Each day, Trump and his Republicans act to make our planet less & less inhabitable for our children and grandchildren.
The window of opportunity to effectively mitigate Climate Change is rapidly disappearing.
The remaining 2020 Democratic Candidates will try to cut & paste portions of Governor Jay Inslee’s comprehensive & actionable Climate Change Mitigation Plan.
We must go with the Real Deal.
The winning Democratic Party 2020 Ticket: President Warren (build a green economy) + Vice President Inslee (save a blue planet)! W+IN 2020!
+++++++++++++++
NYT Please Advise: Given the perilous trajectories of our country and planet, at what point does the NYT take the lead and call for Trump’s resignation (without the benefit of a Pence pardon)?
Thank you.
8
Of course, China and India are part of the Paris Climate accords that Trump withdrew from. Hypocrites
1
@Sipho - who are hypocrites? If you are talking about China and India, please keep a few things in mind.
1 - the Paris agreements were for goals by 2030, and those of each nation were viewed as realistic and attainable. This was also the first international agreement where either agreed to any limits whatsoever.
2 - it takes time to change an energy system, yet China is now first in total generation by wind or by solar, and India is in fourth place, globally, for both of those.
So the two most populous nations in the world are doing a lot of investment in renewables. Not to beat up on the USA, we're in second place for both wind and solar generation.
Rankings are from 2016 data so might have shifted a little bit, but here's the data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources
3
@Matt I am on your side ! I was being sarcastic. China and India are spewing out millions of tons of pollution and do not care. I have been there and see it in real time.
5
@Sipho China and India are spewing pollution because of their manufacturing centers which are, in fact, producing the goods that Americans consume.
5
This is but the latest wake-up call for young people to do the most effective thing they can to fight our climate tragedy:
Vote!
Vote Blue in every election, up and down every ticket.
Young people: You have nothing to gain but your future!
7
"Why don't you kids go outside and play in the street."
1
I would like to read a report on how it would impact the climate if everyone, across the world, would agree not have any more than 2 children.
2
@ann
Here are comments made on a 3/8/11 PBS Newshour segment titled "In Guatemala, Family Planning Clashes with Religion, Tradition”
"Stories about the dangers of birth control are often linked to religion, where family planning methods such as monthly pills, tubal ligation, and IUDs have long been against church teachings.”
"We will follow God's will. We believe this is natural law. And we have heard too many stories about birth control, like injections and pills that cause cancer.”
"Here, populations are overwhelmingly Mayan and overwhelmingly religious. Women typically have eight, nine, 10 children.”
The above comments help explain why the population of Guatemala rose from 3.6 million in 1955 to 17.5 million today. They also help to explain why, here in the U.S., women from Central and S. America have more children than any other ethnic group. (See the article "Fertility and Birth Rates" on the site Child Trends.) Even if birth control is available does not mean it will be used. Culture and religion heavily influence people's decisions.
Every person uses resources and contributes to climate change. Guatemalans and everyone else need to limit the number of children they have.
3
Children are not little adults. This article explains how their bodies function differently and how their activities differ in ways making them more vulnerable than adults to climate change. It summarizes a report in the Lancet, considered one the world's premier medical journals. Understanding effects of climate change is increasing within our population at large but we are unaware of what makes children more vulnerable.
One does not have to be a scientist to grasp how being exposed over a longer number of years, in the case of children, will have more deleterious health effects. Hope, it seems to me, comes mostly from our children and young people, more acutely concerned than their elders about the dangers to them, who will soon be voters and force politicians to take their lives seriously.
7
Thank you for this story, despite the heartbreaking news it carries. I applaud the Times for its commitment to reporting the hard facts about this climate crisis we're all facing.
There's no doubt that we--the responsible adults in this big planetary room-- have let our children down thus far and that they'll suffer the most from our inaction. For their sake, I want to believe that we can turn this around before it's too late and I vow to do more, fight harder, because, yes, I'm part of the problem. And if we don't turn this crisis around because of continued denial and apathy and selfishness?
I hope the children never forgive us.
10
yes, climate change is bad.
indeed, the pavilion of the Memorial Climate Change Museum includes, in its Horrors of Climate wing, all manner of exhibits relating to wildfires, droughts, crop failures, deforestation, encroaching pests, new disease vectors, extinctions, littoral land loss, famines, killing heat, migrations, social upheavals, terrorism and state failures.
now if you'll please rejoin our tour guide, she will lead you to the wing we have entitled Solutions to Climate Change.
we apologize for the mess, but this wing is still under construction. and regrettably there are not a lot of exhibits on display. we had hoped to show here a scale model nuclear power plant, solar panels, the original carbon tax resolution, wind turbines, conservation programs, a bust of greta thunberg and much more.
unfortunately, our corporate and political sponsors would not contribute to this wing -- they only built the food court and souvenir shop.
so we have had to build it using only individual donations. a plate of vegan dinner, the footprints of the unknown pedestrian, an LED light fixture, that kind of thing.
please proceed to the exit, and thank you for your visit. we hope you will come back when the Solutions to Climate Change wing actually has exhibits to show you.
13
The world is moving forward with the 21st century global energy transition, but not nearly fast enough. We in the USA have the opportunity to take the lead in this effort, but we don't have the political will. We will become an economic also-ran.
4
I live in northern California, in fire and smoke country. No one could breathe here for weeks, and the air quality index still isn't good, which is some places hasn't stopped joggers from running without breathing masks. And I didn't see fewer cars on the road but more, and didn't see fewer trucks delivering things but more, as we couldn't walk to places we might once have walked to, or gone shopping for things ourselves. This is what we call here "the new normal." It breaks my heart. Because on a rare clear-ish day we can pretend that the world is as it once was. Come visit it you want to see and smell the future.
14
@dark brown ink that sounds horrible. I cannot handle the smell of smoke. What I don’t understand is why the electric utility companies don’t have a law requiring them to keep the lines away from trees. In Alabama, if this happened, people would be threatening to sue the power company and would demand that they compensate them for loss of property. It seems like underground electric service might be a solution in that part of California, in addition to climate change action of course. All of those beautiful acres burning, it just breaks my heart. I’m so sorry that you have to breathe that air.
4
@Corrie Thank you, Corrie. The hope is that power lines will go underground, but it's a big state and that might be years away. And, while it seems an invitation to me to radically change the amount of power we use - I still see office buildings all lit up at night. And I've heard that the biggest power user in homes is our dryers, that we should all go back to drying our clothing on lines - even here in a state with reasonably temperate climate through much of it, I do not see that happening. So, Corrie, should you care to come visit, purchase a supply of N95 breathing masks in advance. My doctor says they can be worn 5 times. Yet another toxic waste-product that's helping us to stay healthy, of which there will only be more in the future, I imagine. Mask, air purifiers, etc etc etc. I look at my grandchildren, and I cry. And it will only get worse.
4
@dark brown ink
Yes, you should dry your clothes on a line. I do, always have, always will. Good for the environment, good for your power bill, good for your clothes, good for everyone!
6
Evidence?
As biofuels (animal dung, sticks and leaves) are replaced by propane and natural gas, air pollution (indoor and outdoor) will decrease, not increase. Even coal burning is getting cleaner as big power plants with scrubbers replace smoky home fireplaces. Hydrofractured natural gas is replacing coal---gas burns clean, without producing particulate pollution (look at the burners on a gas stove).
None of this has anything to do with climate change, but that's how you sell a story. It's nonsense.
1
@Jonathan Katz : There are two ways this is connected to climate change. The biggest is the climate-change-induced increase in wildfires, which is causing particulates that are particularly damaging to young lungs -- and to anyone with compromised respiratory systems.
The second is that if we tackle our greenhouse gas problem -- replacing carbon-emitting fuel sources with renewable non-carbon energy (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) -- then we'll have cleaner air as well. Plus temperatures rising less fast, which would prevent the wildfire problem from becoming as bad as it would've been if we stayed on the path we're currently on.
13
@Jonathan Katz
Biofuels, as per your definition, are recycled atmospheric carbon; whereas coal, oil and hydrofractured "natural" gas are all fossil carbon being prematurely released in almost unprecedented quantities. You are focussing on particulates while the medical studies cover high temperatures and other effects Even particulate free combustion still releases carbon dioxide. Additionally, the production of coal, oil and natural gas releases methane, which is more damaging, climatically, than carbon dioxide.
10
@Jonathan Katz - why ask commenters for evidence when Ms. Pierre-Louis posted links to the studies right in the article?
You know when coal burning is cleanest? When the power plant is shut down. You are correct about removing in-home combustion as an important path to better health in the developing world, but you fail to notice that the process of burning things is the problem.
As cities worldwide get more densely populated, the amount of pollutants increases based on two things - the amount of combustion and the temperature. So if you want the bulk of the population, now living in urban environments, to be healthier, switching all power supplied to electric sources (or hydrogen) is the ultimate fix. Electric vehicles, electric cooking, electric everything.
Temperatures will increase for a while even if we stop burning things right now, but avoid adding the toxins and the toxicity is reduced.
The increased temperatures will still go on drying brush fater, so fires will continue being a problem. Another reason to do our best to stop burning things for energy.
8
I love reading this stuff. The real life Kilgore Trout, except that it’s not science fiction, it’s Climate Change.
Despite a warming climate and increasing C02 levels, life expectancies continue to grow, infant mortality rates continue to decline, disease and poverty are also declining and fewer and fewer people are dying from natural disasters like floods, fires, drought and famine. Most contradictory to this article, a child born today has the best chance at living a full lifetime than at any point in human history. They have been saying doom and gloom for over 20 years and almost none of it has materialized.
Kilgore Trout once wrote of a utopian society in which all problems were solved except for bad smells. To solve the problem the dictator forced everyone to cut off their nose! Sounds ridiculous but this is what I read when I read these most entertaining climate articles. They want us to cut of our noses.
3
@Kev
Unfortunately, your figures are selective. Taking just the US: infant mortality has ceased to decline and life expectancy is decreasing for many groups; disease and poverty are likewise spreading.
Floods, fire, droughts and famine are killing people in places never dreamed of and climate change will only make it worse.
Technology and organisation have helped to reduce death from natural disaster but, as California and Australia are showing, the scale of disasters is overwhelming them.
10
@Kev: You are incredibly naive. I believe our society is at a turning point. The air and seas are warming. With warming comes increased disease. Increased pests, mosquitos, tick-borne disease. Increasing drought and wildfires. Declining fisheries from loss of coral reefs and ocean acidification. Elderly living in poverty will suffer increasingly from heat exposure because they cannot afford air conditioning. You simply cannot project from increasing lifespans from past records, when the world was cleaner and cooler. Do your homework.
5
@Kev I see someone has been reading their Stephen Pinker and feeling very pleased with themselves.
Friend, many areas of science and health are indeed improving. But we are ultimately simply animals on this planet and climate change will wreak havoc on our societies and our ability to respond to increasing challenges.
The hysteria is getting out of control. The air in America is far cleaner than it’s ever been in our history. There is nothing we can do about the air in China or India. Let’s not ruin our economy to make our tremendously clean air a fraction cleaner. This is just one more hysteria created by our Leftist handlers.
5
@Thor
Better yet make clean air profitable. When viewing Los Angeles or Phoenix from the air and seeing how many buidings and homes are profiting from solar energy; not smart! I can remember when the US was ahead of the game in science, research and production - not worrying what the chinese or anybody else was doing.
4
@Thor
Why do you think that developing an entire new industry (renewable energy) that creates jobs and investment opportunities will "ruin" the economy? This is just one more hysteria created by our Right-wing Koch billionaire handlers.
15
@Thor - Hysteria is the unfounded "ruin our economy" that's constantly promoted by people who don't care that the air in, say, Tustin California, is worse as fire seasons expand, and as changing conditions due to our fossil emissions make it a pretty sure bet that fire seasons will get longer, worse, and expand to more areas.
Wildfires are increasing in Canada and Alaska as warmer conditions allow pests to survive winter, kill trees and increase fuel dried by warmer summers.
Canadian wildfires last year reduced air quality across parts of our Midwest. Heat waves produce those ozone alert days you hear about, and heat waves are increasing worldwide, too.
Clean air isn't a "mission accomplished" thing. It's a constant exercise, especially when the current administration tries to force Americans to ruin our economy by depending on expensive coal power.
Regarding economy - Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa all get between 30-40% of their electricity from wind. Please document how that's ruined their economy. Texas gets 16% from wind, and the frackers are installing cheap solar at their drill sites. Bad for Texas? No.
5
Predictions made in 1970 by scientists, professors, politicians and media.
Civilization will end in 30 years
200 million people will starve to death.
In the 1980’s people living in cities are going to have wear gas masks to survive air pollution.
Air pollution will stop the sun from reaching earth and the planet will be dark.
All fish will suffocate and die.
Life expectancy will be 42.
We run out of oil by 2000.
Average temperature will be down 11 degrees.
1
@N Williams
When you look at those predictions they were not altogether wrong. People in many cities wear gas masks; more than 200 million people have died of starvation; fish populations are in serious trouble from pollution and over-harvesting; life expectancy is decreasing. Particulate pollution did not become as serious; but increased carbon dioxide and other gases are warming the planet.
10
@N Williams - predictions made by actual scientists in published work in the 1970s
- fossil fuel use would increase CO2 with these results:
warmer lower atmosphere (confirmed)
cooler stratosphere (confirmed)
faster warming near the poles (very confirmed)
increase in intense precipitation (very confirmed)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1975)032%3C0003:TEODTC%3E2.0.CO;2
an explainer here:
http://hannahlab.org/manabe-and-wetherald-1975-the-effects-of-2xco2-on-the-climate-of-a-gcm/
Oh, and in 1982, Exxon's scientists confirmed that continued use of fossil fuels would warm the earth, affecting climate.
https://archive.org/details/1982ExxonPrimerOnCO2GreenhouseEffect
Now you provide actual credible references for your stuff.
9
@N Williams
I don't see how this is a valid argument. I see it used daily by other climate change deniers. Basically your point is ... "See, they (or whatever study you're referencing) were wrong back then, therefore the whole thing must be a hoax". Smart play though, because when the S really hits the fan we'll probably forget to look for your "Oops, I guess I wrong" post.
4
When I see young couples starting families I sometimes wonder if they haven’t been reading up on climate change because a child born today will live to see things fall apart as our climate system goes beyond human experience and adaptive capacity.
19
There are many facts in this article that tells people that climate change is going to be affecting our children. If people keep polluting our earth without any thought put into it, we are going to run out of land before some people can even have children. Everyone needs to see what is going on, and we all need to work together to fight against climate change by picking up polluted oceans, use less fossil fuels, and become a healthier planet. If everyone does their part, hopefully people can look at their futures with hope instead of dispair.
4
Coal plants in the U.S., particularly in the Southeast, are estimated to result in 13,000 premature deaths each year from cancer, emphysema, COPD and other respiratory illnesses; from the estimated 50 tons of mercury, arsenic, and other toxins they emit annually into the atmosphere.
In contrast nuclear energy, the only real cure we have for our addiction to fossil fuels, hasn't been responsible for a single casualty in its 60-year history. Yet irrational fear of it persists, thanks to coordinated efforts by the Natural Resources Defenses Council, Sierra Club, and other environmental fear factories; to fossil-fuel-backed misinformation campaigns. Even wind and solar interests, recognizing the threat it poses to their profitability, have joined together with oil and gas promoters to close nuclear plants generating electricity safely and economically - ones contributing not an ounce of the greenhouse gases blamed for climate change.
Not carelessness nor ignorance will be responsible for the largest mass extinction in Earth's history over the next 100,000 years, but greed.
3
@BobMeinetz so we can put the waste on your land, right?
Until we solve the waste problem, we should not generate more. Those overstacked fuel pools are vulnerable to climate change, too - and yet their owners refuse to do even mitigating storage options. No. Just no.
4
@BobMeinetz
The problem with nuclear (fission) plants is fuel. Without breeder reactors and reprocessing we will run out of fissionables before we run out of coal.
All nuclear technologies carry significant risks, especially if we allow private operators to be involved..
4
@BobMeinetz - nuclear isn't the panacea it's promoters claim, and note that some pro-nuclear groups are fighting against wind and solar - two technologies that can and do very rapidly put power on the grid. Multiple states in the Plains went from zero to >30% electricity from wind in less than 20 years. Texas produces more wind power than any state, and it's expanding, and we've just begun offshore - convenient to population centers off the Atlantic coast.
I'm in favor of keeping existing nukes online, provided they're well run and their access to cold enough cooling water is secure. Those points have me wondering about the wisdom in extending the license of the plants at Turkey Point, Florida, for example. Their cooling canals have leaked radioactives, and also have overheated, forcing temporary shutdown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_Point_Nuclear_Generating_Station
As for the shiny promise of new-technology ones, seeing will be believing. NuScale is close to go-ahead with their modular device in Idaho, but other stuff isn't really commercial yet. And the small-reactor gang will have to compete with wind, solar, storage, demand management as prices for all keep dropping. We'll see.
South Korea's scandal of counterfeit materials in their latest builds didn't help the industry's reputation, either.
So do kids raised in Michigan have better health than those raised in Texas? Sure is a lot hotter in Texas on avg than Michigan. Maybe 20 degrees F warmer in terms of annual avg temps. So, what are the health records for kids in those two states?
More directly, is it pollution or is it temperature. And are we to assume that pollution in warmer areas of the world now are greater than in colder -- given equal population density. Is Chicago less polluted than Houston?
Shouldn't we see some real world differences now as there is a lot of climate and pollution variability out there.
4
@Ralphie you have a lot to learn about adaptation. I suggest you start yesterday. It isn't about the baseline conditions, but about the intense rate of change. See also: Quebec Heat Wave 2018. Or Chicago Heat Wave 1996.
11
@Ralphie From what I have gathered on my own research, the pollution in the air is breaking down our atmosphere surrounding the Earth, causing the UV and different rays from the sun to become more violent. The more pollution that we have on Earth, the worse climate change will get.
5
@Multimodalmama There have always been heat waves. Look at the US temp record. There hasn't been an intense rate of change. Or much change at all.
Maggie -- any citations?
If I remember correctly lower population was the number 1 recommendation from the article printed a few days ago. Number 2 was meat consumption. Maybe if people really cared the meat eating would stop to save the children.
6
@Calleen Mayer If people really cared about the children, they would stop having them. It is the only real solution to the climate problem. I know, good luck with that! It is academic, though. If we do not reduce our own numbers, mother nature will do it for us, albeit with more pain and suffering. In many ways, preoccupation with climate change is a preoccupation of the affluent and educated. The masses around much of the world do not have the luxury of thinking about it; they are fully occupied trying to stay warm and fed. What leisure time they have is devoted to having more children.
4
@Calleen Mayer better yet, stop driving. Cars kill kids many way - emissions, direct impacts by bad drivers speeding everywhere and ignoring crosswalks, and pollution that causes particulate matter and ozone impacts.
2
Having traveled all over the world, first as a Peace Corps volunteer, then doing international health research and leading medical aid groups, the best thing that could happen in many parts of the world is central heat and air. That would be progress.
6
@Jackie And those things could be provided with solar and wind generated electricity, almost everywhere on earth.
Today.
7
Can this move the non believers or those who continue to put short term gain over future life? Probably not. Not even for their progeny. The rest of us will pursue!
16
@S Mitchell pro-life zeal only applies to feti.
1
Thank you. Articles like this need to be front page everyday.
26
I know and why isn’t it.
2
Oh, here we go. Now it’s about the children. When this doesn’t work it will be about our pets. Anything to get us to buy into the hype.
5
@Thor Try buying into the science. Try buying into the fact that our environment, where we live, has already suffered climate change. Try buying into connecting the dots that show climate change caused by humans is here and working against us now.
14
@Thor
There is no hyperbole in the lopsided consensus of climate scientists, that the costs of anthropogenic climate change are now being paid in homes, livelihoods and lives around the world, and will mount without limit as long as we keep transferring fossil carbon to the atmosphere by the petaton. 11,000 of those scientists just declared a climate emergency (smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-around-world-declare-climate-emergency-180973462). If they're alarmed, why aren't you?
We're not out of time to keep it from getting worse. Experts agree our best chance to sustain global civilization into the next century is to build out the carbon-neutral global economy without delay. That requires collective intervention in the energy market, to internalize some of the marginal climate-change cost of fossil fuels (i.e. the "social cost of carbon") in their price, so alternatives can fairly compete. IMHO, US voters have the ability and responsibility to enact a national carbon price (washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/17/this-is-not-controversial-bipartisan-group-economists-calls-carbon-tax). Our economic power is still such that our unilateral actions have disproportionate global impact. We just have to remove enough of the incumbent gang of climate-science deniers from office to put climate realists in charge.
And of course it's about the children. They'll have to live with our choices! If an appeal to your humanity on their behalf doesn't work, what will?
Yeah. Scientists don’t know nothing. Neither do farmers. The trillion dollar fossil fuel industry knows it all. Lol
Unfortunately, the reality that seems to escape most people's attention is that the only real solution to climate change is a major reduction in the global human population as we are by far the most powerful source of the problem. Anyone with an iota of compassion can only feel heartsick about this trend of innocent children becoming increasingly sick and dying.
On the other hand . . . it can be seen as the rebalancing hand of nature at work, whether it is extreme weather events, the spread of disease, the disappearance of animal and insect species, including homo sapiens. Perhaps we can only take solace and rejoice that we have lived in the age we have and can still witness what is left of a more robust natural world that is inevitably, inexorably changing. Not much comfort to the young and future generations, though . . . It is all relative, I guess. Take a walk in the woods or on the beach and enjoy what is left to appreciate. There is no changing human nature.
3
@Kent - While I agree with so much of your heartfelt plea, I suggest that you're looking at only one side of the coin. Overpopulation is clearly a Yooge problem. We in the "developed world" love to focus on it since our population growth is less than that of Asia or Africa. However, We have little control over birth rates in Uganda.
20% of global peeps consume 80% of resources. Resource Over-consumption lies squarely in our ample laps. At less than 5% of global population, we consume 25-30% of global resources - 4 to 5 times our "share". Our 330 Million citizens have a Consumption Equivalent of between 1.6 and 2 Billion(!!), making us effectively the largest population on Earth. Even worse, we WASTE 2/3 of the energy and half of the food we produce.
Despite the increasingly ominous warning signs, with all the red lights on every aspect of our environment flashing bright red and the sirens all blaring, we refuse to make even simple, easy lifestyle changes that would lighten our footprint.
Last year we blithely produced near-record amounts of GHG, we drove and flew record numbers of miles, bought more SUVs/pickups, built bigger houses…
We need to focus on reducing our own gross Over-consumption. Drive less, carpool, use public transportation, walk, fly only when absolutely necessary, stop eating meat (hint: it's really easy), plug energy leaks in our houses, build smaller, heat/cool less…
If we each give a rat's patootie, we can communally make a huge change.
8
@Kent
What "trend of innocent children becoming increasingly sick and dying" are you talking about? My understanding has been that child health and life expectancy has been improving dramatically in recent decades.
Despite the average improvement in children's health and longevity, it is still important to mitigate GHG emissions and limit population growth.
1
@Kent - it's tiresome to hear people go on about "reduction in global human population" as if they have a realistic plan to do so in the current century without calling on the Four Horsemen.
Realistically, what Americans can do (representing the third most populous nation, and a quarter of all CO2 emissions from fossil so far) is work quickly to bring our emissions levels down as low as they are in places like European countries with similar standards of living. Then keep reducing - the pollution, the greenhouse emissions, the waste generated.
And while we do, help other nations do the same with their more limited resources - and for capitalists, note we can sell great technology to build clean economies.
Also continue with supporting availability of quality family planning, public health and birth control resources in the developing world.
To do this, we need to replace the current Administration and also undo the excessive influence of the religious right on our foreign aid.
Harder than just moaning about population, but we don't have time for everyone alive today to just go away.
The writer mentions infectious disease in her introduction but does not go on to elaborate unfortunately. She missed an opportunity to educate the readers on the explosion of vector borne illnesses, such as Lyme Disease, and their explosion as indicated in "Lyme, the first epidemic of climate change", by Mary Beth Pfeiffer.
24
Unfortunately i couldn't go into detail on everything but we've covered the link between climate change and insect borne diseases relatively recently, see:
How Dengue, a Deadly Mosquito-Borne Disease, Could Spread in a Warming World https://nyti.ms/2MCYbuy
Thank you for reading.
11
@Kendra
Thank you, both for reply to John's comment with a citation to another source, and for pointing out that your time and column-inches are constrained 8^)!
3
“But unless nations halt emissions, air pollution, which, according to the report, killed seven million people worldwide in 2016 alone, will quite likely increase.”
Unfortunately, we need to stop talking about the possibility of “halting” emissions. That ship has sailed and we need to face it, I’m afraid. We can reduce, we can conserve, we can be more efficient and take on more renewable energy, but as long as there are fossil fuels humans will consume them rather than give up their “way of life”—even if it means immense harm to future generations.
14
Can we please, please clean up and heal the world for the children? Please.
It is so very stunning, heartless and sad that so many of the powerful and rich put the annual quarterly earnings report above our most precious resource, the children of our planet.
34
@Dem in CA
Yes, please. I am doing everything I can, personally. Please join me, all of you. Maybe you will sleep better knowing that you're doing something rather than nothing.
Can I suggest that we add exposing children to toxins to the list of impeachable offenses?
3