee per day, yet many people choose to do nothing. What a surprise. We need more news of this type. Go ahead - scare the bejeezus out of us! Then maybe the threat will be real. And BTW post this on DT’s twitter feed! May be he will read it - nah that takes time away from Fox News.
We need a great movie — Hollywood — to visualize 1.5, 2, 3, 4 degrees change. Not over the top but realistic and terrifying.
First get the money out of politics. Only then can we fix healthcare, climate change, etc.!
In August of 2018 I was driving with my grandson, then 15. We were in central WI. He was not one to initiate conversation, but he did. “Grandpa, I’ve been reading on the internet that it is too late to do anything about climate change. What do you think?”
I had recently read, with much dismay, “Losing Earth”, in the NYT. How to answer? Seconds past. A deep breath. “Well, Mason, as long as there are humans with intelligence, and good hearts, it is never too late to try to do what is necessary”.
We need truthfulness. But we cannot extinguish hope, especially in the generations alive right now that we we need to work on solutions for future generations.
The most positive next step we in the US can take: vote. Please.
2
I like the article and creating an emergency call to wake up the American people. You can do a lot by changing your individual behaviour, e.g. by eating less meat and by using less plastic cups and bags. I do believe that global warming is on the European Union’s agenda and EU citizens in general are increasingly aware of that threat. You can see things changing to the good in several European cities. However, what makes me doubt that progress are the governments around the globe who are completely ignorant of global warming. I cannot realistically see that anything will change to the good with a guy like Trump in charge. How can you even criticize global treaties and agreements around global warming? How should that guy be a role model for the younger generations in the US? Putting taxes on imported cars will certainly not help to become a greener planet. I have lost the hope for the US and will try my best to make my small contribution in the EU.
Think of the cliche scientific experiment in animal cruelty that has kids placing a frog in a pot and slowly watching it boil. The frog remains improbably alive while the water heats to an apparently unsurvivable temperature. As a species American humans are so unforgivably arrogant in our swinish consumerism that the rest of the planet's surviving life forms will be happy to see us perish.
1
It's hard to believe that 320 million Americans tolerate Trump and his decision that Climate Change is a hoax, but here we are, reading the umpteenth warning on Climate Change and a world class liar is allowed to remain as president.
Darwin's theory was right. As a species, humans are not intelligent enough to survive. If we were, millions of us would be heading to DC and demanding the resignation of Trump & Pence.
1
Yes, we are those frogs swimming in the pot over a slow-burning fire. We lack the wit to save ourselves. James Hansen could communicate climate science, as could David Schindler. I wrote editorials based on their work some thirty years ago. The silence was profound. Thank you for shrieking now.
Could someone make sure Brett Stephens reads this.
Yawn.
The best available evidence suggests that climate change is real and that it's caused by greenhouse gasses.
But all this talk of "the collapse of human civilization" is incredibly silly. I'm not going to argue about it -- many of the people reading this article will still be around in 50-70 years and human civilization will not have collapsed. "Scientists" cannot accurately predict global outcomes over the decades, and those "scientists" wrote this about David Wallace-Wells' earlier scare article:
"The NGO Climate Feedback summarized reviews by dozens of professional scientists and concluded the majority of the reviewers tagged the article as: Alarmist, Imprecise/Unclear, Misleading." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uninhabitable_Earth)
To paraphrase John Stewart -- the media is biased towards laziness and sensationalism. That's why we keep getting these articles about The Impending End of Civilization.
1
Panic is certainly one response to the changes that our planet is going through. My fear is that our culture is so entrenched even with panic we won't be able to adapt quickly enough. Democracy does make it difficult to respond quickly to the changing times. An *enlightened* dictator is what is needed now.
That said, I do think there are other species on this planet that will survive. And the planet will survive. It has for billions of years. We can't be so arrogant to think that the changes that the planet is going through will end all species. Sadly, just those, like us, who can't adapt.
I find it very strange that the New York Times is publishing an evangelical call to arms on climate change by a journalist. I prefer. The U.S. government most recent assessment of the effects of climate change are very serious but the science is very complex and the projected effects of rising temperatures are also complex. Crop yields for example, are projected to increase substantially under global warming through the end of the century on the West Coast and the upper regions of the Rocky Mountains and the Great Plains. https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/7/. The report doesn't examine climate change Canada but presumably the area where most Canadians live will benefit from an agricultural perspective from global warming.
Overall, the damage to the United States is concentrated in the south, from Texas to Florida and up to the Mason-Dixon line. Paradoxically, that region of the country is politically least receptive to climate change activism.
In any event, I am duly unimpressed with the desperate and evangelical tone of this article written by a journalist who appears to have a minimal command of the scientific, engineering and economic subjects.
1
We humans will not save ourselves. We aren't wired for that. If heat death does not kill humanity, then climate change release of now dormant chemicals will do it. Recall the Drake equation? Well, we have solved it.
Let's hear it for Democracy folks. We've spent ages battling against dictators, autocrats and despots. And look where its gotten us. When we need an all-powerful Czar who could darn well implement what we all know needs to be done, we've made him unfashionable, to say the least. Where a Federico II (Medieval all-powerful, and darned smart, Imperial Emperor) would come in handy, we have instead debating societies, ie Congress's Parliament's and political party's orchestrated by Trumpian philosophy...Lemmings are near extinct now, but when last heard from they had all agreed those cliffs needed fencing, but couldn't agree on how to get it done.
I have noticed, and am grateful, that the NYT has been prominently placing climate stories in the paper almost daily since the IPCC report came out last year. They are trying to raise the alarm. One thing not mentioned here is the effect rapid climate change will have on global food production. I'm no scientist but my guess is it will be negative, as temperate zones and insect ranges shift. While climate change will hit certain geographies harder, cities and coasts, lower food supplies will be spread more broadly, and will hit based on affluence not location. I'll be honest, it's food riots that scare me most.
The line pointing out that it would have been much easier to change course had we started reducing carbon emissions in 2000 really jumped out at me. Remember that year? The year George W. Bush won the presidency by one vote in the supreme court? And he beat Al Gore, who did everything he could to raise public awareness about this civilizational crisis. But instead of concerted action to protect our beautiful home, we got a war in the Middle East to secure access to petroleum reserves. One that is still playing out with no peaceful resolution in sight. Way to go 'Merica!
2
Rant all you want, it will get you nowhere. Nothing serious will happen. Look around, how many people really understand or want to understand what is happening? Imagine a brutal winter 20 feet of snow for months, will anyone actually do anything? The politician who calls for tax dollars to be spent on shovels or more snow plows will be voted out of office. Fear mongers on TV the radio and Internet will blame "Liberals" or "Muslims" and that will give the public an excuse to do nothing. How many Democrats want to pay for cleaning up the planet? Be honest. After three billion people have died from disastrous weather will the survivors do anything? No. This not pessimism as much as a simple truth, very few people do anything to stop a disaster. Most people hide in their bedroom or basement. No one wants to pay anything to save the Earth.
One more time.
The time to panic was around 1970. IT IS TOO LATE! You talk to any serious climate scientist and they tell you this
There's the possible, impossible, the practical & the impractical. It may not yet be impossible to stop global warming, but it is highly, highly impractical and as close to impossible as one can get, mostly due to the Crazy Ape needs, demands, wants, and egoism
Sure we could do this or that, but there is no time, and there is this entity called the GOP which has half the population hypnotized to its Hobbesian nonsense. We still have Senators holding up snowballs in the Senate
“The destruction of the natural world", writes John Gray, "is not the result of global capitalism, industrialisation, ‘Western civilization’ or any flaw in human institutions. It is a consequence of the evolutionary success of an exceptionally rapacious primate.”
“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor or neoplasm. We have grown in numbers and disturbance to Gaia, to the point where our presence is perceptively disturbing…the human species is now so numerous as to constitute a serious planetary malady. Gaia is suffering from Disseminated Primatemaia, a plague of people.” As E.O. Wilson points out, “Darwins dice have rolled badly for Earth.”
James Lovelock
"Life was given to me as a blessing; when it ceases to be so I can give it up: the cause ceasing, the effect ought also to cease"
Montesquieu
I do believe the fear mongering began years ago.
No reason to panic. The human race..in one/two more generations will have not only answers, but solutions to climate ..food..population and basically all other problems. We are on a trajectory right now..to keep solving these issues. Most of the problems the author mentions..already have solution...implementation is the issue.
We will survive and flourish..this is merely a foot note.
David Wallace-Wells, Amazon will deliver your book early next week.
You confess. You are suffering denial... and you are the expert.
Want something just as bad as warming, something that assures the end of life as we know it, our demise and the demise of all complex species, livestock, fish, birds and more?
Would you believe me if I proved that this is happening right now?
Give me 30 minutes. I will sell you on the discipline we need to address the certainty, the end of life... Once we agree on that, the methods we use to address it may be used again on warming.
I am not joking. I am terrified... and so is Rodney Reynolds Dietert PhD, professor emeritus, Cornell DVM school... born December 6th, 1951. Rod is moving to Arizona from Ithaca. He is the best...
And we agree. The problem is huge, and it is multifaceted.
Can we fix it? Of course we can, if we state the problem and move to solution.
At which point our methods and procedures model may be used to address warming. How about that?
What an excellent piece of work this is!
I will be happy to narrate this for a recording if our ignorant president would take the time to listen and understand it.
Furthermore, anyone who is ambivalent about the impact CO2 can have on a planet’s temperature need only observe that Venus’s mean temperature melts lead. Mercury, which is closer to Sun is nowhere near as hot.
How can that be? It’s elementary my dear fellow earthling. Venus’s atmosphere is CO2 based while Mercury’s is not.
Time is running out— and fast. Once the Earth’s temperature reaches a critical threshold, the Earth itself will begin ADDING carbon to the atmosphere. And if we allow this to occur we are all cooked—literally!
1
In February, 2015 Republican Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma brought a snowball onto the Senate floor to prove that climate change is a hoax. We need more assurances like that.
I believe human population control is required and will be a crucial component of a broader strategy. I am always amazed in how much push-back there is among commenters here, so I would like to offer a perspective that might help convince some people that another baby is a step in the wrong direction.
Everyone blames government inaction, corporate greed, and personal apathy, self-interest writ large and small. Readers here know of the world's complexities and know how resistant extant systems--political, economic, and social--are to change. We know of complex interrrelationships in our global and local economies, means of production, social systems, etc. I say we will not be able to undo any of these gordian knots in time to have any reform that might be effective.
Screaming for institutional change or trying to harness individual fear into a controlled useful force for that (unlikely) change is not going succeed. Human nature will kill off humanity.
But turn back the clock and reduce population back to mid 20th century levels. Human nature and corporate nature and political nature can continue in their dirty habits and we will be able to control the damage with our present technologies. This is not an admirable solution, but an effective one because it admits defeat in the war on human nature. We can live with our dirty and greedy nature and systems when there are fewer of us, perhaps with some deserved shame. Trying to change human nature is a fool's errand.
Mr. Wallace-Wells limits his thinking about Global Warming to the borders of the United States...as if the rest of the world doesnt exist. His entire opinion piece is based on the standard American Guilt Trip liturgy, that we all agreed to recite starting circa 1968. This American Guilt Trip liturgy has developed a devout following that considers any resistance to its magical, religious qualities to be heresy.
What Mr. Wallace-Wells fails to observe is that Planet Earth is reaching a limit of the numbers of Human Population which it can support. Or, at least, the limit of Human Population under present circumstances.
USA remains one of the LEAST populated places on Planet Earth....the LEAST. This, in big part, explains the recent wave of panic driven "immigration". In reality, it is NOT immigration but simply people stampeding to escape the End Times condidtions they have created for themselves elsewhere.
China, India, SE Asia....people are literally ankle deep in their own waste....due to over population. And it is that waste that is a major contributor to so-called Global Warming. The US, in the meantime, has indeed taken MAJOR action to clean up its own air, its own water, and regulate pollution.
My advice to Mr. Wallace-Wells is for him to join one of those Religious Fanatical Sects that goes from town to town whipping themselves to attone for America's sins.
Sadly, yes.
From Northern California.
I hate to wax cynical but I think it's too late. We are a whole universe beyond the panic stage. And we got here without even realizing it.
What many do not recognize, and I say this simply in observing how they comport their lives, is that the Earth is one big terrarium. Isn't it funny that the other name for the Earth is...Terra?
In any case the Earth is a closed loop, dynamic system. A terrarium writ large. Everything we do comes right back to us via all its dynamic systems. Those systems strive for one thing. Balance.
We have been pumping huge amounts of energy, via CO2 and the like, into those systems since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Slowly, inexorably, they are now beginning to move and change. They strive for balance, and a new balance they WILL attain.
Unfortunately it will be a new world as a consequence. One we may not like. Coastlines will alter. Extinction level events will occur, are occurring, at an almost Biblical pace. And the human race will confront the end results of a folly it has pursued for far too long. We will be changed. Most like our numbers will be severely reduced.
I suggest if you wish your bloodline to survive what is coming that you orient yourselves and your progeny to this idea, and plan accordingly. Change, barring almost an act of God, is coming folks; and we will not like it when it gets here.
John~
American Net'Zen
There is only one real solution. We should all be having one kid only at max. Human population has reached unsustainable levels.
I have an idea: Trump could declare a national emergency, in concert with all other nations. Wait a minute! That sounds like the Paris Accords.
Don't kid yourself. Politics trumps reason.
No one is going to take any action to get any kind of solution.
Don’t republicans have grandchildren?
If so why don’t they love them and want them to have a better life then even they had?
What makes republicans this way?
1
We need religious zealots, a fervor on a strict consumption discipline. Fear? fear makes nuclear submarines, makes neighbor hate neighbor. Community of active objectors.
The wilder these predictions get, the less I believe any of it.
This is such an important topic but it will require a sacrifice in lifestyle that I just don’t see it happening. People are going to see their wealth and lifestyle drop by at least 1/3rd and that doesn’t even solve the problem for the ocean. If it wasn’t for it we’d have had to face this problem much sooner but the ocean absorbs a lot of carbon and pretty soon the only thing living in that will be jellyfish.
Stop breeding folks. Our world needs lots less humans to feed and keep cool.
1
It is clear from this article that the major objective of the climate change religious movement is control over global populations by an enlightened elite priesthood.
2000 years ago, we had Christianity. The end was palpably near, the Second Coming imminent: behave! That entirely made up story led to a mass brainwashing of a sizable percentage of the world's population, delaying progress, including scientific progress, by a thousand years, and killing people in the name of absolutist religion.
But the Chinese didn't buy the story, in fact they were unaware of it, and they did just fine.
Unlike the bogus behavioral theorizing here about "hyperobjects" that can never be properly comprehended (astrophysicists and cosmologists might beg to differ), consider another human trait: the need for religion, the need for a religious experience, a transcendental certainty about some idea that consumes human emotions first, brains second.
This is what we have here. The globe may be warming, the cause may be human activity, but that's where the rational discussion ends, and the cow manure begins.
If global warming is so disastrous for us, why is every second phrase in the article not "nuclear power"? Because ignoring and demonizing nuclear power is part of the religion. Nuclear is the new Satan. Because nuclear would solve things, without the need for a new clergy. Nuclear is heresy.
Climate change hystericals ought to go build churches. The rest of us will go on.
1
I would be glad to find out that someone out there is performing what I'd call meta-trend studies. Everyone with their pet trend seems to want to focus on where their constituency will be in 20 years. Pointless. Take everything into account, folks, and get the fundamentals of your house in order before thinking about which shade of blue goes best with the drapes.You can't have a healthy stock market if trade is disrupted by excessive drought. You can't fathom what will happen to the climate if you are only interested in oil futures. There is no future for social media if you can't keep the servers cool enough. Trendy coffee bars won't exist if coffee goes extinct. Conservativism versus liberalism is moot if Washington is under 10 feet of water.
Somebody besides me with a university degree in this sort of thing do us all a favor and point out that the fashion pages in the New York Times are irrelevant if Milan hits 110 in July and nobody can turn on the AC because the power grid collapsed.
The Wall built with money from a carbon tax...any takers? Cynical, yes, but if it’s sooooooooooooo important, then...
fear mongering. Just what we need more of?
(is ts the Tmes or the new Pravda, comment reviewers?)
This week it SNOWED in Hawaii. 190 mph winds in Maui. Snow at lowest levels EVER seen. Seattle last week, unprecedented cold and snow. Wisconsin last month-- -40F.
The entire Russian scientific establishment believes we are on the verge of a new ice age, with good statistical evidence for it. Are they all crazy or disreputable? in fact, the astrophysicist who is head of the int'l space station has published papers on this.
Russian solar physicist Dr. Zarkova has shown strong statistical evidence, going backwards and forwards (unlike ALL the AGW models, which have had ZERO predictive value (remember NOAA telling us in 2006 that the North Pole would be ice free by this year?) that we are about to enter a 50 to 250 year Ice Age, starting this very year.
there is correlation between the lack of sun spots between 1615 and 1815 and the Little Ice Age, while the number of sunspot in this solar cycle is at an all time low. Which says, maybe there is something there?
And, it was very hot in Australia this year, but that is just indicative of a dynamical system on the verge of breakdown, along with the extreme cold in the north we have experienced.
Facts don't lie. The Earth's climate is in a CONSTANT state of change, as shown by the Greenland ice core samples.
It has been MUCH hotter in the past, and more often, MUCH colder. Time will tell. in a very short while. Is the Sun as the main driver of climate, or us?
The US had made great strides in reducing pollutants and carbon emissions- in fact the US and UK have been leaders in the global warming campaign for over a decade. We’re doing our part as we’ve been reducing our carbon footprint for years.
The problem- the rest of the world - without the commitment of the Asian and African countries, whatever the US does will not stop global warming.
For the last decade China, India, Malaysia and Africa have all been increasing their carbon footprint and polluting the world’s oceans with plastic.
No need to panic or spread fear - it’s not up to us - we will do our part - I don’t believe the rest of the world will.
....get out your life jackets - in 100 years you may need them
there is no doubt the end of the human race is near. when the US has a president like Trump... it says a lot about the state of the human psyche
These comments on responsibilities for our situation being caused by conservatives or liberals or this group or that group is self distracting, self righteous and delusional. We are all, each and everyone of us, involved and contribute to carbon footprints, consumption and environmental degradation.
1
Who wrote this headline? Time to panic? It's never time to panic! That way there is only bedlam. It's time to act. And it's time to stop putting pressure on us beleaguered individual citizens, who read frightening articles like this one every day of the week, to buy electric cars, ride bicycles, use paper bags, etc. under the delusion that we might thereby save the world. Individual actions, however virtuous, cannot address this gigantic, epochal problem! Only decisive action at an international, governmental scale can make a sufficient impact to protect our precious and only environment!
We humans exhibit tremendous hubris ("We're number one!"; "We're best!") about our great technological advances, our great doings, but are very reticent about fixing our mistakes: we take little if no responsibility for our failings, or don't clean up after ourselves. Time to grow up.
3
We will have as much success in stopping climate change as we have had in achieving peace on earth.
And you call for panic? How about calling for panic for peace on earth, too?
4
In college, we were required to read J. Bronowski's Science and Human Values. The little paperback pamphlet is falling apart on my bookshelf. The value I remember most vividly is "The Habit of Truth."
To zoom out a bit, it is pretty obvious that humans have gotten the planet into dire straits; and only humans have the power and means (brains, scientific methods) to address the crisis. In warfare, science and victory favor the side with the most advanced weaponry. The U.S is the only state which has used nuclear weapons. But the flip side is also true, peace has been advanced by the UN, in New York, the Marshall Plan and Nato with Europe, as well as many strides in medical science to prevent or reduce deadly diseases. We've heard the sages' warnings, including politician Al Gore and the full-time scientists, as well as proponents of the Green New Deal. We ignore them at our peril, perhaps not for ourselves, but certainly for our grandchildren. Is that what we want as our legacy?
1
@Fran B.
I am in mortal fear for our children and children's children.
Trump's pea brain can only relate to instant gratification and profit, by any means.
He couldn't care less about what irreversible damage he is perpetrating on our future generations.
It's looking more and more that the animated Disney movie "Wall-e" may actually become a documentary.
Psychologists have demonstrated repeatedly that fear does not motivate people to take action as effectively as providing a means to do so, and thus a sense of control. I feel panic, but I do not see any way for me, personally, to make the necessary changes to stop climate change. That is what political leadership is supposed to do. But Democrats continue to shoot themselves in the foot by focusing on minutiae or instead of organizing action to deal with the most important issue — climate change.
2
@Lake McClenney: The media doesn't know what can be done about climate change either, which is why we get the freak show that is Trump 95% of the time.
There are different kinds of national emergencies. Some, like hurricanes, can be predicted days ahead, while others are sudden and not easily predicted, like earthquakes. Floods that recur, or hurricanes in Florida, or wildfires in dry areas can be expected and preventive measures taken well ahead, as CA building codes do for earthquakes.
Climate change effects are hard to predict, but easy to measure and confirm. Nothing like this has happened in human history, so we have to learn what to measure as it is changing, and make best estimates of where those changes are going. Disbelief and denial are not scientific skepticism, they are dangerous distractions. Real estate sellers in Florida said after the 1926 Cat 4 ravaged Miami and the keys that hurricanes only came there once a century. We can still act now, to reduce and prevent effects, before climate change becomes a perfect storm. That is not fear, it is common sense.
1
There’s an interesting dichotomy in the comments. On the one hand there are those who throw up their hands and say it’s too late and ‘we’ deserve to suffer the consequences of ‘our’ failure to act sooner. On the other hand are those brimming with confidence that ‘we’ can pull off some kind of Hail Mary and life can proceed in the way to which ‘we’ are accustomed. All this is predicated on the assumption that ‘we’ constitute a plurality of the inhabitants of the planet. I don’t think there is any getting around the fact that human behavior has not kept pace with scientific and technological knowledge, knowledge that in the past was subverted and demonized by irrational beliefs and tribal instincts for dominance. Religion and nationalism are the default settings for well over half of the worlds population, IMO. ‘We’ better put away our cherished notions of freedom and individualism and get busy with some top down, need I say draconian, measures but quick. Otherwise it’s gonna be herding those cats into the sunset of civilization as ‘we’ know it.
322
@Thomas
Unfortunately, I don't think top down 'draconian' measures will work. People do not respond well to fear if they are not yet directly affected by a crisis. Perhaps instead we should take the example of information technology in the last thirty years or so. Internet leading to Amazon, leading to social media etc. Or flip phones leading to Blackberry leading to IPhone etc. Incremental but meaningful steps leading to the next steps. And so on. So we start we something doable, like planting a billion trees. Or carbon capture from the atmosphere, now in its infancy, but extremely promising. More electric cars are on the way. Hydrogen powered cars are now being rethought. Mor and more solar power as costs decrease. People can relate to something realizable. Climate change in its totality is fearful. But being afraid I believe is self defeating. We'll just throw up our hands in despair.
22
@Rick Morris "Top down draconian measures" will only serve the top draconians. The bulk of the adjustments will be made by the bottom 99.5%.
18
@Thomas: Wherever belief that nature has a caring human personality persists, only wishful thinking prevails.
18
I loved that final picture from the fires in CA. Right now, we are living in a world that is mostly about ME. There is not a lot of US or WE. I want this and I want that, and I need to get one of those! Consumerism run amok. These are good times for many in the developed world and throwing a climate wrench in the works is really a downer during these awesome times. Climate change is not an issue with most until it actually happens to them. Every year there will be more and more affected. Thank you to the NYT for providing these articles which should be front page news. As the dollar cost of climate denial spirals up, the number of believers will spiral up also.
3
More alarmist ranting. I've looked at the data very closely, more closely than any reader here I'm certain. What I see does not fill me with alarm. What I see are temp collection stations in the same area with widely varying temp trends. What I see is raw data that is highly variable over time, but generally trends up and trends down. What I see are long term stations -- those with more than a 1000 months of reporting -- where there isn't much warming. In fact, in some locations the majority of stations show a down trend.
What I see -- the raw data doesn't support the notion of abnormal warming.
I also see that the only way that there is an abnormal warming trend is through data adjustments and overweighting stations that have come on line more recently.
What I see is a data mess, as the majority of stations have huge omissions in reporting. And where the majority of the data comes from temp stations located along coasts of most continents. And with no common system of data collection.
What I see is there are cyclical trends --so if you add more stations when we're in a upward cycle, you obtain a seemingly abnormal trend.
What I see - is little evidence for real warming and a lack of scientific honesty on the part of alarmists. Look at the raw data people. Not the scare mongering. What you will find may surprise you. I'm not saying that we couldn't be going through a warming trend (climate changes) but the alarmism is tedious and politically motivated.
68
@Ralphie Where would we access the raw data? If you want people to believe what you say, you should provide a link to all those data. Otherwise, most of us will believe what we are seeing, and what is being accurately measured- melting ice caps and glaciers, a warming acidifying ocean, rise in sea level, more frequent and extreme weather events, extreme killing heat, etc.
While the climate has changed in the past, the changes have never happened at the accelerated pace we are observing now.
188
@Ralphie
Less time looking at the data, and more time looking out the window. We can see it happening now with our own eyes.
89
@Ralphie
Great post. Maybe people will start looking at the raw data.
Another thing that's part of the global warming religion is that snow is going away. Snowfall is unchanged. Here's a link to yearly snowfall in Burlington VT since the 1800s. There's tremendous year to year variability and no clear trend. You
https://www.weather.gov/btv/historicalSnow
15
The problem is that too many people are waiting for the technological fix that enables them live with minimal change or inconvenience. There probably isn't any that will work on a global scale. The first world can adapt probably, but the rest of the world will struggle. Many are likely to die. The "green revolution" that produces the food this world's billions need is, in many cases, petrochemical based. The yields per acre come artificially, not just because there are attentive farmers. No matter what we do it is very likely billions may die in famine and global warming progresses and if the evidence showing now is correct it's going to progress faster too.
3
@AnObserver: The current population explosion is the result of a bet that nuclear fusion would become a practical energy source in 20 years back in 1950.
The author is right in saying that political action will trump personal choices when it comes to global carbon emissions.
I wish he had mentioned that Republican Francis Rooney and Democrat Ted Deutsch have introduced an "Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act" (House Resolution 763), which would implement a federal carbon tax and rebate all revenue back to citizens. I don't know why it's not getting more press, but this is the solution--or the first step, at least--endorsed by most scientists and economists. And it has some bipartisan support.
If you are concerned about climate change, the single most important thing you can do might be to call or write your representative and urge them to support this legislation or something like it.
1
@Mike: There are no more exploration expenses in petroleum production. All the resources that can be produced under the climate change cap have already been located, and fracking technology that revived the Permian Basin field can be applied to them all. Thus it makes perfect sense to apply a carbon tax to return capital from the petroleum industry for investment in renewable technologies.
Conquering cognitive complacency is indeed difficult. People don't usually bring a problem to the attention of political leaders unless it directly affects them ("politics is personal").
But political, and local, awareness and support is what gets things done.
I worked in the wonky-sounding area of watershed management. It means, all water running downhill, especially through towns and cities, will accumulate trash and oils, and carry them to the sea, dramatically increasing waterway and ocean pollution.
Our task was to clean up one city on the L.A. River, where it enters the Pacific. It involved meeting with hundreds of locals, and politicians, to explain the systems that could be put in place to catch trash and oils, to increase green space and trees in the city to fight heat reflected from black pavement, to create an urban plan that fostered bike and bus transport.
The city's locals and its government were thoroughly on-board, as were state environmental agencies.
It did not hurt that I had worked in Democratic politics for a dozen years before and had gained credibility with political leaders. Activists can sound like repetitive squeaky wheels to politicians, even if they're right. Credibility is important.
I encourage every activist who wants to create positive environmental change to work on political campaigns, volunteer for conventions and get to know your political leaders.
Then, when you say something is urgent, they'll believe you.
1
Climate may well be the doomsday scenario that ends humanity. Not nuclear war, alien invasions, pandemic, or an asteroid. At some point, climate change is going to become irreversible and catastrophic if it isn’t already. At that point the fabric of civilized society will be ripped away as there will be panic and pandemonium. All that will be left will look like something out of a post-apocalyptic movie. The problem is that humanity is wired to deal with an immediate threat, not a distant one. By the time we have gathered the world’s resolve to fight it, it will be too late. In fact it’s probably already too late.
131
@Mike L: A pretty fair encapsulation of everything the article is saying. Your comment even has a very pessimistic viewpoint, which lends itself well to the author's point: it is time to freak out. Good job.
11
@Mike L- With health insurance rolls in decline, vaccinations and the IMF treaty torn up, I would bet on Nuclear war or Pandemic. Of course hedging your bets by investing in carbon reduction, Universal health care and Multi-lateral nuclear disarmament treaties might reduce all 3.
I welcome the alien invasion. They might even add to our economy and culture?
6
@Mike L No credible analysis says that climate change will extinguish humanity in the foreseeable future.
2
The time to panic is well past, Somewhere about twenty years ago when something substantial could be accomplished. I constantly wrote that immense efforts must be put into motion and people in power have spent their best efforts at dithering and doing nothing substantial and growing richer selling fossil fuel. Currently, most strangely, it is very popular to grow rich on a dying planet. At the age of 93 I am tempted to see the humor in this and have seen opinions that a good laugh can cure anything. If nothing else, that's quite economical.
153
@Jan Sand I agree with your thoughts. However, I don't believe the planet is dying as you state. Humans make up only 1/10,000 of the Earth's biomass. So the earth will change. Humans may not survive. But the planet is not dying.
13
@Maria respectfully we'll be the last of the biomass to go, along with the cockroaches. Humans are clever and resourceful. No consolation for the rest of life, though. You should look into what is happening to the world's insects due to global warming and you'll see that along with them, so too go the birds and everything else of value. It IS possible to kill a planet, and we're doing a fine job of it.
13
@Jan Sand If you do not know the site please look into, http://thesolutionsproject.org/why-clean-energy/. Something substantial can be accomplished. Top notch scientists have shown us the roadmap to 100% clean. As this plan has been around for years, it is the political will that is lacking. As you state too many politicians are dithering playing to small audiences who seem to wield undue power or the fossil fuel industry-- some of whom are killing themselves in the wish for coal to be king.
7
Three things we should do:
1) Stop pretending that Solar/Wind will work on a large level and start funding domestic Nuclear again.
2) Put a sales tax on gas, and a higher excise tax on vehicles with poor energy efficiency.
3) Put a tax on construction on new homes >3,000 sq ft. per unit.
3
When I think about how in the 1970s during the energy crisis, President Carter wore a sweater and encouraged Americans to turn down the heat, and how that translated to us as a family doing our part, I wonder why there aren't more people in state and city government leadership doing similar things. We turned the heat down, used our cars less, took shorter showers, and so did many of our friends, and this wasn't when we were worried about global warming. We shouldn't wear shorts and t-shirts indoors in the winter and sweaters in the summer.
Why can't our state and city leaders do something similar now? How about our entertainment stars doing some PSAs? Or having save the planet concerts?
I know that this doesn't solve the problem of public policy, but we've seen these types of actions mobilize people to action for other crises in the past. And once people are mobilized, it's easier to get their support for real political action.
136
@Michelle
I agree. Remember that Carter's simple suggestions were chided on the Right as being part of his American malaise message.
14
@Michelle
But also at that time gas prices were at record highs and there were shortages across the country. That, more anything compelled people to act. It was a real life, real time, experiment in how quickly society can reduce its energy useage. The world is full of unused energy saving technology and alternative energy options - but they don't get deployed because carbon is cheaper.
The solution will never be an appeal to individuals better nature. No matter what I do myself -- it has zero effect. The solution will have to be political and it will have to be national and global.
A simple carbon tax gets us so far so fast -- and yet in America a carbon tax has zero support and in France they have the Yellow Vests.
9
@Michelle
Can you imagine President Trump asking us to turn down the heat?
6
Do not tell me that our future is impossible. I’m an Engineer for God’s sake!
We know the problem: emissions. We know how to solve the problem: performance standards, market signals, research and development on renewables, and supporting policies to adapt to the changes we cannot avoid. All of these solutions are known, and have worked already.
All we need now is political will. The young women in Europe know what political will is, and they know how to use it. If the rest of us would follow their lead, if us Boomers would throw our weight behind the Xers and Zers and Millenials, we can create powerful political will and we can enact solutions. They are marching March 15, 2019
We can do it, just like we have done it before. First step: HR 763 Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. Write, call, and email your Members of Congress, and protest in your local streets. THAT is how to create political will.
Now!
318
@Dave W
@Dave W
Thank you Dave!!
I read through a number of the comments here and they were full of defeat. This could be the most exciting time to be alive if we can grasp the opportunities and fight.
In this morning's NYT Opinion page there are two articles, one on health care and this one on climate change. Both present big changes to the regular order and humans do not like change, but these can be solved, or at least in the case of climate change, its impacts reduced.
Program management, Engineering, life sciences, project management, change management, in short a top down organizational approach to focus on managing climate change. It could be done.
My background is aerospace. No one person conceived the 747 and delivered that airplane to commercial and military customers. It was a team of people focused on the design/build and an army of direct and indirect support. It was accomplished.
Climate change is no different in that the objectives need to be defined and the design concept goals need to be established.
World War II was enormous and chaotic, but the same principles apply. What is the objective? What are the goals? And just as important, how do the people fit in to accomplish these goals.
This is doable. Or at least if not totally successful I'd rather be fighting this for my children and grandchildren than crying about how terrible it all is.
23
@Dave W Unfortunately, it may already be too late. The increased temperatures already leads to the release of trapped methane. The methane feedbacks may increase the global temperature by another 5 degrees.
3
@Dave W
Part of the problem: emissions.
The other part of the problem: extraction
We have to decide to leave it in the ground.
10
Climatologists are a mixed bag where scientific integrity is concerned but assuming that the apocalyptic vision of the authors is justified, a concerted effort to reduce carbon effluents from the energy-producing segment of contemporary economies justifies restarting already decommissioned electricity-producing atomic energy plants and building many new plants throughout the world. The nuclear waste disposal problem can be alleviated by reprocessing instead of on-site storing which is a non-solution.
Modern society needs electric power and 'green' solutions are neither available nor are adequate.
2
Yes we need political action to reduce climate change. But no personal action is not trivial. If everyone rode their bike or tookass transit the reduction in climate change would be significant. If everyone added more insulation, ductless heat pumps, and efficient appliances to their homes the impact would be huge.
Especially now when the hope of any federal solutions is almost zero, we need to take more action individually and at the city and state level.
We need action at all levels by everyone.
So unfortunate that an author who is so well informed about the problem, is poorly informed about the solutions needed.
33
@Michael Laurie The author's point, as I understand it, is not precisely that personal action is useless, but that personal action on a huge scale is necessary. And we know people: most will not act unless they are forced to. Hence the necessity for laws and standards and leaders.
8
@Michael Laurie
To accomplish that of course we need to grant our "progressive" politicians dictatorship powers, yes?
2
Sloppy thinking gets worse over time. Efficiency should not be a personal choice, rather the only choice. This is the role of govt.
4
I'm both a historian and a farmer by profession(s). As such, I am profoundly pessimistic; scientists have had plenty of input on this issue, but rarely do historians weigh in, which impoverishes the discussion. Climate change is quite likely to bring about the end of our species.
Why?
Climate change in other epochs has been what is known as a "stressor", i.e., something that is by no means the sole but rather contributing factor in a society's demise. The collapse of Near Eastern Bronze Age civilization is an excellent example of this (see Eric Cline's book, "1180 BC"). But there is a more modern and recent example: Syria. Prolonged drought drove small farmers in Syria out of business. Add to that record heat in 2005 in Russia that resulted in no wheat exports that year, on which the Middle East depends. With that shortage came the Arab Spring, and yes, another contributing factor to Syria's civil war. Need I mention the attendant refugee crisis?
Climate refugees and competition over precious resources, particularly water, as well as increased food shortages, are all likely to result in severe political instability and increased regional, perhaps even world wide conflict. And what happens if Pakistan and India go to war over water? Both are nuclear powers. Will the world survive the risible concept of "regional" nuclear war?
That's a dubious proposition at best. Unless immediate government action is taken there's no historical reason for optimism.
725
@Sallust And none of those things made humans extinct, no amount of climate change will do that.
8
@Sallust
As a fellow historian who has tried to educate herself on climate change, I completely agree with you. Global civilization is likely to destroy itself with water and food wars, coping with tens of millions of climate refugees and perhaps as you suggest nuclear war, even before the full effects of climate change kick in. This is why the Pentagon takes climate change very seriously, even if they keep quiet about it. Humans will probably not go extinct but global civilization very likely will.
192
@vulcanalex
The point isn't the danger of human extinction; it's a return to primitive existence and the law of the jungle that will result long before the species dies out. I will be a Katrina that never ends.
Good luck.
106
Hey, I live in WA and find this comment on the article to be horribly short-sighted: Last fall, voters in Washington, a green state in a blue-wave election, rejected even a modest carbon-tax plan. Are those people unwilling to pay that money because they think the game is over or because they don’t think it’s necessary yet?
We rejected it because it was horribly written and gave our already inept local government authority over tax money that they are incapable of spending wisely. You only need to look at the taxes collected for years for transportation that have been wasted in this state as an example.
I would consider myself liberal. That doesn’t mean I blindly throw money at problems and to the wrong people.
I would happily give money to an institution to fight climate change that was competent. In fact I will.
4
@Karen Mast
Perfection is the enemy of good.
@Karen Mast
Amen. Wishful thinking is no substitute for smart action.
1
It is certainly positive that this article mentions Rachel Carson’s book and her research. Nevertheless, for years afterwards there were many denialists who attempted to discredit her work. Some are still at it.
It seems that large groups of climate science skeptics wield incredible power. It will take a revolution to defeat them.
1
The carbon tax failed in Washington because it was poorly written, regressive, and would have created an unaccountable board to spend the revenue generated by the tax. That’s why the voters rejected it. Panic results in hastily and poorly written laws. Oh the irony.
6
Good points made but this still sounds like incrementalism offering hope against the tyranny of exponential change. As a fan of George Carlin I find the use of euphemisms like “good for the planet” or “good for the climate”, etc. aggravating. “The planet will be fine without Us”. Let’s say that by eating less meat we’re helping to save human civilization? Lastly, Professor Guy McPherson is still marginalized and ignored probably because his message is still too catastrophic
2
I appreciate the author's emphasis on group action. I will vote for candidates who seek to control climate change. I am appalled by our never ending efforts to increase profits for the fossil fuel industries. But I couldn't even dream of buying an electric or hybrid car personally. The money is not there. Doubt that I am alone. But I long for action I can support.
4
I think oil and coal should be conserved. The problem with coal is its not renewable, uses lots of water, nobody wants coal ash buried in their backyard, breathing and drinking water require renewable energy.
Coal should be used only when there is some disaster like meteorites when wind and sunlight are disrupted.
3
We've known about climate change for years, yet the right and elected Republicans continue to deny and do nothing, wasting so much precious time. I suppose it's human nature to deny and wait until we're in crisis mode, at which time it will be too late. I suspect it already is.
4
I think we have to face the fact that the problem of climate change will not be solved by government. After all, the government has not done anything that would prevent another massacre of children like the one that happened in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012. Climate change has not (yet) produced anything as tragic as Newtown in the United States. Therefore, if there is to be a solution to climate change, it will have to come from scientific research, not from government.
4
The researcher has been going on for decades and it’s settled fact. It’s now time for action, action on such a large scale only governments can take it on.
5
Climate hysteria is hurting your cause. People are turned off by the radical approach and apoplectic prediction. First, the 2 degree limit is wholly arbitrary with no scientific basis so stop proliferating nonsense. Second, the temperature data shows that for the last 20 years the increase in global temperature has flattened considerably while CO2 concentration has increased. The climate models badly over predict. Though the press has reported the last 5 years as the “hottest” in recorded history, statistically it is an insignificant rise. Much of the climate literature has been dedicated to explaining this away with Pacific Ocean Circulations, the PDO. I am not denying global anthropomorphic global warming, but the rate and severity and our response to it. We have been in an interglacial warming period for 10,000 years. When it started, sea level was 300’ lower that it is today, and the shore line was at the current continental shelf margin, which is about 300 miles east of NYC for your reference. We most likely are accelerating global temp rise, but should we retool all of our economy in a radical and rapid fashion based on prediction for a climate community that seems given to hysteria? The US has decreased CO2 emissions by 20% by converting to natural gas from coal made possible by fracking. Meanwhile, Germany went renewable but needs coal for their base load and their CO2 emissions have increased. Policy choices matter and hysteria does not produce sound policy.
12
@Mark V - No “buts”, and name calling such as “hysteria” serves to prove the author’s point.
Give credit to Germany for working to reduce carbon emissions and phasing out coal-fired power plants. Much of their CO2 comes from motor vehicles. They are leading by example, something our leadership here in the United States needs to do more.
4
@Mark V - Warming over the last 20 years has been at a rate of +0.21 C/decade; it has not "flattened considerably," and is even ahead of the average rate since 1970 of +0.18 C/decade.
Warming at an average rate of +0.02 C/year will always look "insignificant," until you consider that it persists for decades. It is not by chance that the last 5 years have been the warmest 5 years in the records.
4
@Mark V My guess is you're working for for the petroleum industry in OK? I form my view by paying attention to what is going on outside my backdoor and noticing what is happening around the world. Connect the dots and pay attention. Back 50 years ago climate was always predictable. Maybe you are too young or just haven't noticed spring coming earlier and fall later.
The priority of scientists is not to decide when we should panic. Progress in climate science is all about increasing precision and predicting conditions with greater accuracy. The more accurate the predictions, the more the public will be inclined to listen. People listen to weather forecasts because they’re usually right. If climate science becomes more precise, the public will be more likely to take action.
3
@michjas
The climate models are now already"sufficiently" precise. They are predictions for the future. Obviously. Some of these predictions are 10 years out into the future, some are 100, some are 1000. To suggest that we wait 10, 100, 1000 years to compare accuracy before we do anything is just another excuse to do nothing. Does one wait for the next thermonuclear war to determine whether the predicted body count are accurate before working for peace? The only difference with climate change is that the body count here is not as precisely well known, but the bomb has already dropped.
8
If the climate scientists are right, then we can only save the planet through extreme sacrifices, on the national and personal level. Too bad the "Green Deal" does none of that, but instead offers lots of very expensive free stuff with no concept of how to pay for it.
4
The question isn't whether we will pay for it but when. The GND would be very expensive but far cheaper than doing nothing now. The argument that we can't afford to literally save our own planet makes absolutely no sense.
Wartime rationing worked; people limited their lifestyle choices in order to divert resources to the war effort. Every person’s seemingly small contribution added up to achieve victory.
Please don’t dismiss the importance of individual actions in making a difference against global warming because even tiny raindrops can form a tidal wave.
6
Yes, we will all spend a dollar a year, just like we are willing to. That will solve a lot. You are right.
All the comments about reducing the population by X billion people are hilarious. Who gets to choose who gets to stay and who has to go? Who gets to choose which people are allowed to procreate? I guess this all needs to be enforced by a global authoritarian regime, because voluntary measures don't work very well (e.g. Paris Climate Accord).
Promoting low carbon options and switching to greener forms of power are good things. Mandating green construction going forward and increasing fuel standards are reasonable steps. Let's keep the conversation seated in reality, not fantasy.
5
I wish to get government supreme power over people in this climate change emergency. Then we will rule as follows:
- No single family homes. Waste of energy.
- maximum of 400 square feet per person livable space. No need for more.
- 2000 calories a day per person. That is all you need.
- no SUVs. We live in cities and suburbs, what is the point?
- no car engines over 500cc. That will get you moving. No need to go from 0 to 60 mph in less than 15 seconds and get you over 80 mpg
- you must live within 10 minutes from work (good for the environment and for you) and ride a bike when weather permits it.
- No ice. No cold beer. No cold beverages.
- government controlled thermostats at home and businesses: 80 degrees minimum for a/c and 65 degrees maximum for heating.
And on and on. It will be the perfect society we always wanted.
8
@3Rs
We check almost all your boxes and live quite a nice life in one of the most desirable places on earth.
Walk to work, 60mpg car, comfortable, usable space, trim waistlines from consuming a largely plant based diet - every American should be so fortunate.
5
@3Rs
Sorry, but "No cold beer" makes your plan DOA for me.
1
Excellent suggestions. I vote you for president.
1
Sad is the timidity of what has so far been done to cut GHG emissions. Sad is that voters, in the state of Washington, have now twice (2016 and 2018) rejected mild steps to price emissions. My country, Canada, may have a carbon tax system by the end of this year, though at low levels. Here in Spokane, the city council did override the mayor's veto of a bill creating an advisory commission for energy changes. For some, even advice is too much to bear! In May 1940 Churchill told the British people that "the interests of property, the hours of labour, are nothing compared with the struggle for life and honour, for right and freedom, to which we have vowed ourselves". Fear of inconvenience paralyzes, soft illusions of comfortable options beguile, and all the while the foundations of our existence are more and more at risk. In the democracies we must demand truth and effort from the politicians, and we must be willing to be told hard, painful truths about the costs of change. There is no hope in the denials and illusions which still govern us. There is hope, if we face facts and act accordingly.
1
The GND has been mocked by Republicans and commentators in this paper as a socialist plot. Nancy Pelosi, the current leader of the Democrats, made mocking comments. True the GND as so far revealed is not a clear plan. It is however a great first political step in this country to call out global warming as a real national emergency. In order for the types of solutions called for in this commentary there must be first recognition of the devastating consequences by congress. The GND will kick-start the debate. The 2020 elections can be the lever to win the debate. Presidential candidates should strongly consider massive programs for carbon trapping technology, nuclear and renewable energy. All three are needed to achieve the electricity requirements to support our economy. Support for carbon trapping will help to bring along constituencies dependent on hydrocarbon extraction. Think Texas, Louisiana, Kentucky and the jobs that would come with such a plan. Large infrastructure projects to create pure electric transport and prepare coastal cities would also spur the economy. There would be no need to legislate jobs for all as we will be hard pressed to find enough people to do all the work. It’s not enough to recognize the catastrophe. One needs solutions that will solve citizens bread and butter issues as well. The New Deal was accepted because it solved individual problems. The GND can as well.
7
@Daniel Salazar Brilliantly stated. People need only read the bill. Perhaps they could cut throught the non-sense of the naysayers....read it for themselves and realize they may reach a conclusion that the GND is actually beneficial to all.
Greennewdeal.blog.
During the last ice age, the global temperature was about 5 degrees Celsius colder than today. It was a world with ice sheets 2 miles thick in the northern hemisphere. Human civilization was not possible in those conditions. The same will be true - in parts of the world - when we crank the heat up by 2 to 4 degrees. Unfortunately, wildlife and world's poor - who did not create this catastrophe - will be hit the hardest.
5
Those who cover their climate-change science denial by saying China must act first are as much a part of the problem as is President Trump who is actively reversing Obama-era policies which were at least a step in the necessary direction. Just as individual acts of turning off lights are not enough (we need a national policy helping us get our energy from renewable sources) so, too, our nation must seek international agreements vigorously enforced by trade sanctions. Our future depends on electing informed leaders willing to work cooperatively with leaders around the world to combat climate change.
3
While I certainly agree with the author's statement .... "That is the purpose of politics: that we can be and do better together than we might manage as individuals" and the concept of politics as the "moral multiplier", I also think it naive and enables the abdication of personal responsibility.
As a conservative libertarian who's been riding a bicycle to work for 30 years (among many other "small footprint" behaviors), I don't believe that the government can solve this problem and thinking so may ease the cognitive dissonance that many people are experiencing and, thus, perpetuate the lack of personal action.
6
@John Wayne So it is up to the individuals, right? Individuals so poverty stricken that they literally can't afford to eat healthy and have to eat MacDonald's (yes, that is a real situation, on a very large scale... and the meat industry is a huge proponent of Climate Change). It is up to the individual who has to drive 10-20 miles to work, because they can't afford to live in the area where the jobs are and there is either zero mass transportation, or it's actually more expensive than driving. It is up to the individual to "make climate friendly, consumer choices" while corporations dance with glee and spend not one dime on environmental contingencies as their is no evil, bad government to regulate them. etc. etc. etc. Libertarians are the political 14-year-olds of the world. But I'm happy you ride your bike to work. One down 6.99999 billion people to go.
6
One suspects that as a self-proclaimed “conservative libertarian” you’ve made-up for the difference of your “bike riding for 30 years” with those bitcoin cryptocurrency purchases, burning tons of stuff to generate the electricity it takes to create a virtual reality.
@Bartleby S - It would be unrealistic and ignorant to think that disadvantaged folks have the same flexibility and choices to change their behavior. There is, however, a critical mass of people who can make these choices.
It's also curious why you imply that Libertarians are immature. We advocate for less government in light of the fact that the immaturity that drives many government policies, on both sides, has led us into meaningless global conflicts and debt spending of $21 Trillion dollars.
Fear mongering? Sounds like sound strategy that won’t backfire
7
Sadly the author is absolutely right - we've been left with no other choice.
5
Progress to slow down climate change will not occur until we get big money out of politics. Our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, are bought and sold by the corporations that profit by causing climate change as well as by the banks that profit from the same activity. Oil companies run the world. They are desperately hoping the arctic will melt enough to allow drilling in those waters as well as transportation of oil in those waters.
There has never been a Republican who was not deeply in bed with the petroleum industry. The current leaders of the Democrats, Pelosi and Schumer, have no interest, whatsoever in taking any stand about anything and what is needed is dramatic, brave action: a kind of take-no-prisoners approach that rams this stuff through for the sake of our children and grandchildren.
The people will have to rise up because the bums in Washington are not going to do it until we do.
10
I agree with everything the author puts forth here.
I only take exception with the way that he denigrates "conscious consumption". It seems to me that "getting one's own house in order" may not have a noticeable effect on the global problem, but it sure can't hurt to start.
Get your house in order, then your city, then your state, etc.
And maybe that's the thing that gets the "average Joe" involved in pushing for political change at the city, state, national level.
We're all human (well, the greater percentage of us...)
It's very hard to convince your neighbor to mow his lawn if your own grass is a foot high.
7
@Duke
"Get your house in order, then your city, then your state, etc." -- If we didn't have time constraints, it might make sense to pursue these serially. But since we have extremely tight time constraints, we need to be pursuing them in parallel.
3
@Positive Waves
Agreed!
There are many other issues that will need to be addressed. Who will furnish the mental health care to help us cope emotionally with facing the reality of climate change? (And climate denial will only go so far before it cannot be ignored.) Especially if we decide to curtail population growth. Having children is in our DNA and human civilization is deeply based on having progeny - not only to ensure species survival but also provide emotional hope and rejuvenation to us elders. Neo-liberal capitalism provides few answers here.
3
It's time for extra-governmental collective action. Set aside 5 to 10 percent of your financial assets. Ask Bloomberg, Gates, and other leaders to have their foundations establish a common fund to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon future. Join your money with theirs. Use the money to invest in interventions in the marketplace at the chokepoints (electric utilities, home builders) and to carry new innovations across the valley of death. The investments themselves will help to reduce emissions directly, and they can also help to tilt critical business sectors in favor of political action on climate.
3
When I think about how we might prompt political action I look to the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's. Nonviolent street protest with people willing to go to jail was essential to forcing Washington to face the issue. I need to join others in concerted organization starting locally and ask myself what I am willing to risk.
6
I live in North Carolina. Our town flooded during, yes during, Hurricane Matthew (2016) and Hurricane Florence (2018). I am scared and very, very sad that we have gotten ourselves into this situation. Just thinking about hurricane season 2019 makes my heart race. Not in your backyard yet? No worries. It will be. It may not manifest as a hurricane of epic proportions but you'll get drier, hotter, wetter, colder, less able to grow crops to harvest predictably, more difficulty breathing as predicted. Call me a believer in climate science and you need look no further than North Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico or California if you do not.
9
Climate change is similar to astronomers informing us that an asteroid was on a collision course with Earth and will strike us in a few years, barely enough time to plan a defence. But the world would unite and launch a vast program to develop the defence in spite of higher taxes other deprivations. Climate change, to quote President Carter on another topic, is the moral equivalent to war, a threat that people willingly sacrifice for. But climate change is worse than war because conservative politicians and capitalists exploit the fact that it is progressing slowly to tell people it isn't really happening, or that it's a hoax, or that God wouldn't allow such a thing, or that we can adapt. With that much money and power working to keep us defenceless, what chance do we have?
14
@Michael
Exactly. And the answer, I'm afraid, is little. But, still, for the sake of our sanity, we must try.
5
Alas, Fear and Pain will always be the best teacher.
5
President Obama convinced me that I should not be afraid of change. Climate change, bring it on.
On a more serious note, the problem with climate change is that it has been highly politicized. And there is a good portion of the population that has made climate change their religion. This article calls for faith in scientists, because the science is so complex that any person who is not an expert would not be able to be convinced by rational means. Faith is in the realm of religion. And scientists are people, and like in any church, they have interests. They want their research to be funded. I am more interested in predicting the opportunities brought up by climate change. Maybe Canada agriculture would flourish. The Dutch would make a killing selling their technology to keep cities below sea level. The CO2 we are releasing used to be in the atmosphere and has been trapped over millions of years by plants. How was the climate back then? And ocean levels? Was it livable? Climate change is a constant for this planet. The climate has always been and it will always continue to change (yes, I heard, the rapid change is what is going to kill us). Spend our efforts into preparing for climate changes (which 100% are going to happen) versus trying to stop the changes (which we have no idea what the probability of success would be but I would say very low, probably single digits percent).
8
@3Rs With a basic knowledge of chemistry I recognize this argument as wrong. All the CO2 in the atmosphere was not in the atmosphere at one time. CO2 is created by life. It is the combination of the Carbon absorbed from food and can be found as a natural mineral and Oxygen in the atmosphere and oceans. It can also be formed by geologic action, Volcanoes etx.. Also a little knowledge of the history of the atmosphere will tell you that originally at the time life developed the atmosphere was filled with lots of complex hydrocarbons, probably from geologic action. more complex then CO2 and yes the planet was hot probably mostly covered by water. Life transformed the atmosphere to what we have today.
3
When people say that we should adapt to climate change and even enjoy the advantages of it, I can only underline how wonderful it will be for the residents of Philadelphia to go out their front doors and bathe in the ocean.
No, climate change / global warming is not a joke. We need to do 2 things ASAP:
1. Get everybody with a heart & a brain on board.
2. Pass effective legislation (such as higher gas taxes and carbon taxes).
Mark
3
3Rs: how is it that oceans flooding every port city represents an “opportunity”?
And how about widespread droughts that kill or displace millions of people?
And how, tell me, will technology prevent hurricanes?
“Bring it on” ?
2
If as this piece maintains there is an imminent catastrophe about to happen, there’s only one way to rescue the Earth.
China emits 30% of all carbon emissions. More than double the USA.
We must force the Chinese at the threat of war to voluntarily cut their emissions by half or face total destruction.
The future of the planet is at stake.
2
@Tuco Forcing China to cut emissions is not the only way--all nations must participate--but with a USA President who is a science denier it is not a way at all.
8
@Tuco: China's population is 4.3 times that of the USA. That means per capita an American causes more than double the carbon emissions that a Chinese produces. China is a frontrunner in developing green technology, surely we could beat them at that if we wanted to. Surely we could beat them in reducing carbon emissions.
10
@Tuco-We are having a trade war with China so we can sell them more liquified natural gas.
Greta Thunberg, a 16 year old Swedish climate activist, calls us out for inaction, We need to listen.
“Today, we use one hundred million barrels of oil every single day. There are no politics to change that. There are no rules to keep that oil in the ground. So we can't save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed. Everything needs to change and it has to start today.”
"School strike for climate – save the world by changing the rules", TEDxStockholm, 2018.
15
I agree that we have moved through several stages of the climate issue from "ho-hum" right on through to "we should do something next year or so." I think we are now officially at the "hair on fire" stage. How to douse the blaze atop our heads?
The Green New Deal suggests sweeping, top-down, expensive, complex, bureaucratic, government action. In contrast, a government incentive to move away from fossil fuels will allow markets to pick solutions. In this case, markets picking solutions is better than a political body often controlled by vested interests and biases. Such a bill is before the congress now: H.R. 763, The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2018.
HR 763 imposes a gradually rising fee (not tax!) on carbon at the well head or mine, on the carbon content of the fossil fuel. To be clear, a tax goes into government coffers to help run myriad government programs, while a fee, such as an entrance fee to a national park, goes towards running one system. The carbon fee is distributed among American households in the form of a monthly dividend of perhaps $200 to spend as we see fit. The system is revenue neutral and energy source agnostic.
This fits right in with the Green New Deal in many ways, but doesn't have all the baggage of social restructuring (which I think should be done, but is hard to do in a country dogged by deficits and a world ravaged by climate change). Get the climate change issue done first.
Ask our representatives to support it.
11
Excellent argument!
Yes, we need a wall on the southern border ....central america climate change refugees are sure to overwhelm us. Their flight is certainly an existential one.
What happened in Syria (war caused in part, or in tandem with a significant drought) is likely to happen in Central America.
But really folks....it is not just emissions that need to be reduce, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere need to be reduced. Both can be done as part of transforming our economy and our personal and environmental health. It starts with replanting Iowa with trees. No corn-4-cattle but rather trees-4-people. Saves all that farm subsidy money too.
12
@Louis J
And no corn for ethanol, either -- as previous Times reporting showed, transforming corn into ethanol has had the unfortunate side effect of transforming Kalimantan rainforest into oil palm plantations and long-burning peat fires, thereby becoming a huge net loser as to carbon reductions. I'm hoping some democratic presidential candidates -- the ones who care most about climate change -- will have the guts to skip Iowa this election cycle. Or at least speak truth to power when they do campaign there.
1
If every American were to accept what the Climate Changers claim is all true, why as an American, must I make immediate radical lifestyle changes when much worse polluters such as China and India whose carbon foot print is twice as bad as ours have until 2030 to meet the standards of the Paris Agreement?
The USA has come a very long way in reducing air pollution. With technological advances across the industrial and consumer goods complex, pollution control here will advance further and without the financial distress that would otherwise be incurred on our economy. The Paris Agreement as it stands now is not favorable to our nation.
2
@MCH - It's simple. If you, along with everyone else, don't start changing fast, we are all going to suffer the catastrophic consequences of a rapidly changing climate that have already begun. Pointing a finger at the other guy and saying you won't until he does is childish and short sighted.
2
@MCH: Our footprint per capita is more than twice as bad as a Chinese or Indian person's. It is much easier for an American to make lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions than it is for the average Chinese or Indian.
1
The climate always warms between ice ages. Even if we reduce carbon emissions to zero, the planet will continue to warm—abet at a slower pace—until all the ice is melted or a new ice age intervenes.
While working to reduce carbon emissions, we should adjust to the inevitability of global warming. This means we should gradually evacuate coastal cities like New York city and stop rebuilding homes in areas devastated by flooding or forest fires. We should start shifting agricultural production northward toward Canada and Alaska.
But of course, none of this is going to happen. People only favor measures to slow climate change that don’t inconvenience them.
Those who think humanity will cooperate to avoid catastrophe don’t understand the nature of man. Climate change will produce winners and losers and the nations will compete to become winners rather than losers. We will resolve the global warming problem they way we have resolved other problems, though war, famine, pestilence and death.
The good news is that warm periods are very short, lasting only 10,000 to 20,000 years. The bad news is that ice ages are much worse than global warming and last millions of years.
7
@William Case
Actually, the Permian mass extinction might have been a case of global warming. That was when more than 90 percent of all species went extinct.
9
@William Case
Thanks for the example of the kind of complacency that the author is warning about, filled with supposedly comforting thoughts like "warm periods are very short, lasting only 10,000 to 20,000 years", the lower of which numbers is longer than the entire history of human settlement.
Why do you suppose that mass extinctions would not similarly affect us, who are sitting at the top of the food chain?
Most of human history has been spent at the mercy of natural forces. The only reason you don't remember that is that previous generations developed better ways of cooperating. Historically speaking, competition is a luxury.
4
@Bill Levine
You think my warning of "war, famine, pestilence and death" is complacent? That's decidedly odd.
Ice ages always bring mass extinction. Today, human population growth is causing mass extinctions. Soon the only specie that exist will be species that we raise for food or for pets. Humans have existed for only a minute or two of geological time, but the been long enough to overpopulate the planet, with disastrous results.
Again, Mr. Wallace-Wells asks how do we get it together to face the impending global catastrophe we have created. Bees and ants face threats as one collective organism but we do not seem capable despite the overwhelming evidence. True, bees and ants need the physical threat at their door. But we're smarter, right? Just as plastic is pollution, consumption, is climate change. Yes, it is argued that we could still raise billions of people out of poverty in smarter ways with economic progress but too much, way too much, of "progress" brings excessive consumption. All this excess creates, yes, carbon dioxide. Progress has been accelerating at a pace that has not allowed people and societies to keep up in terms of developing cohesive, smart policies and practices that preserve the world around us. And now that world is the world. We are the bacteria in a petri dish that causes their own extinction by either depleting all resources or drowning in their own waste. We seem to be good at doin both. We are only in this together physically. We are not united. We are no longer well educated. Facts are opinions. Belief trumps knowledge. Trump and his ilk are the surest sign that we've met the enemy and he is us.
9
The time to panic was long ago. Now it's time to elect politicians from the president on down who respect climate science, and kick out those who don't.
61
Your thoughts, Christy are right on the mark. I would go even further and suggest that Trump’s climate change denial is the number one and most urgent reason why he should be impeached. If there is a CRIMINAL act that defines Trump it is his own denial and even more important reinforcing those who have the same belief.
6
@Christy Guess what - when the last Ice Age ended there were no politicians.
The causality link between CO2 emissions and climate change has never been successfully demonstrated. It has become the mantra of the scientific community despite the fact that global warming historically has been the contributor to elevated levels of CO2, primarily as a result of warmer water in our oceans being unable to hold as much dissolved carbon dioxide.
It would be far more productive to deal with the consequences of the inevitable global warming now rather than to haplessly delude ourselves into thinking that taking action to reduce our carbon footprint will make any discernible difference...but that message in today's misguided carbon reduction zealotry will only serve to get the messenger shot.
1
@bdavidson Many messengers of the reality and truth of climate-change will be shot. We are not dealing with the inevitability of climate-warming because mankind hasn't learned that the earth isn't sustainable and never will be as long as human beings ravage the planet. Fear isn't going to save us. Taking action now will only be a "hail Mary" pass.
@bdavidson An atmosphere with a higher CO2 concentration insulates better than one with lower CO2 levels...every time. It's simple, repeatable quantifiable and demonstrable.
Toss in a little extra methane and you can really let the toasty good times roll.
Fear is indeed a good motivator. It has been the driving force of the Trump presidency, and has called people to action on both sides of the aisle.
We should be ringing the alarm bells of climate change far and wide, until they cannot be ignored, but we mustn't let species extinction get lost in the din. We've lost half of the world's wildlife in the past 50 years, and many scientists believe that Earth's sixth mass extinction is underway.
In a country with a meat-centric diet, no one wants to hear that we need to cut down on meat and dairy, but we do. Oxford researchers who conducted the most comprehensive study to date on what animal agriculture is doing to our planet, concluded that the single biggest thing we can do to protect our environment is to go vegan.
Not only is animal agriculture a leading cause of climate change (it produces more greenhouse gasses than the entire transportation sector), it is the number one cause of deforestation, and a leader in water and air pollution, soil degradation, ocean dead zones, drought, etc. In our own country, the government slaughters millions of wild animals each year (wolves, coyotes, bison, wild horses, etc.) to accommodate cattle and sheep. And that doesn't even touch on the horrific cruelty inflicted on the farmed animals themselves.
So yes, we can feed cows seaweed, but that doesn't address all the other serious issues of animal agriculture. We should be investing in clean (lab grown) meat, and plant-based meats as well.
6
@Rebecca
My wife and I have been whole food plant based for just over 2 years. For the most part people we meet accept that it is a very healthy diet but say they don't have the discipline or desire to try such an "extreme diet". It is not extreme, it is not difficult. Vegetables, fruit, legumes, nuts and seeds are wholesome , delicious and costs less. Honesty this type of vegan diet is not extreme, the standard American diet is extreme, in that it promotes excessive weight gain, diabetes, heart disease and cancer, and greatly exasperates climate change, and degradation of the environment..
1
The central issue with climate change never gets discussed in polite company. There are too many humans on Earth to accommodate their consumption habits. We need extreme family planning. As well as all the technically difficult other things. The same cause- too many humans- is also at the root of mass extinctions, deforestation, over-fishing, etc., etc. It is no longer reasonable to wink at the destructive philosophies of religions and religious groups that promote unconstrained fertility.
19
I noticed you didn't mention of the possibility of a massive release of Arctic methane coming soon. If this happened it would throw out all long term warming predictions based on CO2 alone and bring about a 4C (or greater) rise in temperatures much sooner than the end of the century. The problem with global dimming should also have been mentioned. This makes me think that you're also reluctant to tell people the whole truth.
6
I am surprised there was no mention of the Pope’s environmental encyclical which was a powerful immediate statement once he became a world leader. The Church could have been a catalyst and might still. Who sabotaged its message, if anyone?
A valuable article. I disagree people can or should ignore their own footprint. One must. In fact 45% should be the new mantra: reduce yours and everyone and every institution around you by it. (Reduced carbon footprint) Indeed when you try you're engaging in an experiment to see what works and you have a moral standing to speak.
11
The coverage of climate change seems simplistic and naive. The coverage focuses on “hard” science and ignores social science. Let me get this straight, the solution is...
1. Reorder social and power dynamics across the world
2. Restructure the world economy
3. Create a carbon reduction agreement and develop the institutions (with coercive power) to enforce it
While I appreciate scientists and UN reports, how many divisions does the scientific community have? Does our solution really rely on altruism and the ability of nation-states to agree to collective action?
If our case studies are DDT and CFCs, then we are in the wrong ball park. Napoleon’s Continental System and the struggle between Capitalism and Communism may be better case studies.
3
The most terrifying thing I have heard from the last batch of scientific papers is on depleting oxygen levels due to the die off of plankton in our oceans (most of our oxygen comes from the oceans). The studies look pretty convincing and terrifying.
I feel like the talk about changing weather patterns is not really going to resonate with people because weather is localized. It's like a lottery of bad luck and no one ever things they will "win". Oxygen, on the other hand, is our biggest threat No one talks about it in the media. Maybe because it's considered alarmist?
Check out the studies in both the Atlantic and pacific. It's terrifying and it's happening now.
29
Oceans produce 70% of our oxygen via plankton and warming oceans are depleting them. They are at the bottom of the food chain. Much of the world's population I'd dependent on food from the oceans. We may be able to survive without fish, but we have to breathe.
I'm glad I'm old.
3
Maybe it's time to have a wave of PSA ads appearing on TV, radio and the internet. We didn't "believe" that an all American company would sell us a product that was killing us until we saw the hollow faces and rotting soars of lung cancer victims.
The same may be true for global warming. We feel more than we think and reason and somehow we have to be made to feel the impact of this growing catastrophe.
We have to see pictures of our grandchildren smiling and then a caption saying "died from heat stroke at age ten" or "suffered brain damage at age seven from dehydration."
Once we get punched in the gut by the realization that we are dooming the very people that we profess to love the most, maybe then we will be open to changing our destructive behavior.
Sadly our Judeo Christian sense of morality and ethics is driven mostly by self interest, not a sense of connection to others. But once that self interest is tapped and our government offers a fair, viable way forward, then we might act.
During WW II millions of families started victory gardens and collected scrap metal for the war effort. They lived with ration books mostly limiting consumer goods. But most complied voluntarily because they saw themselves as part of a noble sacrifice. It's this sense of the noble cause and true collective sacrifice that has to be recaptured.
32
@Drspock I like the idea of a PSA. Ones that are well done, short and to the point could be quite powerful.
6
@Drspock,
Photographs of receding glaciers make a strong visual impact, and strong evidence for global warming. There are a lot of historical photographs to draw from, on up to the present.
2
It surprises me that no one is keying in on humankind’s historical response to scarcity: migration, revolt and war. If you want to feel fear, think about that. In fact, trump recently had one of his “unintentionally truthful” moments when he blurted out a defense of his wall as away to keep out those fleeing the effects of climate change. We aren’t going to be quietly baking ourselves to death: it is going to be horrendous. I look at our grandchildren and will not express the anxiety that runs through me.
16
@Suzanne
Absolutely correct. The most frightening thing about climate change isn't climate change itself - we could probably survive that with appropriate action. The most frightening thing is how humans will react to it. Combine climate change with the proliferation of nuclear weapons and you have the ingredients for an extinction event.
8
Governments can and must play a role, but this type of crisis demands cooperation and participation by everyone, from politicians to corporations to individuals.
If the 73% of the population that claims it believes in climate change were to cut their carbon consumption by half for a year - by driving less, not taking flights for vacations, eating less meat, not using the AC at all, turning off lights and other electrical appliances when not in use, etc. - it would send a strong message that our "belief" is for real. Deniers can always point to our complacency as "proof" of the spuriousness of the scientific claims.
9
One of the most basic facts about reality is that at each instant of time the present ceases to exist. Yet, some fraction of humanity clings to the illusion of ‘constancy’ and thinks that change can be stopped or ignored. The greater the changes over time, the more the present differs from the past. Life on this planet exists only because of the energy input from the sun (light, heat, gravity etc.) - but for most of life on the planet - no sun, no energy, no life, too much energy we burn (e.g., Venus). To pretend that changing the amount of energy captured and retained by our atmosphere will have no effect on the future relative to the present is absurd and defies the basic laws of physics and everything we know about the history of our planet and of reality in general. This same denial of incessant change over time is why, I think anyway, those who ‘deny’ that increasing carbon dioxide and other heat trapping gasses in the atmosphere will have no effect on climate are the very same people who are terrified of sociatal change. They cling to the illusion that their ‘present’ is and and must always define reality when, in reality, never in celestial history has this or will this ever be true. Intelligence is simply ‘pattern recognition’ wilfull denial of repeatable patterns is willful ignorance.
10
While climate change is real, I think the hand wringing over humanity's place in it is way overblown. The earth has been undergoing climate changes for billions of years. Mankind has been keeping records for, maybe, 150 years.
Humans will have to adapt to these changes if they want to survive. Even if we do all that the so-called tree huggers want, e.g. The Green New Deal cooked up by the young New Democrats, the changes we are seeing will not abate.
4
@Bill The changes themselves might not abate, but planning ahead can reduce suffering - of humans and animals. My husband and I chose NOT to have children because we did not want 1) to add to the population and 2) have them suffer in a future world that is likely not going to be that great. Planning ahead, mitigating the changes we can, NOT doing certain things that could make climate change worse (e.g. cutting down more of the Amazon, building more coal fire power plants) are all steps that potentially could reduce future suffering.
I am 100% with you. Have all these scientists work on how to survive climate change. That would be far more productive than what they are doing right now. One massive volcanic eruption would change the world climate dramatically and instantaneously. We cannot stop it (as far as I know, we do not have the technology), but we can prepare for it.
There is hope.
Scientist are trying to solve the fusion energy puzzle. Note we’re talking FUSION NOT FISSION energy. If/when this puzzle is solved, mankind may be saved.
Secondly, Mother Nature may send a plague across Mother Earth culling 60% of the human race.
4
That's a very big IF.
We will not be able to make the necessary transition while in the mode of industrial capitalism. This system deals roughly with scarcity and has no idea what to do with waste. The pressures of the coming catastrophe may finally bring an economy of sustainability. Somewhere along that road hopefully there will be a social decision to collectively reduce the human population by about 5 billion. In even the best case scenario there will be a few generations that will have to dedicate themselves to to the management of old people (whatever that may mean) and to mopping up the big toxic mess we’ve made. Optimistically, after that we may well become space ship Earth.
6
One hears regularly in the discourse around climate change, "Well, but the U.S. only contributes 14% of the CO2." That may be true now, though we only constitute 4% of global population. However, cumulatively the U.S. is responsible for more than 25% of the CO2 in our atmosphere. 4% of the population we have contributed one quarter of the gases which our going to kill the planet we live on. And everyone and everything living on it.
I wish I could feel any optimism that we, homo sapiens, will find the collective courage to save ourselves, to save the beauteous planet on which we live. I do not. It is past time to panic, it is the sad time to appreciate what is left and say goodbye. I am so old that I will not see the worst except in my nightmares. My children, and your children, all children, will live with a terror which no other humans have ever experienced. Even now, young people who pay the slightest attention are growing more uneasy and more anxious as they understand the dark enormity of what lies before them, and the unlikelihood that anything will be done which will change the future they face. I mourn for them. I mourn for us all. Participants in not only global suicide, but also genocide as so many of those to die have done not a thing to create their demise. We are those, I hope, rarest of beings in the universe, that manage to create our own "planetcide." The final picture of the article says it all.
28
@Kevo
As you said, the US produces but 14% of world carbon emissions. The US's proportion is forecasted to further decline as China, India and the rest of the developing world prioritize their catching up economically with the developed world rather than them being willing to make the great sacrifices necessary to solve the climate change problem.
From this, it should be clear that that unless the rest of the world joined the US in heroic sacrifices to solve climate change, the US's efforts would hardly make a difference, making the US economic martyrs, crippling us to the advantage of other countries.
But you imply that, because the US bears a disproportionate historic blame for global emissions, the US bears a responsibility for subsidizing heroic efforts of the entire world. You say "the U.S. is responsible for more than 25% of the CO2 in our atmosphere. 4% of the population we have contributed one quarter of the gases which our going to kill the planet we live on."
An historical blame-oriented view of emissions misses the virtue view that without the US we would not now have the technologies indispensable to curing climate change, namely, earth satellites, advanced computing, advanced materials, etc.
In other word the US's historic virtues and blame cancel each other leaving the right perspective of what does the world now do going forward? The problem is that developing countries adopts a blame-oriented view like yours to avoid doing what they must going forward.
@Leonard Miller
You mean as in blaming China, India and the rest of the world as you do? The thing is it is the U.S. that is pulling out, while the rest of the world is at least making an effort. Your claim that the U.S. would be economically crippled by efforts to convert from fossil fuels to sustainable energy is plain wrong. The countries that are developing and implementing sustainable technology are to the contrary making good economic gains. Just look at Calif. There are already 3 times more jobs in green energy in the U.S. than in the fossil fuel industry.
Finally, nowhere did I suggest that the U.S. should play the hero and pull the rest of the world up after us. However, the U.S. used to be a world leader in the causes of justice and fairness. Now we are leading the race to the climate catastrophe cliff edge on a "beautiful coal-powered " train driven by an orange haired madman.
2
@Kevo
No one is blaming China, India etc. for their past behavior. I said an historic blame-oriented perspective is the wrong one. The right perspective is what the entire world does going forward. And the response out of the developing world--who will really determine the planet's--future is not promising.
You seem to not realize that among the worlds leading developed countries, the US has been doing the best in lowering its greenhouse emissions. Don't be fooled by the pious statements from China, etc. about working on climate change. For example China and India are significantly ramping up the production of power from coal, whereas, the US (where utilities and their State regulators make the decisions despite Trump) is rapidly backing away from it.
I have been trying to improve my carbon footprint for quite some time. I bought a house in 2000 requiring work; I just didn't know how much! My initial renovations replaced windows, doors and waterproofed and re-shingled the roof. The second renovations, just completed, were far more extensive, requiring replacement of the second floor, wall and ceiling insulation and roof to stop heat loss and degradation of the insulation from leaks; new siding and more windows and replacement of more energy efficient doors. The total cost has been about $700,000 to achieve a sizeable reduction in my energy usage and reduce gas and electric bills from $8,000 annually to about $3,500.
Where I live, the tax rebate amounts to about $16,000 or about half the sales tax I paid for renovations, a savings that does not encourage energy reduction. As a retiree, I now have to sell the house, but feel better for leaving behind a more energy efficient place - not perfect by any means, but better. I realize however, that not many can afford to make the investment and there are many homes, built in earlier times that require the work.
Governments everywhere, federal, state and local need to back up their climate commitments with extensive financial help, including income tax reductions that are meaningful. But the longer we wait, the worse it will get. Which is one last argument for catastrophic thinking: As the author of this great article says, "What creates more sense of urgency than fear?"
11
The "we" are the Chinese and Indians. China is building 500 coal plants around the world - what are we going to do about it?
Does the green deal cover sanctions (isn't that how war with Japan started?) or bombing the coal plants (how WWIII will start)?
Very tired hearing localized solutions for the a global zombie apocalypse, sorry global climate change. I get the two confused.
14
@Tom Excellent points. Easy to forget so much is out of our direct control yet so essential.
3
I think it is true that the way to have any impact on carbon emission will involve things beyond simple consumer behavior because consumers - well - consume. They have stuff delivered, walk around with a paper cup glued to their hand, want a car to show up at the press of button, what cheap air fare etc...
Feeding cattle methane limiting diets, spent fuel reactors, and systems for removing carbon from the air to name a few are exactly the best path as they do not rely on the unreliable consumer. We know well enough by now you can wear the T shirt and still be your own worst enemy.
2
This sounds a bit familiar: emergency, crisis, fear, panic and suspend our secular liberal democratic norms to face the threat. Why don't we just get the best and brightest, hand the government over to them, and let these wise persons guide us in the War Against Climate Change. Perhaps a Green Congress can work with them to pass laws defining the role of the soldier citizen in this new great war. We are still prosecuting the War on Terror. You want to replace this with terror as the engine of the War on Climate Change?
It is the snake eating its own tail. Our complacency and excess has led us here, the brink of an existential threat. And now to meet that threat, it will take scrapping the notion of a secular liberal democracy in favor of a socialist directorate with war time powers to direct the nation's resources in avoiding the apocalypse.
Someone will have to rewrite the American Civics textbooks.
3
@Eugene Ralph
Why do secular liberal democratic norms need to be be suspended? Carbon tax? MPG standards? Changes to the diets of cows? I don’t understand your comment.
3
@Djt
If I may reply to your question "why would democratic norms have to be suspended" in order to follow the recommendations of Mr Wallace-Wells:
Because no rational person will vote to live in huts, read by candlelight, travel by bicycle, and eat cockroach puree. And recall that populations currently enjoying that lifestyle tend to propagate at rates close to the biological limit of 9 live births per woman - an even greater reason to panic than climate change.
What this gloom and doom report fails to consider is that humans are pack animals. Once just a few of us start changing, others will see it is possible and will follow. As an example of how this works, if you're on an airplane that drops 10,000 feet in a few seconds, most folks with ask their seat mate if that really happened before the decide to get alarmed. That's human nature.
Right now certain folks in New York are considering changing what's considered normal. They are a part of a new movement called Xtinction Rebellion. It started in London just a few months ago and led to London being declared a climate change city. Now 20 other British cities have followed suit.
Nothing cures grief and despair like action. As General Grant famously said at Vicksburg, the turning point in the Civil War, "let's quit worrying about what they're doing to us and start thinking about what we're going to do to them."
5
An excellent column, but it never mentions the word capitalism once. That is the world economic system we live in, and the elite that run the system owns every major technology that pollutes and causes climate warming. Expansion and growth are fundamental to the system's logic, because that's how profits are continually generated. More consumption, more energy, more resources -- until the earth is used up and burns. The challenge goes beyond political choices, to a fundamental change to eco-socialism.
26
@Jerry Harris,
Yes, and capitalism keeps our economists (and stockholders) focused on the next quarterly return, while 90% of households are just focused on getting their next paycheck.
Capitalism keeps all our attention in the short term. Only a few have the time and inclination to consider the long term.
The way things are going, capitalism will be the death of humanity. But right to the end, there will be plenty of Hollywood movies, pop-music videos, and sports TV!
11
Its entirely possible for non capitalist systems to be environmentally destructive too. Its more a matter of democracy and enlightenment.
2
We citizens in the castle rest easy and go about ordering from Amazon until the enemy outside the gate begins hurling fireballs and live cattle into our village. Then we scramble and scream, responding with half-baked plans we should've made while we had the time and wits to do so.
We do seem to be wired to respond more passionately to the rattlesnake clicking its tail in front of us (to change metaphors) rather than ones we think might be a couple miles ahead. With climate change, the snakes are all around, but somehow even our children's and grandchildren's safety and well-being aren't sufficient enough for us to act on the danger.
Our thirst for material things, our fueling of corporate profit, our inequitable economy in general, our election of self-interested politicians, and our sorry state of education and other public institutions -- all conspire to keep our heads in the sand, in the smoke of the wild fires, in polluted water and air, in the quaking earth, and in the overall fog of confusion spread by conservative minds.
Dollars and dim-wittedness will continue to dominate national thinking until the pond is so covered with algae there will be little to do but hope the rats and insects will share their bounty. But the earth...the earth will go on just fine without homo sapiens. It's a horrible shame we've treated her so shabbily.
13
"And while not a single direct question about climate change was asked of either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential debates..."
This is a big part of the problem. The Commission on Presidential Debates, which chooses the moderators, is a "bipartisan" commission co-chaired by Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr., former chairman of the Republican National Committee. In 2016, senators Brian Schatz and Sheldon Whitehouse wrote an open letter to the Commission, "It's Time to Talk About Climate Change." https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-brian-schatz/an-open-letter-to-the-com_b_12522818.html
As we know, the Commission ignored the Senators' urgent message about climate change, and all of the moderators it chose -- Lester Holt, Elaine Quijano, Martha Raddatz, Anderson Cooper, and Chris Wallace -- abdicated their responsibilities as journalists and choose to focus instead on Hillary Clinton's emails. That this was utterly irresponsible is self-evident. Is this going to happen again in 2020? Is the serious issue of climate disruption going to be overshadowed by a phony controversy about whether Kamala Harris actually listened to Tupac's music? Or are we going to put serious journalists in charge of moderating the debates this time around?
17
While we look for ways to turn our politics around to finally come to grips with reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is also time to begin estimating and providing for the inevitable costs of climate change adaptation. We could start with providing for more transfers to the impoverished countries of the world, which have a relatively miniscule carbon footprint, but will suffer from global warming by as much or more than the industrial countries that caused it.
1
While Mr. Wallace-Wells has good intentions, his call to panic will not fix anything. And he relies on climate models which nobody can explain to to the "deniers."
A better approach would be to start speaking the truth about energy. Did anyone notice how quickly street lights and parking meters have gone solar? In the middle of our cities we have "off the grid" technology taking over. And we are very close to the tipping point where electric cars are cheap and easy to maintain. And there is enough power from the sun, wind and geo to power all human activities.
We can dramatically reduce use of fossil fuels today and make everyone's lives better - people like Mr. Wallace-Wells needs to get the story out and stop the scare tactics that don't work.
7
Are those people unwilling to pay that money because they think the game is over or because they don’t think it’s necessary yet?
Perchance they think the money will be used to build border walls, fund a larger military, underwrite tax cuts for the wealthy and big business, suppress voting rights, and suppress women's rights. In other words, they may not trust elected officials to even pretend to do what is best for the country and the world.
8
I would believe that AOC and other proponents of the Green New Deal were serious about squarely addressing climate change if they didn’t lard up the bill with the progressive social engineering wish list that render the effort DOA with the Republicans, and even Dem moderates. As noted here, most Americans accept the fact of anthropogenic climate change. A law focused solely on that problem might stand a real chance. But the progressives cannot help themselves. We will have to rely on moderates to design a plausible, bipartisan plan.
9
This emergency definitely warrants alarmism, even panic, so thank you for saying so. And while I don't disagree that we need large-scale, systemic solutions to be put in play now, I want to ask this:
Imagine if the halls of legislative bodies and boardrooms around the world were populated with people who grew up in homes where sustainable (one-earth) living was practiced. Wouldn't we have stopped dragging our public policy feet a few decades ago?
Don't underestimate the power of a populace living the values our entire society needs to embrace.
Finally, I find it more than a little ironic to find this informed and realistic opinion piece in the same edition of the NYTimes that has a story about NY progressives rejection of Amazon so chock full of economic growth worship. Is anybody in the building wondering how we can square robust economic growth with serious CO2 reduction? Our worship of economic growth has probably been the single biggest obstacle to appropriate climate disruption response.
7
@Dave Gardner if you're suggesting the government device a way to eliminate undesirables from society so that the planet can heal, I'm interested in hearing your plan.
I think Dan Brown wrote a book about this called Inferno.
@Dave Gardner
My theory about Amazon's withdrawal of its NYC offer is that someone belatedly looked at projected sea level rise for the Queens Borough . . .
2
I have an alternate theory of how this will all come down:
Our economic system relies on growth, and as the planet is finite, it has started to constrain economic growth. We have immensely complex fossil fuel driven international trade, many spare parts for vital equipment comes from across the world, stock markets trade by computer, the world has more debt that can never be repaid due to the planet limiting growth. It would not take much for an event to start a chain reaction- stock market crash leading to plant closings leading to more plant closings, leading to hoarding, leading to collapse. A week without computer systems and diesel trucks filling our grocery shelves is all it would take for rioting to start.
I believe we will reach economic collapse before environmental collapse. This would reduce billions to poverty, reduce consumption, keep the world from adding 3 billion more people as projected. Who can say this is a worse option than continuing with business as usual, continuing to deplete the environment and delaying the inevitable while adding more people to join in on the suffering?
19
Where is the solution? Where are the advocates for it? Can we review it's scientific merit?
I would like to see a well thought model of what it would take in ocean fertility, changes in agriculture and food consumption to keep the planet livable.
We need to move towards a solution, where is it?
3
@Grain Boy Electric cars and trucks; energy from solar, wind, geothermal, tidal; mass transportation (on land, not in the air); energy efficient buildings and appliances; changing agricultural practices; improved recycling; public financing of U.S. elections and government ethics reform so we can be among the leaders of the world working together on this existential crisis. The list goes on. Vote for people who understand the problem and will act to solve it.
3
It isn't panic. It's the only reasonable, rational response.
It's also the end of seeing selfishness as the natural and, indeed, as the only possible engine of the economy. Pace Adam Smith, that model worked while the ecosystem could support its own destruction as an externality. Can't no longer.
6
Count me in the game over camp. Sure I’ll do my part to avert the catastrophe, but knowing human nature, the ineffectiveness of large human organizations, and the momentum propelling CO2 emissions in virtually all nations, it seems inevitable emissions will drop only when directly hindered by climate-mediate damage to the means of production. I have no kids, which is perhaps my most effective contribution to a smaller carbon footprint. I’m thankful that I’ll be dead and gone before the worst comes to pass. What amazes me is that my younger colleagues, most of whom have children, seem too busy to bother using the revolving doors or recycling bins at work despite being life scientists.
12
Despite the indifference of your comment, I for one would like to hear more about what you call "climate mediate" reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. What exactly do you expect to happen?
I’m 62; I may live to see the awfulness but I weep for my children and grandchildren. Too bad our so-called leaders don’t care about their own
11
It might take panic and fear to mobilize us to change. Unfortunately, the time is long past when we could afford to make only moderate changes to our culture in order to keep the world fit for human survival. Now, I believe, we will have to have a major shift in our ideas of "civilization." We have to begin to think that sustainability and conservation are only two of the necessities, the third being stewardship. We are going to have to rebuild our world. The damage is done. The forests have been burnt, the species have been decimated, the ocean has become acidic. We will have to turn toward actively greening our planet, making it more livable, not only for us, but for the animals and plants that share it with us. Not on just a small scale, but on all scales, from the backyard planting of species important to birds to vast reforestation efforts all over the world. We will have to consider expensive desalination plants, not for water for humans, but to flood previously drained wetlands. The idea of "trash" will have to be thrown out itself. Nothing short of a complete Green revolution will have to happen. A vast and complete overhaul of our culture and society is going to occur, or we simply will not survive.
11
It’s been reported many Americans are unable to fund an unexpected expense of $400. Many others feel natural disasters will not happen to them and do not plan accordingly. Does one really expect people to envision the dire consequences of climate change? A catastrophic and lasting failure of the electrical grid would be a clarion call to wakefulness about many things when millions are unable to conduct business or entertain themselves and and are left in the dark with their own thoughts.
5
I am a pessimist. That said, of course we must fight climate warming--doing nothing is unconscionable.
Unfortunately, in democracies, people don't care about the long-term future. In a cruel twist of fate, it turns out "equality" and "freedom" are our doom. So long as everyone has an equal voice, doing anything to fight climate change that's painful in the present is extraordinarily difficult.
The reality is that doing anything in a democracy that's for the long-term good is difficult--just look at our endless battles over spending money on education. Until climate warming actually kills massive numbers of people, in droves, with bodies piling up on the streets, most people will think of it as too far in the future to make real sacrifices to fight it now.
The planet will survive, as will the starry firmament above. I feel sorry for the babies and children currently on the planet, but at the same time I don't feel sorry for the human race as a whole. Our greed, selfishness and obliviousness to the stunning, gorgeous planet we inhabit, and the way we've abused it from the start, means we brought this on (I include myself in this indictment).
But yes, I feel the profoundest sorrow for the flora and fauna we'll take down with us.
12
I am uncomfortable with the notion of catastrophic predictions being based on the deliberate strategy of the scientific community. After all, climate science is science. And its conclusions should be driven by evidence, not strategies. At one point, this article speaks of the total demise of the natural world. At another point it speaks of climate refugees. Those are very different prospects, one far more alarming than the other. I would like to know which outlook is supported by the evidence. If scientists choose to predict outcomes based on how much they want me to panic, that seems to pretty much abandon the scientific method.
4
@michjas
The scientific writing is all there on the internet. Why don't you take some time and read some of it. Your question itself is an either/or one, entirely missing the nature of this entire problem.
Climate refugees at one point in time, catastrophe later. Not too too complicated.
I've become skeptical about global warming catastrophism. Though: not a "denialist," and not about all climate change.
First, there actually are good reasons for skepticism, and sane skeptical climatologists exist. See, e.g., Judith Curry:
https://judithcurry.com/
Second, even progressives don't believe the climate hysteria they stoke. If they did believe that we only have twelve (or is it ten? Now apparently it's two...) years to avert an apocalypse, they'd give up all their other positions in negotiations with conservatives to deal for carbon reduction. All other goals would become secondary by far. But they don't. Instead, they offer up the "Green New Deal," which includes unrelated progressive fantasies about "free" college , "indigenous rights," "the unhoused," giving money to people who won't work, and the mythical sex-based earnings gap.
And eliminating nuclear power! If they believed the hype, they'd want scores of new nuclear plants instead of moonshot renewables--almost no matter how bad they think nuclear is.
In short, GW catastrophism is a stalking-horse to achieve progressive policies.
And much contemporary science (" ") tends to bring its conclusions into line with leftist policies. (See, e.g.: psychology's dutiful deference to unscientific transgender ideology.) GW hystericism is very likely more of that.
I favor reducing carbon emissions--in a non-hysterical way. And if even progressives don't believe their hype, why should the rest of us.
7
It’s weird that you throw in “indigenous rights” into the mix. I’ll put that to the side.
I wish climate panic was a cover for progress politics - that would be a simple narrative that would convenient to brush this off.
But it’s not and if you just do the mass and energy balances on a sheet of paper you’d panic too - that’s all it takes.
As long as people doubt policy speed then it will never be solved. Gradualism never worked for environmental issues - acid rain (sulfur emissions), lead gas, Montreal protocol (ozone), river effluents, etc. these are issues of the past in developed world.
It has to be firm and swift.
It won’t be here so it will never be solved.
So please don’t assume our future will be anything but decimated oceans, barren land and a few specifies left. Everything else is fantasy of denial in a “let’s take it slow” approach.
5
@DMB
Actually, I do doubt it. In fact, I expect that the outcomes you list are almost certain *not* to happen.
And the very fact that you think this is a simple matter of doing a few back-of-the-envelope predictions shows that you don't understand how complicated this all is.
Gradualism certainly *has* worked in the past, e.g. with respect to gradually rasing CAFE standards, and it's likely to be good enough in the case of warming as well.
And, again, to the meat of this particular argument: even the "Green New Deal" betrays disbelief in the hysteria. It's a progressive wish-list that would *never* be produced by *anyone* who honestly believed that we have ten (twelve? Two?) years to avoid the apocalypse. (See, e.g., "indigenous rights.")
Also, of course: it's very convenient that the new deadlines for change always have one thing in common: they're immediate! Not passed...that would do progressivism no good. But not far enough in the future to allow more deliberation and research...now!
So, no. I'm willing to take this problem seriously, but don't see any rational way to accept that we know with certainty that we have to implement universal basic income and the ERA *right now* in order to stop it.
1
We need both individual action and governmental mobilization. Mr. Wallace Wells writes, "If I don't eat a hamburger, so what?" and goes on to suggest farmers be made to feed cows seaweed, as if there is enough seaweed to feed a billion plus cows. The more important point is going vegetarian is the single most powerful thing an individual can do. Meat production creates between 18 and 25% of greenhouse gases and if you cannot switch from a regular burger to a veggie burger to save the planet, just face it, you really don't care if most all species disappear from earth and our children live in some dystopian nightmare.
4
@JJ Flowers
Humans are not herbivores and this is science fact. Humans need to consume animal proteins. There is scientific proof that changing from a historic meat centered omnivore diet to a plant focused diet increased the almost non-existent heart disease, diabetes, and cancer in these populations to levels we see in the US.
So please feel free to eat and feed your family as you see fit. I am not into franken-food to get my proteins and I cannot support the climate and environmental damage being done by big agra to get the plant based foods today, and you think it would get better if 7+ billion people eat only plants?
There has always existed a segment of the population that believes doom is around the corner. Traditionally, the doomsayers were motivated by a quest for religious purity and a judgment that humankind is filled with sinners and therefore cursed by God etc. The currently fashionable doomsday scenario is cloaked in scientific inevitability but is also very disapproving of the morality of mankind. Meanwhile, regular folks go about their busy lives with little fear that the oceans will envelop them or the climate kill them even though most acknowledge that the weather is a little different than it used to be.
4
It is easy to predict how the Republican policy on climate change will evolve. As temperatures rise and disasters mount, we will have to build an even bigger wall and increase defense spending to keep those foreign refugees out. Then tend our own garden: more subsidies for farmers having difficulty growing crops to keep us fed; more support for fossil fuels to keep the air conditioners going; more disaster relief for those rebuilding in flood plains and hurricane zones; and some billions for real estate developers to build new beach resorts. Problem solved.
6
Probably "the road" by Cormac McCarthy reveals our future. The competition for food and shelter and dry land will be a greater tragedy than nuclear war.
12
Yawn. We may or may not move off carbon-based fuel sources before they are gone, but it won't be because of anything grandstanders like Mr. Wallace-Wells write or don't write. The bets have been laid. Society has determined, for better or worse, that the pain of a changing climate is more acceptable than wholesale changes in the way we live our lives. Climate change is here...no doubt...and is going to get worse. And thre is nothing that can, or will be done about it. We will adapt and overcome.
8
@Mike A.
Yawn? A perfect example of why we need to ring the alarm bells! Kind of like saying of a caner diagnosis - I already have it so why do anything about it? I am going to die anyway...
@Mike A.
Here, here!
Listen to the TV weather/news people the next time a cold spell moves into your area. They act like cold weather is one of the worst things ever. Our area of MI weather people are quick to point out the historical norm is 25F today but whine that it is still too cold at 36F. These are educated very liberal people who believe in global warming, yet they want summer-like temps all year in Michigan.
Then there are millions of other people who can only worry about surviving today; you know them as the poor and homeless people. Fear was the wrong method to use. People staring death in the face every day are not going to be moved by Atmos-fear.
We need a three pronged approach: contraception, contraception, contraception. If we can’t do what is obviously necessary and both easily and cheaply doable, why even bother talking about feeding cows seaweed? The technologies have been available for generations. It’s past time for us to acknowledge that our current level of human reproduction is a scourge and a moral hazard. Having babies, lots of babies, is not a joy forever, and it’s not God’s will unless you believe God’s plan all along has been to create unimaginable suffering.
We just might make some progress worldwide if we stop using God as a justification for our reproductive excesses. We need a massive education program that puts reproductive responsibility at the center of our response to climate change. If panicking is required for us to slam the brake down on reproduction, then by all means let’s panic.
13
@Richard Frank
In fact the change in fertility is already well underway globally. In nearly every country fertility has dropped, or is rapidly dropping, to replacement level or lower (even in conservative religious places). Indeed, that is one of the great successes of worldwide improvements in health access, women's education and empowerment, and poverty reduction. See OurWorldInData.org to understand these trends.
In the meantime, if alarm about climate change will spur action, then sound the sirens. Contraception works on the timescale of a generation. Cutting carbon emissions has to happen now.
2
@Richard Frank
Please give one example when any problem has really been solved by panicking.
There is no need to panic. I agree wth you 1000% that global reproduction must be limited, ideally to one child. China would not be the world leader they are today if the one child policy had not been put in place. We also need zero energy buildings, restore historic land cover and land use, and we need to stop row crop farming in semi-arid and arid regions. We need to stop treating our oceans as if they were instant food replicators AND the ultimate trash dump.
People not interested in fixing the climate nor the environment. They just care about being seen wearing sackcloth, moaning, and gnashing their teeth whilst wringing their hands over this insurmountable global problem.
@Richard Frank
Well said Mr. Frank!
1
We are dealing with the Trump Titanic that's a planet killing combination of "climate change" denial and the roll back of existing regulations aimed at dealing with it like, as you noted, auto fuel standards. Then, one of most endangered states, Florida, already feeling the effects of sea level rise, hurricanes, and a massive red tide just elected another climate denier, Rick Scott, to the U.S. Senate. If those already on the leading edge of the climate catastrophe are unwilling to save themselves, God help us all!
10
"We are adding planet-warming carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at a rate faster than at any point in human history since the beginning of industrialization"
An understatement, at best.
There is no known period in the last 500 million years when carbon dioxide was added as fast as humans are doing it today. Not during extreme volcanic activity. Not during ice ages or incredible warmth. Not during any extinction periods - not even the Great Dying.
Period.
The time to pay attention was 30 years ago, when Dr. James Hansen testified before Congress. The time to galvanize an all-out effort was 20 years ago, when it was still possible to avoid catastrophe. The time to panic was 10 years ago, when humans began discussing geoengineering - and all it's attendant risks to the entire planet.
But meaningful steps were never taken.
I don't know what it's time for today.
The link below was published 8 years ago. We did nothing.
http://news.mit.edu/2011/mass-extinction-1118
22
@retired physicist
Relying on your memory from 8 years ago may have been a mistake. From the article: "....“The rate of injection of CO2 into the late Permian system is probably similar to the anthropogenic rate of injection of CO2 now...It’s just that it went on for … 10,000 years.”
We've only been at it for a couple of centuries.
It seems the overwhelming emotional reaction to global warming is denial. It is similar to hearing awful new and one's first reaction is to deny it happened.
4
It’s really simple.
We are taking a huge amount of carbon,
that was locked in the earth,
and throwing it up in the air.
It is not a natural process,
and thus,
we are seeing unnatural results.
Really bad unnatural results.
But it’s simple to see to why.
14
Climate change "deniers" often ignore the enormous cost of pollution to human, other animal, and plant life. Millions of lives lost are the direct and indirect cost of burning fossil fuels, thousands in the USA alone. Forests, waters, and infrastructure are destroyed by acid rain. If for no other reason than the pollution, climate deniers need to support clean energy initiatives. There are a number of plans for achieving 100% clean energy within three decades. My favorite is http://thesolutionsproject.org/why-clean-energy/.
4
One thing I would like to hear from climate scientists, perhaps in cooperation with botanists, is how the earth compensates for disturbances caused by global warming. For example, is it not possible that melting of the polar permafrost will give rise to more vegetation and trees there, which will consume excess carbon dioxide?
Also, what role are solar dynamics playing in climate change? It is becoming increasingly clear that the sun is not just a static ball of fire, but has its own cycle of solar flares.
Is it not possible that the perils of climate change and the degree of man's role in it are highly exaggerated, by politicians who want nothing more than to have more control over the population, in order to achieve more power?
7
@H.M.M.
The permafrost is also a big methane problem. Plants don't take up methane. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. This is a disaster in the making.
Why assume it is climate change that is "high exaggerated" and not "highly dismissed"? It is Exxon that in 1982 said that the impact of CO2 from fossil fuel could be "CATASTROPHIC".
6
@H.M.M. The degree of human kind's role in global warming are not under-estimated. Have a look yourself here: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
Many are still in denial that the western model of an continuous economic growth society is no longer sustainable. In the mean time, the Earth is slowly reacting to limit our growth by heating up; just as a human body fights the internal growth of bacteria or a virus but generating a fever. The fever will win even if it kills the patient.
We stand at an evolutionary turning point where we need to recognize that human survival depends on a real commitment to the welfare of all life and not the consumption of STUFF! Without a real commitment to the health of spaceship-Earth, our future will be limited indeed.
16
Unfortunately my mind has gone from fear to nihilism
There is nothing we can do
- population growth and development needs to stop (just do the energy balances)
- I have no faith that world leaders can do anything coordinated
- people will move and have moved to survival mode vs paying it forward ( the cost benefit will never be sold or articulated with precision)
I also wish this would destroy humanity (which we deserve) at least when I grew up nuclear war was a great end point to humanity.
Instead we’ll decimate the evironment and adapt to a world of reduced liveable land mass, few flora/fauna species and narrow subsistence food choices in a reduced global population
So forgive me if your fear is met with “meh” given my own psychological coping -
I also fear that “fear” will propagate either similar or other responses
Too bad - more needs to be writen like this
6
Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" is an unfortunate example of a good intention, banning DDT, caused bad outcome: mass deaths from malaria. What unintended consequences could result if US, producing less than 20% of carbon emissions, takes drastic action and no one else does?
3
@Jon Brightman
The DDT ban was domestic. Other countries could have continued to use it.
1
@Jon Brightman
DDT Ban. A bad outcome? Not a bad outcome for much of the ecosystem. We are to 'home sapiens-centric' about so many things.
BTW - as I recall DDT was and is, I believe, still manufactured in : USA!
2
During the Obama Administration the US signed the Paris climate change accords. They wanted to raise mileage standards and lower pollution allowed for cars. The oil and auto industries fought against these and won. The new green deal has been slapped down by the Democratic establishment. They see these efforts as alarming the public. They see the GOP demagoguing up the issue. So the Democrat establishment wants to incrementally approach the problem. Work needs to be done to defeat Trump on real issues. The Democrats have wasted so much time and effort on the neo McCarthyite anti Russia hysteria. Meanwhile Trump has let his polluter buddies run wild.
4
The elephant in the room no one is talking about is the burgeoning human population on our small planet. Meanwhile our oceans are being depleted, insect (Remember the Monarch butterfly?) and bird populations have already crashed due to human encroachment and rampant over use of pesticide, aquifers needed for drinking water and agriculture are being drawn down at alarming, unsustainable rates, and the list goes on and on. The next 50, 100 years on this planet are not going to be pretty. At 71 years of age I'm kind of glad I won't be around to see it all unfold...
39
Climate change, environmental destruction?
The current situation of the human race is so absurd, so obviously the situation of a mere species, a creature subject entirely to scientific/biological laws and without plausible religious explanation, that we can forgive people interpreting the situation (exploding human population with no technological solution not to mention moral discipline to deal with the situation) in outlandish, conspiracy theory ways.
In fact we can imagine any number of alien invasion, SF scenarios to "explain" the situation. For example we can imagine the majority of the human race is actually an alien species in larval state, and that the relatively few and obviously secretive and hidden fully developed members of the alien species that we are over the past couple thousand years brought us to earth from another planet and have been forcing us to multiply and have placed science/technology in our hands to warm/alter the earth until the day it becomes livable and safe for the larvae that most of us are to go through metamorphosis to the fully developed alien state.
Climate change and environmental destruction are such today, so absurd, that they are replicating the situation which probably drove birth of science and radical paradigm change in the first place: Catastrophic pain/death to point of fantastic/phantasmagorical imagination and radical thought and invention to put the situation and heat of mind at bay. High fever births a number of thoughts.
"Buying an electric car is a drop in the bucket compared with raising fuel-efficiency standards sharply."
By far the greatest contributor to global warming is the American automobile industry, and buying an electric car is not a drop in the bucket.
4
@John Q
Absolutely correct John. 200,000 EV Bolts have been sold as of December.
That's 200,000 drops in the bucket. Multiply that by ten or 20 and personal responsibility surely will play a major role in inspiring collective action.
It's a huge cop-out to dismiss individual action, which this article suggests.
6
@John Q
Amen. It sends a signal. They're building SUVs because that's what we want. If we wanted to drive around on motorized chickens they would figure out how to supply that. The do surveys and give us what we want.
While I agree the "collective" approach makes a bigger impact, it is going nowhere. (Even the carbon tax when you calculate it out at cost per gallon is smaller than yearly price swings.) Nobody legislated going on cruise ships for a vacation instead of going to the nearest national park or a week long bike trip.
5
Simply not true: car emissions are NOT the greatest source of emissions. Part of the problem in this discussion “space” is that so few people understand the facts; the nature of the risks we face, and the practical options to address these risks.
4
In 1985 I visited St Johns VI and was astounded by the coral reefs. There was a small section demonstrating dead coral from people stepping on the coral, but 90% of the rest of the coral was like a dream. I took my kids there in 2010 and about 50% was now dead. I returned again with my kids in 2015 and 90% was dead. We don't plan on going back.
A registry of prominent politicians, business leaders and scientists who deny climate change should be kept. If climate change does to the rest of the planet that warming oceans and /or pollution did to coral then at least we have the responsible people for history to view. Their reputations, their family fortunes and their estates maybe could be used to compensate. Companies are not people (sorry Mitt R); people who run the governments and the polluting companies should be held personally responsible. Thats the only way to get any attention.
13
@Mickey
I had the same experience, snorkeling reefs in Tahiti, in 2017 vs. 1967.
It is hard to believe that the human game is not moribund.
2
@Mickey
I've made over 100 dives in various locations, and the story is the same everywhere. Corals are fragile. When you touch it it dies. And humans are such ignorant, clumsy primates. We think we're causing environmental destruction now. All new world megafauna died when we crossed the Bearing land bridge. Can you imagine the destruction when we "controlled" fire?
1
We are what 300M people in a total population of 7 Billion.
What we can reduce will 100x dwarfed by new found wealth and lifestyles of 2+ Billion Indians, Chinese.
They are on the path to Western lifestyles (1+ cars, air- conditioning, more garbage per capita, less re-use, etc.)
They are not about to let go of these. If anything, their morphing into Western lifestyles has just started.
Not suggesting we don't do anything, but let's be realistic. Just see the numbers above.
8
@Mehul Shah
Not true.
10% of the world's population is responsible for 50% of the CO2 generated. If Americans generated CO2 like the average European, GLOBAL emissions would drop by a THIRD.
The problem is us.
5
It's curious--or maybe public and scientific opinion have settled the issue forever--that drastic measures like nuclear energy and atmospheric engineering appear to be off the table as temporary- or long-term solutions. I get that such approaches come with hefty risks, and that besides the potential catastrophes of nuclear meltdown there is the inevitable problem of nuclear waste. Still, there seems to be little encouragement in Mr. Wallace's approach to have a debate on such things. I wonder if that too may be a sign of our mental reflexes clinging to old ways. That is, weighing nuclear dangers and drawbacks and finding them unacceptable may have resolved the issue appropriately for our (tardy) sense of climate alarm in previous decades. It would be an interesting debate to put it back on the table alongside all the devastation that climate science can now predict will occur without radical intervention.
4
@Peter
Every time, we get the same comments on two topics, claiming that "it is never discussed":
1. nuclear
2. population
I get tired of this, but here goes my standard reply:
1. Ok, I believe nuclear is safe and waste disposal is a solvable issue.
Now, what is your plan for getting 200 nuclear plants built in the USA? Discuss away; you are not being censored.
2. Of course population is a serious problem, with respect to CO2, and general environmental degradation, resource consumption, and conflict/war.
OK, what's your plan? Vote Republican, to defund Planned Parenthood and support the disempowerment of women, here and abroad?
My point is, it is really hard to take these kinds of comments seriously, because they sound like the kind of "gotcha" games played by right-wing/Russian trolls.
3
In our heart of hearts, many of us may be cognitively wired to be unable to understand that our civilizations are most likely to fall apart because of this, or to comprehend the costs of that, or to genuinely contemplate what to do about it, let alone meaningfully act. The same sort of denial about a spreading evil threatened to keep us out of WW2. It wasn't the public or individual actions that saved us from allowing the world to go entirely to pot then. It was a few brave leaders forcing their countries to swallow a bitter pill. We have nothing like that kind of leadership today. Today we have "leaders" who are followers, who say whatever they think their constituencies want to hear. And when it comes to the undeniable threat of climate destruction, most constituencies are out of their minds.
4
On August 1, 2018, The New York Times used its entire Sunday magazine as a vehicle for the brilliant article by Nathanial Rich, "Losing Earth," which explains not only the dire crisis facing our planet due to climate change, but also explains in detail why the people running our planet failed when they had the chance 30 years ago to take meaningful action against it. Part of the answer for the failure was Big Oil, and the other part of the answer was the human ability to discount the future.
Now on February 16, 2019, Mr. Wallace-Wells steps up to the plate, with zero mention of Mr. Rich's seminal work. Was Rich's work flawed? If so, in what way?
Mr. Wallace-Wells finds "progress" in the fact that the data look so dire that scientists now have "permission" to articulate a "freak out" message about climate change. Yet he notes that Washington State voters "rejected even a modest carbon-tax plan." These voters exemplify why our planet is doomed: they don't want to make any personal sacrifices because they are discounting the future, and special interests (and their politicians) are making sure they discount the future through misinformation campaigns.
Our planet is rocketing past 1°C. It will cease to exist in any recognizable form at 5°C. But the world's bought-and-paid-for politicians will do nothing, because asking voters to make sacrifices (remember the scoffs when Pres. Carter asked people to turn down their thermostats?) makes you, the politician, a loser.
14
Climate change is just one of many natural phenomena. Today we are are seeing a rapid change, but a change that is within the known geological record. My favorite 'for instance': about 120,000 years ago sea level was 20 feet higher, on average, than it is today,
We have built up our coastlines - of course the damage is now unprecedented.
Flooding is more dramatic: we have drained wetlands and built more 'hard' structures increasing run off and resultant flooding.
And of course there are more of us, using resources and exhaling the carbon dioxide that is part of how our internal ecosystem operates.
As for the Washington state voters: maybe they did get it right.
Electric cars are being subsidized to the benefit of the relatively well-off. And I also know that my electric bill is going way up, again to subsidize the relatively well off that can afford solar panels.
I do remember when in the span of 2 weeks, 2 hurricanes, Carol and Edna hit New England in 1954(?).
Finally and speaking of weather, snow storms in particular. We have changed the way we measure snow fall accumulation in a way that increases the published amount. That is one reason why The Blizzard of (19)78 is no longer the storm of record. Worse, we have redefined the conditions that cause a snowstorm to be called a blizzard. The Temperature, wind and snow accumulation rates have been lowered such that we now have 'more' blizzards than we used to. Words can be powerful, if misleading,
8
I was in panic many many years ago. But now I am at peace. Because I know it is too late. Nothing - absolutely nothing - can be done to avert catastrophe. Humanity will continue after the catastrophe is over. But for a century or two humanity will grapple with mass migration and mass slaughter as it settles into a vast realigned world based on climate realities.
24
@Jzu
You are generous in assuming that humanity will survive. I was recently admiring the sedimentary layers in the cliffs north of Barcelona, and wondering how soon humanity and all life forms we know will be just another layer in future rocks.
We are a slow-motion version of that comet that struck Earth many aeons ago, wiping out the dinosaurs. Only we’re doing it to ourselves and every other living thing on the planet.
It’s a shame, really.
12
@Jzu
I completely agree
The reason for complacency is much easier to explain. While most Americans believe in naturally occurring climate change, very few believe that the human role is more than 1%. Published studies put the figure well below 1% so the reaction is why bother. We are pushing on a string.
4
@Dady
Data sources please? UPI poll in 2018 found 34% blame humans exclusively for warming and 26% partially.
Let's all understand something here. The change will NOT come from individuals taking shorter hot showers and buying electric cars. The change that's needed will come from governments, all of them working together. As long as any government will let me drive a car with a combustion engine in it, or an electric car which electricity is produced by burning coal, as long as I'll be allowed to eat meat and take a plane twice a month, nothing will happen. Ok, some scientists and intelligent people are now aware and scared by the situation. Big deal. No political candidate seeking elections in any country in the next 5 years will have the political courage to do what's necessary. We're going to need a big disaster, maybe partial crop failure, to react meaningfully to the problem. I even doubt that. Start moving your grand kids to Nova Scotia.
12
@Philippe Orlando
There's no forecast that predicts safety in Nova Scotia --or any other maritime province. Halifax won't be habitable as sea levels rise or Charlottetown, P.E.I. We are simply leaving our grandkids a tragic existence.
Humankind will not work for the collective good. We never have. Civilization will survive and progress but a generation of the poor, or poorly prepared, will be extinguished. Our America, especially the great plains of the Midwest where much of our agriculture lies, may become desert. Our beaches and estuaries will be flooded. Large seaside cities will be inundated and uninhabitable. Residents forced to move or die. Many species of flora and fauna will become stressed or die off. But those people with resources and the ability to move and adjust will be just fine. Climate change will bring change or an end to many, but the wealthy will do just fine. Wait and see.
4
@Patrick Stevens: I, for one, am thinking ahead and have purchased beach-front property. Or what will soon be....
In the Poconos.
Due to global warming temperatures are rising globally; glaciers are melting; animal life is being displaced; and sea levels are rising. It's an hazardous cascade once it starts, and harder to counteract as time goes on.
But *listen to the climate change deniers. *The climate has changed before and we're still here. *The animals will adapt. *A few inches in sea level rise will not cause coastal flooding. *We're having a record cold winter! Bah humbug on global warming.
Insurance policies exist for a for a reason: because the worst might happen. Yet we're unwilling to address the greatest potential threat to human existence and prepare. Those alive today may not be directly affected; but our grandchildren and their descendants will be. They will despise us for our ignorance and lack of foresight.
10
@Sunny
The really sad part is your descendants won't know that the world was ever any different than what they know it to be. The last survivors on Easter Island were as well fed as their contemporaries in Europe were. But 60% of what they ate were rats. They were happy rat eaters, blissfully unaware of any other animal flesh to consume. Afterall, humans have already consumed all the megafauna of North America thousands of years ago. Do you miss groundsloths?
1
This is the worst kind of fear-mongering. There is no upsurge in extreme weather events and nearly all of the largest fires in the history of the West happened in the late 19th and early 20th century, BEFORE global warming. The idea that the small amount of warming we've seen is causing catastrophic fires in the West is ridiculous. It's the presence of humans in formerly unsettled areas that is responsible for the increase in destruction. Sea level rise began long before the increase in CO2 became problematic.
There has been no marked increase in hurricanes or tornadoes. Government figures show it.
There is no proof that human influences are the cause of the slight warming we've seen. Until natural variability is eliminated as the cause, it is ridiculous to spend trillions on a problem that may not be significant and might only require slow adaptation in the long run. Many scientists believe that temperatures in the Medieval Warming Period were higher than they are today.
The prime driver of alarmist climate policy is the desire of environmentalists to gain control of the extraction, processing, distribution and consumption of fossil fuels, even if it is never proven they have a role in the slight (and fitful) rise in temperatures we've witnessed in the past century. It's a power grab plain and simple and the hysteria in columns like this one only shows how desperate they are to succeed.
9
@Dougal E
Speaking of "control", let's give capitalism a chance to introduce some changes. Companies are already starting to incorporate climate change into their product lines. Bill Gates has far more credibility than most activists.
To deny the role of capitalism in bringing positive change is to expose an ideology that has little to do with climate change. We need to decouple progressive ideology from climate change policy.
1
@Dougal E
How can anyone get it all so wrong? There are very few experts in agreement with you, and so very many that make the opposite argument.
Your statement that environmentalist want to take over oil production is Looney Tunes laughable — they want to end it, not take it over. You imply they want this for monetary gain, but instead they seek *planetary* gain!
Our current president has really made bald faced lying popular!
1
One comment about the wording of this sentence:
“We are adding planet-warming carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at a rate faster than at any point in human history since the beginning of industrialization”
The clause at the end is misplaced. It implies that the rate was possibly faster during human history but before the beginning of industrialization. In fact, the current rate of adding greenhouse gases, both carbon dioxide and methane, is higher than at any point in the last several million years. Thus, it would be better to state “faster rate than at any point in human history” and leave it at that.
6
With all due respect, the human species is long overdue for a purge. Every year millions die for lack of food, clean water and adequate medical care. Clear signs that our species has outgrown its environment.
Climate change will no doubt decimate the human population and radically disrupt the existing biological order. This has happened before. Climate change, pandemics, meteor strikes have wiped out large portions of the planet’s biota. Homo sapiens emerged as the predominant species toward the end of the last ice age. Millions died in the Black Plague. And the planet endured.
No one knows how climate change will alter the face of the planet and the balance of power among its inhabitants. But it is increasingly obvious that the die has been cast and it is probably too late to change how it will roll.
8
They say frogs boiled slowly in tepid water fail to perceive the danger they are in, remaining in the pot until eventually cooked alive. Our lack of inaction due to the specious findings of 3% of climate scientists and a large financial investment in managing public opinion by the fossil fuel industry reminds one of us living in the frog parable in real time.
12
Two excellent points here and one small miss. The legitimization of "fear" goes against the conventional wisdom at climate change events and articles to stay totally away from it as it can only lead to depression and inaction. Instead, hope and the goal of flourishing are the espoused psychological and communications key and strategy. There needs to be a role for each. The suggestion of widespread cognitive biases, self-deception, and delusion is rare. In addition to the better known external barriers, such as resistance from dinosaur industries, there are those we do to ourselves, for which there is no villain to blame. I came up with a whole list of mindset barriers, including but beyond cognitive biases, many of which held by the "good guys" as well, and well beyond the few often mentioned at conferences. See http://greeneconomynj.org/2019/01/03/new-jersey-now-gets-climate-change-what-we-are-still-missing-why-were-not-talking-about-what-were-not-talking-about-part-4/. Now how to change these I haven't figured out yet. Ideas are welcome. Lastly, I wouldn't discount "conscious consumerism" as "a cop-out." It may not be as important as some of the big policy measures, but what has been called an "all-of-the-above" strategy--one that the fear orientation of this article surely calls for, it must play a role, too. One of the only sources of hope I can think of is if the separate measures often called for, and our individual actions to address the problem, prove synergistic.
1
The author doesn't mention another possible outcome of climate change that could follow Malthusian reasoning. Although Malthus limited his scope to population growth, the same reasoning may be applicable to violent climate change. As climate conditions markedly reduce food production and distribution, inundate coastal cities and burn forests, all disrupting vast populations, the climate change multipliers will decrease accordingly. World population will decrease with it, as Malthus predicted, and the Earth's climate may revert to a more sustainable condition by itself. Perhaps the anti-science, anti-climate-change elements of our society see this and believe they have the means to weather even the most extreme disruptions - and they may be right.
2
The Sky is Falling will not work today any more than it has worked in the last 2 thousand years. Every single generation hears some kind of doomsday prediction about how the world will end on their watch and this is the newest form of it. Fear will produce a backlash not some mad dash to 'fix' climate change. Technology can and will solve these problems but not if you start trying to reinvent the wheel in the next 12 years. Ever heard the saying the cure is worse than the disease? It describes climate change perfectly and this article illustrates why.
7
@GregP
Allow me to sell you some beachfront property near the arctic circle. The water will be just fine in about 40 years.
5
@R.F. Why have property values in Manhattan increased 10 fold since Al Gore said in 2000 that NYC will be underwater by 2013?
1
The author makes a good point in discussing how difficult it is to imagine his world, or his daughter's world, in the decades to come. Too many articles about global warming refer over and over to what the world will be like in the year 2100. An emphasis on the many adverse events occurring now and forecast within the next decade would be much more meaningful to readers...and voters.
4
This article frames the changes in ways people will not understand: other than scientists, how many people understand the impact of a seemingly minor change like 1 or 2 degrees? Let me reframe this issue: from past research, I know that evening temperatures in New England are much warmer than they were in my childhood (1950s) and lows have risen more than highs. Let's take August lows. In August 1959, the average low temperature in Hartford CT was 61 F; in August 2018, it was 68 F. The lowest temperature recorded in August 1959 was 48 F; in August 2018, it was 57 F. How about 1958? Average low 61; lowest 49. 1960? 60 and 45. 2017? 63 and 57; 2016? 70 (sic) and 57. 2015? 68 and 57. So, 1958-60, an average low of 60 or 61; in 2015-2018, average lows of 68, 70, 63, and 68. Circa 1960, it used to drop into the 40s several nights in late August; how many times has that happened since 2000? NONE. In the last five years, it has never dropped below 55, let alone 50. In 1940, the average low was 54, and it reached 38 one night. In 2016, the highest daily LOW temperature, 79, was three degrees HIGHER than 1940's average daily HIGH temperature. Hmm, Cape Cod? In August 1978, Chatham had an average low of 61 [60 in 1958]; in 2018, it was 68. You want to talk about climate change? Start thinking about those kinds of numbers.
14
Nothing good comes from panic. It’s likely that in panic we’ll spend trillions of dollars on things that sound good but don’t work. We need 2 things ASAP though. First we need to remove about one trillion tons of carbon from the air, not just curb emissions. Curbing in this situation simply slows but does not arrest the problem. There are ways to do this effectively and at low cost such as open ocean iron fertilization to promote plankton growth. Second, bigger than the emissions challenge is the reality that we haven’t found any new oil on the planet since 2003. We are burning our reserves. Even BP acknowledged in its 2014 annual report that there was about a 54-year supply of oil left in the earth. We need to spin up an all electric economy that’s uses oil and coal only when absolutely needed. That means air travel and war fighting. But it also means materials production. It takes 7 gallons of oil to make one car tire, for example. We only burn about 60 percent of the oil we pump. We need to save the oil we have left for things that require it and find better ways to do everything else. We can do this.
12
Life will go on, but just a small fraction of human life, and it will be tough for them.
8
I see nature asserting itself against the mistreatment we humans have meted out. It doesn’t fill me with panic, but with a strong sense of nature-justice finally getting its due. We’ve had our time here, and look at all the destruction we’ve cause with greedy impunity. Dying is inevitable in nature. In the cycle, we die and something else is eventually born. Let’s face what we’ve done, who we are as a species, the greedy species with the capability to destroy. It’s sad, but true.
16
We are an incredibly self-important species. But species come and go. Are we a species that values and pursues sustainability or a species that boundlessly uses and hordes resources? Most indications point to the latter. Perhaps the next evolved species will be more selfless.
6
We have all experienced a period of climate stability and assume that is the norm. It is not. A University College London researcher on historic climate shift studied the sea rise that separated England from the European continent. Sea movement inland appears to have moved at three feet a day due to melt, especially evident in low lying southeast England. Imagine if every tide crept in three more feet a day in low lying ares. (The ocean is not a bath tub; rise is not consistent.)
Check out Doggerland, the now submerged lowland between England and Europe (sorry I cannot find the prof's name and research link). (I am not referring to the Storegga Slide tsunami but the Holocene, 12,000 to 6,000 before present, sea rise preceding it). Hunter gathers inhabited the areas.
I sympathize with the author, but I don't think that a political solution is ever going to work. Deniers are not going to suddenly admit they are wrong. We've already seen a preview of this with many who accept the need for "resiliency", such as coastal barriers, while still denying the underlying human cause. No one likes to admit they are wrong, even if this moves us all closer to our graves.
Perhaps a better solution is for those if us who accept the science to help support a fund that will work toward a technologal breakthrough. Fundamentally, the problem is easy to frame--there is simply too much carbon dioxide and methane in the air. If we can scale up direct air capture technologies, there may be no need to drastically reduce emissions, which would be preferable but is proving politically impossible.
Better, we should do both. Fight for emissions reductions, but also work toward serious funding of technologies that pull CO2 from the air. Maybe in 30 years we'll have a giant network of automated solar-powered factories building artful pyramids of carbon-laden bricks out in the world's deserts, directly sequestering the problem. Science fiction now, but we humans have a knack toward accomplishing what once seems impossible. Let's fund such breakthrough efforts. It may be our only real chance.
3
@Dwarf Planet
"Deniers" may have some rational questions. They may have a healthy skepticism of some of the more extreme proposals. They may, in fact, inject some common sense into the discussion.
1
@AACNY The implication of what you wrote is that the huge world-wide consensus of climate scientists, people who have devoted their academic and professional lives to the study of a complex question, do have "common sense". And that those who deny that we are headed for a climate cliff can supply what you think is much needed "common sense". Simply absurd.
@AACNY
Sure. They’ve really helped so far.
1
Thomas Malthus warned us at the beginning of the 19th century that human fertility eventually outstripped our capacity to expand output, leading to famine and disease, nature's solution to the population problem. This cycle of boom and bust would continue until or unless we found more humane ways of curtailing population growth.
The industrial revolution and the invention of artificial methods of birth control seemed to solve the problem. Technological development accelerated economic growth beyond levels conceivable to Malthus's generation, while the "pill" provided a safe and secure method of preventing unwanted pregnancies.
But the very technology which enabled us to escape the Malthusian trap now threatens to destroy us. Some optimists (including Bret Stephens of the Times) believe that technology will also rescue us from our folly, that the drastic changes advocated by Wallace-Wells represent a scientifically unnecessary and politically impossible path of salvation.
Perhaps, but this faith in technological solutions sounds more like a desperate effort to deny reality than an accurate reading of our future prospects. Malthus believed that humans had an inherent tendency to exaggerate their ability to manipulate nature. In ways he could not have imagined, climate change may prove him to have been correct after all.
4
I think that we aren't thinking big enough. Reducing our individual carbon footprint is fine and should be pursued as new technologies give us the opportunity to do so. What is really needed is a "Manhattan" project to accelerate the development of alternative energy through pure scientific research. And funding it through a carbon tax would be particularity elegant. I am not holding me breath though.
6
While it is correct to criticize our policies, from a world leadership position, it is important to realize that the developing world is on a rapidly rising growth curve of fossil fuel consumption. Most of this growth is in Asia right now, but will be rapidly followed by other developing regions, with the expansion of electrical infrastructure feeding that increasing demand (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37932).
While we might pine for expansion of renewable energy sources to feed this frenzy of energy growth requirements, they cannot meet the demands without technological innovations that will allow efficient capture and storage of excess power. The power production is simply too spiky, and the methods we currently use, for capture and storage of any excess energy, are far too inefficient for us to make major inroads against fossil fuel-generated power.
What the US has ceded, during the current administration, is any semblance of leadership. To curtail the rapidly expanding need for fossil fuels, we need rapid innovation and technological improvement in energy storage systems, so that renewable energy systems can supplant the current, GHG-emitting, generation of power plants.
It is correct to castigate our leadership for an ignorant lack of foresight, and for the dismantling of policies that would curtail our own use of fossil fuels. What we need is research into better energy storage systems that will allow us to move, rapidly, away from fossil fuels.
3
There have been more honest articles covering the dangers of global warming this week than it seems the past 30 years. And covering threats never anticipated by GW scientists before. I cannot recall if Wells covered it, but the methane threat both from melting permfrost on land and from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf and other parts of the ocean is finally being discussed. Methane emissions from the Laptev Sea are growing and the permafrost on the bottom of the shallow ice shelf there is degrading faster than ever expected. Another important issue is that a Blue Ocean Event will raise global warming temperatures it's been speculated by .4C . And if we start transitioning (I only hope and pray) to solar and wind much more quickly and invest in mass transit which is critical, a secondary problem awaits us--global dimming often not discussed. I'm glad the business elites have woken from the slumber. I just hope that Bloomberg also insists leading candidates don't ensure another Republican election in 2020 with more failed identity politics.
3
It won’t work; powerful corporations, short-term politicians, greed for profit and the way we have restructured our economy means it won’t work.
It.Will.Not.Work.
It will not work. We missed our chance, as a species to save the world, and we have failed.
15
@Paul Yates This is the only comment out of dozens I've read so far that makes sense. Thanks for stating it. Should be obvious, but I guess it isn't and won't be, ever. This discussion reminds me of people arguing in a crowded, leaky rowboat in the middle of an ocean.
2
@Paul Yates
Sobering comment Paul, but you nailed it in just a few lines of text . Sad, but true, we have missed our chance....
1
This problem is obviously global, and can only be solved by unified global action; it will never be solved by by relying on individuals to simply make better choices. Reduction of carbon emmissions must be mandatory for all, and can only be achieved by universal government mandates. These are certain to be unpopular, especially among those who would suffer economically because of them. Ultimately, the solution, to the extent that there is one, must be political, and unwelcome changes must universal and aggressively enforced. Politicians hoping for re-election cannot be counted on to promote policies that will win the approval of voters who are still hoping that climate change is a "hoax," as our president has called it numerous times. Therefore, the necessary changes must be written into federal law, or even into our constitution, and this must somehow be enacted largely against the will of large segments of the population, although it would be very much in their interest. I don't know how to achieve this, but would be most interested to hear any thoughtful and practical suggestions.
@Chintermeister so you are suggesting that even if we (all those "climate deniers" ) don't agree with you, you will somehow force us, using the power of the government, to stop eating beef, drive our cars, etc., EVEN if the actual evidence (like snow last week in hawaii) is against you.
isn't that anti-democratic fascism?
Human climate change, environment destruction today?
A person's opinion on the matter seems to hinge on a knowledge of science, or rather lack of knowledge of science. Or best of all: The apparent unwillingness or inability of the powers that be to make it clear to the public the ability of science and technology to fix these problems and whether or not we will have to make significant changes in the human lifestyle.
Whether a person rejects the science of climate change or believes in outlandish theories such as aliens are manipulating humanity to terraform the planet in a catastrophic way to perhaps all life on earth, this seems to depend on ignorance of science. But science also does not seem forthcoming about the fact that the human race apparently is a quite animalistic and exploding population and that all the greatest human achievements seem in final analysis to not express that we are human but mere dumb animals after all wasting everything around us.
When I see the absurdity of exploding population and apparent lack of explanation of scientific/technological solution I have no choice but to suspect that if worse comes to worst the most powerful in society will combine to prevent catastrophic war (nuclear annihilation) and will somehow inoculate/protect themselves and condemn the rest of humanity to a probably various biological agent attack to drastically reduce the human numbers...
We need a clear and total explanation from science of where we stand now.
2
Precisely why we need a carbon tax and carbon dividends, because it is corporations that can make the biggest difference in carbon emissions through their actions in adjusting to the tax. People will also make a contribution, but it is companies with scale we need to incentivize.
4
While my hope the world (people, governments, business) will change my belief they will is all but non existent.
Smoking is among the leading causes of sickness and death. Almost 500,000 people die each year in the US and millions die around the world. Sixteen million Americans live with smoking related health problems. For decades the tobacco industry managed to raise doubts about the health impacts of smoking and prevent government protective laws even as the evidence of harm was overwhelming. Today, when there is virtually no doubt about the devastating effects of smoking, there are more then a billion people who smoke. Not to be forgotten, our government has essentially become partners with the tobacco industry - partners in death - through the vast sums of tax revenues generated through tobacco sales.
We are seeing exactly the same kind of pattern and response played out with regard to climate change (and other environmental impacts). Why should we expect a different outcome? The difference this time isn't with the lives of millions of people but with the life of the whole planet at stake.
7
China would not have made the rapid transition to modernity it did without the one-child policy that capped its explosive population growth rate. Now climate change forces the issue onto everyone.
25
Framing the issue in terms of “Catastrophic Alarm” is an unhelpful oversimplification. The question should be: “Is Overcoming Climate Change a Global Task?”
As an unabashed Universalist, I defined, in 1989, a task as global when it fulfils four (and a half) necessary conditions:
1. Performing the task is necessary to confront and solve a problem, posing an existential danger, which is recognized as common, and relatively equal, to the majority of the actors in world politics.
2. The task cannot be performed and the problem solved by the actions of some actors against other.
3. The completion of the task will not result in a radically more privileged relative position for some of the global actors.
4. In the context of world order, the danger confronted must be recognized by all the relevant (necessary for the solution) actors as surpassing the Survival Predicament (as defined by the Realist World View).
5. Accommodating but not necessary: the completion of the task necessitates the (relative) participation of all major actors. It cannot be solved by the actions and contribution of few of the actors (“free riders” problem).
Up to now, there was nothing confronting humankind more justifiable to be termed as a Global Task than the (practical) abolition of nuclear weapons. The issue then is: by now, should fighting Climate change be recognized, and dealt with, as a similarly clear and present Global Task. Mr. Wallace-Wells data and arguments make a strong case for doing so.
4
@Meir Stieglitz...with respect, you've fallen into the trappings of intellectism that is good at responding with philosophy---not so good at reacting (urgency) to a basic primal threat. Sorry, but you're a century too late with the philosophical forensic analysis thing. Like a religionist, you pretend you exist in spite of the world, and not as the biological part of it you are. The harsh realities of our physical existence easily trump the silly mental contortions we exercise in pretending that we can---and in this case, have the time--- to think our way out of it. If not an elevated urgency now, then when?
1
@kstew What you call “the trapping of intellectualism” is the philosophically deepest, theoretically sharpest and essentially necessary Universalist manifesto against the “collapse of our civilization”.
Here’s a simple practical example: you’ve to immediately convince the Russian and the Chinese that the risk to their countries and regimes from American “nuclear modernization” is less than the danger posed by rising global temperatures; the only way of doing so is by cancelling or massively cutting this totally unnecessary in security calculations and humanity-endangering program.
Or, of course, you can choose to flood the streets and media with Green alarms and urgent-environmental-truths and have as much success as the Occupy Wall Street had.
Thank you for detailing how truly bad things are.
Something's changing. In 2015, Bret Stephens was writing at the Wall Street Journal. He characterized climate change as "hysteria" and listed it among other American "imaginary enemies," like "hunger." He concluded: "Here's a climate prediction for the year 2115: Liberals will still be organizing campaigns against yet another mooted social or environmental crisis. Temperatures will be about the same."
Yesterday, in his Times piece "Is Nancy Pelosi a Climate Skeptic?", Stephens advocated for solving global warming via incremental change and more "wealth" through "market economies."
I thought the Green New Deal badly executed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. As the GND buries good ideas in what sounds like a right-wing caricature of left-wing identity politics, interests like big oil are, through the likes of Mitch McConnell, trying to discredit everything about it. However, politicians finally forcefully making the right argument, even badly, now advances serious discussions on the enormity of the problem and solutions.
If even climate deniers like Stephens have shifted towards embracing incrementalism, it means they're scared that radical change is seen by most as the only way to address global warming. I've been afraid for a long time. It is good that climate deniers are so afraid they no longer deny, only backpedal and bargain. It means enough people understand that it is time to panic, and incrementalism won't cut it.
26
@Robert B
Deniers as you call them are still denying that any of this junk science is true.
You should read the other side.
When I was a child, I wanted to help invent a practical nuclear fusion reactor. It is still the toughest problem in engineering physics, and particle physics theory has hit a dead end.
4
@Steve Bolger...thank you, Steve. Most won't realize it, but this is the most pertinent post this morning. The planet will be approaching 10 billion in a half-century. What's always left out of the discussion re: future alternatives is what will provide enough energy density for credible sustenance. This notion the solar and wind turbines are the answer is ludicrous. A.) too low an energy density for heavily populated regions, which are already becoming unsustainable, and B) people forget that those too require resources that are NOT INFINITE. Not to be a hopeless fatalist, but this all gets much worse with future population displacement when water aquifers in regions of the world where they're already drying up can no longer sustain. Not to mention unsustainable farming techniques rendering useless growing seasons. Short of harnessing nuclear fusion without blowing the planet into a gazillion asteroids, there's theory, but at this point no other tangible alternative energy with enough density where we can discontinue utilizing fossil fuels.
5
The baked-in emission of another one trillion metric tons of CO2 over the next 25 years from fossil fuel combustion does not include any contributions from other greenhouse gases and positive feedback effects like methane from melting tundra and more CO2 from accelerated forest combustion.
We're probably already toast.
31
A great case study can persuade people. How about Miami? Rising sea levels will swamp some of the most expensive real estate on the planet. We need actuaries to estimate: What is the present day value today of Miami property that will be almost certainly under water in 2100 (only 80 years away)? a good case study can show the 1% that their fortunes will be affected and then they will weigh in with politicians.
2
@SMC Yacht sales. It's the 1%.
Controlled panic is what's needed. AOC's ten years of panic is a call to action. If we do very little over the next 30 years, then, yes, we will panic and implement all those AOC radical changes (end cars, and airplanes, ban coal, etc.) then. All she's doing is presenting those panicky 10 years from the future now so people can get focused. Those ten years of panic will happen in a few decades if we don't get on this.
Gen Z needs to get energized and political now but truthfully they, and all generations now living, need to be thinking and working seven generations ahead, a la Jonathan Schell in his book, The Fate of the Earth.
Bill Nye maybe said it best: I'm not afraid for the planet as it will survive. It's the human race that may not make it.
17
@SMC
Bill Nye is not a climatologist. You should read the other side.
@Alex Jones
We HAVE read the other side, and found the results useful. We're planning a cookbook of nutcake recipes.
2
Such hubris we humans exhibit while destroying the planet for future generations. Australia is deep into one of the longest droughts in recorded history. Record rainfalls and terrible floods in the far north in Queensland. Out of control bushfires ravaging the inhabited forests and pristine World Heritage wilderness areas of Tasmania. And the federal government wants to allow India's Adani Mining to create the largest open-pit coal mine in the world tapping precious fresh water aquifers for its production with industrial port expansion at Port of Abbott Point threatening the fragile coral ecosystems of the World Heritage Great Barrier Reef.
This is a climate crisis.
18
Britain had its Churchill to lead them at a time when it faced a danger threatening its very existence. We need a Churchill to get us through the current looming catastrophe. Churchill had the foresight to see the danger and as importantly, had the intellect and fortitude to navigate the response.
Who has these qualities now?
I seriously and thoughtfully suggest all who have concern get actively behind a movement to encourage, draft, and elect Al Gore for president. Not only is he the most qualified person to politically address this MOST critical issue, nay crises, but he has the depth and breadth of political experience that gas been woefully lacking in some of our recent politicians.
Seriously consider this.
14
I do not think humans and our institutions are capable of taking the concerted actions we are told are necessary in time to slow down climate change and avert the worst consequences. Evolution is ongoing.
11
@abigail49
Abigail the difference between the very difficult and the impossible is that the impossible is a little harder.
Do not throw-in the towel. It is two much at stake for us, our children, their children, and their children's children. Now is the time to double down and put an end to the dirty, disease causing fossil fuel economy. Fortunetely with the cost of new wind now so low that t's now cheaper to build a new wind farm than to keep a coal plant running the end is near. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/its-now-cheaper-to-build-a-new-wind-farm-than-to-keep-a-coal-plant-running/
Ask your self who would want to pay MORE for electricity that harms fetuses by causing retardation and autism from mercury pollution, damages kids lungs causing life long asthma, and causes prematures deaths from bronchitis (NOX and SO2) , cancer (V.O.C) and heart disease (particulates)?
The only ongoing evolution is that of our economy away from dangerous fossil fuels.
PS I recently discovered that many people think coal is pure carbon thinking the only problem is S02 that we exhale. But as climate deniers they do not worry about it.
In fact coal is laced with dangerous heavy metals: mercury a nurotoxin that damages fetuses, lead that also causes irreparable damage to children, cadmium is one of the most toxic elements to which man can be exposed in the environment, and arsenic a carcinogen.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e0d9/6043f7cf1926cb28dd3f19a4cfaef159e8b9.pdf
1
@Eli You have compelling facts but the emotions are stronger than facts. Also, we have lost parental concern for future generations after our own deaths. We want it all now. We have lost the willingness to sacrifice personally for the common good. We don't even believe in the common good. Thanks to technology, we have lost our symbiotic and spiritual connection to the Earth and hence do not acknowledge our dependence on it. The Earth will have the final say in the matter.
@abigail49
May be in Georgia but in Rhode Island where I live parental concern for future generations is at an all time high. My town voted 87% for Hillary who had said "it takes a village to raise children". Self-sacrifice is the norm for all the children in our neighborhoods and schools.
Many people support coal not because they do not care for their children but simply because they do not know it damages fetuses and hurts kids lungs irreparably.
In our state we elect democrats committed to the common good. We do not like liars and crooks in government. We threw in jail a Governor, two mayors, and the president of a major bank to protect the common good (from both parties).
Rhode Islanders have strong spiritual connection to the Earth and the Ocean.
I was at a town meeting in Portsmouth Rhode when the planning committee gave a height variance to install the first industrial size wind turbine at a very prestigious school and monastery. The request for a variance cited the spiritual significance of wind turbines that displace dirty disease causing electricity. The Rhode Island monks showed a picture of a wind turbines in the Sisters of Sacred Heart in North Dakota https://cleanenergy.org/blog/creationcare/
The vote was unanimous. The chair said "like people before us who took risks to come to this land, today I vote yes and I am sure this is the first of many wind turbines we will approve in the future".
In 2019 RI leads the nation in offshore wind energy.
2
Part of the problem, one not addressed here or in most current articles on warming, is that the only thing addressed is the semi-superficial cause of emissions quantity and, occasionally, quality.
Ignored is the essential cause of increased emissions: the combined effect of vastly increased population with the democratization of expectations for material well-being. Increased use of fossil fuels is essentially an intermediate cause of global warming. If you don't deal with those realities, there is no way to solve the problem.
Earth's population has quadrupled in the past century. And, not only has the standard of living gone up hugely but, more importantly from the viewpoint of developing a political consensus to deal with global warming, people's expectations of what they deserv has increased. It's not just 500 billion more people but 500 billion more who want and believe they are entitled to some form of middle-class life, with all the STUFF such entails.
Zero Population Growth was big several decades ago. It largely disappeared as a major political movement for many reasons, one of which is apparent in countries whose population has been stable or declining: a scarcity of workers able to support an aging population. Add to that the reality that kids by-and-large grow up with the values of their parents and that the more conservative cultures have a higher fertility rate than liberal ones, and you have another demographic time bomb in dealing with global warming.
36
@Steve Fankuchen
Thanks Steve, population is the motor force driving global environmental destruction including climate change but reducing our numbers is somehow unspeakable. Carbon emission controls would make no difference with 10billion of us demanding our fair share of modernity.
4
I share your concerns about human population growth and growth in per-capita consumption. But you used ‘billions’ when I think you meant ‘millions’.
1
@Steve Fankuchen "Earth's population has quadrupled in the last century." Really?
"This is what the beginning of a solution looks like."
Nah, the beginning of a solution is for Americans to get honest. *They* are the ones who have blocked collective international action against climate change for two decades, first with Kyoto and then with Paris. And collective international action is the only meaningful way forward.
This opinion piece in the NYT has no mention of the specific responsibility of Americans and America for the failure to combat climate change.
Nor does this opinion piece mention population, or the specific responsibility of American pro-natalist dogma which has ensured the world not take collective action against the population increase which is the biggest single reason our planet is being destroyed.
Time to panic? This opinion piece gives the rest of the world all the more reason to.
18
I think you’re very much within your rights to be angry about the role of the USA in the continuing and escalating climate crisis.
Religionists who think they have a right/duty to have as many offspring as possible get me steamed as well. That being said, I am not sure what is stopping the EU or France from stepping in to fund health education and the availability of contraception in poorer regions.
15
@John. Wonderful. Of course European governments spend money to support the availability of contraception and family planning in poorer regions. The U.S. doesn't. Do you understand that, right? So your point is what then exactly? That Europe should make up all the shortfall created by the U.S.?
As I said, time for the rest of the world to panic, when this seems to be the American reaction to global problems (right here in the NYT comments section!) - Americans won't do anything, and it's up to others to do something - indeed everything - so Americans don't have to do anything.
How very moral.
1
Climate Change is the Tragedy of the Commons writ large on a global scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Confronting people with an unpleasant situation, one that their own beliefs and assumptions have helped create is counter-productive if it triggers a defensive reaction. Nobody likes to admit they're wrong or at fault. Hitting them with facts and figures often results in hardening of positions - denialism and fatalism are two responses we are seeing now. And there is always indifference.
The problem is to find a way to allow people to finesse their own role in arriving at where we are in a way that allows them to rationalize changing their minds as a positive thing.
It's also necessary to recognize there are those who see the necessary actions to deal with climate change as an even bigger threat to their interests than climate change itself - and they are actively in opposition.
For those who want some object lessons from history about how well humans handle existential threats, now would be a good time to get a copy of Jared Diamond's book "Collapse - how societies choose to fail or succeed." There are enough horrible examples in there to give anyone pause - but also some successes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed
7
"Are those people unwilling to pay that money because they think the game is over or because they don’t think it’s necessary yet?"
I think there's a third possibility, in that Americans don't believe that they should carry the burden of CO2 emissions reductions while developing countries continue to grow their economies on the back of fossil fuels. That this view may or may not reflect reality can be argued. Also wondering why the pollsters didn't simply ask the follow up question as to why people would not pay more to save the planet.
6
Please explain why rich, well informed people are still buying beach front property and why insurance companies still write policies. Also why is SanFrancisco, which claims to be so advanced on climate change, building its new billion dollar NBA arena on a pier over the bay. Why do environmentalists fly corporate and commercial jets instead of Skyping? Why is the poor man criticized for driving a truck, while nobody scolds the person living in a mansion or who owns a second house. The answer is that insiders see climate change as a useful too to sell battery powered cars, solar panels and windmills, but people in the know are not concerned enough to modify their own behavior. Even Michael Bloomberg criticizes the SUV driver before boarding his private jet to fly to his second home in the Bahamas.
43
Insurance companies are in fact starting to price in more and more the real dangers that climate crises is escalating. Flood insurance is more prone areas is one example. More and more companies are taking stock of these issues. The very people tasked with defending our country, the very ones we stand and honor, the Pentagon itself has ALREADY staked out the primacy of climate crises as a threat to our safety and security.
Your statement reflects a good set of questions on your part but you failed to see the actual answers.
7
@Rick-
That’s because most people whom you believe are “well-informed” actually aren’t. Climate science is physics. The language of physics is mathematics. Most Americans are mathematically illiterate. And how many have even heard of Prof. Raymond T. Pierrehumbert’s 652 page “Principles of Planetary Climate”, let alone read it?
The simple fact is, we’re ignorant creatures of habit and prisoners of our own expectations. We go to bed every night believing tomorrow will be the same. Everyone sees the world through the prism of the safely familiar. The sun always rises in the east — until it doesn’t. AGW falls into that “doesn’t” category. It’s hard to change the way the world works given the firm grip that habituated perception has on us.
And I suspect many peoples’ refusal to acknowledge the threat that AGW poses or see it for what it actually is, the death knell of our civilization, is rooted in that fact. They can’t imagine a viable alternative, can’t see how they can live any other way. At some basic instinctive gut level many might know that we just can’t keep living as we do. But knowing isn’t the same as understanding, let alone confronting it pro-actively, not reactively.
Also, the alternative is what, exactly? No one can say.
So, changing how we live involves the riskiest of all things imaginable— a great leap into the unknown. Most people aren’t emotionally equipped to do it, so they stick to habitual modes of thinking and perception, daring you to change them.
6
You’re getting mad about a triviality so you won’t have to face the bigger problem. Go back and re-read the part of the article about how political action is more important than individual action.
4
"And if I eat fewer hamburgers a year, so what? But if cattle farmers were required to feed their cattle seaweed, which might reduce methane emissions by nearly 60 percent according to one study, that would make an enormous difference."
Better yet, how about the government stops subsidizing and otherwise boosting the meat industry?
How about some collective action to promote keen awareness among the general public--not just readers of The Lancet et al--of the environmental (and other) harms caused by factory farming?
More and more people are not only cutting down on hamburgers but switching to a plant-based diet altogether. Surely we can come up with some policies to accelerate that trend.
17
@Tom Johnson,
I'm sure that Big Agriculture will be happy to sell you all the corn, wheat and soybeans you can eat, just as it is happy to sell that corn, wheat and soybeans right now to hog and chicken farmers.
Oh Joy!, then we can grow more people! No cows, no pigs, no chickens, just miles and miles of corn and wheat, soybeans and rice, potatoes and palm oil plantations. To feed the happy people in their urban corrals.
Be a vegetarian if it suits you, but don't expect that to save humanity from itself.
The problem remains that China, the largest single polluter, still does nothing to limit the growth of its output given its need for economic expansion. Our efforts will bear little fruit until they and other industrialized Asian countries with similar motivations to growth that outweighs their interests to reduce pollutants (the sub-continent, for example) change directions. Any example we set will only bring our standard of living more in line with theirs.
5
@Mark Deardorff, this is an old trope from climate deniers, but it's hasn't been true for a long time. China is the world leader on green energy--the biggest producer of solar power after doubling its capacity in 2016, the biggest producer of wind power, and the biggest investor in renewable energy (in 2015 China invested about twice as much as the U.S.) China is still a party to the Paris Accord, and the rest of the world looks to China for leadership after Trump withdrew from the accord. I hope we'll follow China's lead.
True alarmism is imagining that turning to green energy is going to impoverish us. On the contrary, innovation in green energy, construction and transportation will lead to job growth as surely as any other dramatic revolution. We don't need to fear innovation--we should fear paralysis.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/06/how-china-and-us-compare-on-climate-action/
17
Much of China’s pollution is a by-product of their production of goods for consumption in other countries. Americans, being huge consumers of Chinese-manufactured goods, are therefore complicit in China’s pollution.
13
1. China is now doing more than any country in pushing renewable energy (and electric vehicles as )
2. It will take a mindset that finds ways to address the escalating crises rather than excuses not to. But that does mean that we must insure that every country and every industry does what is necessary. That requires cooperation wirh mutual goals more often than adversarial approaches.
3. Rhis can be done in ways that actually grow jobs and the economy rather than gut it. But the longer we drag our feet, the longer there are folks who hold us back from effective efforts, the more egregious the harm and the more costly and disruptive the remedies.
Stop being an isolationist. It didn't help at the dawn of WWII and it doesn't help now.
11
How did humans come up with the claim that we are the most intelligent species on the planet? Every other living thing on Earth has built-in mechanisms that keep its population inside the limits of its supporting habitat. Of course, we're smarter.
18
Completely agree that each perception of "the way forward" is anchored in our personal experiences, so "an excess of confidence" and "cataracts of self-deception" are among the baggage we bring.
This morning, I read "Climate change means change, not doom". Two grand presumptions, I thought:
(1) that the collective "we" can change to address the matter and (2) that doom-like planetary fallouts are avoidable.
On the latter, our better chances at success will rest upon mitigations to prevail at "lessor doom" versus "no doom".
On the former, our aptitude for adopting changes is predicated on imbuing certainty into our charted course.
Because we abide our laws, parties make claims and find recourse. We can expect great difficulty making each case for change.
The sooner that we understand the cement in our galoshes, the sooner that we can rid ourselves of it. For example, a very rich man's investment firm purchased NV Energy at the close of 2013. By buying an investor-owned public utility, the investment firm SECURED a customer base.
A progressive Public Utility Commission (PUC) rule had allowed Net Metering (homeowner-friendly) and a rooftop photovoltaic market had flourished in Nevada. But those competors' growth interfered with the new investment firm's plans to own the majority of NEW generation. So, Big Money had the progressive Net Metering rule squashed by the PUC. Today, Big Money is forcing the large customers to pay exorbitant "exit fees" to leave NV Energy.
2
The irony here is we have a climate change and science denier in the White House with a majority of U.S. Senators holding that same view at the very exact moment in history when the United States, as the world’s largest super power, should be leading the way in developing energy alternatives to fossil fuels, pioneering carbon neutral new forms of transportation, reducing agriculture’s carbon footprints, and restructuring and re-engineering human society’s energy dependence on carbon to drastically reduce CO2 emissions to save the planet. The failure to address climate change by the United States government couldn’t be happening at a worst possible time because the window to slow and mitigate climate change to avoid worst case scenarios is rapidly closing.
30
To a degree, humans are poorly equipped to deal with AGW because of how we evolved. First, we think of ourselves first and foremost (survival instincts), so AGW is somebody else's problem. Example: when people buy cars, who do they think of? Themselves! They think about what is best for them, not what is best for us. Second, we all inherited fear in our DNA. But it is on a continuum, healthy fear is worrying about AGW, but if you have too much fear, it begins to resemble symptoms of paranoia and the most common symptom is the sense that everyone is out to get you which is where conservatives reside. Thus, AGW is associated with government out to get you, so they deny it by making up stuff to discredit the science. It is also a survival mechanism from evolution, thus unconscious, automatic "thinking". Given these real barriers, it seems we are doomed. And it is simply evolution at work. You cannot change the way people were born, but if you could at least educate them every year beginning in middle school, at least it could become common knowledge why we think the way we do and take the edge off of these inherited traits. It may be our only hope, but will take generations.
3