Bleak findings indeed, and global warming will affect future food production, jobs, economies, wars, lack of fresh water, etc. Meanwhile, the leadership of our country, the biggest polluter, is heading the opposite way, deregulating and planning to increase gas emissions. Climate change better be front and center in next year's election.
133
Here we can read all the uneducated Americans giving their little bits of mystical tricks according to their archaisms.
Americans are uneducated and ignorant.
Dangerous and violent people with opinions instead of logic of causality.
37
What would you do if someone were choking or Drowning your children? Do you understand now?
20
So you believe it is a Chinese hoax,like Trump says. But I am sure you don't want to find out 20 years from now in some climatic event that he was dead wrong,the operative word being "dead". So just in case do a little planning ahead. If you are proved right you can gloat. If you are proved wrong you and your children are meeting an apocalyptic world with some preparation,and maybe helping to lesson the impact.
Maybe you need some insurance, just in case.Do your part anyway and hedge your bet. In time all will become clearer.
14
America, Stop driving, taking airplanes everywhere, eating meat, having barbecues, shooting off fireworks, having babies, having streetlights every 30 feet. Now!
19
Abortion effects approx. 800,000 fetuses per year in the US. For those who support the Right to Life movement, how can you continue to justify support of the GOP knowing their climate-denial policies and continued welfare subsidies to big oil will be responsible for billions of souls lost/suffering, including children and all the creatures of the Earth?? #misplacedpriorities #hypocrites
38
If we don't take action or not enough action,action will be taken by the planet itself to stabilize the situation. We will die off and stability will gradually return. The planet will survive, we , the living, are the ones in real trouble,all on our own. A basically closed system has to balance oxygen if life is to continue as it has. This threatens people so they refuse to believe it. This is only the way we protect ourselves from realizing painful facts,we do this all the time for smaller problems. But this problem will kill us and it is far better to listen and do what we are asked to do by people who understand the problem. It is a bit painful,but far less painful than the alternative.
Start now, never mind the naysayers,
14
The number one thing we can ALL do to lessen the damage is to start eating plant-based. The amount of greenhouse gasses emitted for just one hamburger is obscene. (Look up the stats.) Stop eating meat and dairy. Watch any number of documentaries on Netflix to learn more (i.e. The Game Changers; What the Health; Forks Over Knives, Cowspiracy). I don’t understand why people find giving up meat and dairy so difficult. This is our planet for God’s sakes. Do we really want it all to be over with? The last generation EVER?
22
According to our Government Australia will achieve our Paris commitments.
We have and continue to spend Billions on cutting emissions and at the same time we are maintaining the highest immigration, per capita, in the world.
My own State has closed all our coal fired power stations, 50% of our generation capacity is renewable and we've gone from the lowest to the highest cost power on the planet.
We have no capacity for hydro and the greenies have stopped nuclear (despite my state having 30% of the worlds known uranium reserves).
I have great faith in humans ability to resolve problems and one way or another this will be resolved. Trouble is population growth and the aspirations of the population are a significant world problem. Which suggests adaption is easier and cheaper.
Meantime the renewable sector continues to get rich on subsidies.
6
If we were all in a boat that was leaking,we would certainly start to bail. The problem with climate change is that it seems not immediate. But it is inexorable,like the tide. Do everything you can but certainly write your senator advocating for changes in law to be upheld and increased in scope.
15
"With world leaders gathering in Madrid next week for their annual bargaining session over how to avert a climate catastrophe." Why must they fly to Madrid? In 2019, I would think a video conference would do. As Prof. Glenn Reynolds often quips, "I'll believe it's a crisis when those who tell me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis."
20
Pew did a new poll on climate and energy and hey, Republican women and young people, wake up your elected officials.
"There was actually a smaller divide when it came to one of the major solutions for climate change: an expansion of renewable energy. When asked whether we should be favoring alternative energy or fossil fuels, nearly 80% went for the non-fossil alternative, a number that included 62% of Republicans. Even the least supportive conservative Republicans were evenly divided when it comes to which to prioritize. And perhaps critically, support went up among the younger Republicans, with millennials supporting it at about the same level as the population as a whole.
[...]
There was an odd gender/ideology interaction here, though. When it came to the different actions, Democratic men, Democratic women, and Republican women adopted pro-environmental behaviors at similar rates. By contrast, Republican men were consistently less likely to do any of them.
Huge majorities wanted to see an expansion of solar (92%) and wind power (85%). This extended to even conservative Republicans, where 80% and 70% supported solar and wind construction, respectively."
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/most-americans-support-efforts-on-climate-change-want-more-renewables/
7
Too many cars owned by too many people in too many countries.
22
Efforts to stop global warming is failing because we are relying on government’s to lead the effort.
15
Last summer just a 2 hour drive from me the Camp Fire incinerated the town of Paradise, California.
That could be my town’s fate anytime, even tomorrow as I live in the same foothills of the Sierras.
If you are a rancher who has lost their cattle to drought, or a homeowner who has lost their home to wildfire or flood, or an island nation going under the waves then dangerous climate change has already arrived.
When it arrives for you may be sooner than you think.
19
Your header should read "OUR Planet in Peril" not "A Planet in Peril". There are no other habitable planets in reach, and there will never be. At least until it is far too late. This is it. We need to get real.
44
Even trivial anti carbon measures provoke massive protests as in France. The recent massive violent protests in Chile were triggered by a 4 cent increase in public transport fares. Anti carbon measures aren't being implemented because voters don't want them. "world leaders" don't push for big carbon taxes because they would cease being world leaders after the next election (se Australia). My advice is enjoy your life and take solace in the fact that the global warming hysteria is almost certainly way overblown. We may actually be entering a cooling phase with the solar cycle.
9
And we should believe your opinion instead of that of any reputable scientist because ..?
22
@Aurthur Phleger Please don't quote France with your ignorance lagging.
Don't take our country in hostage with your dirty corrupted thinking.
The demonstrations of the Gilets Jaunes are not against the carbon foot print reduction but against your capitalist ideology that threatens life in France by empoverishing people.
13
Time to elect a democrat for president.
21
Thanks, boomers.
12
If you’re looking to place blame, you’ll have to go back a lot farther than that.
18
"A number of countries around the world, including Canada and Norway, have made plans ..."
There's a quote about the best laid plans....
If you are following, and read between the lines, more and more climate specialists are concluding that the negative feedback loops of global warming are set in place and the strategy now should be preparing ourselves for massive population migrations and defending coastal cities from inundation. The forces arrayed against climate mitigation have won. Greed and outright ignorant and self-serving denial are dooming countless millions now and billions in the not too distant future.
222
@the doctor
We can always make things worse. From NASA's former lead climate scientist in 2013:
"Burning all fossil fuels, we conclude, would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans, thus calling into question strategies that emphasize adaptation to climate change."
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2012.0294
22
@the doctor: Actually, what you are referring to is a "positive feedback loop." Our actions are accelerating the rate of change, not dampening it, which, if we were so lucky, would be the definition of a "negative feedback loop."
In any case, your essential point is correct: our consumptive behavior, where market-priced transactions fail to monetize the environmental impacts of commercial by-products and waste, is catching up with us at an accelerated pace. But we shall pay the price for more than a century of rapacity, and that price shall be global, non-negotiable, and arriving much, much sooner than even these most current forecasts project.
52
@the doctor
Reading between the lines is not enough of a reason to try to avert catastrophe.
2
Vote for Democrats in 2020, republicans have no plans regarding climate but to deregulate.
Don’t buy huge SUVs, don’t take XL Uber.
Get an electric car, put solar panels.
Live, but don’t get caught up by consumerism.
Sustain women’s reproductive rights throughout the world.
23
The planet is not in peril, it is doomed. Human nature guarantees that we will remain incapable of taking serious action to tackle this problem. We are currently living in the last few decades before the worldwide collapse of human civilization. So eat, drink and make merry, for tomorrow we all die.
13
Put a blindfold on because you are driving a car that is disintegrating as you drive and you don't want to see the damage.
6
"With world leaders gathering in Madrid next week for their annual bargaining session over how to avert a climate catastrophe..."
Just consider how oxymoronic the opening of Ms Sengupta's article is - we're allegedly fighting climate change yet all of these 'leaders' need to 'gather' in Madrid. What is the carbon impact of this gathering?!
As long as the global elite continue to practice 'do as I say, not as I do' philosophy, the ordinary people of the world will continue to look skeptically on these cries of a bunch of chicken littles that the sky is falling.
6
For years, I always thought that the carbon tax is the #1 solution. It's all about money in this world. Every human being wants to MAKE the most money and SAVE as much money as they can. Carbon Tax will curb the appetite for pollution in our country. Yes, America. Per capita, we the biggest polluter on planet earth. Bar none.
We don't want to drive fuel-efficient vehicles. We want to consume meat in every meal. We want to use as many single-serving containers and utensils as possible and never think about its consequences.
Carbon Tax: If you pollute more, pay more. If you want to eat meat more, pay more. If you want to crank your ACs more in summer, pay more. Hit them where it hurts. As simple as that. I know. I sound like an evil villain. But it's the only planet that we've got. If we don't wake up now, our future generations will suffer, big time.
12
One of the places that is most threatened by global greenhouse gas pollution is Florida. Stronger hurricanes and sea level rise are massive risks to many property owners in Florida. Many of their homes and businesses will become worthless.
And yet... both of their Senators (Rubio and Scott) oppose even centrist proposals like a simple carbon tax. What are these voters thinking? Why would you elect someone who encourages companies to emit pollution that will decimate your homes and communities?
Florida: the rest of the country is taking advantage of you! You're going to lose your homes so that rich oil and gas company executives can buy more mansions. Stand up for yourselves!
7
folks in Florida have probably too short a life expectancy to care ... which is the general problem with Boomers. We should remove voting rights once one passes a certain age.
2
"There's a bit of a best of times, worst of times about this." What?! This has to be the worst time in human history . . . for all the bad times of the past, there has never been a time when we have been on the cusp of killing off the natural systems that sustain human life. If human society manages to continue through ecologic catastrophe, it will most likely be an authoritarian one in order to ensure the security of technological apparatus that will have taken the place of a nourishing Mother Earth.
2
United States greenhouse gas emissions in 2017 were 13 percent lower than in 2005. (source: EPA)
2
Just like the koala extinction in Ausyland, don’t think a few good meals and stays at some exotic hotel in Madrid… Oh yeah and some discussions about climate, and cement like figures (concrete ) that the leaders say they’re going to try to achieve, I don’t think it’s going to make a spit in the ocean worth of difference because planet is toast, and hydrocarbon momentum is too great to overcome by these gestures. We all going to perish on this rag tag planet, and if we get another planet, it’ll be the same again, allover.
7
I'm tired of the "we" nonsense. The only reason that this country is not doing enough about this problem is the Republican Party, its supporters, and the people that pay it off - the oil lobby.
Most of the people I know welcome change for the better. The right wing fights it every step of the way.
18
World leaders preside over ongoing climate catastrophe without taking any action to alter course as expected.
75
My generation may not have a habitable planet for our children and grandchildren and yet we are supposed to vote for anyone other than the most ambitious climate candidate? This is THE issue of our time. Only one candidate has an A+ from GreenPeace and only one has what has been dubbed the most ambitious plan by the Sunrise Movement. I hope older folks start to support this candidate like young folks have.
6
@Alex I'm a 50-year-old Gen Xer who hopes Bernie will be our next president. And I send a monthly donation to the Sunrise Movement to support the young ones who are pushing for a Green New Deal.
"Our greatest responsibility is to be good ancestors."
- Jonas Salk.
In my opinion, Bernie will be remembered as a good ancestor.
6
@Alex
Unfortunately there is a lot more advocacy and education work that needs to be done before an environment focused candidate can win.
Think if a Barack Obama type black man was the Presidential candidate in the 1920s? The country at the time was to ignorant, hateful and narrow minded to even remotely consider a black president at the time. In fact, many would have been driven to violence at the serious thought of it.
The environment is in the same place today. You have almost half the country who openly mock and deride the idea that climate can change. You are not going to get anything done in this condition.
3
@Galway Girl
Thank you, and I don’t ever mean to caricature older generations. We see you. We appreciate you.
5
The Eastern seaboard states are in imminent peril.
I fear if is too late to save cities like New York.
We have only ourselves to blame.
7
It really doesn’t matter. We’ve already set several vicious feedback loops into motion, and even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, there would still be enough warming that the planet would take over to continue the warming to disastrous levels. I think we’re ultimately going to end up at 3.5 degrees Centigrade warmer by 2100, and over 6 degrees Centigrade warmer by 2200.
We’ve melted lots of ice. Water absorbs more heat than ice, thus melting more ice. Permafrost stores methane. Melting the permafrost releases the methane, thus contributing to warming and melting more permafrost.
4
We could reach the immediate goal of carbon reduction by stopping the burning of coal. Every electric utility must begin the building of solar and wind generating facilities ASAP with the use of natural gas as a short term back stop until energy storage and hydrogen based electrical production can be brought on line. Burning coal must stop! The development of renewable energy production will bring jobs as well. Good paying jobs that do not endanger the miners or the Earth.
7
For whatever it’s worth, my family of four has a TESLA & a plug-in hybrid Chrysler Pacifica in the driveway. We have an electric utility that gives us the option to pay more for clean electricity (essentially a carbon tax) which we fully utilize.
All I’ve ever wanted since Al Gore won the Popular Vote is for our country to launch a unifying Clean Energy Revolution that would benefit us all.
One can dream ...
11
Where is population control in the climate control equation?
How is any collective approach to dealing with climate control going to work without confronting overpopulation?
173
@John Q. Public
A recent report by the IPCC noted something to the effect that we have around until 2030 to make substantial changes to our energy sector.
How do you propose to ethically reduce our population sufficiently in the little time we have left?
As you ponder that consider that the IPCC reports since they began in 1990 have tended to be either accurate or conservative rather than alarmist . . .
20
@John Q. Public
The United States and Western Europe contribute to over population by taking in 3rd world immigrants. There is less incentive to stop having children when migrants can move to first world countries.
13
@John Q. Public
Spot on!
We need massive depopulation - preferably in the 3rd world beginning with China and India. Those two countries losing a combined 2 billion humans would do wonders for stemming climate change. Take another billion plus out of Africa, the Middle East, Central and Southeast Asia and the world would be back to normal in no time!
Western societies have spent centuries building up our entitled first world privilege, much of it on the back of millions of others. This is not the time for us to sacrifice that privilege for the sake of others!
19
Climate change is not an “Emissions” problem.
Climate change has two root causes that nobody wants to deal with: Population and Economic Growth.
A recent report in Boston showed that there are 300,000 more cars on the road now than there were five years ago.
From a Wildlife Biology perspective the earth has exceeded its carrying capacity for humans.
Something has to be done to control population.
Also something has to be done to develop a steady state economic model.
As it is now capitalism is like a giant ponzi scheme that requires never ending economic growth to sustain itself.
In the end Nature controls everything.
When the greenhouse effect really kicks in, nature will take care of things and reduce the human population.
In “Civiization And Its Discontents” Freud noted that human emotions did not bode well for the human future.
How can people be expected to save the planet when it’s so much more fun to elect a TV Game Show Host to the presidency, and to spend all the time watching his antics making fun of the elitists who worry about Climate Change?
14
@Coureur des Bois -- why, oh why do the population people keep ignoring the very simple fact that one million people using lots of fossil fuels emit more greenhouse gas than one million people using less fossil fuel?
Americans currently emit more CO2 than most Europeans, and the average American emits as much CO2 as five average people in India. And if we're smart, and don't distract ourselves with idle speculation about population, the average American in 2060 will emit far less CO2 than now.
It seems the people concerned about the number of people on the planet aren't very good at numbers.
By the way, the rate of population increase peaked in 1960 - here's a really good page of information you might want to read.
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
5
The combined population of India and China = /- 2.7 billion . USA= 325 million. If we Americans all became barefoot saints the world would still destined for catastrophic change. However we have the institutions of higher ed, and the technology to initiate solutions (and they probably do not involve significantly abating the temperature rise.) Now, if the Democratic candidates for president would give this a higher priority in the campaign it would be a good start.
6
If there's one thing certain about Climate Change, it's the INABILITY to make an accurate prediction when we can no longer prevent the most catastrophic outcomes. Any time science deals with so many unknowns, predictions are little better than a guess.
I submit we don't need a precise drop dead target. We know that our failure to mitigate Climate Change will lead to catastrophic suffering & death. We also know that the reelection of Trump will make the catastrophe occur that much sooner because Trump's policies exacerbate Climate Change versus mitigation.
If we are an intelligent species, the path ahead is crystal clear. Sadly, I have no confidence in the required course correction and even if Trump is booted from office, the long arm of the coal & oil lobby will impede progress.
6
Affordability constrains many individuals from taking direct action to mitigate climate change; it's one of the many problems of income inequality and the high price of making the necessary changes to mitigate human extinction.
Electric cars are a great concept, but few charging stations mean they don't work for many. Battery technology has improved dramatically, but without the charging stations, it's still an infant technology. The cost is another issue for many.
Many people in the US and other countries live in sub-standard housing with little insulation, high heating and cooling costs who cannot afford repairs to make homes energy efficient and reduce greenhouse gasses. As governments introduce carbon taxes the cost of fuel (heating, transportation and electricity) that powers our world will rise. The poor are most vulnerable and will be at the highest risk.
Governments need to take proactive actions to help the most vulnerable. Better transit, more direct subsidies to reduce greenhouse gasses (much more than comes in from a carbon tax). Industry, contrary to current US policy, needs to be held to to account and pay significant ongoing penalties for polluting the air, and water too.
We need to face a future with more violent storms, rising seas and great dislocations of humanity. We are wealthy and wealth will need to be shared to face this crisis and mitigate its impact.
5
Far above everything else we need to do: Stop using plastic straws. That'll may not save the planet, but it will make us feel noble. And that’s what counts.
7
Actually not using plastic straws helps prevent the needless suffering and death of ocean wildlife.
13
@Trench Tilghman
Stop using plastic in any way you can stop using plastic and you'll actually be doing some good.
4
The conventional wisdom has it backwards. It is not that we need to get serious about climate change in order to avoid a catastrophe. It is that we need a catastrophe in order to get serious about climate change.
9
@r a
The US has had a number of wake up calls. Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans, Sandy and NYC, Maria and PR, Harvey and Houston, Dorian and the Bahamas, etc etc.
We saw what Sandy's storm surge did to lower Manhattan. The seas may rise higher than that this century and not go down for hundreds of thousands of years.
The US slept through those wake up calls, but the front desk will keep trying with louder and louder calls for a very, very long time.
If we wait until strings of category 6 hurricanes park themselves over major cities on top of meters of sea level rise it will be a little late.
8
The same physics we are messing with makes the surface of Venus hot enough to melt lead and Mars cold enough to freeze out CO2.
And those are our sister planets.
What could go wrong?
13
Stop driving and stop using ride-shares like Uber whenever conceivably possible to take public transportation, bike, or walk.
7
It's going to take systemic change, including a redesign of cities to 1) favor pedestrians, 2) create affordable live/work hubs so that commutes are short, 3) improve mass transit, and 4) penalise cars for the pollution they cause. Just going to LED's won't cut it.
9
I am very worried but being hopeful, even though our current administration is doing everything to stop any attempts to reduce our carbon footprint.
The awareness is much greater than ever among US population and even more around the world.
We all should and could take small steps and be more efficient with what we consume and avoid waste. A little planning could go a long way.
For example what I think would be a good start is, as an individual we can all try to reduce our gas usage for cars, say 1 gallon a week or two weeks. There are ~275 million cars in US. With a little planning, driving at speed limits, not driving aggressive, etc it is doable. And then the same logic can be applied to may other things we take for granted. Avoid 1/2 day shipping unless absolutely necessary, buying local to state as much as possible, avoid nonseasonal fruits, going solar or sign up for utility solar farms, etc.
6
"To stay within relatively safe limits, emissions must decline sharply, by 7.6 percent every year, between 2020 and 2030", the report warned. Read that as growth must decline by 7.6 percent for the next 7 years. My friend, the financial adviser, is probably checking his options right now - to live or not to live.
2
The question is, if any one of us went to a third world country to live how would we act? We know people can survive with fewer resources but would we choose to live without our refrigerator? Our car?
5
@Andrew Warner If you have access to a good mass transit system and live in a walkable and bikeable city, living without a car is not a problem. Ask the Danes and the Dutch. And they who bike and walk more than drive cars are much healthier as a bonus.
17
I don’t have a car and don’t use rideshares and its no problem at all in an urban environment.
6
1.3 billion people still have no electricity. Are you willing to join them?
3
The situation is bleak because people with power have no financial interest in altering a system that rewards them. They know they can survive in the long run and keep the best of everything for themselves while crushing any resistance.
The notion that there is an electoral solution to the coming catastrophe is naive in the extreme. No one will be allowed near the levers of power without swearing loyalty to the already-powerful. It's our job to make it impossible for the powerful to survive...before their project to do the same to us succeeds.
10
Seamus, I don’t understand how the rich think they’re going to survive this when the rest of us clearly will not. Do they have some secret plan of action, some hidden part of the world that’s immune from disaster? Where will they escape to?
5
"Bleak" doesn't get the half of it. With a climate-denier as president who has rolled back endless environmental safeguards, "despair" may sum up the quandary we're in. No Republican seems to care about this "inconvenient truth" as well as the others demonstrating his criminality and lack of fitness for office. Instead, they, many financial backers, and too many Americans support a man who is single-handly killing the planet and our Constitution. It feels like we entered and alternate-reality like Jonestown where too many are ready to drink the Kool-Aid.
13
James Hansen, the "Father of Climate Change Awareness":
"Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change."
We continue to ignore him at our peril.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
7
Avert? I guess it depends on how climate catastrophe (CC) is defined. If CC is defined by crop losses, 1000 year floods (all over the planet), wild fires: from northern arboreal forests to the Brazilian rain forest to the Australia bush... Thawing Arctic "permafrost" and subsequent methane releases, etc., etc., then we're catastrophic right now, getting here "faster than previously thought," but more apropos, appaerantly catatonic.
On the other hand, if catastrophe is defined by our collective First World ability to splash and dash our SUV's to go buy buy baby, at Amazon (the irony), CostCo, Wallmart, etc., etc., ad nauseum, then no, we are not in catastrophe and I am only catastrophizing.
2
Gore v Bush in 2000. Thank you Florida and Supreme Court! We'll live to see your short sightedness.
13
Republican Party: Remember, if you simply deny a problem exists, it will go away by itself.
5
We're just like rats fouling our own nests, only much worse, because we know of that which we do to ourselves, while rats just act without knowledge.
6
Who’s flying for Thanksgiving!?
7
@M: We are not, and if we could travel by rail to visit relatives, we would definitely choose that over driving or flying.
5
What goes around, comes around. We are getting exactly what we deserve as 55M Americans "head home for the Holidays" and air travel continues to expand. There are 1,000,000 of us in the air right now and every minute of every day. WAPO published a US map with temp rise overlays indicating 3 deg C rises ALREADY across broad reaches of the northern border and many other 2 deg C rise areas as well. The overall reporting in the MSM on this subject stinks, as most NYT "science" and "health" articles. Stick to selling expensive designer clothing made in China. That's what you're really good at. Stress R Us
10
Wondering whether humanity will make it through this climate crisis has been on my mind lately.
Recently while petting my dog, without any thought, more by intuition I asked him: “You'll come with us, won’t you?"
I took comfort imagining dogs still by our sides. And I began to wonder what else would remain. So I started two lists. One list of what is beautiful and useful and what I feel we could possibly take with us through the precarious coming days. And the other list is of what I’d like for us to leave behind.
Let us bring: hunting, herding, and guard dogs and the mousers among the cats, pack animals, pollinators I pray will still be, seeds and our knowledge of the remaining edible and medicinal plants, fire and the wheel of course, tools, math, the canoe or the kayak or the umiak or the currach, the knowledge of how to navigate and orient by the stars … we'll be able to see the stars again, storytelling, singing, drumming, dancing and interpreting our dreams, yoga, meditation, mindfulness, Shiatsu, and other healing arts, breastfeeding babies, children’s games involving balls, sticks, string, pebbles, mud, imagination and climbing trees where there are still trees, rituals mourning the dead, gratitude and love.
Let us leave behind: arrogance, the desire to consume and accumulate, disconnection from the Web of Life, from the Earth and all other Beings.
So be it.
17
Humans destroy everything they touch.
14
Exactly, the earth will one day heal, when it finally spits us out once and for all. I hope it’s sooner than later.
1
Isn’t it ironic fhaf our planet is becoming like the planet which Clark Kent ( Superman ) was sent from
We don’t be have the luxury to send someone from here
At some point.... even then largest vessel becomes full of pollution
I remember the ad’s with ironeyes Cody shedding a tear over a trash dump
Where isn’t fhsf mass media Image now .... when mass media is even Moreno powerful
1
Is it too late to move into Biodome II?
Christians have Revelations.... Secular Social Engineers have Climate Change.... guess all dogmas need an end tale.... and they will surely let you know that the sky is falling.
2
@Mystery Lits: And ostriches stick their head into the sand. Please look up the definitions of “dogma” and “scientific method”.
3
Problem is too many people on this planet.
Forced birth control will solve the problem.
9
What is the carbon cost of printing and delivering newspapers every day?
4
@Midwest Josh Why I have digital subscriptions.
1
Are you ready for what awaits us?
“Smithers, release the vegans...!”
The ignorant and greedy are pulling us towards extinction and they found their leader. Too bad they can't expect more out of themselves.
2
we know.
Under the China Pakistan Economic Corridor agreement Pakistan will have China invest close to $50 Billion. No one know the terms or conditions. China gives loan to Pakistan but Chinese bring their own people raw material and even sand and rocks and they setup factories in tax free zone. Not sure what benefit this will bring but I can assure you all top civilian and military has been bribed so they can escape abroad and live happily ever after.
Here is the catch: These Chinese factories have electricity produced by same Chinese coal fired plants that choked Beijing before the Olympics was held there and these coal fired plants are here on Pakistan's soil. It has brought city of Lahore with cloud of toxic gases. When I placed a question to a Minister first he denied and then he said we have to sacrifice a lot for progress. Chinese on the other hand are continuing with their practice and more polluting discarded plants being shipped to pollute more.
Even if these top 20 countries reduce their emission 160 countries are getting ready to take their share of mother Earth.
With Trump nickle and diming with aid and taking no responsibilities for putting planet in this state - I think we have lost the planet but we refuse to accept it.
3
You and I need to change our ways because politicians will not lead us on this. Drive less, buy less, and you will know you have made a contribution.
7
Carol King could tweak her lyrics to the following to address our situation:
It’s too late baby,
Now it’s too late,
THOUGH WE REALLY DIDN’t TRY TO MAKE IT!
CHANGES DENIED INSIDE,
NOW WE CAN’T HIDE, AND NO LONGER FAKE IT!
Apologies to Ms. King.
3
It would really help for an American audience to report this kind of news in Fahrenheit. It’s the scale we use, and so we would relate to what is being reported far more directly. It wouldn’t surprise me if many readers don’t even register that the news is Celsius and are unmoved by the smaller number.
8
2 degrees Celsius is 35.6 degrees Fahrenheit per an online calculator. This is definitely worth mentioning.
1
THAT’S the problem?? People in the US don’t believe the urgency of the situation because they can’t figure out Celsius? Man are we in trouble.
3
Welp, people had their chance. Too bad we wasted it killing each other for 10,000 years.
Still, people weren't entirely awful. Someone invented Linzer tortes, for example.
Nevertheless, Earth is probably eager to shake off us humans and get back to the good old days where, despite the occasional ice age, there was some balance to things.
7
As always, the twin 600lb gorillas in the room are ignored (deliberately?):
Meat eating and people breeding.
We can all drive electric cars, stop ordering two small items from Scamazon (free shipping is not free to the planet), stop flying for ridiculous business meetings that could easily be conducted by phone and recycle until it feels oh so good.
Until we eliminate or drastically curtail the meat eating and the over breeding of humans, it won't make enough difference to save us.
9
Our planet is dying and we're arguing about political issues. I am a one-issue voter -- climate change. But I'm only one voter and too many people are ridiculously uninformed. People who should know better, just don't. Things look very, very bleak.
4
Some protesters inconvenienced my commute recently though, that’s much worse obviously.
4
The United States has done its part in this crusade.
You think that not much got changed? That may be becaue there isn't hardly anything that one country can do - PLUS you're tilting your sword at an eons-long warming process dating back to when the Great Lakes area was covered in ice.
But if you must cry, do shed tears over how India and China are the ones driving pollution in the air. China is the SOLE source of the mountains of plastic netting killing animals around the globe needlessly, yet that seems to be one of the progressive media's forbidden topics.
The adults in the room will start listening harder when the radicalization of the climate issue has been reduced and actual realities indicating other facts begin to be reported.
Right now, the climate crisis is simply attack tool #43 against business, families, employers, and those Wascally White Wepublicans.
2
@L osservatore The U.S. has about 4% of the world's population but accounts for about 15% of its annual CO2 emissions. That is not "doing our part," and our withdrawal from the Paris Accords shows no leadership to the world on this existential threat. Regardless of what China is or isn't doing.
8
Polluter pays, simple. Bizarre how capitalism only finds its limits when the spectre of accountability is raised.
4
Captain Nemo, Trump is on course to reduce the population of the United States, so no worries. Sadly, not kidding. Smoke stacks are pumping away, air quality has certainly taken a turn for the worse, health care coverage rates are dropping, water quality under this president is not a priority, Trump approves higher toxic chemical use on everyday consumer products, industrial and agricultural chemicals, we are destined to a shortened lifespan thanks to this evil human, not even sure what to call him any longer. I really had hoped the GOP would step up and honor their oaths of office, but to no avail. The planet is in trouble. And so are our children.
3
Corporate greed and overwhelming public ignorance have pushed us past the tipping point. Homo sapiens bears out Darwin’s great truth: Only the fittest survive. Our species, writ large, is catastrophically unfit because we are incapable of world-wide collaboration. The advance of authoritarian nationalism proves that point. Time to watch the venerable and achingly poignant prophecy of Nevil Shute and Stanley Kramer, "On The Beach". Would you care for some fossil fuel instead of a cup of tea?
5
Regenerative farms can sequester carbon! Please ask about this as you buy ALL your groceries from your local farmers.
4
!00 companies are responsable for 71% of the worlds GHG emissions. 20 of those companies produce 33% of GHG. We know who's responsable, we simple don't have the political will to do anything about it.
Nothing will change as the people with all the power and all the money are driven by greed and selective-ignorance and simply do not care.
5
The powerful don't listen. Why?
Perhaps the super-rich see global cooking as an easy way to kill off Billions of "unprofitable" poor people?
Unfortunately for them, their plans have backfired, and they're now in a panic to rip off all the wealth in the world. But in the end, it won't protect them.
6
The very least the press can do is to ring every possible alarm bell on climate change, every single day. There is no bigger story. Hitting the snooze alarm on the planetary destruction being wrought by humans is what has led us into a collective state of complacency.
5
@Scotch Hudson I agree, so why did they give this second billing beneath two WH aides resigning?
2
When I was young takeout was a rare thing. To go coffee was unheard of. Plane travel was a long awaited trip. Broken appliances were repaired. Now everything is more, faster, easier, more disposable. Don’t fool yourself. Every small bit of recycling is simply a distraction in this behemoth that consumes, churns, and will not stop til it dies.
The earth cannot sustain 7.5 billion people. We are the plague and the victim.
11
As we pretend to recycle morsel after morsel of conveniently-shaped plastic "nurdles" as their industry describes them, does anyone here really think for one minute that anyone "in charge" or any of the "monied interests" will really do anything about this situation?
3
The world is in peril but it is more important right now to remove the Trump peril. They are related.
3
Wall Street hedge fund managers would invest in a ridiculous concept of We Work then in companies that are trying to address climate change. We Work goes under the fake CEO gets millions and thousands of people are let go.
Wall Street has no interest in saving the planet just polluting it more. Climate Change companies especially the newer ones are fancy window dressing, that hire white people when it is minorities who are being affected by the destruction of the massive power of the weather.
Once again racism, ignorance are in charge of doing nothing and because when we do nothing people are dyeing and we wring our hands. So don't have any children because the adults walking around this country now don't intend to do anything but watch hospitalization go thru the roof .
1
Humans need to either stop whining and get their act together or learn how to die graciously. Or maybe a bit of both. There were about a billion people on the planet in 1800 when the Industrial Revolution took off. That's probably a sustainable number.
6
Exactly why the US needs bold leaders like Bernie Sanders right now. Our world cant wait!
4
We’re doomed. Good luck to all!
4
"We're born to a dangerous time. Consider that affliction or consider that assignment." - Stephen Jenkinson
5
Will NYT please analyze why the green state of California is one of only six states whose carbon footprint has increased over the past six years? A failure analysis is needed to so that all of us can learn what worked and what didn't. For example, crude oil imports have risen every year, most coming from Mohammad bin Salman's Saudi Arabia, according to the state of CA's website.
2
@John Bowman What you say is simply about California footprint is simply not true
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2016/ghg_inventory_trends_00-16.pdf
2
One of the things that's troubling me is a few of my Christian friends see this as revelations and don't feel a need to protect the earth against the "will of God". We need to keep pushing to save the world.
6
Can you talk them into being “good stewards of god’s creation” or “not defiling god’s creation”, something like that? Or “Thou shalt not kill”?
1
Corruption is everywhere on this issue from both sides of the aisle. The oil producers hide leakage issues which spew poisonous gases into the atmosphere or contaminate waterways and the green side spews lies, with government assistance, regarding the true cost of electric vehicles to the environment. Is your new e-car rated at zero emissions? Well, they’re lying to you! Often the power plant providing the electricity is fossil fuel based or supported, not to mention the massive environmental damage mining lithium for the battery. Also, the wind powered turbine kills migrating birds all the time. On what page do we read about those issues? Jeep lookin’! That’s right, people — politics is a dirty business!
2
Nothing to worry about. The President of the United States has assured me that the whole climate controversy is a hoax, and I should just ignore those egghead "experts". I mean, really, what to experts know?
4
Messaging is important.
Folks need to get away from "global warming," "climate change," and "planet in peril."
The Earth was here before the human race, and the Earth will be here after the extinction of the human race. The question is how long will the Earth be inhabitable for humans.
Estimates are, and Stephen Hawking was one proponent, that at the current rate of atmospheric decay, human beings will be extinct by 2600, which is less than 600 years from now.
"Humans Extinct in 600 Years" is the kind of headline that anyone other than an idiot should understand.
What we face isn't best expressed by overheating or greenhouse gases. What we face is best expressed by atmospheric decay.
We are literally, every day, destroying our atmosphere. And, eventually, the human race will choke to death.
US military spending as a percentage of total GDP rose from less than one percent in 1929 to 43 percent in 1944 in the face of an existential threat from Germany and Japan. It supercharged the US economy.
Now, we face an existential threat from atmospheric decay and it will take a comparable commitment as a percentage of GDP.
And, my friends, if we take the lead, it will supercharge the US economy, and save humanity from certain extinction.
3
This appears in the same newspaper that constantly urges more immigration from low carbon output countries (e.g., Honduras) into high carbon output countries (e.g., the U.S.)? If we're in an emergency situation, why would we want a higher percentage of Earth's population to live here in the U.S.?
2
Earth doesn't care. All will suffer, but some will be shamed and shunned as they lay in their graves and rot: Ronnie, Newt and Mitch for obstructing a better way.
2
In this one Vladimir won’t be able to get off, we are all riding the same bus, In the meantime Trump will tweet some red meat tomorrow to keep his base distracted, so pitiful.
Russia (Putin) is actually excited about a warmer climate and opening up Siberia to agriculture... Putin actually has stated that warming will be good for Russia. This is delusional and highly problematic.
1
I like to call it, "Trump Global Warming (TGW)". And "Trump" does not mean just Donald Trump. The sins of the fathers...
To the shopping fans singing Amazon's praises: If ever there were an unsustainable model, Amazon is it. It might make you feel better to pretend that transportation-related GHG emissions do not rise under such a model. Wake up. Become a part of the solution.
4
Every moment we spend arguing, blaming others, and trivializing this problem is a moment we could instead use to work together and actually do something to prevent the ever-increasing possibility that this planet will be incapable of sustaining human life in the not-so-distant future.
15
Future generations will curse us and we will deserve it.
18
@Henry "The eyes of the future are looking back at us and they are praying for us to see beyond our own time." Terry Tempest Williams
2
I just finished reading Uninhabitable Earth. I am in the middle of Naomi Klein's: This Changes Everything/ Capitalism vs. the Climate. We are out of time and I don't think most of the population understands this. We are now only trying to arbitrate the worst case scenarios....and at our current rate suggests we will not be able to. With each day we fail to act, the necessary actions to curb this nightmare only becomes greater and more difficult. I fear for the future generations. At 63 I feel I have lived in "the best of times", but they are going to become darker each day moving forward. I have never believed in single issue voting; abortion, gun rights, gay rights...etc. This coming catastrophe has made me a single issue voter and while I don't believe the democratic candidates will do enough, I believe they will do something vs. the GOP slamming the accelerator down as we head toward the climate cliff. We need drastic change NOW.
26
@GDC
Democrats must run with this. The votes are there if they do what Trump does — make it simple — repeat it over and over. Double down when Republican disinformation campaign begins.
2
We thought the great filter might be nuclear weapons or pathogens but it turns out its SUVs and $100 flights to Vegas.
8
I heard from some politicians that the United States isn't great enough to solve global problems, that it can't innovate while succeeding, that it shouldn't bother leading on a global stage.
Oh well, I guess.
9
Humans wait for catastrophes to be upon them before doing anything. We wait for the water level to be half way up the house and then crawl up on the roof and call for someone to rescue us.
Climate deniers "would" buy an electric car except that the exact model that they want isn't being made yet so they commute to work in their SUV's.
We'd like solar or wind power but we don't want those eyesores in our back yards or in the panoramas from our golf clubs.
WE elected a guy who believes that climate change is a hoax, and we are prepared to elect him again because we want someone who can "shake up" the government, outlaw abortions and birth control, and let us keep our assault rifles. Assault rifles don't work against floods, hurricanes, and droughts.
We're going down, folks.
The water may cover the house permanently and I see people standing around, morosely holding the stuffed bear that they rescued, waiting for it to go away or demanding to know why "they" didn't do anything.
15
Humans are like a tumor on the organism, earth. There is a critical mass where the tumor will kill the host organism and both will perish. The earth cannot tolerate this tumor that doubles in size every 60 years. Learning how to achieve a stable population and economies that not depend on growth is the do or die challenge.
13
Sometimes parasites die and the host lives. Humans are the parasites in this picture. The planet will be fine without us.
9
I’d say “not in my back yard!” when it comes to new laws and taxes to prevent climate change, but the rising river took over my back yard.
2
I have 2 beautiful boys who are 10 and 12 who are so passionate about the planet. My heart breaks when I think of the possible bleak future we are creating for them with our “old white rich men “ mindset. I have to hope there are enough younger people who are willing to fight for change. We do what we can- recycle, don’t own a car, eat less red meat... but when entire governments are rolling back environmental legislation you sometimes think it is a drop in the bucket. I’m not sure what it is going to take to turn things around but we can’t give up hope or what do we have left??
11
If anyone is still not convinced WHY impeachment is necessary, here's your answer!
Trump wants to write himself into the history books, probably inspired by Robert Oppenheimer:
"I am become death, destroyer of worlds"
9
Humans are an evolutionary dead end. Part of our brain is capable of producing beautiful art and music and advances in food production, medicine and the like. We're also capable of producing wrath-of-God technology. The problem is that other parts of our brain aren't nearly as advanced. We're still tribal, superstitious and vengeful. We ignore or rationalize the scientific consensus regarding climate change because we don't want to make individual sacrifice for the common good.
Not to worry, though. Like many other species, humans will be extinct in a relatively short time. Thereafter, the universe will produce other iterations that, one hopes, will be more sustainable.
11
@The Heartland I've been saying for 25 years that either we will fix this or Mother Nature will. And we won't like Her solution.
6
Unfortunately,
History does seem to repeat itself no matter how much those paying attention and aware of it try to enlighten others to stop it.
Sometimes revolutionary change happens. But then we realize how something obvious like not poisoning resources needed for survival. Or denying possibilities supported by evidence for illusion of safety never solves an issue, instead temporary bandaids allow root causes to fester until ultimately a resolution is forced.
And the cycle begins again,
In recent decades, the denial has reversed some of the gains so many fought for, hoping we reach the next revolution toward ending the embrace of ignorance and idiocy.
But sometimes, civilizations fall.
One way or another, everything is connected. All will ultimately be affected, costing far more than the costs previously complained about/stopped under the guise of ‘innovation’ and a greater good.
And the irony continues ...
@The Heartland
Sadly, I think you are right. Even our most educated people cheerlead the mob.
We have the same instincts as a lion or bear in the wild.
1
The only thought that gives me comfort after reading this is the Tibetan Buddhist mandala that monks create then sweep away signifying the impermanence of all things. While we fail to see the beauty in each living tree as we roll our vehicles down the road, I see our addiction to Amazon shopping mine included, comfort vehicles SUVs, etc. and know that our comfort craving won’t stop until we have become horribly uncomfortable and suffered a loss, hitting rock bottom, like a drug addict, then maybe, just maybe we can get sober from our fossil fuel dependence, and think about our grandchildren’s futures.
6
It's too late! It's over! The Greenland Ice Shelf is melting at unprecedented and accelerating rates. Some Climate Change scientists predict that when the ice shelf melts it will raise sea level by 25 feet and that it could well occur within the next decade.
5
We should face it, we will just act under extreme pressure and in panic. We should consider a life with disruptions, that resembles a war. And this will be global.
Areas with vast overpopulation will start to migrate in a large scale. Better developed economies can not cope with this.
How many humans are living on earth at the moment ? Seven to eight Billion ? Expect several billion humans less, as a result of global warming, and this will not happen in a peaceful way.
14
@ Mathias
Even migration has limits. The Western Nations are not going to take in people despite any moral or practical reasons.
When resources get short, the human being becomes ruthless. If his or her family is at risk, the human being will become a savage.
2
I understand the thinking of those who want radical solutions, but I doubt any such thing is practically possible. Happy Thanksgiving.
5
There are only radical solutions. At this point, if it’s not radical, it’s not a solution.
7
Ah, yes. Giving up is surely the answer.
Each time I hear this, I think of every other social movement scoffed at even by its supposed sideline supporters. Such supporters are too cautious or careful, obsessed with reputation and success, inexperienced with social activism, just plain lazy, or within a bubble devoid of empathy (or even sympathy) for the billions and billions of creatures (some their fellows) they don't know or see on a daily basis. At bottom they try to assuage their guilty consciences, whether or not they are conscious of them, by dragging the rest of us down with them.
Well, there are more than enough reasons to be depressed, and mental health will become an ever more massive problem as we get closer to the point of no return. So if all you have to offer is cynicism and your own careerism, keep it to yourself. But when you scream for help—trapped as your city or countryside burns, drowns, or dries up—hope that the rescuers, if they reach you in time, don't know of your refusal to expend a minute, a dollar, or a calorie for the cause.
4
People should read the UN Emissions Gap Report that this column is referencing. The report does not give any hope that we will or can prevent catastrophic climate change. To do so would require all of the G20 nations to commit to not only compliance with the Paris Accord immediately, but also starting in 2020 to a 3 to 5 times greater GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions reduction than the original Paris Accord Agreement in order to avoid catastrophic climate change. So, starting right now we must abide by the Paris Accord times five.
This U.N. Report is like telling a 70 year old who has nothing saved in retirement that he needs to begin saving in order to retire when he is 73. Get real already, it's too late. We need to go to Plan B, preparing for the inevitable catastrophic climate change.
11
@Shend I do agree it seems like it's too late to fix it. What do you suggest we do to prepare? Move to higher land, away from the coast? Start reading prepper websites? What else?
2
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
1
Green Swans are the missing key to fast replacement of fossil fuels. These are highly improbable innovations with huge potential impact. They reflect not yet accepted new science.
For example, water has become a powerful fuel. Engines have been converted to run on 97% water with 100% on the near-term horizon. This is not electrolysis but surprising technology that needs so little power a converted engine has run on a 9 volt battery.
Cars, trucks, buses, boats, trains, ships and aircraft can all be easily & cheaply converted to run on water, sharply reducing pollution and ending fuel cost as the water is taken from the air (in the case of boats & ships from the water they float in).
Even better, with existing technology vehicles running on water can become power plants when parked, selling electricity for a new source of income. Millions of them can help end any need for coal, natural gas or nuclear power.
Piston engines and turbines have been invented that need no fuel. Engines can run 24/7/365 on ambient heat, a huge untapped solar energy reservoir. This extends the Second Law of Thermodynamics and will only be believed when a new prototype is validated by an independent lab.
Turbines that run without fuel conform to The Second Law. Prototypes ran in Russia and were suppressed as they threaten sales of oil & gas. New versions have been invented. See aesopinstitute.org
No government action is needed to bring Green Swans into production. Merely open minds & hearts.
This is no hoax. Except for the hoax that’s been perpetuated on encouraging individual actions to move the needle on an environmental solution. We’ve been encouraged for decades to reduce, reuse, recycle and to support environmental organizations, while protesting corporate polluters and writing to our representatives. All of this is important, it has an effect. Except that this is a planet problem.
Power and profit have won the arm wrestle of dominating and exhausting the planet to a quicker end. Technology can’t resuscitate a dead canary, and there won’t be a singular technological solution to save the earth. Only international, massive governmental actions can address this ultimately shared future, and that’s already heartbreaking.
6
Global warming has already begun to produce big changes in our weather, intensity of storms, frequency and intensity of wild fires, and rise of sea level. So what was predicted for so long is occurring now. This will continue until the warming due to high concentrations of green house gases in the air diminishes.
One thing we know about nature, it never responds to what we want. It acts according to the same forces of which it is the manifestation since an instant after the Big Bang. So until we drastically reduce the green house gases in the air, not just reduce adding them, these climate changing events will continue.
The big concern is that we have no good way to reduce the addition of more green house gases to the air let alone reducing those green house gases, yet. The delay in arousing people to act to help address the problem is rather complacent.
3
Please don’t say “begun to produce” — it has already produced.
We can do something. We can elect democrats like Bloomberg and we can vote against every republican at every political level. We are engaged in a struggle for our planets life and the republicans are pulling us under. Adam Schiff is right we are better than this.
8
@Richard Perry Remember when Obama was president? What did he do?
1
A man like Bloomberg, flying around in his private jet and helicopter to any of his 12 houses, hardly seems like the right man for the job.
1
On reason people are skeptical is a function of the boy who cried wolf syndrome. I am 67, and for the last 52 years I have been told the world climate is going to change and destroy the planet, or at least life on the planet. Now it may well be true.
It is also highly unlikely that the industrialized countries, including but not limited to the USA, will move away from fossil fuels in any meaningful way in the next ten years. It would probably far more productive to focus on mitigation efforts including planting a few billion trees, perfecting carbon recapture technology, and so forth. Also, we should get off the dime on nuclear power, the only proven way to generate electricity with minimal environmental impact on demand, not when the wind blows or the sun shines.
4
@Thomas Smith
It was true all along and already proven to be a likely sound prediction before you were born, before your grandparents were born. It was proven in and chemistry lab in the second half of the 19th century. The only question what how it would occur once the proportion of green house gases had passed some threshold in the atmosphere about the Earth.
The move away from fossil fuels was always inevitable because it takes so long for nature to reproduce them but now we have other reasons to do so. Ten years will not be enough but a lot could still be done in that time.
Forests take many decades to grow up. They are a long term solution.
3
“We are sleepwalking toward a climate catastrophe and need to wake up and take urgent action,” said Alden Meyer, director of policy and strategy at the Union of Concerned Scientists[.]
In a word, no.
In fact, the U.S. and China have their eyes wide open in consciously throwing away what should be the heritage every one of us owes to his or her child, grandchild, and generations of young people we will never know or meet.
In "the Age of Reason," Thomas Paine called the natural world the only convincing evidence of God's existence. If that is so, the self-centeredness, avarice, and depravity of the leaders and citizens of the two most powerful countries in the world shall live in infamy throughout history and in the hearts of our progeny--at least, the hearts of those wealthy enough to live long enough to bear witness to our apostasy.
7
Precisely why I had no children and made that decision at age 9 and 1964.
2
There is a huge difference between an agreement on a sheet of paper and will to implement it strictly without mercy. Agreements on paper are useless without proper implementation.
Globally population control must be taken up on priority basis without bothering about religious and other sentiments. Population control must be number one priority.
There are far too many polluting private vehicles in this world. Keeping aside personal ego, people should resort to public transportation wherever possible. Firms, colleges and schools must go in for buses in large scale. Electrical vehicles must be encouraged and popularised.
Strict pollution control measures must be implemented mercilessly. Usage of plastic must be minimised wherever possible.
Lavish public functions including the religious ones and lavish weddings must be banned. All yellow filament lamps must be replaced. Usage of air conditioners must be restricted by individuals.
Huge public hoardings and huge public illuminations must be restricted to bare minimum or banned. Strict measures must be taken to put off street lamps during daytime. Individual house owners must see that no lamp glows during daytime outside their garages.
Each and every individual has a responsibility of his or her own. Everyone can easily contribute in a small way, which will help in a very big way in reducing global warming. Simply blaming governments doesn’t help.
4
@ Sivaram
The only country capable of executing your plan is China or Saudi Arabia. Even Russia would struggle to force its people to enact such restrictions.
Why do you show a picture of wind turbines? They are not enough. To get to the scale of reliable base power in the near term, the only option is nuclear. Now I realize the old designs have their issues, but new designs will not. It is time to showcase what will work. No more pipe dreams please
7
It’s ludicrous to review this topic and not discuss fission reactors. Renewables are ridiculously expensive if you drop the subsidies and build the storage to handle the intermittency. Plus the the gas plants you will need for when the sun or wind is not there for time beyond what can be stored. Nuclear is the only source that can be scaled for baseload. Bill Gates has some great talks on the Internet like this one: youtube.com/watch v=IsRlN1oDm60
about this.
3
@Sterling
You can live with lots of green house gases, in fact, you could not live without them. Radioactive materials will fragment your DNA and ionize your entire organism into dysfunction and death, so you cannot live with them in the amounts which nuclear fission plants would produce them. The spent fuel and the facilities themselves are radioactive for extremely long times after they are used up.
1
So the omnipotent soothsayers employed by the United Nations Environment Program have issued yet another bleak forecast for earth's inhabitants. If we ignore that the catastrophic consequences they predicted year after year have failed to materialize it is a forecast that follows decades old prognostications that have become so predictable and routine that its certain few will bother to read it.
The Paris Climate Accord they adore was supposed to lay out the formula for mitigating the ominous claims posited but now we learn that its signatories have reneged on their promises. While that may be considered duplicitous the more important lesson is that no nation is willing reduce carbon emissions by "7.6 percent every year, between 2020 and 2030". When one considers that in the US, fossil fuels are responsible for 63.6% of our energy their prescription is absurd. When nuclear provides 19.4% of our energy and the combined total of renewables promoted by the by the climate change crowd is only 16.9% their demand becomes even more ludicrous. Especially when one considers that the environmentally detrimental hydropower component contributed 7%. Wind contributed 6.5% and the much ballyhooed solar component contributes a mere 1.5%.
People aren't stupid, despite the hysterical claims of the global warming crowd they realize that the supposed cure they promote is worse than the disease.
2
@tim k But the sky is falling. The sky is falling. Why would anyone believe a UN report whose goal is to get money from us?
Except they have materialized. It sounds like you must be insulated from the effects in an air conditioned New Jersey house. Do your research — the evidence is overpowering. Denial can only result from self-centered attitudes or value systems that refuse to allow sacrifices for a greater good and/or to accept some responsibility for the crisis facing us.
3
What kind of money are you imagining they want from you? For what? What they WANT is a livable Earth for their children and yours.
1
It’s frustrating when so many people moan about the expense of dealing with the climate issue. In their mind, it’s a low probability event that’s not worth the cost.
However, these same people justify the vast expense of our military. Or, every year write a check for home insurance.
In essence, these are all the same. Our vast investment in our military protects us against the low risk of a foreign invasion. Home insurance covers us if our house burns down. Both of these are low probability events that most of the country is comfortable paying.
The investment in a clean earth - while good on a number of levels - protects us from the increasing probability that we are wrecking our only home. Our “leaders” are foaming at the mouth about the future risk of China or ISIS - but seemingly our destruction of the world doesn’t matter.
Yes, climate change might not happen. To those people, your house isn’t likely to burn down either. Why are you then renewing your policy?
4
We need a global plan. Sacrifice must be shared and we must be convinced that the sacrifices will make a difference
1
There have been quantum leaps in all sorts of technological achievements the past 100 years.
One sector that has been completely stagnant is that involving the internal combustion engine.
I look out my window upon the heavy equipment employed to build the new housing construction nearby.The tractors sitting there look identical those made in 1920.
Most furnaces in homes this year have near 95% energy efficiency.
Meanwhile that of the gasoline car and truck engine is 50 % at best.
There is a reason why the automobile engine has not advanced.It's the huge influence of the global industrial complex that has corrupted governments to keep everyone dependent on oil.
As long as this enslavement is not challenged, our world will continue to bear witness to the effects of excessive carbon production.
6
'There are many ways to reduce emissions: quitting the combustion of fossil fuels, especially coal, the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel; switching to renewable energy like solar and wind power; moving away from gas- and diesel-guzzling cars; and halting deforestation.'
Sure – or promote family planning including free contraceptives, the uptake of robots, a basic income, and the care of the elderly, in order to stop the runaway growth in global population.
As I write, the global population is about 7.7 billion. By 2050, it's forecast to be about 9.7 billion. Most of the growth will be amongst the poorest of the poor in sub-Saharan Africa, where having one hundred grandchildren by the time you're forty is a grandmother's proudest boast.
If we slow down the global birth rate sufficiently, using voluntary means, taking care of the elderly, then the global population will stabilise then start to fall through natural attrition.
If we can reduce the global population to sustainable levels, then we will fix global warming and climate change, deforestation, the pollution of waterways and oceans, wars between groups over access to arable land and other resources, and illegal emigration.
The organised religions will howl and protest of course, as will employer groups who rely upon competition between the poorest and least skilled to drive down labour costs and thereby maximise profits for business owners, and who rely upon population growth to increase sales.
7
@Colenso -
Why do the population folks always think that some magic solution dealing with decades in the future is what we need to address current issues?
Why do they ignore the fact that birthrates are pretty much declining everywhere, and that it doesn't stop the people who are alive from using energy systems and sources we need to do away with?
Population growth takes care of itself when there's a real drop in infant mortality, when there's education and a shot at a future. Those who survive to adulthood will be better for the planet if, in the meantime, we - not some future people - tackle today's challenges of pollution, greenhouse emissions and the violence that fossil energy brings to global politics.
So instead of dreaming up some way you'd be able to enforce birth limits in someone else's country, please help clean up what the future humans will inherit.
5
Did you miss the part of the article that clearly states it is the richest countries (usually with the lowest birth rates) that are the problem? Punishing people who will be most impacted by a problem they had little to do with creating is not only irrational but immoral.
3
@KS New York City
No, I didn't miss that part. Evidently, however, you missed or chose to ignore the acknowledgement by the author of the role of global deforestation in runaway global warming and climate change.
Global deforestation destroys a crucial global carbon sink. Deforestation in the heart of the Amazon, in Brazil and other South American nation-states, in Indonesia and other tropical zones in the Far East, is not primarily the fault of the US. Rather, it is the fault of those countries' governments who are bribed by powerful business groups to permit illegal logging, and to permit land-hungry settlers to move in and dispossess the original dwellers.
Global deforestation is a direct result of unsustainable population growth in those regions. It is not true that access to free family-planning punishes the poorest. Quite the opposite is true. Free family-planning unburdens fecund females from the ravages of endless pregnancies, and from the toil of child rearing, and enables girls and women to stay at or go to school, acquire a formal education, obtain formal qualifications, find relatively well-paid employment, achieve financial independence, and thereby to better their lives.q
2
This report underscores the need to revive the nuclear power industry. No greenhouse gases, and on the scale necessary to support the beneficial electrification needed to address climate change.
8
@Mary Ann
That won't happen without massive subsidies that could more effectively be directed elsewhere. No for-profit company is willing to go out on a limb and build nuclear plants.
Nuclear power as we know it is not very efficient, especially because it leaves behind a huge mess for decades, centuries, millennia after the electricity has been used.
It's a useful niche solution, but any kind of clean(er) nuclear power plants are barely off the drawing board. Nuclear power as it is now is a very expensive way to boil water and make steam that creates a lot of toxic waste.
Earth orbits a gigantic fusion reactor that has heretofore supplied all the energy needed to sustain life. I think that pursuing every way we can to collect, store, and use THAT energy is the way to go. Just a fraction of a percent of what reaches the earth would be enough.
5
Watch ‘Chernobyl’ & you will change your mind!
1
Chernobyl was poorly designed, mismanaged, and then the accident denied and covered up by the Soviets.
1
Please read "Exit West" a novel that has helped me to see the sometimes overwhelming changes that are happening on our earth and in our world.
1
@3Rivers A “novel” means it’s fiction.
When are the Times and other media going to come to terms with the truth? Geoengineering is the ONLY thing that can save the planet now -- the public is simply not willing to make the dramatic lifestyle changes needed to save the earth by reducing carbon output.
Geoengineering can keep climate change at bay until a non-polluting energy source is available. But we have to start now. The more you wait, the worse it gets.
4
@Chris NYC -- Hmm. We have difficulty managing the accelerant that's warming the planet, so you think we should throw the gears into reverse.
No. It would be tricky to do at any scale. It would risk harming locales while temporarily benefiting others. If done the cheapest easiest way, with sulfur dioxide, it would increase acid rain again while reflecting sunlight.
In addition, without there being a manual for "how to safely cool Earth for dummies", overdoing it could result in loss of a year of crops, or more. Doing it and then suffering a Pinatubo or one even bigger - could result in loss of a year of crops, or more.
And the longer we did it, because it's "easy", the more CO2 there'd be, so if we stopped, there would be a wallop of change.
Pushing to do it now is something that would be embraced by the fossil fuel industry. Meddling directly in climate would somehow also appeal to those who are unable to accept that we already ARE meddling with the climate.
Dramatic lifestyle changes? I switched my lights to LEDs and saved money. I switched my electricity provider to one who buys wind power and the volts work just the same. Keep encouraging electric vehicles - they're cheaper to own and the air gets cleaner, too.
Let's focus on removing fossil fuels and increasing efficiency - those EnergyStar appliances also save people money - that's not a dramatic lifestyle change, but saving money is OK.
2
Nothing would say “(not) ok boomer” and focus the minds of the older established generation than the youth initiating a nation-wide strike in opposition to climate change. Like the pro-democracy youth have done in Hong Kong for the past 6 months, and with great success, as evidenced by last week’s election results there. And like the boomers themselves did when opposing the Vietnam War way back in the 1960s, which was instrumental in turning the American public against the war, and ending it.
3
@Dan88
Yes, young people should strike and scream from the rooftops. But to cast this as boomers vs youth is wrong.
Although the idea that burning fossil fuels would change climate has been around for 120 years, it is really the “boomer” generation of scientists who have developed the present understanding of it and they have been the ones would have raised the alarm.
It is not a battle between generations, but between those willing to listen and learn and those with closed minds and hearts.
5
@Bill White I agree with much of what you say. But, back in the 60s or 70s (when I was coming of age politically), nobody cared or wanted to hear their parents opinion or receive assistance or advice from their parents on anything.
They are the youth of today, with the energy and hopefully the motivation, since they have a lot of life ahead of them, a lot more than me and most boomers at this point.
That said, you are absolutely correct in that there are many boomers who have protest and social justice in their DNA from when they were young social warriors. They are natural allies in the fight against climate change. They have perspective and experience that can be a great aid.
On the other hand, there are many boomers who have become used to the good life, and don't want to make any sacrifices. Those are the ones who need to be shaken before they will change, who will only listen if and when their 401ks start to drop.
1
There’s a lot of frustration with climate change denying retirees in Florida and Arizona, who insist on blasting their air conditioning and living in the most unsustainable places they could find.
Humans are going to burn-it-all and CO2 will reach 1,000ppm. The question is where any of us will be in the time it takes for that to happen. It is the people born after 2050 who will massively suffer. Few if any of today's politicians and decision-makers will bear the consequences of what we are doing.
7
The biggest gripe regarding climate change is that everyone talks about how bad it is, but no media talks about solutions and educating the public.
I thinks it is due to to affecting the economy negatively.
6
It doesn't have to be a negative impact. Changeis hard burnout also can create nee technologies/industries/businesses can create new jobs. Bigger issue is we may not have a choice. Some pain now vs no survival later?
2
Even though the focus is on annual emissions, be aware that CO2 is cumulative and as such the responsibility for the problem lies with those countries who have contributed the most emissions since pre-industrial. The US, not surprisingly has benefitted from fossil fuels more than any other country, contributing about 27% to the global rise in CO2 levels and hence climate change. The resultant substantial wealth acquired must now be used to proportionally mitigate the problem.
11
@Paul Telling citizens of the US that you are assessing them for damages is a sure way to halt progress and provoke firm opposition. Guaranteed to fail.
5
@Paul
Nope. What is mine is mine.
1
The take home message from the UNEP report on production of fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas, is very clear, that demand for energy is high enough to absorb alternative energy production plus expanded fossil fuel production. The idea that the US, Russia and OPEC are going to cut production voluntarily is ludicrous. Putin give up funding for his military? I don't think so. The Iranian mullahs give up their primary source of revenue? ROTFL. The rulers of Saudi Arabia give up their wealth and power? Ha Ha Ha. The production in the pipeline plus ongoing exploration and drilling still subsidized, means fossil fuel burning will continue to increase not decrease.
There is one and only one way that fossil fuel use will drop, if alternatives become cheaper than fossil fuels. The only hope is that what happened in the US to coal, with corporations choosing for financial reasons to replace coal with natural gas in the US, happens worldwide to oil, gas and coal.
8
In many cases, many renewable energy are already less expensive than fossil fuels. And yet still, those with something to gain by burning fossil fuels – – the companies that own them – – continue somehow to convince world leaders that fossil fuels are a necessity. This is corruption.
8
@Federalist - but just think of how much we'd save on military budgets if we allowed petroleum and natural gas to become irrelevant, and told all the feuding fossil-wealthy groups in the Middle East that they were free to do whatever they wanted since they were no longer of strategic interest.
Then let them and other nations propped up by ancient carbon to figure out how they'd support their own populations when the wealth stops coming in.
3
@Margot Becker What renewable energy is cheaper?
Remember when the future seemed hopeful? When people had faith in progress? In institutions? In ourselves?
Yeah, me neither.
18
@Nick
You mean back when we all believed that we would already be dead by now from a nuclear holocaust in WW3? Well guess what, it is still the greatest threat that we face and the lack of awareness of makes it more likely. History would suggest that it is inevitable. Are we more wisely governed now? Are our institutions less error prone? Is the world less full of jealousy, greed, blame, fear, and ambition?
3
This is all so solvable. The science is in and the solutions are known. Instead of solving problems pragmatically, one would have once thought in a very American manner, a portion of the US citizenry is disavowing reality and doubling down on delusion and fossil fuel industry spin tactics. Now populist politics make an identity out of an unintended consequence of industrialization as if climate change denial is somehow closer to 'freedom'.
A three degree warmer world is going to crush your freedom and lifestyle. Climate change will teach us all important lessons about our role in the natural world and perhaps, after that reality testing, we will be less facile and infantile in our thinking.
14
@GR
"The science is in and the solutions are known." And Trump is President and the Republicans control the Senate.
For there to have been solutions, Al Gore would have had to not chicken out about the recount in Florida, and then gone full tilt towards those solutions.
5
@GR
The goals are known that will likely achieve relief, the means to do so are still not known.
@SB This has nothing to do with Trump.
1
Trump could care less - he has Mar a Lago.
4
@RealTRUTH
Until it is under water.
1
I worry that we have already crossed a line that we can't come back from. The biggest nations pollute like crazy, and I'm being asked to bring my own bags to the grocery store. It's a matter of scale, and I'm a drop in the bucket.
If Trump is re-elected, I think the damage he can do will most certainly be irreversible. He's going to pack the courts with deregulation zealots, and the effects will cascade for decades (or until the end of the world, whichever comes first).
334
@DI This article specifically says we have not crossed that line, that if we were able and willing to reduce our C02 production by 7.6 percent, we could really lower the pain of this warming. If that is not feasible, how about we reduce by say 3% .. more warming, but certainly will lower the amount of C02 in 2030 and the amount of warming in 2030 -2100.
Is bringing your own bag to the grocery store really a hardship? How about walking to the grocery store and then not buying 2x the amount of food you will eat? How about buying in bulk and not throwing away tons of packaging?
How about voting like you care, so that we can increase our CAFE standards instead of trying to destroy them, so we can reduce methane being dumped into the atmosphere from the fossil fuel industry? How about voting for people who understand science and technology and fund research into something we can use say in 2030 or 2040 to start removing C02 from the atmosphere?
How about voting for better education for our people so that we can start understanding some pretty basic science and stop believing that we don't have to read or know science and still know more than people who spend decades understanding Earth science and climate.
23
@Innovator
I am not sure why you are coming down so hard on DI. Quite likely he is voting in all the ways you suggest and s/he is not complaining about bringing bags to the supermarket, s/he is just saying that these kinds of activities are not enough. And is almost certainly right. Many scientists think we have already crossed the line into catastrophe, while also saying that everything we can do now and in the near future, will makes things less dire in the future. In any case, given the record so far, it seems increasingly unlikely that enough will be done on a large enough scale to ward off real trouble.
35
@Innovator That's a 7.6% decrease in CO2 production every year for a decade, not just once. Now can you see how hopeless your actions are?
12
Nature is immutable. The universe is about 14 billion years old and it's been working according to the same rules for all of that time. We are going to adapt to the changes occurring due to global warming and there is no going back to make things different. We have to go from here with what we can now do to alter our effects upon the climate and find ways to remedy the problem of high concentration of green house gases in the air.
The how and why man's activities are increasing the green house gases are not difficult to describe. How much that must change is not too difficult to describe, either. People have identified plausible solutions. But nobody really can predict how and when the predicament in which we happen to find ourselves can be made right. The need for burning fossil fuels to sustain our lives is going to remain for a long time because we have not the means to replace that kind of energy generation as much as we might need to reverse global warming.
2
There were no anatomically modern humans in existence 14 million years ago, and the climate was extremely different then.
1
Once again, the unspoken assumption at environmental conferences is that, if a country is rich, then everyone in it must be rich as well. Americans can afford to drastically change how we live because we’re all rich. Would that this was true. It would make things a lot easier. Alas, it isn’t.
.
Many of us are struggling to live. When you consider inflation wages are stagnant, but housing prices have shot through the roof, medical costs are astronomical, college debt is spiraling at a time when college is necessary for most good jobs. We don’t want to hurt the environment, but when you’re struggling to pay the bills, something’s got to give.
.
The global One Percent are the ones you should be calling on to make big changes. They can afford it.
6
@ZAW You're probably in the global 1%, because 99% of people in the world have a household income below $33,000 (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp). You have no idea how poor most people are, or how serious climate change is compared to the problems you list. If the world is on fire, your college debts and medical bills won't matter.
1
To 'stay within relatively safe limits, emissions must decline sharply, by 7.6 percent every year, between 2020 and 2030, the report warned."
I think that is UN speak for saying the world is not going to stay within relatively safe limits. There are no plans to reduce emissions globally by 7.6% per year and nobody but the most wildly optimistic person would suggest that such reductions are feasible. The political, technical, and economic obstacles are formidable to get even close to such annual reductions. I wonder how much time it will be until the next bleak UN climate report is released. They just seem to keep churning these things out and little changes.
6
@Bob you’re right. Because they keep barking up the wrong tree. Instead of calling on the One Percent to make their mansions net zero, Give up their motor yachts in favor of sailing yachts, stop flying around so much in their private jets, and use their wealth to buy and protect vital natural habitats (like the Amazon rainforest), the UN looks at Americans and Europeans and says “you need to stop using straws, driving cars and owning houses.”
1
China emits twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere as the United States, but has promised to do something about it starting in the year 2030. So if the US stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, by 2030 the country would be impoverished, but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be about the same as it is today. If the Times and its panic-stricken readers were truly concerned about "saving the planet," we would be hearing a lot more about the role of other countries and a lot less about what we must do.
6
@Bob Kantor
China is emitting a lot of that CO2 producing the junk that we haul home in our SUVs and stack in our ever bigger house and garage until we throw it out so it can rot in landfills and produce more C02. They aren't driving around in SUVs .. at least not yet .. give them another decade thinking that is what they want to aspire to .. and yes .. US is not going to become impoverished if we use less stuff .. the consumer economy is just something that is easy, but if you use your money elsewhere, jobs will move to that elsewhere .. say you pay $20 to listen to a local band in your park, buy some local food at the food truck and farmers market there, and then pay taxes to improve that park. Or you can go buy some more junk to stack in your garage ..
There's too much self-blame in these comments. Yes, it is true that we'll all have to make sacrifices to properly confront the climate crisis, but the reason we haven't acted isn't because people aren't willing to sacrifice, it's because vested, powerful interests have masterfully obstructed action in their respective countries and sown doubt in large segments of the public. We need politicians who are willing to confront these interests fearlessly, head on. And to the extent possible, we need to starve these interests of investment capital through divestment. This is not about plastic versus paper straws, this is about billionaires not wanting to give up their wealth.
6
@BarneyAndFriends
Maybe there isn't enough self blame. Like maybe we shouldn't have gone out and bought SUVs after Al Gore's hockey stick curve .. which sadly has been somewhat correct ...
No one is forcing you to buy or vote any specific way. If you walk around your neighborhood instead of watching TV you will be healthier and also miss all the commercials and shows telling you what to buy, you won't be using gas to go to the store and then to buy the bigger house to store all that stuff and then schlepping it away to the dump.
1
Based on reading comments here and elsewhere, enough people are still not convinced that urgent action is required. This is enough to negate the efforts of those of us who accept the fact that quick changes need to be made. With homage to Edward R. Murrow: "Good night and good luck".
23
@Dan Barthel - - When a certain AOC in Congress was promoting her removal of so many things Americans are used to - like beef and air travel - did she mention doing without air travel herself? Not that I heard.
Get the power-seekers to back off on their own use of things they think they should take away from everyone else and you might at least be on Square One in this trek.
Right now the climate crisis is just part of a power trip, so those unwilling to surrender their liberties are not listening.
5
Sigh. More ‘what aboutism’. The rallying cry of the narrow minded.
8
@Josh I think "what aboutism" is actually a fair complaint in the face of rank hypocrisy. If we're going have leaders, I mean real leaders, to step-up on climate change, they're going to have to talk the talk and walk the walk. In the case of AOC, that mean mean a committment to cutting-down on her own personal air travel, eating less meat, reducing her own use on single-use plastics. If she really wants to be leader, she's going to have to show what's good for the goose is good for the gander. (I'm not picking on AOC in particular, I think this applies to anyone who wants to be a leader on climate change, in Congress or otherwise).
2
Overpopulation as the primary cause for the climate catastrophe has been mentioned numerous times here already.
Now let's think that through to its unavoidable conclusion:
1) There are already too many humans on the planet, since the climate is already past the tipping point.
2) Therefore, human population must be reduced.
3) There are only two ways how that can be achieved.
4) Either we stop breeding immediately and everywhere.
5) Or there will be wars on an unimaginable scale that will thin the herd as resources are disappearing and everyone will fight for themselves.
Which of the two solutions is the preferable one?
I fear the second solution is the one we are heading towards.
12
@Captain Nemo
Any conclusions from a false premise are generally wrong. Its the high consumption levels of the privileged rich around the globe driving the climate catastrophe -- not pure population figures.
6
@Captain Nemo
We do not need to "stop breeding immediately and everywhere". That's hyperbole. Just keep it to one or two, and if you aren't really, really sure you want kids, don't have kids.
4
I would like to personally thank Ronald Reagan for making it easy for me to choose not to have children and thus save them from this destiny.
From the moment he took office in 1981, his attack on alternative energy, as illustrated by removing solar panels from the White House and attempting to eradicate the Department of Energy, told me all I needed to know about the suicide course the GOP has been leading us on for the past 39 years.
37
@VJR So in the past 39 years, you have forgotten the decades of Dem “leadership” - Clinton and Obama.
3
We need a movement, a protest that sends a message and grabs headlines.
How about Americans who care make a pledge not to fly until the US rejoins the Paris agreement?
If they really need to travel long distances, they can throw some business to Amtrak.
13
This article demonstrates what is wrong with climate policy. Climate change has already happened. It may get worse, but it is here and the human race is powerless to turn back the clock. Yet, all climate dialogue seems focused on slowing the inevitability of what we have already created. Whether we reduce carbon emissions or not, the seas are rising and will continue to rise. Climate policy must be refocused from all too late attempts to stop or slow it, which may or may not have any effect. It is far, far more important to spend our resources to enable humanity’s adaptation to the inevitable. Human ingenuity must be harnessed and a colossal effort made to mitigate the damage. To the extent feasible, populated coastal regions must be protected. Trillions must be dedicated worldwide to develop the technology and to build the necessary infrastructure. Where protection is not feasible, long term resettlement programs beginning now can be developed, enabling those in doomed areas to methodically relocate before the last tide engulfs their homes. Similar long term planning can certainly be done for the adaptation of agriculture to the changing climate. Efforts to reduce carbon emissions must continue, but we cannot allow these feel good measures to delude us into believing we can now make a material impact on the climate. A family about to be inundated by the ocean on a south sea atoll gains little solace from the switch to electric cars in California.
14
@Gene Gambale,
There will be no effective adapting to the worst of the changes which in and of themselves will be untold catastrophe for us humans. And what's more, on our way there, will be something we do not have the right to do and that is to let about half that Animals on this planet go extinct. And well as entire ecosystems that contain life giving resources to us, the plants. Entire forest systems. The great forest of the West. The Amazon. Indonesia Rainforests. Equatorial African Rain Forests.
Does that put it into a little clearer relief for you?
These climate caused disasters which are based in human caused apathy and avarice are and existential threat, period. The people in Paradise, Ca. could only have adapted by not living there. Soon the landscape will be filled with thousands of Paradises.
2
I hear many people comment on It Trump fault he been in office 3 years max 4 . This has been a crisis in the making or decades
Just take personal responsibility yourself ...... and that will add up to huge gains .
Know the truth about things ,
example eating veggies from your local farmer is NOT green more CO2 is expelled per unit of food then mass produced veggies as you can spread out CO2 over more units
2
This is what you get when you praise a wishy washy optional do if you please 'agreement' like the Paris Accord.
It's an optional, do if you would like to but you do not have to paper that every one signed to save face and no one meant to do a thing about. But boy it's so good to get votes, because gullible Liberals hear so and so is with the Paris Agreement and they line up to vote for that politico.
Make it a mandatory, every one who signs gets to get things done or they are booted off the World trade Organization and their imports become 25% duty, and you would see countries toppling over each other to produce immediate results.
Make it optional, based on the goodness of politicians hearts (ha!), and this is what you get.
7
@AutumnLeaf:
I'd like to see some mandatory rules as well but realistically, where are we? It's a start.
"Gullible liberals?". . . This is not a liberal/conservative issue (GHWB was behind it; remember true conservatism?). It's a survival issue.
How about conservatives who steadfastly promote (to their more-than gullible base) the utterly false mantra that the economy will crash with the institution of a clean energy paradigm?
Our potential investment via the Paris accord in clean tech for countries not able to afford it is literally a giveaway to US corporations to provide for such; the US is one of the leaders, a leader that will be used in outsourcing the contract work. It's one thing many people don't understand; a pinnacle of disinformation and ignorance is combined to assure the status quo.
But then, ignorance is bliss. . . .
1
"That trajectory is terrible for the future of humanity."
Teachers have tried, to no avail, to change my now-teenager's writing style - to steer him away from using melodramatic words like "terrible".
But, on these climate change metrics - and this administration's belligerent withdrawal from any action to forestall certain devastation - there is no other word: it's terrible.
6
All of the political parties, races and religions, pros and cons, even all the money in the world won't mean a thing if we don't have a planet to live on, air to breath or water to drink. Everyone, everyone, must give according to their time and ability to protect life as we know it. Anyone who stands in the way because of a personal agenda must be moved aside. This is an existential threat to mankind as we have known it.
3
You can't have females, whether on this continent, Central America, South America, Africa, Australia, Asia, Europe, etc. have more than 2 children each. The first step towards climate change stoppage, is paying all females of child bearing age to limit their child bearing to only 2 children, free birth control, and condoms, etc. The population when I graduated from high school in 1966 was 3.4 billion, and now it is 7.82 billion. An overpopulated, modern society, most of whom like to fly, travel by car, or truck, and have the newest digital device that must be transported by cargo ship around the world, as most of them are made in Asia, won't make a dent in climate emissions. I am 71, and did my part by only having 2 children, and my two children only had 3 altogether, so I have 3 girl grandchildren, so that is the only solution.
6
@MaryKayKlassen
The Population of the US when I was born was 167 million. It's double that now.
China has tripled since I was born.
India has quadrupled.
But, regardless, energy use per capita for the entire world population has more than quadrupled - Per Person!
My family of 6 had one car when I was a kid.
By the time I left home everyone but a car except for one - my mother who had severe MS.
4
@MaryKayKlassen
We have DNA testing now. Why not limit MALES
to 'no more than 2 children each' ? Most females
do already want to limit their families, let's take
the issue back where it originates, with male DNA.
2 Kids and a Snip.
2
ok, all you young voters out there. Next November's election is officially all about you and your future, so when the time comes, get to the polls. Neither the nation nor the world can afford another four years of trumpublican climate denial and regulatory rollback. It's still not going to be easy, but without a changing of the guard politically, fighting climate change is a complete nonstarter.
5
It's way too late... we are too far down the path now.
4
Man Argues. Nature Acts.
--Voltaire
5
"faster cuts are now required"
Sure, dream on.
1
If everyone stopped getting their flu shot we could have a pandemic which could wipe out half the population or more within a few years, much faster than any idea currently suggested. I'm not just talking about the US this could go world wide. Wonderful!
Happy Thanksgiving
2
@Brian
Given the extremely poor efficacy of the influenza vaccine, we don’t really need to totally stop receiving the vaccine. A particularly contagious & severe virus - especially a novel virus - would decrease our numbers quite well. Then again, Ebola could mutate into a contagious airborne form. That’d be helpful, too.
3
There is nothing in the article about the negative environmental impact of raising animal livestock. There is mounting evidence that this worldwide industry contributes to deforestation, emissions, and water pollution.
12
My thoughts exactly. Think about the cognitive dissonance that takes place everyday at The Times when one section is reporting on climate change another is sharing the best beef recipes. A century ago we could afford for a newspaper to act and report in such a way, but now our planet is at stake.
9
And this is the part of the story where the poor countries and the youth declare war on the rest of the world. Though, I wouldn’t be surprised if smaller countries first try to go after big countries in some courts first.
1
There can't be only the CO2 gas that heats the atmosphere. We are burning oil, coal and gas as ever before. All that burning is heating the air mostly 24 hours a day.
1
Why don't we just forget about it, money wins every time. This will be no different, nothing will get done. Why bother worrying about the inevitable.
6
Is there any surprises here? Nothing will be done quantitatively until disasters unseen start to proliferate. Hopefully, it will not be too late. People like Trump should not be tolerated for many reasons. The people who worry the most, young people, have no power. They will be bearing the brunt of Earth’s demise. Huge population migrations; food; and water shortages will become epic in scope. It will be a monstrous in disaster. (4) celsius = 40 degrees Fahrenheit.
5
"If there’s any good news in the report, it’s that the current trajectory is not as dire as it was before countries around the world started taking steps to cut their emissions. The 2015 Emissions Gap Report said that, without any climate policies at all, the world was likely to face around 4 degrees Celsius of warming."
So like, the good news is that when it comes, it will not be a catastrophe that kills a whole bunch of people very quickly but rather a slow, drawn-out demise characterised by ever-worsening issues? That honestly sounds worse than the initial scary scenario where we all (well most of us anyway) went out with a bang.
On an unrelated note, when would be a good time to invest in the peaceful exit industry?
2
One thing I've noticed is that there is no longer any emphasis on energy conservation. I remember the campaign that said to turn off the lights when you left a room. Well, that's been almost completely forgotten in a lot of situations. Also, what about a four-day workweek for most people and/or telecommuting? There is simply no reason for rank and file office employees to have to go to an office five days a week. K-12 schools could also operate on a four-day work week. On that fifth day, students could be home with their parents while schools' heat and lights are left turned off. And, instead of punishing individuals with a carbon tax, why don't we simply reward those who buy cars instead of SUVs by giving them a tax credit? Sometimes the simplest measures are best. I'm just sayin'.
12
China can't even control their population let alone their carbon emissions. Does any rational person really think for one moment that climate issues are anywhere on China's radar? So tax US companies and drive carbon emissions lower, India and China will take up our slack. The people of the world will have their way regardless of the impending disaster to future generations. We very much live in a let us eat and let us drink for tomorrow we die society. So let's get to it.
3
yes, it's on China' s their radar is it directly impacts the livability if their big cities. You know that Americans emit much more than Indians or Chinese, right?
Most people are undereducated. They won’t believe it till they see and or experience the activity themselves. They may be brilliant in a trade or profession (see Ben Carson) but utterly lacking in compassion, empathy or the ability to look at issues from a different perspective.
Human beings will learn about climate change through experience. The poor will bear the brunt of the highest costs in poor health, higher cost for food, and loss of property and jobs.
Eventually, human beings will swing to action and address it. Whether we have to see 50,000 or 50,000,000 suffer or die will be part of the learning process.
3
This really should come as no surprise.
At the conclusion of the 2015 Paris meeting there were all kinds of promises about what "would" be done in the near future.
As always, the devil was (and is) in the details of the practical scientific, political, economics, and social programs that could meet those goals and there were precious few specifics from any of the countries about meeting the very laudable goals.
There was some suspicion that some countries "low balled" their emissions in order to make is easier to meet the future goals. Those suspicions have been confirmed.
The laws of physics are inexorable and human dawdling is inevitable. I am not sanguine.
Make no mistake. This is the legacy we are leaving generations to come. A planet that is so stressed by human created pollutants that it may not be able to sustain life as we know it. And our country (one of the biggest polluters) is stepping away from the only global initiative that is making an attempt to reverse this cataclysmic trend at the world level. The current administration has orchestrated this about face and begun to dismantle most of the environmental protections put in place by all administrations dating back to the Nixon Presidency. A shameful time in American history.
12
@Dennis W
If there are generations to come.
1
It has been too easy to avoid the shifts in life style that would save us from inevitable disaster. Activists everywhere must push for the necessary behavioral changes, taxes, and laws that will literally cool this hot issue. As we in the U.S. are among the greatest contributors to Global Warming, our responsibility is clear.
7
@Anne Lowenthal
Perhaps it’s time to take more radical measures given our political lethargy and unwillingness to act.
The excellent article on India's present and impending problems describes the immediacy of the problem. Americans are just starting to appreciate the dimensions of corruption practiced by the oligarch-in-chief, that directly corrode their institutions; how much more remedial education is necessary to reach a condition of active engagement with planetary problems? What is worse, the limitations of human perception and cognitive biases increasingly exploited by weaponized narratives (alternative 'facts') that appeal to the emotional need for simple solutions--a need apparent in the ranks of professional economists as well as low-information voters. We face a far more profound psychological challenge than the founding generation, which enjoyed comparative material equality and (American) government not yet privatized by corporate influence. Whatever the political pragmatics imposed by general level of understanding, can anyone paying attention doubt that our circumstances require a massive revolution in institutions? The First Amendment responded to fears of government, but we now need government to mitigate the apparent evils of unchecked disinformation and the companies that profit by it.
4
You buried the lead!
“If there’s any good news in the report, it’s that the current trajectory is not as dire as it was before countries around the world started taking steps to cut their emissions. The 2015 Emissions Gap Report said that, without any climate policies at all, the world was likely to face around 4 degrees Celsius of warming.”
There is a long, long way to go in addressing climate change, to be sure. But for now we need to start with hope. Too much of the conversation around climate change begins and ends with despair, and I finish every article thinking, ‘how can we possibly solve this?’ But the truth is, what we’re doing, even if it is far, far from perfect, is at least beginning to move us in the right direction. Let’s keep doing it and keep getting better, knowing that the consequences if we don’t are dire but that we do still have the agency to avoid them.
1
The explosive growth in the human population is leading to more carbon pollution into the atmosphere, as well as a depleted Earth whose resources are not plentiful enough to support everyone. As fights ensue over these shrinking resources, prices increase and wars are fought. In order to save the environment, people will need to do something that is not being talked about, they will need to stop having children, stop bringing new people into the world, and instead look after and support those who are already here. There needs to be less ME and more WE. Sharing is caring
8
Human population growth has peaked and is expected to decline. That said there are already too many people. The biggest driver of increasing pollution is that more people than ever in history are being lifted out of poverty. There are over a billion people in India alone who desire a lifestyle with at least some of the conveniences and advantages of countries like the US. Then there's China with it's exploding middle class. As long as we in privileged areas indulge in lives that worsen the problem we can't expect others not to aspire to the same.
1
Think about who is in charge of most countries, including the US and China: Men in their 60s and 70s. Is it any wonder that they are unconcerned about what the world will look like in 20 or more years?
11
@Scott
Women voted Republican and put those men in office just as much as men do.
It’s a myth that women are somehow this liberal backstop.
3
@Scott Cole OK Millenni. The environmental movement in this country was started by people who are now in their 60' and 70's. Human greed is in a war with fear of discomfort and dying. You whose circumstances have allowed you the luxury of picking the environmental side should not let arrogance and self righteousness weaken your impact.
@Practical Thoughts
Last I checked there was no voting in China.
Vote out all Republicans. That would be a great start.
17
@Mike Filion
What do you want to do with Nancy Pelosi, who thinks the Green New Deal is ridiculous, or Obama, who wants only incremental change? Getting rid of just Republicans is not enough to substantially change things.
1
We Australians are more guilty than most. We produce a massive amount of coal and sell it abroad. The air looks great here but our carbon footprint as a nation is criminal.
10
The air hasn’t been too great in Mildura, Vic. recently, or in much of eastern Australia for that matter. Or the (non-existent) water. How long before most of the continent becomes unliveable?
Either address the religious 3rd rail of human overpopulation, which has been the core of all problems since the 1960s or don't bother with fiddling at the edges.
4
Yet Republicans and Trump in particular, continue to bury their heads in the sand.
What is the matter with this country?
Stupid? Uncaring? Uninformed? No moral sense?
It's more than embarrassing that the U.S. - formerly thought as the leader in science - is dragging the world to catastrophe.
I pray that knowledgeable young people - in an attempt to save themselves - will come out in droves during the next election.
6
Our children and grandchildren are probably going to spit at the mere utterance of our names at the rate we're going.
9
Nancy Pelosi: wrong on impeachment, wrong on Green New Deal, wrong on centrism, just plain wrong.
3
@Kip,
It’s easy to throw rocks at the Democrats for it being progressive enough. However, Pelosi has to deal in facts and data to win elections. If you don’t win, you can’t govern.
The facts that Nancy Pelosi has to manage are:
1. The Electoral College and Russian interference will be with us for the next election cycle and the foreseeable future.
2. Democratic constituencies don’t vote in the numbers they could for a variety of reasons.
Therefore......
3. Democrats have to take into consideration the outsized role moderates and independents play in these elections. Since the the Democratic constituents don’t vote in numbers large enough to over come the electoral college, they have to be mindful of what centrists and center-right people are thinking.
If you want to solve problems like climate change, you have to get elected first.
Street demonstrations and other “moral victories” will not result in policy changes.
4
@Kip Leitner
Now if the progressives in the San Fransisco area can unite behind a single progressive to challenge Pelosi, they can replace her with a true progressive.
Many progressives are so blinded by ideology they can't see the reality of pragmatism. They end the journey before it can begin. It's what leads people to protest vote or vote for their dream candidate who can't win, giving us Trump and a conservative SCOTUS that will damage the nation for many decades to come. As odious as the GOP are, they and their base kept their eyes on the prize for decades while the left constantly shoots themselves in the foot.
3
"Emissions need to decline 7.6% per year" for the next decade. That isn't going to happen and we all know it. Mother Nature bats last and she bats 1000. We're doomed! DOOMED I say!
3
@rockafella
What did that drunk in Hitchcock's "The Birds" say?
"It's the end of the world, I tell ya!"
1
Meanwhile, back at the White House, trump and his merry band of republican sycophants keep playing the fiddle.
While the world burns.
Impeachment is necessary but our last chance to remove the whole rot is 2020.
Vote well!
8
REMOVE Trump, by impeachment or election, and you remove in one single swoop a dinosaur size impediment to moving faster towards a cleaner future.
9
I'm not sure that we will necessarily become extinct as a result of climate change - though there are some who might think we deserve it - we're clever monkeys and some of us will probably survive, even after the inevitable nuclear war. But if you don't want to do anything to slow climate change, you need to consider the billions who will undoubtedly die as a result of your stubbornness and wilful ignorance.
4
@Paul Hinder
Those who survive (if only for a short time) will probably be the very rich, who are buying fortified, guarded bunkers in the US plain states or land in New Zealand. They honestly believe that money will save them, just as it has every time, up to now. A plea to their conscience won't work.
3
I'm not worried about our species. I'm more concerned about the Kent, many other species and individual animals who are going to suffer horribly.
3
I don't get it, why do pieces like this regularly fail to call out China? According to a Forbes article from 2018, "China Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than The U.S. and EU Combined", yet articles like this always seem to tiptoe around it.
2
The climate catastrophes are increasing globally notwithstanding efforts to reduce the looming climate catastrophe as indicated in the tenth Emissions Gap report. What are systemic approaches that could set global climate and economy on a steady course of keeping global temperature between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius while pursing simultaneously acceptable mitigation and adaptation methods.
One of those approaches could consist of transforming the unjust, unsustainable, and therefore, unstable international monetary system by basing it on a carbon monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person and a balance of payments system that accounts for both financial and ecological (climate) debts and credits. The commercial, intellectual, ecological and strategic dimensions of such carbon-based international monetary system are seminally presented in Verhagen 2012"The Tierra Solution: Resolving the Climate Crisis through Monetary Transformation" (www.timun.net). Comments on this Tierra global governance system by an outstanding economics author and climate specialist: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.” Bill McKibben, May 17, 2011
1
I think you all are going to be just fine. The USA has the cleanest air and the lowest pollution of all these rich countries. The polluted countries like India and China, who are building more NEW coal-burning plants are the problem. Greta should go there, by boat again of course. Then she should go back to school.
3
Let's face it: we're doomed.
1
If this so-called report was turned in by a college freshman it would receive an f a failing grade.
To begin with it's not a report at all it ...contains no new data zero
it merely rehashes prior questionable .
an unproven extrapolations guesses and outright falsehoods for instance it does not State the time of the start and the finish of the catastrophic. Even more hilarious this is the 10th yearly report and it does not even try to compare the current sky is falling Report with the previous 10 years if it did it would show that every single prediction was wrong or inconclusive if you trust a pack of tax-free loading U N bureaucrats this fits right into your preconceived notions
What a a joke
2
Is a functional illiterate really qualified to opine on what a college grade would be?
1
We are a 20,000 ton train barreling towards a cliff. The train has brakes - that's the people with the scientific knowledge to what is going on, the intelligence to understand what it means, the courage to face the reality of the situation, the ethics to choose the necessary sacrifices, and the fortitude to change. There are very, very few people with all of these qualities. The brakes are just too flimsy to stop a train this big, moving this fast.
Most of the world's 7+ billion - and especially its Americans - represent the weight of that train. They are not informed about what is happening, or they lack the capacity to understand what it means, or they prefer comforting delusions and lies. They simply don't care what happens after they are gone, think it is someone else's responsibility, or just can't find the resolve to change how they act or vote.
The train is going off the cliff. There is no way it could not. Ten billion people are going to frantically try to pump the brakes as the first six or seven cars start to go over, but it will be too late.
We've never before had 7 billion humans on the planet. We have histories of plagues or famines or wars or genocides - death on a scale of millions. Death on a scale of billions? That will be something new. We don't have the capacity to imagine it. But many of us will live it.
1
@Glen They will mostly make it to the US and Western Europe.
The denial of climate change by our leaders and their refusal to act upon it is tantamount to systemic violence: the intergenerational theft and destruction of the means to life itself. Don't stop your thinking at the sustainability of your individual consumer choices: we must demand justice and accountability of Big Oil, Big Gas, Big Agriculture, and the Auto Industry for their role in hurtling us towards our collective doom.
4
It's pretty shameful when Toyota, GM, and Fiat Chrysler won't even abide by California Emission Standards. This decision will hopefully not be lost on consumers and the majority who understand what is really at stake.
8
I find it acutely ironic that one of the quoted scientist's/researcher's last name is Lazarus . . .
Given our collective homonid behavior, which prima facie worships money as the true God, thereby continuing to ignore the ever more dire warnings - and subsequent consequences (i.e., extinction) of not putting the brakes on activities that fuel global warming, it's all too obvious that no, we're not the most intelligent species on Earth after all.
Even worse, as we continue to willfully destroy our planet's deteriorating atmosphere, we're killing not only ourselves, but many, many wholly innocent species as well. I rather doubt such ignorance -- and hubris -- is to found anywhere else in the universe.
As our behavior is a glaring example of how NOT to care for ourselves and the planet, it's a good bet that any other intelligent species from other worlds would take one look at our behavior and steer a wide berth away from us.
Tragic, really.
4
As long as the trump-warning goes unheeded and ignored by the Republican cult of fanatics, global warming will continue to accelerating until the climate catastrophes hit even faster and harder than any scientist could predict.
The first and most crucial step must be removing the trump from all power. Any efforts to reduce CO2 and methane emissions by responsible countries, corporations and citizens will be easily offset and overrun by the increases the trump is "I hereby order[ing]" American companies to pollute more and to throw out any and all regulations to increase pollution for profit and to stick it to the rest of us - because he's president and everyone who has to deal with the consequences is not.
Too bad Twitter won't cancel the Twitter terrorist in chief's account. That might do wonder's for the climate - environmental and political.
4
Just wait. Many seem to think the sea level rise is going to be the first and major problem we are going to be dealing with. No, actually seems like drought and other extreme weather events are going to wreak havok on our food supply long before people are forced out their homes due to sea level rise.
Food and fresh water will be the concern moving forward I think.. Heck, desperation over this will likely lead to the necessary "flash point" necessary to start a nuclear conflict (think India and Pakistan which is already on the brink).
And to think, we still have people desperately trying to live in arid desert environments like the middle east, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. Temperatures will be such that the human body won't even be able to perspire in these regions (which is body's natural mechanism). People will literally be overheating..
So land that has been some of the most contentious on earth, in the ultimate irony, probably won't even be habitable much longer. Happy thanksgiving everyone!
3
@Dan:
Absolutely spot-on.
It occurs to me that the novel DUNE is turning out to be prescient . . .
If transportation is the #1 source of pollution, maybe all those people who summon Amazon delivery trucks can take a break from excessive shopping for a 6 month trial- we'll have cleaner air to breathe and much less traffic.
6
Let's face reality. We have a global economic Imbalance. It will rest upon the backs of the middle class to bear the brunt of brutal sacrifice. Can you see the 1% or the 10% or the 20% of the economically endowed making the supreme sacrifices? It will be middle class who will be strangled by the draconian squeeze of economic penalties. Look to Venezuela and see the writing on the wall. How different is Trump from that play book. We have literally given ourselves as Americans a strangulation of the middle class as the world burns. Are ANY rich people suffering? How many people in California have lost their homes only to become homeless? Can you count one rich person among them? That's the scenario that will play out...the haves will survive and all the rest of us will need that cyanide capsule as we stand on the beach looking at the salt water as the fires push us in.
3
From David Griggs, former head of the IPCC science working group secretariat, in a conversation with four Australian climate scientists discussing their fears for the future and where they are moving their families to to minimize coming impacts:
“You can say you don’t believe in gravity, but the apple will still hit you on the head.
You can say you don’t believe in climate change, but that’s not going to stop it getting hotter.
I think we are headed to a future with considerably greater warming than 2 degrees C. … that means a lot of people will suffer. A lot of people will die.”
https://youtu.be/jIy0t5P0CUQ
3
The world hungers for real leadership on this issue.
7
The USA is the main culprit.
Firstly because they pollute so much. Compared to other developed countries (except for culturally similar countries - Australia and Canada), Americans pollute an awful lot at everything they do, including transportation, agriculture, industry, energy generation, ... No single sector is uniquely responsible.
Second, because of the example they set. When some small country, say Sweden, decides to pollute less, do they reap the benefits? No - they're "suckers". They'll suffer from US-driven climate change all the same. Meanwhile Americans will enjoy a slightly less nightmarish future thanks to Swedish sacrifice. The USA remains the most powerful country in the world, its citizens among the most prosperous; they chose to take advantage of others not because they need to, but because they are selfish and predatory.
Third, because the USA actively sabotage efforts by others. This happens both at the state level (rejection of Paris agreement, actual wars "to get the oil"...) and through civil society (libertarian organizations, often opaquely funded by corporations and the American mega-rich).
The science of climate change is pretty clear. We need to ask: why is the USA destroying the world? What historical, social, cultural, economic factors explain this suicidal/murderous behavior? And how can we stop it? Or failing that - how can we stop them?
3
What, over the last 50 years, has the UN done to curb population growth, the real reason for excess carbon emissions?
@Kenneth Cowan
No. This is wrong. Overconsumption is the driver, not population. Americans are the biggest culprits/have the biggest footprints.
2
@Marta: The more people in the world, the more carbon emissions. It's simple mathematics.
Geez, who do I believe? The scientific data and research proof of thousands of climate science experts from around the world who all agree increasing CO2 levels are the result of human fossil fuel use & other detrimental activities, leading to a global warming disaster-- OR the opinion of conspiracy theorists and energy lobbyists who say it's all a hoax, an "inconvenient truth" and call scientific "alarmists" "The Enemy of the People."
It sounds like a narrative cliche I've seen played out so many times, since childhood. A warning is raised. People suppress it and deny the danger. Is there a moral to this fable? Oh wait, this is real life. No moral, just more ignorance and catastrophe.
5
It's terrible but nothing will happen. We won't do anything to stop the direction of this catastrophe. And since it will affect people of color on the other side of the planet, interest will be minimal. Thoughts and prayers and some handwringing.
1
The sooner we go extinct, the better it will be for everything else that has the misfortune of sharing this planet with us.
3
We call ourselves The Primates. The Number Ones. Species after species has borne witness to our hubris, our thoughtlessness, our greed and our presumed dominion, by silently disappearing. By dying. Each one of them a canary in a coal mine. One after another after another. And now?
Do not ask for what species the bell tolls.
2
I have no doubt we are headed in the direction of climate catastrophe. It is closer than we realize. Current actions and proposed actions are totally insufficient, and could not possibly avoid catastrophe.
I do have doubts about what that catastrophe could look like. I think even those concerned about climate change tend to minimize the real dangers of the biggest risks.
It would certainly continue the current trend toward wilder weather -- higher highs, lower lows, more drought and more flooding, massive storms of the most powerful categories instead of what were more usual categories. Growing zones will continue to shift, as they already are. Wildlife will shift too, as it already has started to do. Water levels will rise, as they have already started to do.
Is that it? Is that as bad as it can get?
No. At some point, the changes of temperature at the poles will affect the temperature difference that make run the huge ocean currents that now move heat around the globe. That has happened before. There are flickers already now in some years in both the Labrador and Barents Seas.
There is reason from deep cores recently evaluated to think that there is an on/off effect, as if a switch were thrown. The current shuts down for years, and the global temperature regulation it brings just stops.
What then? Long winters reach south, very short summers, and snow piles up without melting far south of anything we've seen in the last 14,500 years. It has happened to us before.
2
"There are many ways to reduce emissions: quitting the combustion of fossil fuels, especially coal, the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel; switching to renewable energy like solar and wind power; moving away from gas- and diesel-guzzling cars; and halting deforestation."
It amazes me that consumption of consumer goods never seems to be mentioned as a climate issue. The outrage-du-jour is flying, but that's a minuscule part of the problem, and huge reductions in flying will make a minuscule difference.
But the mining and processes of materials, manufacturing, shipping, disposal and use of all this stuff consumes *massive* amounts of energy not to mention destroying habitat and landscapes, and polluting water and air. It also diverts money from more productive uses. We have to *just stop buying stuff.* Don't buy the latest phone, or tablet, or smart speaker. Don't buy a new car. Don't buy a 3500 sq ft house for a family of three. Don't buy that oh-so-essential sous vide cooker (really now), or your 23rd sweater or 19th pair of shoes. Use stuff til it wears out. None of this requires any sacrifice, just basic restraint. We live in a consumption-based economy, so this is a very unpopular idea. So instead of giving all your money to those hated capitalists (who play us all for fools that we are), give your money to the poor, homeless and hopeless.
10
@Stevenz
Well yes reducing consumer consumption is good -- we need to do everything we can. But transportation and meat-eating are the biggest changes individuals can make. By far.
5
@Stevenz
Wish I could recommend 100 times.
2
If you do not speak about nuclear power replacing fossil fuel then you are never going to beat global warming. If India, China, EU and USA cut back on oil what will happen? I will tell you, the price will decline and the rest of the world will use more. Oil is the cheapest energy we have ever discovered. One barrel of oil is equal to 10 men working full time for one year and we can pump it out for the ground for $2.00. In order to defeat global climate change we would have to create a UN agency that built over 2000 nuclear power plants all over the world and gave away the energy for free. Other renewable energy sources will not be able to close the gap and eliminate fossil fuel. Wake up and face the truth!
The truth is we are going to use all the fossil fuels until they are gone and the poor in the world are going to suffer the most.
American needs a thinking, aware, and concerned president. We have none of that now but can change all of the future next November by electing a true leader that can pick up the baton and restore America's leadership in this battle of survival.
5
Democratic values have been gradually replaced the past 40 years in this country by corporate values: materialism, consumerism and competition as a family value and virtue.
9
One reader has nice put – “The beginning of the end of every civilization is an unwillingness to make sacrifices for the greater good.”
But sacrifices are made for one’s own, not for others. It takes a Saint to show us oneness of the Universe. The decline of this vision is the direct result of materialism and antidote is spiritualism (not religion though). Universal ideals must be instilled in every person.
But even science is showing the oneness and interconnections of the world, at least oneness of the earth. None can escape the effects of climate change; it is only a matter of time.
We can all wait to learnt it harder way.
4
Tell those voters in Wisconsin and Michigan that they better wake up, because the world is going to be coming for all their freshwater.
2
@totoro
Tell those politicians in the Democratic Party they'd better wake up to the needs of the working class in Wisconsin and Michigan.
Bernie Sanders spoke to their needs and beat Hillary in Michigan's primary.
Hillary ignored the lesson of Michigan's primary and ignored Wisconsin and Michigan in the general election, and consequently lost the electoral college.
1
It’s past time to move to a subsistence perspective. The ‘global commons’ is used to justify appalling exploitation and destruction, when there can be no commons without a community. A global community, a ‘global village’, is simply infeasible. A subsistence perspective requires a local community that is organized around autonomy, self-help, and self-provisioning. We don’t need money, wage labor, international corporations, or even federal aid to subsist. The people of the ‘affluent’ countries must move to control their own land, food and water resources. When this is done, waste, destruction and exploitation will be seen as what they are - absurd. There’s no need to destroy the planet to live a high quality life. The sooner ‘affluent’ people en masse start taking responsibility for their resource use, really responding to the amount of trash and sorrow their lifestyle currently creates, the better off they (and everyone else) will be. There’s no need to beg for our birthright - a future on this planet.
1
Not enough people think as a "collective". Many people go about their daily lives thinking that this one little thing isn't going to hurt the planet. Until we start sacrificing some of our impulses, we will not see any change. There needs to be WILL.
@duvcu You should talk to the folks in Beijing, they have an answer to all your problems.
But the very stable genius with unmatched wisdom says it's a hoax. Meanwhile Fox and co paint the people trying to do something about it, like AOC as far left extremists. An American expression to sum this up is "go figure". An Australian/NZ expression not used in America I believe, is open slather, meaning carte blanche to disregard what scientists without unmatched wisdom have gone and figured with minor matters such as facts.
2
From the article : "A number of countries around the world, including Canada and Norway, have made plans to reduce emissions at home while expanding fossil-fuel production for
sale abroad." Why is the United States not specifically included ?
The newly famous Fiona Hill is a big fan of Fracking for Ukraine, as she testified towards the end of her marathon appearance. (Ukraine is one of the few European countries that allow fracking, which may explain the presence of Americans, including Nancy Pelosi's son, on the boards of Ukrainian energy companies). She is also totally in favor of current US policy of shipping natural gas fracked in the Midwest to places like Poland, as a way to undercut Russia's energy economy. She went so far as to disparage Vladimir Putin for being averse to fracking when it was discussed at a Valdai Club meeting. How very environmentally aware of her !
1
Yes, folks, this is really serious, and it's time to get over the fantasies. Basically we're talking about overpopulation; stop smiling benignly as India and the Muslim world set themselves up with gigantic supplies of unemployed youth, and then demand that the Western world accept "their fair share" (UN Secty General Ban Ki-Moon) . And it's time to stop dumping on those first world countries, including technologically adept Israel, who stand some chance of controlling emigration of the desperate into their country, and finding the means to eat regularly and maintain a clean water supply. Repeating nonsense like carbon taxes (which have repeatedly failed in Europe) will fix the problem, that letting in refugees with no skills you need is the answer, that the Paris Climate Accord was our salvation because it took Western taxpayer funds and gave it to developing nations with a long history of coal fired energy plants, (China), refusal to curb population size, or its behavior (India), and pretending to defend the rain forest and its inhabitants while accepting large sums of money and continuing to chop the forest down (Brazil, Indonesia).
3
@Mary
No. Its Western consumption, not third world birthrates that is driving climate change. Your comment is great example of the thinly veiled racism often behind efforts to misdirect attention to population.
@Marta 75 million people are on the move, south to north, worldwide; that's according to the UN.
Millions more are internally displaced. They're being driven by the search for food, water, energy, the basic needs. You could stop production of greenhouse gasses tomorrow, (which you couldn't, not without killing billions of people) and it wouldn't help. What you can do is urge the First World to put in the research to figure out if we can possibly keep seven billion people alive in these increasingly difficult conditions. And they probably won't do it if they're told it's all their fault for living well.
Climate change truly is the ultimate "Tragedy of the Commons". So many people know the coming consequences for our collective inaction, but the status quo must be maintained in order to gain another quarter of a point on the market.
1
I worked on the first US National Climate Change Action Plan in the Clinton-Gore White House, with the over-arching commitment to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. Most of the plan involved voluntary "challenge" programs for increasing energy efficiency, leveraging private investment, and so on. As the junior staffer it was my responsibility to convene the interagency meetings. I got to observe Nobel-winning economists, umpteen Deputy-Assistant-Secretaries, all experts in energy, agriculture, finance, transportation - any government agency that in some way affected emissions. It took moving to Spain to make me realize the essential missing piece of expertise: culture. There were no sociologists, psychologists, linguists, or writers in those meetings. The average Spaniard's annual emissions are far lower than a US resident, yet their quality of life is comparable, and their life-span is greater. You could not fit an average US SUV through the tunnel to enter any municipal parking garage, much less into their narrow parking spaces. Yet Spaniards don't feel deprived. If we are to have any hope of seriously lowering emissions, we need to include thinkers who understand how to hack into our cultural software, and shift what we desire.
4
1. Limit the production of new children
2. Change to a de-toxification economy: This means channeling our innovation towards materials and energies that do not poison our Earth. This is not just about renewable energy; it's about not using pesticides, plastics -- putting things into the environment that are toxic to the human organism.
3. Rally our society to clean up the existing toxicity that is already here -- plant trees, come up with ways to recycle / purge toxic materials that are already in the atmosphere.
We need the SOCIAL incentives to align -- we need to VALUE a clean planet more than we value other things. That's what it will take to really change.
9
@JB
what if religion prohibits use of contraceptives and family planning?
@M That will be a challenging belief system to let go of, to be sure.
@M
Then as irresponsible purveyors of overpopulation they should not only lose their tax exempt status but be required to put their considerable fortunes to work mitigating climate change and relocating climate change refugees.
It is great to promote energy like solar and wind, but these are intermittent sources of power. As a society, we need to stop stigmatizing nuclear energy which has zero emissions too.
10
I haven’t read all the comments on this article, but so far I haven’t come across one that decries the great big elephant in the room (with innuendo intended): overpopulation. There are simply too many people on this planet to sustain anything approaching a twentieth first century level of ease, comfort, and health. Yes, we can all do more..some of us much more...to reduce our “carbon footprint.” It we keep adding more footprints to the globe. And more and more. And who is going to tell the people of India that they can’t have air conditioning? Who is going to tell the people of China that they can’t have cars or access to air travel? Who is going to tell the people of subsahara Africa that they can’t all have electricity? Now I know that some other reader is going to come doing and say it can be fine, that the world can and must accommodate more people. But to that assertion I ask “why?” What is the good of more and more people? The world is ever more alienating as it is. So again , I submit that until we get a handle on our population problem, we are bound to increase global climate effects. And sooner or later those effects will most definitely take care of our population problem...the hard way.
5
@Freestyler
Nah. Western over consumption is the primary issue.
@Freestyler:
Your comments are spot-on. Overpopulation is indeed the proverbial Elephant in the room.
Mankind is willfully, out of sheer ignorance and hubris, committing slow mass suicide, and even worse, taking untold numbers of other utterly innocent species with us.
And most continue to believe we're the most intelligent species on Earth.
Prima facie, the mounting evidence is to the contrary.
Sad.
Bigly sad!
1
Maybe we should have not been so active against nuclear power. By now we would have advanced a huge amount on how to use nuclear and we would not be dependent on all these fossil fuels. The modern world needs huge energy sources so we are doomed. The third alternative is to reduce the population by 90%....probably the best idea of all. The reality is we are doomed. Like a teenager with lots of energy and passion but not enough knowledge we demanded the end of nuclear power stations a tad bit too quick
2
What would we have done with the waste? How would we have stored it so it does not leak? No, zero leakage at all, forever. That’s impossible and it’s ridiculously expensive to try to come close..
Nuclear is cheap and easy power to start with, but keeping track of and storing the nuclear waste forever was impossible and we were right to have rejected it. On the other hand, we obviously didn’t plan well for our current future. two choices: Zero leakage at all, forever... or find other options. Successfully storing nuclear waste for many decades, and eventually for centuries, is ridiculously expensive, even with leaks.
1
Not even one word about Nuclear Power which makes about 20% give or take of our electricity. eia.gov says 63.6% is from fossil fuels, mostly natural gas and coal. A newish 2 unit nuke, such as the units going in near Augusta GA will produce massive amount of electricity (3000 megawatts...that's a LOT) in a relatively small land footprint. NO green house gases except for the folks driving to work at the plant. Equal to about 1000 wind turbines, assuming they are actually spinning at max capacity and putting out 3 megawatts each. Do you really know how much space 1000 wind turbines take up?...not in my backyard I'll bet you would say. I found one number on Google of 50 acres per megawatt. I was driving across Kansas few years ago and wind turbines as far as the eye could see were not spinning...no wind. No one got hurt at 3 Mile Island and virtually no radiation leaked from the containment. Otherwise, there has never been anything remotely close to the Fukushima or Chernobyl events in the US or Europe. Ever notice that the electric car crowd seldom talks about where the electricity comes from that powers their "clean/green" cars? Magic?...no, not really. I tease one of my friends by asking him how is Coal Powered car is doing :-)
4
Please stop talking about adding/raising taxes!! We are just playing into the hands of the fossil fuel industry. We should be talking about "Removing corporate incentives geared towards the extraction, refining and transport of fossil fuels". Ending tax BREAKS for the fossil fuel industry and making these companies pay real taxes on their income as well as real extraction fees on our natural resources, and real remediation for the land and water they have poisoned is all that's needed to tilt the economic equation in favor of renewable energy. Solar power is already cheaper than electricity from fossil fuels in some parts of the country. There's no need to push hard for taxes and restrictions when we can use incentives instead! End all investment tax credits and deductions to build a new fossil fuel plant or drill new wells but keep or grow tax incentives/credits to build a solar, wind or (yes) modern, fail-safe Nuclear plant and the economics take care of themselves. Yelling about new taxes just puts wind in the sails of fossil lobbyists.
Don't let the fossil fuel industry write the rules and steer the debate.
6
Now is the time for the cities of the world to move away from auto domination - for both reasons of lessening climate change and for the betterment of quality of life in our cities. All cars pollute. There is no such thing as a clean car. That is an outright lie. Then there is the quality of our lives in cities. Cars kill, cars maim, cars engender bad urban design and sheer ugliness.
We need to rapidly transition to sustainable cities where people walk, bicycle and use public transit. Cars are death.
1
@Mitch Mitch, you do understand that it is Industrial pollution that makes up the VAST majority of carbon output right? Your car use barely even moves the needle...
1
If you can, electrify your car and home. Use rooftop solar if you don’t, locally, have a clean electric grid. And if you don’t push for one. The natural gas extraction and transmission system leaks methane. We have to abandon it.
5
Do something positive in your own life. Even with a small start, you might easily be able to reduce your footprint by 30%, without major disruption to your life. Then multiply this by the 100 million other Americans doing the same. Then multiply this by 3 billion others in the developed world. It will soon be seen that there will be a very positive effect, and that it is not hopeless or impossible to turn the corner. Conversely, if nobody is willing to make a small start in their own life, then maybe we really are doomed, and deservedly so.
10
@John Exactly!!! And do talk about it at the Thanksgiving table! Why is it still so taboo to be "green"???
If the kids are marching in the streets, the least anyone can do is to sip from a paper or glass cup without a straw and slow down on the road to save on fuel.
turn the thermostat a couple of degrees up or down, turn off some lights and use LED bulbs.You will also save money by doing those simple small efforts.
If everyone does a little, some a lot, there can be hope. The governments are not the only ones to have to act, we all do. Now.
2
Humanity is on a path to extinction at this rate. The BAU scenarios aren't handleable unless we either colonise space or go underwater and even then the problem in general is going to be the food supply - the vast majority of what humans can eat may well perish in one of the great extinctions.
The probability of the above doomsday scenario increases the longer we wait to reverse the trend. This like the titanic -- by the time the iceberg is spotted it is too late already.
On the politics front, Trump supporters support this and that policy, and of course they don't believe humans will become extinct or if they do they believe it's possible, they think it will happen after their lifetime so they don't care (I know one conservative with this view at least). Some view largely a continuation of what we saw from 2014-2016 (without the divisive rhetoric) as Trump doing a great job. They're also the ones who will pay the earliest.
1
This impending catastrophe has been well documented by thousands of extremely reputable scientists and policy experts for years. The main stream media started covering it as a catastrophe, on the front pages where it belongs, only a few months ago.
By tradition, this is a week of thanks giving in the United States. I suggest the Times features a few stories about success stories in the past, when our our citizens, our government, hundreds of countries around the world, joined together to fight a man-made environmental disaster and won. The classic case is ozone holes, caused by refrigerants polluting the atmosphere. It is a gripping tale, with many parallels to the carbon dioxide story. And the holes are filling in, the worst crisis averted, for which I am very thankful.
1
I attended an environmental college over 40 years ago. Climate change is real and has to be prevented from doing further damage. There is too much big money preventing any action to be taken. There will not be a planet left for our grandchildren is we do not act and act now. Denying it changes nothing.
7
I tend to agree with many here who see us as either too late or very close to being too late. I don't believe our current government will do nearly enough to reducing the coming horrific effects of global warming. I think a really possibility is that at some point the military will step in and take over the climate change policies. They are aware and very conscious of climate change effects. They know the dangers associated with rising sea levels for coastal bases and have already made plans for moving them. I fear our government will do nothing. Businesses are the other possibility. Businesses want to make a profit and when it is apparent that global warming will result in losses they will demand change. The world is in for a long-term change on the order of thousands of years. Resources will be fewer so now is a good time to begin to get the population growth under control. How about a carrot and stick. Carrot (no taxes) for those with zero or one child, neutral tax consequences for two kids, and an increased tax rate for each child over two.
5
@hd - while the design of this article appears to be to induce the inaction of despair, it does eventually get to scraping the surface of actions that are being taken.
US emissions were dropping, this year doesn't have to make a reversal and, with utilities dumping coal in favor of pretty much everything else, it will be just a Trumpian blip. EVs are going to take over once they reach a critical mass - the used car market now has affordable electrics for people who can spend $20k on a car that will then cost them less to maintain and operate than a gas car would.
The UN report mentions that the US has multiple states and at least 100 cities with zero-emissions targets. That's a substantial fraction of our population. Corporations from the tech giants to WalMart are moving to 100% renewable energy, and that's funding wind and solar farms, many in rural areas that are benefiting from a steady new source of revenue.
Utilities are dropping coal plants far ahead of schedule - in part because most states have renewable energy targets, but also because the economics of coal are lousy. Utilities are also hopeful about electrification of cars and trucks. All those batteries will help them balance energy demand to avoid peaks, and let them use all that cheap wind that blows at night when demand is low.
Regarding population - we have the ability now to cut each persons impact. Doing that and improving standards of living globally makes population drop on its own.
3
The US is not technically advanced to ride itself of fossil fuels and certainly will not get there in twelve years. So if the US cannot move to a cleaner energy source either can the rest of the world.
The fossil fuel industry is not the bad guy, it's lack of new technology so forget you're liberal arts degree and study engineering or physics to make it happen sooner.
In the mean time stop blaming others for your problems and enjoy your life.
4
@Brasto
The technology is there; it's political stalemate/corruption.
In addition to all the destructive issues mentioned in this article, the urgent need to limit and shrink our out of control human population is paramount.
15
I have heard the arctic Permafrost, when allowed to thaw, will release a torrent of carbon dioxide.
That process seems to be underway.
I never die watch Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
Maybe it's time.
5
@GP
Not so much CO2 as methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas and will eventually degrade to
CO2 and water vapor (another greenhouse gas). But it's not actually the permafrost which is the immediate concern, it's the very shallow East Siberian Sea, which is warming really fast. As a result, the frozen methane deposits (clathrates) on the seafloor are thawing and releasing their gases directly into the atmosphere (the waters being too shallow to absorb them on the way up). There is a lot of ongoing research being done on this (notably at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks in cooperation with Siberian researchers), despite our current disaster of a governor Mike Dunleavy, who has blatantly attempted to completely cut off funding for any kind of climate change research. His recall is underway.
1
@irene This is really scary stuff...There is a massive amount of frozen methane in the oceans. Bad news if it really starts to boil off. You don't ever hear much about it. But its out there.
1
Two points. This is a world war that we must win. Second, doing so will create jobs and lead to technology breakthroughs. Those that lead ( Hint to Trump ) will be heroes.
1
Why aren't the smart minds thinking about how to deal with the inevitable?
The Tsunami is already in motion, nothing we do will stop it.
2
@Steve Gallagher it’s not about mind. It’s about heart. Those heartless have only money and power in mind at this present time. They don’t care a bit about future generations.
1
Bye Bye - the US will continue to do NOTHING - comrade trumpsky will lose the election by 5 to 10 million votes - but SOMEHOW will win the electoral college - we are now a country of losers.
7
@APO
The U.S. has drastically cut its footprint, it is the 3rd world that is the prime polluter and destroyer, as well as the culprit for 50 years in the epidemic of human overbreeding. The 3rd world has caused the human population to double just since the 1960s. That was always unsustainable. Men need to decode the user directions for condoms and zippers. Every nation needs to make birth control free and widely available to all.
Realistically there is absolutely nothing any one person can do to make the slightest difference. Its going to be large scale changes like switching from gas and diesel vehicles for all transportation, switching to geothermal and hydro electric for our power plants, enforcing this policy planet wide, in every country regardless of what they want or vote for or think is best. We cant just do these changes in the US and then allow the rest of the planet to still kill us all. All the people here talking about eating less meat and riding a bike to work-cute but its actually just a shallow attempt to try to absolve themselves from the collective guilt that we are supposed to feel about global warming. That was a failed propaganda campaign that keeps the masses pointing fingers at each other rather than the people in real power and corporations. There was never a series of choices that regular people made to cause this. The car we purchased or if we are flying around to planet for vacation each year did not cause this. The people that allowed corporations to have the same protections as private citizens and then allow them an unrestricted hand plunder the planet in every way possible to try to extract profit from every inch of soil and cubic inch of air are to blame. The citizens of the world deserve no shame they are blameless. We are also helpless to make any meaningful changes that will impact the situation in any meaningful way. Choosing a hybrid car will not save us now.
7
@Mark not at all. Supply and demand. What consumers demand is what industries supply. When individuals made the choices to stop eating animal products, more vegan options appeared. When people *demand* electric cars and clean energy and no plastic etc, any industry that fails to comply to raising standards will fail. People need to take advantage of their power as a consumer. I do everyday, and i urge you to do the same
3
@Hilary No one made the choice to buy products that made the glaciers melt. Buying products did not cause climate change. This is not a consumer created problem. In most places in this country you need a car to live your life. That is a fact. Government regulations are not consumer driven. We can not purchase our way out of this. The "power" you have as a consumer is an illusion.
3
Why don’t people focus more on the only viable economic solution to climate change? Carbon capture.
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/09/27/carbon-capture-technology/
2
The UN says..... the SKY IS FALLING. Give me a break, the UN blasts out these "warnings" so that greens/progressives in developed countries will pressure their governments to give more cash to the "developing" countries, who are the real constituents of the UN.
5
And we'll all go down together arguing fairness.
The ‘sky isn’t falling’, THE WATERS ARE RISING!. pay attention
1
I read headlines like this every day, along with headlines claiming that Democrats are moving "too far left" with their "crazy ideas." Every single time we elect someone that is not willing to fight the corruption of the oil industry is another step towards accelerating our demise as a species.
11
Let's be realistic; we'll never save ourselves.
4
Stop eating animal products!!
I find it incredibly frustrating that relatively few people focus on the role of animal agriculture and greenhouse gas emission in climate change. Fossil fuel use is only a "part" of the reason why we are faced with global warming and pollution. Eating a plant based diet is not only good for your health but must not be considered "just an option" if you are serious about fighting climate change. However, the major corporations do not want to stop selling you dairy, beef and pork, and in fact, are punishing those who lawfully and peacefully protest against the use of animals for food, both from a humane perspective and a climate change sense of urgency. Please read the following report: https://climatenexus.org/climate-issues/food/animal-agricultures-impact-on-climate-change/ and this, also: https://www.cowspiracy.com/facts
7
@Martha How do you know there is a vegan at the party? You'll tell them.... FYI it is Industry that is producing most of the pollution... not farming... full stop. In the mean time I will continue to hunt and fish for my food.
1
@Martha
And for a view from the Other Side, might I recommend the very interesting book "Cows Save the Planet" by Judith Schwartz. Well researched and written and very readable, her book argues that perennial grasslands maintained sustainably by grazing animals are a vital key to carbon sequestration and species survivability. (For those who are against 'using animals for food', would you rather see these heritage breeds simply die out, because one aspect of animal husbandry does involve using animals -- surplus males in particular -- for food).
It's easy to talk about an all plant-based diet, but that presumes we will be able to continue growing annual cereal crops and legumes on the scale we do now, at a minimum. What happens if seasonal weather becomes so variable that we can no longer count on harvesting annual crops? (For example, in the Midwest just this year, the spring floods and early fall frosts resulted in huge crop failures).
Grasslands grazed by herbivores are much more resilient than annual croplands; we may find ourselves necessarily becoming pastoralists in order to have something to eat.
1
Every new report from the U.N. and other credible sources reinforces the idea that, within a generation or two, human greed, stupidity, and complacency will destroy civilization as we know it. It's easy to point the finger at obdurate climate-change deniers like Trump, Bolsonaro and their moronic ilk as today's big villains in this bleak story. And they are indeed villains, and history – if, 200 years from now, anyone is left to write it – will be vicious to them. However, most of us in the developed Western world are complicit in this mess one way or another. We drive cars and trucks that run on internal combustion engines, we heat our homes with natural gas, we eat red meat. Many of us live in homes that are way too big. We buy too much stuff we don't need and think that doing more of this will nourish our souls. We accept that economic growth driven by this belief can and should continue unabated, forever. Unless a critical mass of humanity wakes up to the fact that this lifestyle is utterly unsustainable – and somehow manages to elect intelligent and courageous leaders who recognize this fact and vow to do something about it – starting with kneecapping the criminal fossil-fuel industry and prosecuting its leaders for knowingly endangering our collective existence – our children and grandchildren are doomed to live in a world that, for many, may be impossible to live in.
10
@Alec
One problem is that many Americans have been told that the UN is the enemy and can't be trusted. So every UN report only reinforces the deniers' convictions only because it's a UN report.
1
Climate "hysteria" is really upper middle income white people realizing that their privilege is under threat from what brown and poor people have dealt with since capitalism's birth: poverty, food scarcity, displacement/dislocation.
4
@H I don't even know where to being picking apart this TOTALLY FALSE premise. I could start with mentioning the pollution of China and India. I could then talk about how racist it is to lay this at the feet of "white" people. I could also talk about how capitalism has been the SOLE factor in raising people out of poverty. But I think someone who makes a statement as dim as the one above might not understand the argument fully anyway.
Well said. The west realized the so called third world is catching up with them so they created the climate boogey man to control them. It's a new form of colonization. And don't get me started on the blithe comments asking other (read non white) countries to curb their population. Hitler's gas chambers come to mind.
We have an economy, social structure and lifestyle based on consumption and waste of fossil fuels. We don't know how to make a living, manufacture anything, transport anything, or grow food without fossil energy. It seems to me it would take a dictator in every developed country to force the changes necessary. Let us hope they are enlightened and benevolent dictators.
4
@abigail49
Dictators don't worry about the needs of the poor and working class. They get power through those who have power, the rich. Those dilators will work to preserve the privileged rich at the expense of all the rest of us, even if that preservation is a short one.
If there's an answer to climate change it has to be in a democratic setting. If not, then we truly are doomed.
2
The worldwide average life expectancy continues to increase, while deaths from natural disasters, wars, infant mortality, poverty and illiteracy continue to decrease.
These articles are like scary letters from debt collectors written in BOLD AND ALL CAPS. PAY NOW OR ELSE. You shouldn’t ignore them, but being afraid is your choice.
2
There are solutions. Project Drawdown has listed the top solutions to this climate crisis, in order of importance here: https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank
On an individual level, we can: reduce food waste, eat mostly plants, send donations to organizations educating girls, limit our families and prioritize adoption, support small local regenerative farms, plant trees, switch to geothermal heating, insulate our homes, switch to electric vehicles, change out lighting to LED and much more.
How much are you doing now? How much can you do immediately or in the next year or two?
And of course, vote as if a livable future depends upon it.
3
@Galway Girl
It's astonishing that consumption of stuff isn't even on the list of 80 items, where tiny indirect items like educating girls make the list. Sourcing and processing materials, manufacturing, shipping, and use of stuff consumes massive amounts of energy, creates a massive amount of pollution, fills countless landfills, and diverts money from more productive uses. It's also easily accomplished and can start right now. Don't buy a new car, don't buy every new iPhone. Don't buy a sous vide cooker (crikey), don't buy your 23rd sweater, don't buy an 80" TV. Don't buy a 3000 square foot house for a family of 3. Keep what you have til it wears out. But we sure wouldn't want to give up our status symbols.
@Stevenz I agree that we need to downsize our American lives and to live simply so others may simply live.
Re: educating girls: if girls are educated, they are much less likely to have large families. As overpopulation is a problem, educating girls can be part of the solution.
2
@Galway Girl
Not educating girls is misogynist and religious ancient cruelties continually spiraled forward.
While educated 3rd world young females is crucial to a range of remedies, not doing so ought not even be an option. That it is remains the core lopsided problem around the world.
Thus, educating MEN AND BOYS to be civilized and self-responsible is the overarching issue everywhere.
I just want to thank all the Baby Boomers who continue to vote against the health and well-being of their own grandchildren.
The "greatest generation" has turned out in fact, to be the most disappointing and selfish.
5
Nick, first of all I am a baby boomer, my dad was in the navy during WWII. The greatest generation refers to those who were in their twenties during that war, baby boomers are children born just after the war till 1964. My father and mother, like their siblings, understood that we were all in this together. My siblings and I grew up with Earth Day and caring about the world hoping that technology would have moved us to all electric transportation and a clean environment.
The ones to blame are the few on top who pocket from fossil fuels while pushing down technology such as carbon capture, electric vehicles and other forms of energy such as solar and wind.
What you need to really look at is one event. Jimmy Carter placed solar panels and Ronald Reagan removed them from the White House. That change in political policy tells a much bigger story.
7
@Nick
Baby Boomers aren’t the Greatest Generation - that was the generation that fought and won WWII. The Boomers are the children they had when they returned - birth years ‘46-‘64.
1
Not all baby boomers. Dividing us by generations doesn’t help.
The question we need to ask ourselves is, "How much do we really need?" Who needs a 5,000 sq. ft home or a large SUV or truck? Some people do, but is it really necessary for your swelled ego?
I agree with instituting a carbon tax and the sooner the better. The planet has a fever and it is only getting worse. We are reaching a tipping point where runaway global warming is imminent. Once the threshold has been reached, we are pretty much doomed. So what is it behind the selfishness, greed and power, when the decision makers are imperiling their children's and future generation's lives? Wake up people!
6
The truth people have yet to face is that the world is already overpopulated beyond sustainability for a fossil-free economy. It will be impossible to continue our lifestyles, growth, and food chain with out fossil fuels. Natural gas must be part of the equation. Potential figures for solar and wind power just don't deliver enough kilowatts for our rapidly increasing energy demand. The U.S. set a record for energy consumption in 2018. There is little chance for agriculture with out petroleum.
The U.S. population explosion has been fueled largely by immigration. Immigrants to the U.S. immediately have a larger carbon footprint than if they had stayed in their home country.
The human race is procreating the planet into a coma. They clear the forests for corn and cattle to feed all the new people. And every year the world paves over with concrete and asphalt acreage the size of Rhode Island. Fossil fuels are not the villain. The villain is too many people burning them. There should be a planetary mantra for the new age. "One child is enough." And everyone should ask the question "Why is more development a good thing?" Why do we need bigger? Isn't it destructive to have more and more people?
Climate change alarmists should look at the historical carbon output records and compare it to population growth. The two lines on the graph are almost exactly congruent up to the present day. Without population control carbon control is impossible.
8
@Dennis G. Carrier
There is no US population explosion. It's a slow-growth country. It's growth rate as of 2018 is 0.8%, ranking 130th in the world.
There are population alarmists, too.
2
@Dennis G. Carrier
How do you suggest we ethically reduce our population sufficiently in the very little time we have left?
In dealing with climate change, deniers, like Trump, are clearly no help. But Nancy Pelosi isn't either by ridiculing the Green New Deal. And Obama's call for moderation in policies and his warning to avoid new, radical approaches also makes him less than helpful in dealing with climate change.
With most Republicans either denying or silent on climate change and with centrist, moderate Democrats calling for nothing more than completely inadequate incremental change, we're left with Bernie Sanders and maybe Elizabeth Warren to deal seriously and urgently with the problem.
1
The Democratic candidates for the POTUS job barely mention the horrific possibilities and steps they would take to improve our chances during the debates I have watched. However, I have to believe that any of them would be better than Trump has been. He has dismantled many rules and regs to do with clean air and water and, of course, has spoken glowingly of increasing the amount of coal produced and used to power the production of electricity. A second term for Trump would be a furtherance of the ruination of our planet and the lives of future generations. Is this the way we really want to go?
1
I'm a long time licensed air conditoning contractor.
Set aside for a moment... that the refrigerants used in the systems that I sell, install, and maintain are a HUGE problem - as it relates to the negative effects of climate change.
The sheer number of natural gas and oil furnaces in north America alone is simply staggering. Replacing this huge number of heating systems with clean energy sourced heating equipment will be an *enormous* undertaking. And expensive. Really, really expenisve.
And that's just one part of the issue in just one part of the world.
Looking out into the world as it is today - I have my doubts that future generations will avoid the worst outcomes.
5
@David
Twenty 22 years ago, the electric furnace in our newly bought home needed replacement. I replaced it with a nature gas furnace. I had fallen for the natural gas industry's ads that natural gas was a clean fuel and, I assumed, thus was environmentally just fine.
Since then i've learned that methane leakage from natural gas production and distribution possibly makes natural gas as bad a fuel for green house gases as coal.
Our next furnace, which we'll need in a few years, will be an electric heat pump -- no fossil fuel and minimal electricity. I'll ignore the fossil fuel industry's claims about clean natural gas.
1
When comparing the double of energy and 3- 4 times carbon foot print per capita consumed in the USA versus Europe some reply that it is not the per capita but global numbers that count and that China pollutes even more. ( so why change ? )
But yes the global per capita with about the same population and production in Europe and the USa conclude to the same numbers.
And China in there produces much more for the products sold by the USA than by Europe , so the effect on global warming of China should be in part counted as an American effect of production .
It seems that the logic is not vey clear for many people.
That global temperatures have increased over the past 50 years is a scientific fact. The cause being primarily increased carbon emissions is a broadly supported theory. The effects of these temperature increases is pure conjecture. In the 70's, scientists had hard facts upon which they predicted that by the year 2000, we would be entering a new ice age. Their conjecture, based on fact, proved to be wrong. Until science proves their catastrophic predictions, I'm not jumping on that bandwagon.
3
@B. T.
The truth about denier's "global cooling in the 70s" myth is that:
"A review of climate change literature between 1965 and 1979, undertaken in 2008, found that 44 papers "predicted, implied, or provided supporting evidence" for global warming, while only seven did so for global cooling.
"Global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus..." the reviewers remarked."
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/01/the_myth_of_the_global_cooling_consensus.html
4
One magazine published an article in the 70s about a possible ice age. It was never even close to being a scientific consensus, contrary to the popular myth.
3
@Ben Not true. There were several sources touting the coming ice age. The most notable was in Newsweek, 1975, article entitled "The Cooling World". And, in 1974 Time Magazine ran a similar article supporting the coming of a new ice age. Also, in 1969, the New York Times, author of this "Climate Catastrophe" article ran an article "Worrying about a New Ice Age" where they supported the Ice Age notion. Still not jumping on this bandwagon.
1
Hard to take climate activists seriously when they don't advocate for more nuclear energy. If sited properly it is very safe and carbon free and can produce energy on a large, consistent scale. But the green movement has demonized it. Wind and solar by themselves won't cut it. BTW, the reason 20 countries account for 75% of the problem is that the other countries are economic basket cases. And while I'm lecturing most NYT readers that are ringing their hands about this report and purporting to be on the side of doing something significant, how many of you are prepared to give up your discretionary air travel that has a huge carbon footprint per Greta Thunberg's suggestion?
5
@bill Hinkley point is a good example why nuclear is off the agenda. You have no basis for your claims re airtravel. Not unless you have a baseline for travel with no internet and no fast trains. Wind and Solar can cut it. A DC underwater cable between Australia and Asia is in the early stages of planning. That will see the start of the global electricity network.
@colinn Who cares about a DC distribution network? The problem is how you make the electricity that flows over those wires without making CO2. Burning stuff to make steam to spin a turbine to spin a generator to make electricity is a large part of the problem. A typical hydrocarbon like coal or natural gas plus Oxygen equals heat (what you want) plus CO2 and other junk. Nuclear plants split Uranium atoms to make heat to make steam to spin a turbine to spin a generator to make electricity. No CO2. The French have it right...maybe they will keep their nuclear option going.
When I see young people starting families I sometimes wonder if they haven’t been paying attention to climate science because it’s looking like a child born today will live to see things fall apart.
It breaks my heart for the many people forgoing children for this reason and for the children being born today
11
I hate to be skeptical but when has those in power really ever acted to help those that will be most affected? Climate change won't bring around the end of humanity but just will lower the quality of life significantly for many on the planet (humans and other specifies alike). To me it seems like it will be like a sci-fi movie of a dystopian future where the have and have-not's will just be that much more pronounced. Over time, the only risk will be the civil unrest that can occur from such conditions. I get those that see hope and a brighter future but if history is the guidepost we use to predict the future we are in for rough times ahead.
1
I was thinking to get a smart lock for my new door. I give up now. And I will find a way to hang the wet clothes in my yard.
1
@LL I love hanging my laundry. I do it in my basement year round. It's a finished basement so not dusty. I find the act meditative.
As the Buddhists say : "Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." Or hang laundry, if you will.year-round
2
Are we going to leave our children a livable planet?
1
@Ralph
Apparently not.
2
it's always someone else's problem:
the car companies. the oil companies. the airlines. the military. china. india. on and on and on.
it's never me.
except it is me. everyday i make choices. small ones. insignificant ones. until they are multiplied by 7 billion others doing the same thing.
I really believe some type of world-wide personal carbon allowance-carbon debit card-is the only way out.
we all must have skin in the game to beat this.
and america should be leading the way. by example.
good luck!
4
Too many people. Global warming is a symptom. The notion that global warming will be solved without addressing overpopulation -- i.e. that we can have 10 billion people, well fed and disease free, and a carbon free economy -- is ridiculous, Those who predicted mass famine (Erlich) or skyrocketing material prices (Club of Rome) after 3 billion were wrong -- underestimated our capacity to convert biosphere into anthrosphere (human flesh, symbionts and artifacts). Still, this anthrosphere will collapse long before we run out of biosphere.
13
The problem isn't your detergent, it's how many times your washing and how many people are washing. More and more people are washing each day. Or as Prof. McPherson has pointed out, it all started the day the first human dug a hole a put seeds in it.
It's time for "overpopulation" to stop being a dirty word. It's real and it's harming our only planet.
18
@Curious One
Amen.
1
I think of Argentina, my neighboring country, where the economy is in shambles and a new government assumes in a few weeks. What is the entire economy most excited about? Vaca Muerta, a shale formation that promises even more production than Permia, in Texas. In Vaca Muerta, some of the most important international companies are involved: Norway's Equinor, France's Total, Britain and the Netherland's Shell, etcetera.
Oil offers what most industries cannot: fast, huge investments and very quick returns. For a nation that desperately needs the income, especially in foreign currency, how could they ever say no? And for poorer countries in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, it's not even a question. Just look at those countries that have oil and compare them with those that do not.
The richest countries on Earth work to cut emissions in their own soil but happily go extract the oil on remote territories. The locals receive them with open arms. They both have good reasons. Our nation-based economic structure creates incentives that make no sense if we want to stop climate change. Only small nations with no hydrocarbon resources, like Chile, where I live, Taiwan, Finland, Switzerland and many others have incentives to change to renewables and electric cars, as for them it is cheaper than the alternatives.
We need to rethink the global economy and the incentive structure or nothing will change.
8
The national goal should be to electrify everything; heating, AC, transportation and manufacturing. To accomplish this we need a crash program to develop small, mass produced, safe nuclear reactors dispersed around metropolitan areas. This will provide cheap energy to maintain our life styles, eliminate long transmission lines, adds redundancy and guards against terrorism. The old worries about nuclear power, ie waste disposal, safety, cost, just don't hold water. France produces over 70% of its electricity with nuclear and successfully recycles and reuses the fuel. The US navy has many ships powered with nuclear energy. We currently produce 20% of our electricity with nuclear. There has not been one death in this country because of nuclear power, it is perhaps the safest industrial activity. This is the only practical way to meet CO2 limits. Why environmentalist don't embrace nuclear power means to me they are not serious.
2
@Jim
I have been blowing that horn for 40 years. I have gotten used to the ridicule I am subjected to in return.
I can tell you one thing: The Greens will never admit that they were wrong making anti-nuclear their central agenda. They will continue to burn coal and tell us that all we need is windmills.
1
@Jim
Burn coal or any hydrocarbon fuel to the end and the result will be carbon dioxide and water. Nuclear fission for creating heat leaves radioactive spent fuel and irradiated vessels which require up to many millennia to become relatively safe to release into the biosphere. So all that material must be sequestered for many centuries, and that means centuries of expense to confine something that was once useful but is not anymore. No human civilization has endured for that long. Imagine if we were paying for the costs of burning something that people used once ten thousand years, ago.
In the 1960s the boomers put a megaphone to the anti-war movement, which led to widespread public opposition to the Vietnam War, which led to its end. The youth protests of the 60s were also instrumental in advances in women’s rights, civil rights, and environmental reforms. If not for those efforts, the Millennials and Gen-Zers likely would not enjoy the social freedoms and lifestyle choices they have.
It is time for the Millennials and Gen-Zers to step up, for their own sake and the planet’s sake. The question is, are they ready to step out from the shadow of their parents, stop the trivial “ok boomer” nonsense, and become serious, organized opponents to climate change?
2
I was always a hopeful, glass-half-full guy, but humanity’s reaction, or lack of reaction, to the climate crisis in recent years leaves me despondent. I now believe greed and self-interest is a much more powerful driver of behavior than the common good. The world will not seriously address climate change until there is a catastrophic event like a global collapse in the food or water supply or coastal flooding that causes mass extinction. By then it will be too late.
4
@Dabney L
It will not be too late for the planet.
Just for the dinosaurs who are currently inhabiting it.
3
@Kalle: We don't have to be pessimistic as you are. What we need is a second "Manhatten-Project", not to make new bombs but inherently safe nuclear power stations (e.g. in the NuScale style), mass produced like the Ford-T-cars and deployed in a rapid pace throughout the world. especially in places with not enough sun and wind. The CO2-free electricity can be used for most of our energy needs we have today except air planes.
3
@Hannes
And where is political will for that in the US? in India? in China?
1
Must be about time for 1500 billionaires to whisk themselves to Davos on their individual jets so they can discuss what to do about this pesky climate thing.
#gotleadership?
4
We’ll always have weather.
4
@Economist
At this point I refuse to believe such assertions are anything but bad-faith, malicious, and cowardly obfuscations. You know the difference between weather and climate. Show some maturity.
9
There is a strike for climate action planned for this Friday, November 29, the day after the American Thanksgiving. It is called for by the students of Fridays for Future. They ask that adults participate as well as students.
Please skip the mall and Amazon shopping and join us.
11
Not to long ago NYT did an article about these behemoth cruise ships and all the environmental problems they cause with emissions. Quite an eye opener. We need to make enormous changes and, after Trump’s election, I don’t know if Americans are smart enough to do that. Rest of the world too.
7
Now that the latest dire climate report is out, the Times must make changes in many areas of coverage. To help people get away from livestock products, which account for 20% or more of greenhouse gas emissions, your food writing should make a significant shift toward all things vegan, starting with vegan alternatives to standard recipe ingredients and assessments of recipes that include their climate impacts. You should also focus on sustainable agriculture, vegan chefs and restaurant reviews, and relentless examination of the USDA and its collusion with Big Ag to keep us eating food that kills us and the planet. Travel, architecture, design, fashion, automotive, etc. coverage should always include climate impact assessments, even if the Times uses something as primitive as an Energy Star rating or similar scale. These changes would be a good start toward a new, desperately needed journalistic, and human, perspective.
If the Times and other outlets don't educate and cheer us on to better habits and practices, busy readers will feel (and be) more powerless to make radical changes just when it's most crucial that they know their power to hold themselves and others accountable.
1
We still need more education on climate change reality, more internationally created maps, more UN maps of numbers of displaced refugees — in 10 year increments.
We need more estimates of population upheaval and U.S. security impacts.
I do not believe anywhere near a majority of this nation believes there can be any significant impacts direct/indirect in 10, 20, or 30 years. Believers need to understand this. Trump couldn’t care. Seems Republicans just follow “the great leader”. We need to publish lists.... Please.
And there is still no word about human overpopulation. There are just too many of us. Yes, we need to reduce gas emissions, but if we don't reign in our desire to have more and more children, we will never make it. There are too many mouths to feed, clothe and shelter than our planet can sustain. Too many people are ignoring this obvious problem #1
8
People who live in areas of the US where fossil fuels employ nearly everyone and people who live in the Midlands of England who survive on coal mines, please take note of this article. None of us can go back in time to a place where fossil fuels made any sense whatsoever. It is time to live in the present and deny climate hoaxsters like Trump and Brexit supporters like Johnson. If not, then take responsibility for your contribution to this accelerating climate catastrophe and the deaths that will occur.
2
@Figgie
About English coal miners: better check your sources on that; most mines have closed, and there can't be more than a couple hundred miners left in the entire country.
Despite a multitude of perciptating causes - volacanism, tectonics, objects from space- the last five major mass extinctions manifested themselves in climate changing evolutionary natural fit natural selection.
Assuming that we are on the verge of the sixth mass extinction the question remains will humans be among the ' winners' as the birds and bony fiah were after the 5th mass extinction?
2
It is a mistake to believe that there are “winners” in a mass extinction. Mortality rates are extremely high even in groups that survive the events.
3
@Blackmamba And just were these “mass extinctions “?
1
@JMG
There have always been winners if you have even a miniscule understanding of the nature of evolution by natural selection.
Leaving the best adapted offspring over time and space via changing gene frequencies is the 'goal'.
Extremely high mortality rates beats mass extinction every time.
Until the Allosaurs had virtually vanished the Tyrannosaurs were diminished. But at least all of the mammal-like predators were gone.
But for extinction of all of dinosaurs except the birds mammals wouldn't have had so many niches to occupy.
Since life first appeared on Earth there have always been winners.
1
The next President needs to wage a war on climate change the way Trump has waged a war on climate science. Right now, the war on science is winning. Yet the thing that will likely impeach Trump will be his efforts to investigate a political rival. The politics of the United States have much to be desired. When a President can separate mothers and children, and accelerate the very survival of the species, but only be stopped because he is investigating a political rival then it is clear that there is something very wrong with the current version of American democracy.
5
TV is full of ads for cars boasting about their performance. Nothing for electric vehicles and no mention of our looming catastrophe. En route to the T, one crosses roads filled with commuters, one person to a vehicle. I will never buy a gasoline-fueled vehicle again. I'd like to give up airtravel but I'm not there yet, so there it is.
2
@Pashka Let us know how you charge your car.
@Jackson - I plug mine into my house... same outlet that we use for our leaf blower!!
"A number of countries around the world, including Canada and Norway, have made plans to reduce emissions at home while expanding fossil-fuel production for sale abroad, that report noted." In Canada, the Trudeau government expands on this kind of hypocrisy, maintaining that we can have the economic growth we want and fight climate change simultaneously; it wants to expand production and transportation of bitumen from Alberta's oilsands while claiming that a relatively minor carbon tax will take care of the environment. Emissions continue to grow here, despite all the pledges.
3
I'm 50. My mother died when she was 70, suddenly of a heart attack. I hope I go the same way, at 70. I honestly can't imagine living for more than 20 more years on this planet. The grief is too much. I'm glad I don't have children of my own. But I have nieces and nephews I love. What have we doomed them to? And why?
"Our greatest responsibility is to be good ancestors." - Jonas Salk
12
@Galway Girl — I’m resigned to probably never becoming a grandmother. And I’m okay with that. No need to burden even more members of a future generation with the mess we’ve created.
4
@Galway Girl Beautifully said.
3
@galwaygirl I’m 52 and I feel exactly the same however I have 2 beautiful boys who are 10 and 12 who are so passionate about the planet. My heart breaks when I think of the possible bleak future we are creating for them with our “old white rich men “ mindset. I have to hope there are enough younger people who are willing to fight for change. We do what we can- recycle, don’t own a car, eat less red meat... but when entire governments are rolling back environmental legislation you sometimes think it is a drop in the bucket. I’m not sure what it is going to take to turn things around but we can’t give up hope or what do we have left??
1
Unfortunately people "need" fossil fuels to drive their cars, power their electricity and make their plastic... the options offered to the consumer are not adequate.
They also want to keep having massive families and overpopulating the world for religious or whatever reasons they might have...
They love meat and want to keep buying from the producers who burn down our trees...
No one is prepared to do anything that could stop this so it is inevitable...
no real point worrying about it
3
Not to be all pessimistic, but I just don't see significant change happening. Call it a sense of psychohistory. It's just not in the cards for human beings. It's probably better to start preparing future generations for a changed world. Pop in a blu-ray of the Road Warrior, perhaps.
4
I just listened to Rachel Maddow's book "Blowout", it was a great summary of how we got started with all this and how we have ended up where we are.
1
We need many people doing the most they can imperfectly! I have read a couple books about zero waste living. I've adopted 10 so far. Its not that hard. And all my food scraps to to a compost pile. I had no idea that food scraps turn into methane gas when they cannot properly break down. Recycling doesn't work. If the bathtub is overflowing you wouldn't start cleaning up before turning the water off. Reduce is listed first for a reason. All of these actions and more will help if the larger population can commit to them.
We should start planning for the end now.
Thank you, NYT.
Let's choose a date.
3
Keep buying those gas guzzling trucks and SUV's, folks, your ability to haul stuff around and sit up higher than mighty is more important than the future of humanity, right? Oh, and be sure to rack up those frequent flier miles after parking your Suburban at the airport.
12
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf
As a bare minimum we should support policies that make actual change, and not just statements of principle.
Given the current state of things, the earth would be well rid of humans.
10
...and relatively soon, will be.
2
There is a time and place for everything and nothing lasts forever. The dinosaurs were done in by giant meteors crashing into the earth and the human race will be done in by greed, and we have the perfect leadership in place in America to show us the way.
11
Meat and dairy are major contributors to GHG emissions.
5
Looking for leadership from the US, the worlds largest economy and wealthiest nation? Ha, good luck with that... we have been taken over by a cult that rejects science, embraces religious solutions (pray) and abandons the rest of the world.
13
More people please! Open the borders! Allow every person with a pulse to flood our country.
Climate change is unstoppable. There are, at least, 7,300,000,000 reasons why we can't stop climate change. There are about 20,000,000 ways we could fight it today- simply by deporting those I the US illegally. That would be a decrease of 7 percent of our emissions.
6
@Willt26
This is a ridiculous idea based on zero science. We are causing the majority of the pollution not any of the counties south of us. People are being fed a daily diet of lies and propaganda by Republicans and Fox News. The right wing has truly become the evil empire of a la Star Wars.
2
20 inches of snow on the ground in Colorado today!
1
There's a difference between discrete weather events and global climate change...
5
Hmm. Well, it’s been raining up here where I live in the interior of British Columbia. It’s not supposed to be raining at the end of November. It’s supposed to be snowing. There’s no snow in sight.
1
@Sam I guess your single day's observation in a single geographic location completely refutes the scientific consensus of global warming! Thanks for clarifying the debate.
I did my part. I don't have kids, which makes a bigger difference than any of this virtue signaling nonsense. Reducing world population to 2.5 billion and we could all live fruitfully. But if we acknowledge the TRUTH that it is the third world that is breeding out of control.... but we can't handle that right, because we are only allowed to criticize the U.S. and the West for these problems.... This is why I completely checked out on this discussion. It starts in a place shaming those who are already attempting to mitigate the overarching issue of depopulation.
17
@Mystery Lits
By your logic then it would be the third worlds that are the biggest contributors to climate change when in fact America is number two! Therefore you logic doesn’t follow.
1
@Adam Ben-david The FACT is that even the third world is rapidly making it's way to first world prosperity and as we all move into a first world standard of living. We will then have 7 billion who want to live in Western affluence.... thats what I'm saying little buddy.
The United Nations ought to be more positive. The alternative to positive thoughts is Trump tweets. Look at it from an “America 1st” perspective: In an administration which could foreseeable make Edward Gallagher Secretary of the Navy, what could go wrong?
2
The stark fact is that our societal inertia insures that we are beyond the tipping point, and that climate catstrophies are now inevitable. There is no alternative to what will become a desperate survival mode for the vast majority of humankind. We're not so clever after all, and Mother Nature will have her way.
3
Next to San Francisco, coastal mountain lions can have lethal levels of mercury in their blood. How? Mercury rises, in a bio-absorbable form, in the coastal upwelling, and is condensed by the fog. This mercury is dropped in the ocean from smoke of coal generation, a world away.
The rising CO2 is brutal, most of it goes into the oceans, where it turns into carbonic acid, which kills plankton. As LIPs, Large Igneous Provinces, can do, massive CO2 production can kill oceans, collapsing food chains, worldwide, and killing oxygen production. Then, in combination with rising temperatures, massive oxydation all over (for example of permafrost and other half decomposed biomass ready to burn in tropical area), the oxygen content of the atmosphere could actually collapse. This is probably how the enormous mass extinction between Perian and Trias proceeded (form the eruption of the Siberian Traps).
We are engineering such an extinction now. When taking all the other man-made greenhouse gases in consideration, as we must, we are probably above 500 ppm of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases, a level not seen in dozens of millions of years. We are rising the CO2 at such a rate, that planetary heating is lagging, giving us a fake sense of non-emergency.
Seas will rise by 20 meters, guaranteed. It could happen in decades. We can be saved only by massive deployment of new safe nuclear and hydrogen (and its derivatives: ammonia, methanol) for massive green energy storage, transportation.
8
What Trump calls a Chinese hoax, is reality. It seems whenever Trump calls something a hoax, it is the opposite.
Sadly when the consequences of having a pro fossil fuel, climate change denying person in the White House, mean the US will have to pay a lot more later, for climate change mitigation. Trump will be gone, but the Republicans will continue to do all they can to support their fossil fuel donors, over what is best for the nation.......and their supporters will continue to believe whatever Fox News tells them to believe.
10
The big stuff has to be done by government. But a willing public is important. And everyone cheats. In Phoenix, when your A/C is leaking you can buy $50 black market freon or buy a new unit for a couple thousand.
Need to sway the public. Including the other side. Free entree to a Trump rally or a Biden rally to anyone who can fix their leak. Incentives for everyone. It doesn't have to be all sticks.
2
With just a few more adjustments, I know I can get my perpetual motion machine to work.
2
The International Energy Agency recently singled out the proliferation of sport utility vehicles, noting that the surge of S.U.V.s, which consume more gasoline than conventional cars, could wipe out much of the oil savings from a nascent electric-car boom.
Two articles in todays paper related to S.U.V.
Bring back the station wagon, I have owned one since 1972
Station Wagons on Endangered List as S.U.V.s Crush All in Their Path
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/business/station-wagons.html
3
@vincent giardina
Love our Volvo wagon. It's 12 years old and we'll have it for another 12. It was a no-brainer for us once I did the math on interior space of all the SUVs, wagons and some sedans on the market.
I hope the NYT isn't suggesting that are great leaders and diplomats stop using Sport Utility Vehicles and private jets.
3
No one wants to talk about the elephant in the room... world overpopulation. We don't want to talk about it because the postmodern shamers know that it is the 3rd world that is smattering out kids and we can't criticize them... because reasons. We could all live with affluence if there was a population density of the 1950s, around 2.5 billion. If we look at demographics it is the West ,who leads in population decrease, because we get it and understand that we can just breed ourselves into oblivion. Yet it is these same Western hypocrites who will continue to blame the West for the worlds problems. This is why I have checked out... I have done my part and do not have children. In that one act alone I have lowered my carbon footprint more than any of the virtue signaling shamers.
10
“Thankfully”, overpopulation is self correcting. Climate change catastrophes will lessen the population
1
@Mystery Lits
One person in America contributes exponentially more carbon Into the atmosphere then any person from a third world country.
That’s fact.
4
The reason the western countries have have fewer kids has nothing to do with “getting it” in terms of population, rather any population that becomes well off has fewer kids. And nowadays access to birth control. Most women in those 3rd world countries want birth control, just like western women, but can’t afford it. And, of course, the right wingers in the US always cut off funding for it when they get in office due to their misguided religious dogma.
4
I'm talking this week to a company about putting solar panels on my house. Can't wait to get off the grid.
3
The upshot is that this is still a manageable problem, the real issue is to convince humanity to save itself. It ought not to be this difficult.
4
While individuals talk about what they can do, the solutions must come from government. Only governments have the power to enact change on the scale needed to slow or reverse climate change. China is more likely to do something before we do, as they have a strong centralized government. By the time we get on board it'll probably be too late.
@Eric Individuals have the power to change their diets.
"A paper in the journal Nature concluded that meat consumption in Western nations must fall by 90% as part of any realistic plan to keep global temperatures under control."
--From Bloomberg's QuickTake (Issue 11, Jul-Dec 2019, p.57).
1
There’s a consistent underreporting of the part that animal agriculture plays in greenhouse gas emissions. It should be one of the major takeaways from all climate change articles because it is the single largest producer of nitrous oxides, which are about 84 times more potent than CO2 in terms of trapping heat. Over 40% of the methane, which is around 34 times as potent as CO2, also comes from animal agriculture.
To slaughter and deliver one calorie worth of food from turkeys/cows/pigs/chickens requires 11 times the fossil fuel consumption as does one calorie worth of plants.
Consequently, a paper in the journal Nature concluded that meat consumption in Western nations must fall by 90% as part of any realistic plan to keep global temperatures under control.
So let’s get real and keep this aspect in our heads and actions while we wait for the voting booths to open up.
From the reporting in the NYT, anyone not inclined to consider meat consumption as a major way — and the most powerful action any individual can take — to address climate change might think that the only way to regard our farm animal friends is in the ways we ought or ought not to dress them for Thanksgiving.
5
Time to plan for the Paris Climate Criminal Court. Given the evidence can any responsible law maker ignore it and not be guilty of a crime. It is not necessary to go into detail of uncharterd law, but Nuremburg would be a precedent. Superior orders would not be an excuse. Society will not survive the pressures of what is to come if action is not taken. It will not be an orderly descent into chaos. Hong Kong is a picnic in comparison
3
There are many new nuclear power options available to us today: the traveling wave reactor proposed by Bill Gates and his team of scientists; molten salt reactors; and portable, failsafe nuclear reactor pods that can be set up to provide for a small community. Why are these not being aggressively pursued? We cannot continue to use Chernobyl and Fukushima as arguments against nuclear power. These two failed reactors were built at a time when nuclear engineers were still using slide rules. We've come a very long way since then and have the technology and capacity to make vastly superior (not to mention much safer) nuclear power stations. And for those of you who argue that nuclear waste is a problem, read up on these reactors and you'll find that they can make use of depleted uranium and reduce waste to a fraction of the amount that current nuclear reactors generate.
2
@PL "We cannot continue to use Chernobyl and Fukushimaas arguments against nuclear power." Why not? Your argument that we have "advanced" beyond these "Jurasssic-era" technologies reminds me of all the stories, myths and moral tales about man's pride: Icarus, the Tower of Babel, Aesop's fables: "We got this now!" Sure, advancement is the solution. Car accidents 70 years ago were so much more deadly than car accidents these days with our automated, robot-made cars that can go 0-60 in less than 2 seconds! Not!
1
Dislocation of hundreds of millions of humans in the next few decades due to rapid climate change not seen since our species were merely widely-scattered small groups of hunter-gatherers will cause acute stain on societies that will likely cause severe and widespread violence and strife. This is way beyond 1st-world problems of insurance adjustments, city seawall construction costs, and evaporating coastal real estate valuations.
The collective fallout from climate change will likely be the biggest challenge to societies and to modern civilization itself that humanity has faced since the Black Death.
4
I am willing to make a radical change in my own behavior. I believe many people understand the situation is dire and requires a recalibration of our lifestyles and are willing to do it. We have the technology, we have road maps, what we require is leadership, a full scale educational campaign and guidance on actionable steps and people to recognize that they are responsible for making change happen. We need the urgency of the situation to be conveyed in the media. We need climate legislation to be publicized more - the 100% Clean Economy Act is in Congress NOW and there is almost no coverage! We can also:
1. Decouple energy from a profit motive and make it a public good. Public ownership of power utilities could follow the model of water utilities.
2. Implement a Green New Deal to transition our energy economy to 100% clean renewables while generating jobs.
3. Criminalize fossil fuel extraction.
How do we do this?
1. Continue to declare that we are in a Climate Emergency
2. Elect officials who provide leadership on climate and hold them accountable
3. Discuss the issues with our parents, children, friends & neighbors
4. Incentivize positive lifestyle changes
5. Vote and contribute to the efforts of groups fighting voter suppression
6. Don’t give up and give in- organize & fight back!
We can do this, but we have to get out of our chairs. We have to take our responsibility of this issue personally and use our grief and sadness to motivate actionable change.
4
Why does the Left not acknowledge a simple solution: nuclear power? Rational voices on the Left (Steven Pinker) advocate for efficient nuclear power generation as a viable near-term solution to reduce CO2 emissions. But green zealots refuse to entertain this very viable option. They refuse to entertain any option that isn't perfectly clean, according to their dogma. Nuclear power will allow us to meet current energy needs without adding to the CO2 burden, while we rationally develop other "clean" and viable energy sources.
9
but what about inherent dangers with management of waste? seems like in the shortish term it would be good but all of that waste has to go somewhere and may end up being as much of a burden on future generations. why not just make moves toward more renewable energy sources? oh yeah, because profits and corporate lobbying. this climate crisis could have been more easily dealt with decades ago when it was realized we were gonna get into trouble. now, the corporations that were deceptive are the ones saying it is too hard to move away... smh this is very similar to the healthcare debate. corporate/ruling class having their way with "freedom" of the working class
@eeeeee I acknowledge that nuclear power is not a long-term solution, but it serves admirably as a bridge source of energy until other, cleaner resources can be developed. Idealistic initiatives such as the so-called "Green New Deal" will impoverish the entire developed world with their extreme version of environmentalism when far more realistic approaches are readily available.
3
@SinNombre I share your frustration. Beliefs and biases trump facts on both extremes it appears.
If we are truly serious about restoring balance to the carbon cycle and decelerating climate change, especially in the near-term, then we would be seriously considering employing more nuclear generation of electricity. This should include replacing old and intrinsically dangerous reactors with newer designs that are fault tolerant and failure tolerant because we have plenty of evidence that we can't count on mere procedures by humans and for-profit corporations to be safe. In the U.S., we built an excellent waste storage facility in the Great Basin, but it sits unused. At the very least, robust employment of new and safe nuclear power generation and proper management of wast would help, but it can't even get a seat at the table for consideration.
3
If countries stopped subsidizing oil / gas / coal and instead subsidized renewable energy sources, there would be plenty of market incentive for consumers and companies to go renewable. Instead, we have politicians (at least in this country) who are beholden to the fossil fuel industry and won't consider this idea.
6
@DG We’ve been subsidizing electric cars for years enabling the rich to buy Teslas. Wind and solar can’t provide enough power to support the entire country. And of course, we all remember Solyndra.
2
A lot of land that grows crops are in delta regions connected to the ocean. What happens when sea levels rise?
2
And yet we still have not accepted one of the primary reasons for the destruction of the environment - christianity and the other abrahamic religions.
Believing there is a god (small g intended) who will give you a better life for all eternity, just for repenting, has only encouraged many humans to look beyond what they do to the Earth. The fact that this same god would give humans salvation after they destroy her planet is another complete disconnect.
Judiasm is not any better given the old testament - especially the so-called belief that man has dominion over every other living thing.
Until much of humanity gives up its ignorant belief that they are special, that there is a god who will look after them for eternity, that the Earth is just a place for them to live before passing onto their true home, things will never change.
Until the abrahamic religions seek to reconnect humanity with their life on this planet, the human ego will continue humanity on its self-inflicted path of destruction.
The biggest tragedy of all is that all other sentient beings have to suffer the pain, humility and fear of living under the yoke of such a greedy, self-entitled, self-absorbed and ignorant species.
Start to hold christianity responsible for the mess it has created and change its ignorant, irresponsible teaching as to the next life. For until that happens, the Earth will continue to be destroyed. Nothing will change that unless humans fundamentally change for the better.
15
Keep reading the news and we’re all going to be depressed for the holidays.
4
that's true, the remedy is to campaign, caucus and donate to a candidate committed to making life better for the working class here in America...
4
@rebecca1048 The news needs to include positive actions that can be taken to avoid climate catastrophe. Start by reducing waste and oil consumption in your own home and spread the word!
1
In our current political environment there are a lot of statements that sound crazy but are nonetheless true. Like this one: With regard to combating climate change, the single most malevolent force on Earth is the Republican Party. Say what you will about the corrupt authoritarianism of China but at least they don’t have a fundamental ideological commitment to pretending climate change doesn’t exist or that we can’t do anything about it.
We are driving towards a cliff edge and the Republican response is to step on the accelerator. We have a Republican president who says fundamentally stupid and destructive things like “bring back coal.” Centuries on we still talk about Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Whoever of our progeny survive will be saying the same thing about Trump centuries from now.
It wasn't always this way. As recently as 15 years ago this country’s conservative party had rational actors who supported a carbon tax – a market-based response to climate change. Now that position is apostasy in their party. The single most effective thing to combat climate change Americans can do is to vote out Republicans in every election at every level of government and vote for the Democrats who have pledged to do something about it.
14
If you think this report is bleak, wait until the UN recognizes that even if Trump loses the 2020 election to a Democrat or Socialist, that they are never going to get one thin dime of the US share of the $100 billion per year that Obama "promised." Not even a Democrat Congress would agree to pay that money.
1
Do what you can personally because history is a CLEAR sign government will NEVER save us. Those who automatically look to government to solve their problems are a clear symptom of the problem. Take some responsibility for yourselves. And I am disgusted and tired to the argument that lays the problem solely at the feet of the U.S. and the West. Until we hold ALL peoples feet to the fire with respect to climate change nothing will change.
6
If only Al Gore had been elected. Imagine the changes he would have initiated years ago, and the perspectives he could have changed. The oil companies around the world have been in charge for more than a century, making billions upon billions of dollars at the expense of the planet. And now our climate-denier in the White House only wants to foist coal back upon us for the sake of some votes, and day by day, chips away at any environmental protections we once had. We’re way overdue in trying to make climate change and its disastrous results any better, but it can get a whole lot worse. One more (huge) reason to get rid of the current administration.
13
@Stephanie At least his propaganda enabled him to become a billionaire.
Gore was elected. But the right wing Supreme Court had other ideas and appointed Dubya instead. That is how right wingers degrade our society.
2
We've been hearing these apocalyptic "The End is Near!" predictions from climate alarmists for more than 50 years. All have proven to be just so much noise without substance. It is long past time for rational adults to recognize that all this wailing doom-saying represents a radical political agenda and not legitimate science.
4
@Sabrina Davis Your view well represents the denialist position, and I have to say, is recognized by only 3 percent of our scientists. The other 97 percent disagree.
What do you mean by 'radical political agenda'. Do you mean that addressing Global Warming and moving away from fossil fuels will create more jobs? No, that can't be it, because it will.
Your 'noise without substance' is blatantly wrong. There's plenty of science now to support the dangers of ignoring Global Warming.
10
So when all the forests are gone what do you think will give us oxygen? There may be hype but also the destiny of the species depends on how we treat natural resources.
4
It’s much less than three percent of scientists who disagree with the consensus on climate catastrophe these days.
2
I feel like the impact that immigration from the third world to the first world always get overlooked in the conversation about climate change. Our environment simply cannot endure the addition of more and more people immigrating to the US and Western Europe. Once people come here, their carbon footprint increases. Not only that, but immigrants especially from South America are more likely to have larger families, which further strains our environment.
Do we need to reduce our consumption as a country? Absolutely! But, the big fat elephant in the room is that the US has gone from a population of 150 million in 1950 to over 320 million today. We are projected to reach 450 million by 2050! A large amount of the increase is from adding people from elsewhere (immigrants legal or illegal, refugees, and asylum seekers) of which we take in over 1 million a year legally and God knows how many more sneak in. Earlier this year people were arguing in favor of letting in 130,000 asylum seekers a month. Again that’s more people we have to use resources on.
That means we have to build more homes to heat, more cars on the road, more consumption in general. When can we say we have enough people here?
In my opinion, any conversation on climate change that doesn’t address the fact the we need to at least drastically reduce the amount of people we bring into the country is not a serious one.
9
@A.B. Stopping immigration won't stop global warming.
Furthermore, without changes to our policies, WE will be immigrants to Canada. (Our mid-west will turn into a dust bowl and will no longer support crops. Our major cities will be underwater, etc.)
You are right that the US consumes a lot of energy produced by fossil fuels. But we can still consume lots of energy, only we make it with solar instead.
3
@Cal Page Agreed. But you must at least admit that adding millions more people has not been ideal for our county’s carbon footprint. What would our environment look like if we only had 160million people here vs. the 330 million we currently have vs. the projected 450million? That’s my main point.
3
The scientific community sounded the alarms decades ago. The fossil fuel industry in an incredible act of greedy cowardice spread disinformation and denial. We all know who won. Now, it's simply too late. The rising levels of CO2, combined with weather instability, warming oceans, and rising temperatures are here to stay. Models are predicting what will happen to the planet under these extreme conditions. I fear what happens to humanity, and civilization will surpass even the most extreme dystopian future imaginable.
4
Of all the things, big and small, that we as Americans can do to help stop Global Warming and the resultant Climate Change, there is one that overshadows all the rest; defeat Trump in 2020.
5
@thetruthfirst As much as I detest the current leadership team, they are not the problem. The Democrats also have done little to nothing to substantially address Global Warming.
3
Bleak report. NY Times, let's learn to cover the statistics better. How often do we read a version of this sentence: "To stay within relatively safe limits, emissions must decline sharply, by 7.6 percent every year, between 2020 and 2030, the report warned."
More accurate would be to say: "To have an X percent chance of stating within relatively safe limits, we must."
It's a small difference, but a crucial one, because the science is not precise; statistics or probability rarely work with exactitude and almost always reports such as the UN report use a particular chosen range of probabilities to indicate the chances of a particular outcome.
(A similar example is when news reports say "We have 11 years to cut emissions," which is not what the IPCC said.)
3
Nobody cares. Nobody cares about floods in India or drought in Africa or wildfires in California- it’s a radical liberal state anyway. Let it burn. We have our water and so who cares. It’s all a left wing fraud to destroy business and Republican values anyway, Fox News says so every day. That’s the news everyone watches, except for a few liberals in Boston, New York and San Francisco.
Even liberals don’t believe in climate change. Name me one liberal who stopped using her air conditioner last July because she was worried about climate change. Name me one left leaning politician who prophesies about the coming disasters who didn’t use airplanes to get around the campaign trail.
Climate change is the losingest issue in American politics. (It is the greatest and most dire emergency mankind has ever faced, but never mind). People who can’t afford to get sick or send their children to college do not care about climate change.
4
@Mr. Little I stopped using my AC over concerns for Global Warming. I buy carbon offsets when I air travel. I compost. I recycle. I've cut down on 'things' I buy and dispose of. I now eat veggie-burgers instead of steak, due partially to environmental impacts. I will not support a candidate that doesn't address global warming. In short, I care. It is not a losing issue!
2
And Louisiana is among the few very worst polluters LOVED by Donald Trump who violated the Paris Accord!
2
Bring on the self-inflicted death of humanity. We are a terrible blight on the planet and the universe at large.
6
In the words of Stephen Sondheim's Sweeney Todd, 'We all deserve to die.'
2
To stay within relatively safe limits, emissions must decline sharply, by 7.6 percent every year, between 2020 and 2030, the report warned.
No way can this be maintained as fossil fuel production rises here and coal production and use explodes in India.
2
@Rodrian Roadeye Facts do not support an 'explosion' of coal usage anywhere in the world, including India. In fact, coal is dying because solar is cheaper. And our S&P 500 show the story. Look back 5 years, and you can see coal stocks have declined by 50% while the S&P 500 as increased by 50%.
yet, people in even developed countries continue to have lots of kids, continue to drive huge cars, commute miles and miles because companies don't let them telecommute, shop online and expect packages overnight, shop at grocery stores that over package food in plastic and blame everyone but themselves.
10
@Nancy Hey, my next car will be electric. I was thinking of plunking down the $100 to reserve the electric truck Tesla just announced. I no longer use so much plastic either. I now carry my own cloth bags into supermarkets so I don't use plastic. I steer away from foods that use too much plastic in packaging. And, I recycle plastic properly so it stays out of the environment. I'm doing my part and expect others to do so as well.
2
Global warming isn’t a hoax.
It’s a crime.
7
If you ask a Puerto Rican or Bahamian, they'll tell you that climate catastrophes already made a pit stop by their islands.
5
And here we are with an ignorant climate change denier in the White House. It's going to take a lot to fumigate our government agencies when the next sane, well-informed president takes office. Maybe I should make that "if," not "when."
2
The US, especially Republicans, don't care about their children getting slaughtered daily in schools, churches, malls, movies, etc from gun violence so of course they don't care about how climate change will effect their kids and grandkids.
8
@Jacquie I'm not sure I would lump all Republicans together. Many I've talked to believe that the public should not have access to assault weapons.
And, I believe Republicans care deeply about their children and grandchildren.
Unfortunately, we have a corrupt political system that no longer represents ordinary Americans. Instead, it's dominated by 'big oil', which does everything it can to deflect us from addressing global warming.
The United States never agreed to the Paris accord. We live in a democracy. In order for us to commit to an international agreement, the Senate has to vote two thirds to accept it. Obama personally "committed" to the agreement but ironically did not even suggest that he would reduce his personal or family carbon foot print.
The Chinese agreement was a promise to increase CO2 production every year until 2030 by starting up a new coal fired electricity generator every two weeks to fuel the electric vehicles it was mandating. Not included in their promise to add more CO2 to the atmosphere between 2016 and 2030 than mankind has added since the inception of the industrial revolution is the coal fired generators it is building in Kenya, Vietnam and the rest of the third world.
The democracies of the EU did not get a voice in the acceptance of the agreement. The unelected leaders of the EU made that choice for them.
The overwhelming number of member countries of the UN are autocratic third world dictatorships. They did not agree to reduce their greenhouse gases but did vote to have the industrialized democracies increase foreign aid to them to the tune of $100 billion per year. Obama agreed that the US share would be $40 billion.
3
@ebmem Your comment ignores the recklessness with which the Trump Administration has dealt with the climate crisis. First, he denies that it exists, calling it a Chinese hoax. Then, he withdraws from the voluntary Paris Accord because it picks on the U.S. Then he systematically disembowels the limited checks on any form of fossil fuel pollution.
Now you, as a Trump supporter, criticize Obama for not getting Senate ratification of the Paris Accord after McConnell told the World that anything Obama wanted he wasn't getting. Please.
2
We live in a democracy? Really? I thought according to you people we live in a “constitutional republic,” and that’s the reason the candidate who got 3 million fewer votes gets to be president.
2
@ebmem The Paris accord was not a treaty, and therefore doesn't need the Senate. Obama was well within his elected rights to join. He did, after all, win a national election and defeated the Republican candidate.
As for coal, it's dying, mostly because solar is cheaper.
Leaders of the EU are not unelected.
You are wrong about 'overwhelming number of member countries of the UN are autocratic third world dictatorships'. In fact, 85% of UN members are democracies.
SUVs? I blame the soccer moms who continue to insist on buying these vehicles under the misinformed idea that SUVs are safer than passenger cars. Tell that to Newton. Your extra heavy SUV takes considerably longer to stop. The elevated view you like so much is a result of a vehicle with a high center of balance. Hello rollovers. And the sheer mass of these objects hurtling down the highway pose a threat to everyone else on the road. Stupidity and selfishness will be the end of us.
3
@RG Under the 'green new deal', soccer moms can escort their kids in heavy crash-safe electric vehicles. If they wanted to, they could buy one of the new Tesla trucks.
@RG
Yeh, global warming is all the fault of a handful of 1st world women ferrying their kids to school and kid activities. /s
It can't possibly be wanton airplane pollution, diesel trucks, and daily hours upon hours of commuter cars idling. And then, there's the real issue with SUVs: The government gives tax breaks to anyone who claims to need that oversized vehicle for work.
@Cal Page
There are no "crash safe" vehicles, electric or otherwise.
Glad to see NYT putting it out there, BUT: this piece makes it sound like the whole world is failing to meet their emissions targets. The Report tells a different story. Yes, China and India are driving global emissions growth. But the EU is meeting its targets and moving toward carbon-neutrality, while the US leads the world in per-capita emissions and continues to get worse. If developing countries were to approach our per-capita emissions, the earth and future are toast. And why shouldn't they? We have a moral responsibility to join the EU on the path to neutrality and set a standard that the world can emulate.
3
I feel like this article doesn't take into account the wealthiest 100 corporations on the planet and their right to destroy the planet on behalf of their investors. I mean, this article doesn't even bad mouth Warren or Bernie? Are we living in Communist Sweden????? (this has all been alarmingly sarcastic, as this paper has done a great deal to protect the political interests of the people who made this happen -- the GOP)
1
But wait, our great and wonderful Oz claims it’s fake news! We are fine folks. Nothing to see here behind the curtain!
My father, a highly respected medicinal and environmental research chemist, told me at least 30 years ago that we were headed for disaster if we didn’t do something to stop global warming. Glad he is not alive to see this mess, he thought Nixon was the devil — turned down a job offer from his White House because he didn’t trust him. What would he think of this?!
2
Doesn't seem like a "hoax" anymore, does it? Does this bother Trump supporters?
2
We're doomed! So say all of the hysterics posting their usual apocalyptic comments. If you really believe what you say you'd support building 200 new nuclear power plants immediately. Where to put the spent fuel? We'll figure it out, but this is an emergency, right?
2
@DRS Well, you can build the equivalent of a nuclear power station in a day with solar. (Advantage: fast to construct, no nuclear waste.) Ok, let's do it. Let's get-r-done. Yes, yes, you say, but what if the sun doesn't shine. With enough solar, the sun is always shining somewhere, and we have storage solutions working today.
I'm afraid all the countries of the world need - desperately- a "one child only" policy - or they are condemning all to a more horrible future.
5
@Kaari No, just shift to solar energy from fossil fuel energy and have as many kids as you want.
Oh God. To get even something like the Paris Agreement was agonizing. Addressing at best just the tip of a melting iceberg.
A recognition that something is seriously wrong. But only a gesture, a hard one gesture, in the direction of doing anything significant. The situation is much graver than that.
Then you have these amoral immoral arrogant totally contemptuous greedy reactionary forces, cynical beyond measure and the devastation mounts at ever greater speeds.
Caught between tepid reform and reactionary onslaught we have to keep walking and talking and dreaming and screaming and organizing and loving the planet and each other with ferocious passion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i190D0GSin4&list=UUenPxdEw6YIYqNk6JSby3zg&index=2&t=0s
4
Scientists are all wrong. It’s a giant worldwide conspiracy. That’s why they spent years getting Ph.D.s in the first place: to one day propagate a lie because of their overwhelming hatred of business.
You know who really knows what they’re talking about: Trump supporters. That’s who we should be listening to.
1
@Cousin Greg PH.D.s don't hate business. Many many are employed by them. I know a few myself.
So, can you enlighten me about Trump supporters 'know about' that the rest of us don't?
It's fair to say that our current political system has failed us and it's time to move past it. In 'A Green New Deal', Jemery Rifkin proposes we form 'peer assemblies' tasked with addressing global warming. These bodies operate in parallel to the political system and keep things on track for a Carbon-free future.
What's the alternative? Right now we are on a 5 to 7 C degree rise by 2100. Read as our major coastal cities underwater, our society broken down, and our species facing extinction.
(There are those out there that believe we have time, but we don't. Global Warming is ACCELERATING and fast (within 10 years so so) approaching tipping points WITH NO RETURN.
3
No, we're not going to help them. They can help themselves.
I want to say thank you to the New York Times for finally starting to cover climate change with urgency and clarity! This took way too long and the consequences of the long delay in the tone of media coverage meeting the urgency of climate change will have untold consequences on us all... But better late than never.
4
I get really annoyed when I read, "The richest country of all, the United States, however, has formally begun to pull out of the Paris accord altogether."
The country hasn't begun to pull out of the accord! TRUMP is pulling the country out of the accord! How one person is given the authority to take 300,000,000 countrymen over the cliff with him is just bizarre.
3
@RT1 Trump didn't win the popular vote, therefore he does not represent the majoring of Americans. The country, yes, they pulled out of the accord, but many states have not. CA, for example, is still IN and has the sixth-largest economy in the world.
The youth have to start seriously mobilizing, since they are mostly climate change believers and have the most to lose.
And that means mobilizing like the Hong Kong youth mobilized, not like the Yale-Harvard "OK boomer" Instagram protest.
@Dan88 I encourage the youth to get engaged in politics. Many don't vote or don't care. And, btw, don't fall into the trap of forming 503c3 corporations that can not support global warming political candidates.
A tip: politicians are vulnerable during primaries. Go hard after them then. Do what the prohibition folks did. and push the deniers out of office.
If you can come up with a solution other than socialism or excessive taxes & redistribution of wealth I’m all ears. Way too much corruption in the current green movement. Politicians pushing it are receiving back door money, same as with foreign aid. Get rid of the corruption, no socialism, then we’ll talk.
2
Who says conservatives aren’t part of the solution? Here’s a guy who’s totally willing to help out, except socialism. He wants to help but he can’t! And it’s all the liberals’ fault. Because wealth distribution!
5
@JOSEPH Re: socialism and redistribution of wealth. Hey, we are in an oil bubble at the moment. It's time to use capitalism and fully disinvest yourself in the fossil fuel sector. AND, putting a price on Carbon USES capitalism to it's fullest to see the true cost of Carbon.
Nothing socialistic about either of these suggestions. Pure capitalism, through and through. Let's do it!
1
We do not have the will to do it individually and collectively.
1
The first thing we MUST do if we want to ensure the survival of our planet and our species along with so many others, quite frankly, is to make sure we vote Mr. Trump out of office. Nothing must stand in the way of that or all these arguments are moot. ( I am not one to believe in an Antichrist, but I'm starting to wonder if it is possible that the Antichrist himself is sitting there, in the White House, cheeseburger and diet Coke in hand while the world floods, burns, shifts and essentially founders.) As TS Eliot wrote, "...this is how the world ends, not with a bang, but a whimper." It very well might if we don't vote and for the right person, which is anyone but Trump.
4
Put your money where your mouth is Americans, people don’t drive big cars in Europe. You just want what you want because you are selfish and don’t want to acknowledge that you can make a difference by not buying or leasing a big gas guzzler. So many people in the suburbs want to look like they are all that, so they lease fancy suvs and trucks. If you have to lease it and you’re driving back and forth to work every day, you can’t afford it.
I drive to work in a sea of huge shiny vehicles. Yeah my car is small but I save a lot of money too. It’s not like it’s a real personal sacrifice, it’s still driving a car on the road. As long as gas prices are comforting enough for Americans, they are going to conveniently forget about the polar bears so they can show off. It’s just their mentality.
In Europe, you will pay huge luxury tax for huge vehicle, plus they are accustomed to paying high gas prices, which is really tough for Americans to accept that way of thinking, taxes for good government.
2
I visited Senegal last October 2018 and could not believe the amount of diesel being burned in trucks and cars. Black smoke pouring from tailpipes was everywhere, I just wanted to hold my breath. I am now in South America and diesel use is the same here, overwhelming. Doesn’t the world know how harmful it is to the environment not to mention human beings.
I thought the west was supposed to be an example, guess not.
I do not feel that there is much hope.
2
No one need ask the logic behind the willful ignorance of climate change denial. The fact that it is "more" willful, and "less" a simple lack of knowledge has now pushed the process further down the road of complete insanity.
Someone inadvertently straying into oncoming traffic could be described as unfortunately lacking in a basic knowledge of available threats and their related consequences. Someone leaping off the curb into the direct path of an oncoming bus and taking other people with them is quite literally insane.
The people who now hold the reins of power can only be judged verifiably insane when it comes to climate change and its mounting consequences.
You could say in a scolding voice that, "History will never forgive their malfeasance", but that merely begs the question, "If humanity dies and no witnesses of the crime committed are around to tell the tale, will there be any history among the remaining worms and cockroaches?" No.
It is people that make history and that history must be made in the present moment by those who would act to save the planet if there is to be any hope at all for the future telling by generations yet unborn.
1
Well that is quite the headline. And at least they didn't bother to put an expiration date on the earth like they did last October. But I won't go on ( there are probably plenty of don't have children comments below so I won't bother).
What I find more irritating about this in the here and now ( trust me, i've already hit the wall plenty of times on how depressing this all is ) is how front page, breaking, ever-important climate catastrophe news brought to you by NYTimes.com is behind a pay wall. ( Or, like me, you have to rotate through your many free login accounts to see which ones still have some free articles ). Certainly some stories should be free to all. I don't really know why climate change, the biggest issue of our time, always falls under the pay to play model. I'm thinking also of the climate forum for which you needed to be a paying cnn subscriber to watch. It undermines the message and puts it on the same level as luxury and opinion pieces. Which I don't think is where this kind of information belongs.
1
Great Head line! We are all doomed unless the government can save us.
1
Talk is cheap. Pledges are easy. Reality is very few are doing anything, and have no plans to do so. It's staring us squarely in the face: the human species is incapable of restraining its use of cheap fuel. You can spin it any way you like, but it will not be soon too late. It's already too late.
I remember Y2K as well. Lots of noise: lots of money spent on a lot of nonsense. And who talks about it today? This time we only have 12 years!
1
You know that dystopian future featured in so many sci-fi movies that imagines how humans would deal with the collapse of our environment and society?
Well, it's almost here folks.
1
Sorry, but human greed has always superseded human compassion. I really don't have any reason to believe that humans will survive on planet Earth much longer, even if it weren't for a drastically changing climate.
2
There is a native American saying that goes something like - "In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations."
And another one that says - "We do not inherit the earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children."
Where does one find a native American presidential candidate?
1
Bruno Latour [in his introduction to Down to Earth, Politics in the New Climatic Regime] draws a connection between 3 phenomena that have led humanity to the edge of this precipice: deregulation, the explosion of inequalities, and the systematic denial of climate change.
“This essay proposes to take these three phenomena as symptoms of a historical situation: it is as though a significant segment of the ruling classes [known today... as ‘the elites’] had concluded that the earth no longer had room enough for them and for everyone else.
Consequently, they decided that it was pointless to act as though history were going to continue to move toward a common horizon, toward a world in which all humans could prosper equally. From the 1980s on, the ruling classes stopped purporting to lead and began instead to shelter themselves from the world. We are experiencing all the consequences of this flight, of which Donald Trump is merely a symbol, one among others. The absence of a common world we can share is driving us crazy.
The hypothesis is that we can understand nothing about the politics of the last 50 years if we do not put the question of climate change and its denial front and center. Without the idea that we have entered into a New Climatic Regime, we cannot understand the explosion of inequalities, the scope of deregulation, the critique of globalization, or, most importantly, the panicky desire to return to the old protections of the nation state...“
1
We need to hirer the Hong Kong protesters to take up the cause of climate change. It is going to take indomitable will and a clever plan to get China and the United States to reduce the burning of coal and to legislate the switch to electric cars. People want their children to be healthy and happy. Children should be the stars of climate change add campaigns. If the Communist Party wants to prove their integrity, they should mandate Olympic style climate control. The secret to winning the upcoming US election is to smear pollution on your opponent and to arm yourself as a quarterback for electric cars and solar power.
1
Adapt and Improve. That's what we human's always do.
It's perfectly normal for some to say, "this time it's different."
And wail on, cringing at our doomed future.
Alas, per history, we're all good. And will continue to work hard to stay good.
Optimists enjoy being optimists, and pessimist thrive on fear.
Together, we will make a better world.
Enjoy.
2
Read the Deep Adaptation report by Gem Bendell.
In summary; A comprehensive review of all the available climate science shows that climate scientists have been low-balling their numbers for fear of losing their funding and for fear that the smallest gap in consensus would provide amunition to climate change deniers.
The current evidence shows that a 5 degree rise in global termperatures is now "baked-in" even if we stop all carbon emissions today.
When the Earth was 4-degrees cooler than now, there was nearly half a mile of ice sitting on Boston.
The last time the Earth was 5 degrees warmer, ferns and palm trees left fossils in the Arctic circle.
YouTube what a 5-degree increase means. Game-over. If we are lucky, a small population of humans might be able to survive within the Arctic circle.
Curreent models of climate change have not taken into account two major change vectors.
Ice refects 90% of the Sun's light. Water absorbs 90% of the Sun's light. As the poles melt, the loss of albedo (reflectivity) will nearly double the impact of carbon emission.
An enormous amount of methane, in the form of hydrates, is locked up on the ocean floor and permafrost. Methane, short term, has 50 times the warming impact of CO2.
The loss of polar ice and the release of methane from hydrates are both creating powerful positive feedback loops.
We are no experiencing "non-linear" changes indicating thse positive feedback loops have now been engaged.
When asked about climate change at the second to last democratic debate, all the candidates gave the same glib answers. Andrew Yang was the only one to speak the truth: “we need to give people the resources to move to higher ground”. Yup. Folks, don’t bank of a global kumbaya moment anytime soon. Bleak at best but true.
I've accepted that we're going to fail. I own a gun so that I can end my own suffering rather then live through the war that will inevitably come.
I'm not the only one in my social group who thinks this way either. None of us are suicidal, but I don't know a single person my age (mid twenties) who believes they'll be alive in thirty years.
We need positive articles with tangible solutions to climate change, such as subsidizing hemp for cellulose plastics and carbon trapping building materials and reforestation... not just more “bleak” articles that desensitize and discourage us from participating in the legislative process of a Green New Deal.
Unfortunately it seems that in the U.S. gasoline needs to be taxed more heavily in order to encourage the use of more fuel-efficient vehicles. In that case many men will no longer be able to prove their masculinity by driving oversized pickup trucks and SUVs. As a result of such males being less attractive to women, the birthrate will drop, thereby further reducing greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the population. Win-win!
1
Reading through the responses to this article there appear to be an awful lot of predictions of civilization's imminent collapse or worse, humanity's pending extinction. The future is by definition uncertain. What's less uncertain is that it makes no more sense to act to prevent or mitigate the effects of climate change than it does to do nothing about it if, in fact, we're all doomed anyway. Those prophesying the end of civilization/humanity are not helping in the fight against climate change. Indeed, in addition to protesting too much about something they seem to feel is inevitable they are only promoting collective paralysis in the face of a crisis that is at the very least possibly solvable.
Those screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" are as much to blame for the inaction they're supposedly so upset about as the climate change deniers/minimizers. Granted, the doomsayers all tend to cloak themselves in the mantle of realism, which I assume helps them sleep a bit better at night. However, since there's no more point in acting to solve a problem you don't think exists than there is in responding to one you don't think can be solved there's not as much distance between these "realists" and the deniers as is commonly supposed.
It won't be easy but we can deal with the climate crisis. Humanity has faced crises before and we've made it this far. Odds are the future will be neither as good as the optimists think it will be nor as bad as doomsayers claim.
What people seem to fail to do is take a good hard look at how YOU live your life. New phone every 18 months? Going out to eat a lot? Eat meat? New wardrobe every year? Car lease every two to three years? But yet it seems that a lot of people are good at telling others how others should sacrifice so a way of life is sustained. "YOU, YOU AND YOU need to change." Actually for myself THERE IS NOTHING I can do to stop the production of portland cement and the building of coal fired power plants in india and china. NOTHING. Me paying a carbon tax will NOT offset that impact. There is NOTHING I can do about population control other than not have kids. What I do see it activists wanting ME to sacrifice to support a way of life this planet is about to prove is unsustainable. Humans are reactionary. And until millions and millions die in a year no one will make the hard decisions. I think to myself "god I hope something doesn't kill me" But then I sit back and am NOT surprised when I hear how the climate is winding up for that grand slam home run as humans tap on their phones.
Is anyone talking about how agribusiness is contributing to more than 51% of greenhouse gases and a host of other environmental issues? Specifically, dairy and meat production. Did you know there is more protein yielded per acre of growing plants than growing meat? Did you also know that the feed it takes to sustain cows could feed the whole world over, more than once?
Talking about MPGs being the primary driver of climate change is just ignorant. It’s far more complicated than just driving a gas economical automobile. We should be talking about the most significant culprit to climate change or it’s really all for not.
Politicians are ones that that have introduce legislation to accelerate the measures. These have been started (but are inadequate of course). The needed legislation will almost certainly be unpopular if it affects consumers' pockets or is inconvenient.
Politicians the world over wish to stay in power and so move slowly, slowly. So slowly that the real work will start only when a few more cities have burned, been flooded by rising seas and land has been devastated by lack of rain or too much.
1
Simply making pledges to reduce greenhouse gases is not enough. The people need energy in copious quantities and the only clean, safe, and environmentally benign source that can deliver those vast quantities of energy is nuclear power. Unfortunately instead of ramping up nuclear power, many countries are turning it off because of deep-seated, but unfounded, fears of radiation and conflation with nuclear weapons. Germany spent over €500 billion in promoting wind and solar power. Had they spent this amount in installing nuclear power, instead of turning functioning plants off, they would be producing more than 100% of their current electricity demand, and be on the way to electrifying their transportation sector too. It’s time we start listening to climate scientists like James Hanson, who are telling us that we cannot address the threat of climate change without massively increasing nuclear power.
3
My parents want to install solar panels on their house through a state-sponsored program. The installers told them that their town's zoning board is refusing to approve at least eight solar panel installations on houses. Which figures, given the town in question, but if the problem exists at that level, how do we fix it on the national level?
2
I've lost count of how many times we've passed the point of no return. If it's over why don't we just chill and enjoy the time we have left? Because, of course, it's not over and even activists and activist scientists know that despite the chicken-little sky-is-falling rhetoric. I can only assume that they assume that these over-the-top apocalyptic scenarios they trot out every few months will force governments to act. My sense is, it does the opposite.
2
The source of climate change is expanding consumption and overpopulation. Consumption is the using up of resources creating carbon pollution in the process. Growth is the name economist's give to these changes. It is something to be worshipped. If we could backtrack on growth to the standard of consumption and size of population in 1976 there would be no climate alarm. The biggest obstacle to taming consumption is dependence on continued growth for billionaires and their minions to get richer. The contradiction is a simple. Consumption is the source of both Growth and climate change. The solution could lie in efforts on the scale of preparations for a major international war. We must make a huge investment in nuclear power and other green energy power sources, a better electrical infrastructure and a switch to electric cars. This could reduce the need to stanch growth entirely. Economists and millionaires find it absurd that growth of the economy that has made them rich is the source of climate change. We will learn one way or another through either hardship, famine, drought and war or a vast investment in electrical infrastructure and electric cars. You can make your choice when you go to the polls next year. Listen carefully for the voice of reason: we must change now our future depends on it (not just our children's future which we seem not to care too much about).
2
Bring on the carbon tax! Drive innovation into green energy and storage - just learned about some very cool projects that will allow solar storage for 48 hours at a time - enough for us to run off the main grid for electricity anyway. Everything helps. But what is never spoken of in these articles is the massive overpopulation - 7 billion and growing that creates heat - maybe not always measured in emissions but delivered to the environment in any case.
2
Before the President takes all the credit for increasing United States greenhouse gas emissions last year and accelerating the climate change he seeks, we should remember that he had lots of help from his supporters and also plenty of help from those people and companies that are not his supporters - more than enough blame to go around.
1
One of the most annoying inventions for this electric car owner is the auto-start option on gas guzzling SUVs. Empty cars running for 20-30 minutes because the driver cannot tolerate 5 minutes in an unheated car. We are spoiled and unlikely to change. Sorry future generations!
1
One of the most annoying inventions to someone who drives an electric car is the auto-start option on gas guzzling SUVs. Empty cars running for 20-30 minutes because the driver cannot tolerate 5 minutes of being in a cold car. We are spoiled and unlikely to change. Sorry future generations!
2
On overpopulation:
Every reliable study on population shows that birth rate is inversely proportional to standard of living. In other words, the more desperate people feel, the more children they have. It's a natural survival mechanism. In countries with extremely high standards of living the birth rate can often go negative.
Now, in this country, the same people that are denying climate change are the same people who are doing everything in their power to increase wealth inequality, thereby lowering the standard of living for the vast majority of people, which, in turn, drives up the population - and those people are Republicans.
I would say that ANY government which is not actively working to advance the standard of living of ALL it's citizens is just as guilty.
Left unchecked, the GOP would eventually result in one man owing everything, on an unlivable planet. It's the same ending as the "Time Enough At Last" Twilight Zone episode, where Burgess Meredith has all the things he ever wanted, a library of books, but, inevitably, he's unable to enjoy any of them because not only are his glasses broken, but the entire planet has been destroyed. It's a "vision" gone bad.
The GOP "vision", and other political parties like them, is a vision of greed and control so all-consuming that it can only end one way - in global and personal annihilation.
Working together means helping one another. And in doing so we can not only raise the standard of living, we can save the planet.
6
There is one obvious and intelligent plan:
- Build nuclear
- convert cars to electric asap
- launch climate engineering efforts
These are tangible, understood, economically sustainable steps.
7
@Yuri Vizitei - that's several plans and dear sweet God, launching climate engineering efforts is a great way to destroy several consecutive years of global crops by accident.
Tangible and understood? Wind. Solar. Efficiency. Demand management to reduce need for expensive peak production and transmission. Electrify everything.
Keeping well-run nuclear plants going while we transition off of fossil fuels is a good plan. The new modular nukes that are all promotion and no installation so far might have a future role, but they'll be competing with the tangible, understood, economically sustainable renewable/storage/efficiency mechanisms that keep getting better and cheaper in the real world, today.
What this article forgets is that many of the world population does not reside in America or Europe and yet even there nowhere does it suggest any positive trend.
We should not leave ongoing and explosive population increase out of this equation. The NYT should not do this.
We are projected to have around two billion more people on this planet over the next 30 years or so, with all the associated consumption and environmental destruction. This is going to put more stress on an ocean-atmosphere-land system that is already on its knees. But there always seems to be silence on this issue. Why? It is far from being the only issue, but it is a really big one. Why can't the UN panels and the NYT support the logic that we need to decrease fossil fuel consumption, deforestation AND rates of population growth?
10
@Malcolm
Because there's no time. We need to stop polluting now. Plus, the population that's increasing in the third world pollutes far less. The whole population argument is like telling an obese patient who's having a heart attack that he needs to lose weight. No. First, you have to save his life. In my opinion, it's a red herring cooked up by Exxon and Murdoch et al to distract us from what needs to be done, because what needs to be done will cut into their profits.
@Sherry I see your point, but I think that perspectives should not just narrow down to a few solutions. This is an ongoing, developing global disaster in the making. I have been involved in environmental education for 30 years. Had there been greater global efforts to help with women's and children's education and health and with birth control 30 years ago, we would be in much better shape now. That argument still holds for the futures ahead of us all. I have listened for 3 decades to scientists and other experts saying we have just 10 more years. In fact, what is happening is that we are getting into progressively worse situations each year and it is also likely that we will always be saying ' we have 10 more years or X will happen'. Any sensible long-term solution involves reducing population growth. There is nothing to say that we can't reduce fossil fuel use, and deforestation and population growth at once. It is correct, in my view, that the greatest short term potential may come from switching to alternative energies, but we still need to live beyond the upcoming two or three decades.
1
To really make a change, it can’t come from individuals, it must be government driven.
For example, if we had political will, we could immediately begin building series of nuclear reactors which emit zero carbon to power much of the country. The Navy has been running nuclear subs for decades- they are not a safety risk compared to the earth warming by 7 F. That is the only way I can see the US being able to make the extreme changes needed. And it’s not even asking for personal sacrifice.
2
That America has backed out of the Paris Agreement shouldn't surprise anyone as Americans have shown themselves to be more selfish than selfless. Americans elected Reagan precisely because he celebrated our sense of entitlement and selfishness while Carter called for us to be better people. Americans celebrated when Reagan immediately removed the solar panels that Carter installed as they did when Trump reneged on the Paris Agreement. The message is that there are enough Americans who care only about money to override those that care about the state of the only planet that can support us.
Also, there is the issue of overpopulation that nobody wants to acknowledge much less deal with. That all other life is in decline is a fact, for example humans and our livestock account for about 90% of mammalian biomass, and we must not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we must also develop policies that get people to stop having kids to drive our population to a sustainable level of well below 2 billion people while we act to protect our wild brethren. Otherwise, we are entering an extinction event and they don't end well.
10
Drive around any town in West Virginia and you'll see bumper stickers that read "friends of coal." This is one of the key rhetorical moves the Democrats in the US need to undermine (pardon the pun). The right has successfully humanized a literal rock and speaks to constituencies about the human cost of removing the fossil fuel industry from WV.
We can scream until we're blue in the face about the perils of climate change and carbon emissions, but we have yet to sufficiently articulate the insanity of forcing Appalachians into the position of trading 20 years off their lives before they die of black lung disease for a middle class income. We need to be friends of future ex-coal miners. It's survival calculus for folks up here. Mine coal or collect beer cans off the side of the road to take to recycling centers for a living. When that feels like the only choice you have, emissions reports are background noise.
Maybe the Democrats can win in 2020 without Appalachia and parts of the industrial midwest, but as long as it's an open question whether or not the party believes the people ekeing out an income in the fossil fuel industry matter, the Republicans and fossil fuel executives have a winning rhetorical strategy.
2
"To stay within relatively safe limits, emissions must decline sharply, by 7.6 percent every year, between 2020 and 2030, the report warned." And last year, emissions INCREASED. If this is accurate, you don't need to be a climate scientist to see that we will not stay with "relatively safe limits." Maybe the time to blame Trump, China, SUVs, Boomers, etc. is over. Maybe it's time to start predicting the implications and planning for a changed future.
2
@SJG
I agree it's probably time to plan for the inevitable future but I will never stop blaming those who caused this. We should build a Wall of Shame and carve their names on it so no one will ever forget who tore the solar panels off the White House, who failed to sign the Tokyo Accord, who dropped out of the Paris Treaty, who lied about climate change, and everyone else who put profits over life on earth.
I'm 29 years old. I have been involved in climate activism for the last 6 years. Now is the time to join the movement. Go on strike from work, if you can afford it. Protest in the streets. Get arrested. Cut ties with institutions like Black Rock or Chase Bank who profit from the fossil fuel industries. Volunteer for a Democratic presidential campaign. Register people to vote. Do Something! Personal consumption habits alone won't turn this ship around by itself. We need a radical change at all levels of politics and governance to drive the rapid emission cuts called for in this study. It's also worth noting that the political will for climate action seems to be extremely strong in my generation and those younger, but not as much in older age brackets. So when we say "humans are so selfish and we don't want to change," consider that there are actually many, many, many people who want things to change but can't make it happen because those with power and wealth refuse to do anything about it. And sadly many of the older generations enable them by supporting terrible politicians. or they blame overpopulation when we all know per capita carbon emissions by Americans vastly dwarf per capita emissions by Chinese people, Indians, Indonesians, and so on. Yet we have white Evangelical or Mormon American families who think it's their god-ordained right to have as many kids as possible. Funny how they never get attacked or scolded...
11
Protesting is for the weak. The west can weather this for lack of a better term with our wealth and tech. We wont be sending any money to the 3rd world late comers who have already benefitted from the Industrial Revolution but continue to pollute at a rate the west was 50 yrs ago.
@Daniel
"I have been involved in climate activism for the last 6 years."
This is exactly what the rulers want you to be "active" in because it does not threaten them.
The 2016 Sanders phenomenon had them very nervous. They don't want a population rising up ("Protest in the streets. Get arrested. Cut ties with institutions like Black Rock or Chase Bank" as you say) after 40 years of obscene, immoral rising income inequality that benefits only the rich and powerful.
However, a bunch of "climate activists" do not threaten them at all. It is a controlled and allowed "protest" that allows them to continue to rob and steal from 99% of the population.
"Climate change" is the perfect diversionary propaganda to push on the masses.
@John the presidential campaign that I volunteer with is the Bernie Sanders campaign
1
A major contributor to the unfolding climate crisis is our own US military, who are exempt from all regulatory rules.
This is one of the USA's largest 'denials.'
If people are serious about trying to mitigate the unfolding disasters of climate change then we better stop feeding the war machine.
2
Unfortunately, the only way the world's 20 richest countries will ever address climate change, and income inequality, is the way they did in the 20th Century: Global war and global depression. That destroyed massive accumulated fortunes and smashed most of the world's industrial capacity. Thanks Boomers, for making is live in a world where all the survivors will be too poor to buy cars that can't be manufactured, anyway.
1
Politics starts with the personal. Until people are willing to do the simplest things to help the ecosystem, which are to move to smaller and more energy efficient dwellings, and reduce fish/meat/chicken consumption to 1 meal every two days, this is sound and fury signifying nothing. I am a conservative who lives in a 675 square foot apartment, has a low carbon footprint, and barely eats flesh. Let's all start there.
4
@Snowball
No. Our individual efforts are drops in the bucket. This is a worldwide problem. What's needed is an international treaty in which the limit of safe pollution is determined, and every country makes its own plan to reduce its pollution. It needs to be scientific, responsible, and enforceable. Anything less, including saying this problem might be solved by our individual actions, is reckless and irresponsible.
2
@Sherry , what part of "Let's all start there" is unclear? Stop looking to the government and start looking to ourselves to lead the way.
1
We in the U.S. must adopt a carbon tax that raises the price of gasoline, natural gas, and coal and encourages consumers and industry to shift to renewable electricity and cut waste. Gas at $2.50 per gallon is not going to get any consumer into a hybrid or electric vehicle.; the big shippers like Amazon, UPS, USPS will not shift to hybrids or electric trucks either. A simple carbon tax starting at $50/metric ton of carbon with all the tax revenue rebated back to people on an equal per capita basis is the absolute step to saving our planet.
548
@john
Why implement policies that hurt the poor? Why not curtail the economic top 10%? Here are alternatives to your suggestions: restrict flying, tax frequent flyers, and prohibit airport expansion, restrict all new construction, mandate Skype business conferences, prohibit cruises and personal power boats, and second homes, and third cars, restrict primary dwelling size, plant trees on private land. The economic top 10% use 90% of the resources.
135
@Susan
Thank you! I get so sick of hearing lectures from the likes of Leonardo Dicaprio telling us to stop driving, flying, eating meat ect... as he then goes off on his Jet (but, oh, he can pay expensive carbon taxes so it’s fine).
It’s like the rich, like Bloomberg & Steiner really hate the middle & working class and want to cripple our mobility by way of “carbon taxes”.
28
@john How about curtail the construction with concrete? Look up carbon impact from the production of portland cement. What about one family one child. What do you think 7 billion people does to the planet? China and India has 2.4 billion people? And both are building coal fired power plants at a breakneck speed. You want to tax ME? How about pinpointing the real culprits and deal accordingly.
15
I honestly wonder if the US would have a stronger reaction if the increases were reported in Fahrenheit. Even though we know celcius is more, reading that temperatures could go up by almost 40 degrees F sounds much more dire and would maybe lead for more public calls for change.
12
@JMS, Another projection? Aren't they wrong enough?
40 degrees?
a global increase of 4 degrees celsius is equivalent to an increase of 7.2 degrees fahrenheit.
Still environmentally catastrophic.
Follow the money. When it becomes economically punitive or profitable nothing will be done about it. We don't even do what is best for our own health much less this nebulous idea about an environment we are walking around in.
1
We have the technical capabilities to transform our dependence on fossil fuels. Do we have a the will and the ethics to deal with the transformation such an effort will place on lifestyles many have come to expect? Changing the sources of our energy needs will be difficult. Changing the nature of human behaviors will be the greatest challenge. We can choose our own path to survivability or humanity will have to face the dire consequences of our continued exploitation, extravagances and insufficient efforts at mitigation.
5
@richard wiesner
Yes. This is not a political problem. This is not Trump's problem. This crisis belongs to every single human being. It will take a global shift toward understanding that environmentalism IS humanism. Life will be uncomfortable if we have to change. Life will be even more uncomfortable if we don't.
4
Think about your grandchildren the next time you purchase a large SUV. America has a “keeping up with the Jones” problem. Big cars, big houses, big lawns, long commutes from living in the suburbs. We have to rethink our very lifestyle or we are doomed.
709
@Mary: Here in California we have long commutes because ordinary people can't afford to live close to their jobs, and even the people with money can't afford to move as often as they change jobs.
But I agree: many people need a bigger house and a bigger automobile. Downsizing would mitigate things a bit, but it will take more than that to get it done.
16
@Mary
Ask billions of people to change all at once -- good luck with that.
13
@Ben: Most of them want to change to be more like us, to have middle class lives and drive big SUVs. Good luck with that too.
19
And Trump uses our EPA to destroy our environment, not protect it.
That right there should be grounds for voting him out of office (if he's not removed another way).
8
We should be dealing with climate change the way we dealt with WWII - mandated across-the-board participation. Unfortunately, there is no leadership for this, as there was in the 1940's.
8
well, greta thunberg summed it up nicely. our biosphere is being sacrificed so that the rich can live in luxury. it is the sufferings of the many that will continue to pay for the luxuries of the few.
and when our biosphere has been spent and every natural resource extracted, it is the rich who will be able to retreat into their bio-bunkers while the everyday folk starve and fall sick.
the GOP fiddled while the world burned.
12
@Jessica C. That’s only kind of true — yes rich countries emit more CO2, but China and the 3rd world are building coal power plants like crazy. That is much worse than driving a big car.
@Jessica C. She's rich, too.
Racism is one of the leading causes of climate change inaction. As long as the majority of people being harmed are brown or black, many white people don't really care. It is the same as the racism that exists in the difference when a brown girl is missing or a white girl is missing. The resources directed at finding a missing white girl is unlimited and expected. Until we can accept and challenge our ingrained racism, and the rise of white nationalism as a political power base, we will not see much change. Vote blue, no matter who.
9
How many times are you going to cry wolf over racism which is based on a defunct science? Its a pretend human category on which people project their inner weaknessess. People surely have some cold hearts but a nation or worldwide conspiracy I think not. These nations have had their time in the limelight and continually appropriate western tech, govt., and culture to bring their people from the hovel to the highrise. Too bad their 100 yrs late to the Industrial Revolution and continually are the worlds largest pollutters. We in the west polluted when it was cutting edge and needed to drive the world forward but we owe ZERO to corrupt and backward 3rd world nations. We need a carrot and stick approach that uses diplomacy, sanctions, and military force to cajole these latecomers. The carrot can be out tech. expertise bit not the Middle Class paycheck that needed for flood control in NYC. China, India, Russia, South America, and Southeast Asia continue to mock us and this planet by their actions. Communist and their ill gotten legacy is always destruction.
My new 2019 SUV gets far better gas mileage than my 2010 sedan.
And from what I’ve heard (I don’t have any links to provide), the consumption of meat has a much greater effect on deforestation and water supplies than SUVs.
Some commentators are talking out of their tailpipes.
3
We are obviously facing a dire situation but if there’s any good news it’s that most countries are going to feel the hurt so we all have incentive to take action. Mumbai, Miami, and Shanghai (and obviously many, many more) are all facing disaster, so there’s incentive across the board to act. If we make it a business opportunity with new clean energy infrastructures that offers some hope. The real challenge is to speed up the timeline and ask people to make changes like go to a more plant based diet (even Warren seems to have trouble with that one).
@Jon T, No. I won't change.
I did my first solar project in 1975. The question that faces us now is this: will we elect leaders who will manage the process of environmental/social decline, or do the real job of addressing climate change risk? After 50 years of limp excuses from our leaders (political, faith and business) for their non-action, I'm not sanguine about our prospects as a species any more. Not sure what to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. As I look into the faces of my children and grandchildren, it will be hard not to simply break down and cry. In hindsight, I should not have chosen to have children at all.
2
Please don’t tell me all the CO2 emissions that resulted from raising, transporting, cooking and hauling away the waste of that huge turkey I’m supposed to be thankful for day after tomorrow. Digesting all its grease is bad enough.
1
Yep, no proteins and lipids, no people.
@Casual Observer
@Casual Observer
Proteins and lipids are more than sufficiently bio-available from a dynamic plant-based diet.
@John Doe
If you already know the spiel, why do you continue the tradition? Is one day of turkey worth the consequences?
I’m guessing that today’s know-nothing Republicans approach this news about the same way they approached the impeachment inquiry: with an irresponsible shrug!
7
Is it getting clearer to the "climate crisis" alarmists in the US and other Western countries? Until China, India, Pakistan, Russia and a host of other countries do more to end pollution, there is NOTHING the US can do that will make the least bit of difference.
So, pulling out of the Paris Accord is a straw man at best, intended by politicians and activists to shame us into accepting a far-left, socialist economic agenda that will alter our lives, strip us of freedom, and change the very foundations upon which the US was built.
The idea that the US is one of the two biggest polluters in the world is ludicrous. Statements like that do nothing to bolster the argument being made and lay plain the political agenda behind it.
This article is a polemic at best. Why is it not on the Opinion page?
8
@Elfego el Gato I can't disagree with you more.
6
@Elfego el Gato
That's the fatalist's argument: since others are not doing it, I won't either. You'll wait until every last person is putting solar panels on their roof, driving electric cars, boycotting beef from Brazil before you grudgingly join the rest of us. By then you and your ilk will be fighting fires, moving away from the lowland and wondering how we got to this condition. We will have gotten there because you ignored science or hoped others would act responsibly and save you.
4
@Elfego el Gato The U.S. is one of the largest contributors to the climate crisis. It DOES matter what we do.
2
"... the surge of S.U.V.s, which consume more gasoline than conventional cars, could wipe out much of the oil savings from a nascent electric-car boom."
This seems to be a clear indication where people's priorities are. Despite all the warning about climate change SUV sales continue to surge. I think much of this has to do with auto companies and auto dealers. Both make much higher profits selling SUVs than selling smaller cars. This is going to be reflected in ads and what is said to customers within dealerships. In addition when it comes to buying cars the larger a car is the more it serves as a status symbol. And particularly in the suburbs where life is largely about status and bigger houses and cars are needed to increase status as they server as proxies for wealth, trying to get people to do what is best for fighting climate change is a tough challenge.
1
I cant fit into a prius and either can my stuff. Im 6'3 240lbs.
Decades ago, my teachers said that government is the solution to negative externalities, harms that a decision maker imposes on others without consent.
But now, facing a climate catastrophe, with over a hundred thousand persons dying yearly, and with greenhouse gases increasing at one and a half percent a year, the facts refute the theory.
Government has a record of exterminating hundreds of millions of innocent people over millennia -- its most evil externalities. And when we read about its obstruction of immigrant families, and its coercive deportations, we can rationally expect it to block climate refugees, generating millions more innocent victims. Government is a dreadful disease that has afflicted humanity for millennia, and its horror will only get worse.
A crucial issue often ignored is that the rich and powerful are causing far more of the global warming. Yet, the government does not require them to pay compensation to their victims and the cost of removing the greenhouse gases.
While some argue that the government protects the poor and weak, in reality, it helps the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and politically weak. This will never change.
2
Every single commenter here, before offering opinion and lamenting for the future, before blaming others, before empty words of hope or despair, should ask themselves what they are doing, just as one individual, to make a difference.
If this article doesn't inspire you to change, you don't deserve to point fingers or publicly despair for the future. Be the change. Act now. You care enough to comment, so do something that will actually make a difference.
I'd love to see a comment section filled with people talking about what they are going to do to help. Or better yet, turn off your devices and go do something to help. I'm including myself in this as well - just as an FYI.
What am I going to do? I'm going to work remotely more often and get a quote for solar panels.
4
@Laney Individual action and commitment is important, but will only get us so far. What is needed is systemic, infrastructural change. There is no way that individuals working independently will achieve the necessary scale of change. That's akin to the govt. saying in the 1940's "you want an interstate highway system? Well, everyone go out there and pave up a stretch of your property!". This has to be a coordinated, large-scale societal shift. The focus on individual action is too often an excuse brandished by denialists to obfuscate the issue with charges of hypocrisy. The fact is that without the larger systemic changes, it is almost impossible to participate in this society without contributing to the problem.
3
@KA
I have made several changes over the last 6 years. Installed solar panels (savings per year >=$2000), turn down heat during the winter time (nothing wrong with wearing a sweater in the house), turn down air conditioning consumption, instead of multiple trips several times a day, consolidate. Reduce plastic usage (get rid of plastic water bottles), plant trees, wild grass instead of concrete patios. There is still room for improvement.
The Government needs to acknowledge climate change by get rid of fossil fuel lobbyists domestic and foreign, make extensive infrastructure changes (capture the energy generates by car commuters), install solar, wind technology, improve farming technology (pesticide runoffs pollute rivers and lakes), reduce consumer packaging (reduce plastic, use biodegradable packaging). This is not a Democratic/Republican problem, even though, it would help if politicians wouldn't be so polarized.
What I did, was up out of having children. Consider that please.
1
We are so spoiled. Who among us is willing to forgo the lifestyle based on whatever is most convenient, what requires the least effort and provides the most comfort?
Until climate change starts affecting a MAJORITY of the people, starts making their food unbelievably expensive, their houses repeatedly threatened by fire or flood, the air unbreathable, until that happens we will not be willing to sacrifice this life of comfort. And by then it will be too late.
593
I’m already in the house constantly threatened by fire category and although we have a relatively low carbon footprint, we still have one, and still have two cars, although one of them will soon be all electric. The problem is much bigger them all of that though. We’ll be moving to escape the now 5 month fire season in. Northern California, that is, if anyone will buy our house. My point is, it’s already here for many of us.
59
@Brian Whistler that is the primary reason we left the Jersey shore in 2016. I couldn't live with the anxiety. Sandy was bad enough. I wish you well and stay safe!
18
@SP
OK. What do you suggest?
2
It is unfortunate. Decreasing carbon emissions while maintaining a reasonable quality of life is technologically feasible. However, most of us are unwilling to make and support the changes necessary. In part, this is because the people initially most likely to be severely affected are poor and far away, and in part it is human inertia. It requires a change in how we do things, and a degree of central planning combined with private innovation to develop the necessary infrastructure in a timely fashion. (The infrastructure is coming, but not fast enough.). People are in denial, ether overtly (climate change deniers) or covertly (people who know there is a problem, but who buy their imperial Death Star Armada SUV for their daily commute anyway.). A carbon tax would be a start to address this, using market mechanisms, but it will take more than that. I suspect the future generations who survive will look back at this time as a period of lost opportunity.
307
@Richard It doesn't help that the auto industry is all but doing away with small and midsize sedans and replacing them with SUVs. I drive a sedan hybrid and was very disappointed to learn that Ford plans on totally ending production of my model. This seems to be the trend.
183
@sohy the new "SUV" models are really cars with more space inside, not trucks lime the old SUVs. A 2019 Ford Escape SUV gets 29/22 mileage, a Toyota RAV4 gets 35/27. This is very competitive with sedans.
The larger issue is usage. The problem, as the article says, is that measures to cut usage tend to affect the poor more, or require "rationing".
7
@Carl M
Sorry Carl. To have more space inside you need to enclose with a larger, heavier, taking more materials to build, outside. SUVs of any sort weigh more than cars.
Whatever mileage can be obtained in a SUV can be bettered in a sedan/station wagon that weighs less and is more aerodynamic. The Camry mileage is 41/29.
You are just rationalizing. Usage would decrease if millions didn't own vehicles that are not needed by most. Costs would be saved in purchase, maintenance, repairs, and fuel.
24
The climate is like recycling, if we all did our part we would already have an effect on emissions. But who here pays for green energy and who here is just waiting for the government to solve all the problems?
We can’t solve it individually, but changing personal behaviors makes me take all the climate worriers more seriously, and would be a solid start towards a greener future.
2
For decades political leaders and ordinary citizens have been frightened of even mild sacrifice, of timely changes, of costs in the present, rather than the calamities of the not even so distant future. Rapidly climate costs come upon us, and still we resist paying now for some safety later. Strong carbon taxes should have come in many years ago, but still we lie to ourselves that change now would be ever so inconvenient, and also deny the now predictable disaster ahead. Politicians still win elections by denying the science or claiming that painless, window dressing efforts will be enough. We are "decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent" (Winston Churchill, 12 November 1936, to the House of Commons). Now we are in the time of consequences and even investing in resilience is resisted. Our collective dream of endless consumption and growth is being shattered before us, and we seem to have no capacity or courage for conversion to the hard work upon which any genuine hope may be founded. We must demand of ourselves and our politicians and parties truth and action, sacrifices, and rapid cuts in carbon emissions.
1
It is obvious that the experiment of the human race has failed. On to the next dominant species.
2
I have worked with this issue since February 1991. 19 years. I have attended climate negotiations before the Kyoto protocol, the disastrous Copenhagen meeting and the Paris meeting. I have read reports and been to IPCC meetings. I have campaigned, demonstrated, worked with the media and politicians and talked at schools and business gatherings. I have traveled the world and emitted more CO2 in the process than I like to think about. And in the last 10-15 years I have worked at installing wind turbines.
Now, at 64, in Oslo, I look out the window from my office. I see the green grass in the parks and listen to the rain in a city where, with Christmas a few weeks away, we used to have frost and snow at this time. I read reports and see emissions steadily rise in every country who is a part to the Paris agreement. Oil and gas is not only still produced - the oil companies are actively looking for more, with enthusiastic support from governments. For every electric car on the road, several fossil cars are added. For every wind turbine or solar panel installed, emissions increase elsewhere.
And I think: What will it take for us to act? Obviously, much much more than we have seen so far. Massive extreme weather events, with tens of thousands dead? Melting of Greenland or Antarctic glaciers? Widespread forest fires in the boreal forest around the globe? A Mediterranean too hot to live?
I know not. But I know things will get far worse before they get better. If ever.
1250
@Kalle H
A serious possibility is that there will be famine on a precedented scale as climatic effects disrupt production in major food-producing regions. Loss of arable land and topsoil, exacerbated by unpredictable extremes of rainfall alternating with drought, could have tragic consequences in the not so distant future. See today's article on India's water situation.
70
@Kalle H Thank you for this comment, as sad and angry as you sound. You have a right to both emotions.
Unless we remove money from this equation, nothing will change. There are too many companies and wealthy individuals capitalizing on our addiction to SUV's, oil, and all the other things that endanger our planet.
The only thing that will change this problem is a monumental catastrophe that kills many, many people and brings humanity to its knees.
It really is a sad statement that we never seem to learn. We keep repeating the same mistakes.
47
@Kalle You need to check your math, 1991 will be 29 years ago.
11
People in wealthy countries are allowing viable nuclear power plants to shut down early. Keeping them running is about the softest form of a carbon tax imaginable, but voters still say no both here and in other countries.
Imagine a toy company executive telling the CEO his strategy for increasing sales next year is to stop selling at Wal-Mart because of an image problem and focus on specialty stores and other channels. The CEO would probably interrupt this pitch to hand its proponent a cardboard box for cleaning out his desk.
There is very little political will to address this even in wealthy countries. So instead we get proposals, many of which are essentially scams, to dance around the edges of the problem. Tesla has almost certainly collected more in subsidies than it has in profits despite catering to rich buyers. High-speed rail is not viable in traffic-clogged and wealthy California, which is an indication that it is not viable anywhere in the USA.
Individuals need to focus on conservation and not feel-good solutions. Instead of spending money on a Tesla, spend it on organizing your life so you can drive less (or even not own a car at all). Any older car has already been manufactured at great environmental cost. Eat vegan or close to it and take it easy on your HVAC system.
There are policies that will make a difference - blocking pipelines or new buildings hooked up to gas lines will have an effect for many decades. Much of the rest of it, however, is up to us.
1
The difficulty with economics and addressing global warming are similar. People have limited ability to consider complex systems which require far more consideration of consequences than very simple and linear problems.
Fission nuclear generated heat requires far less matter than does chemically generated heat, so it’s a lot cheaper to produce until all the other costs are considered. Then it becomes the most costly way to boil water ever invented. The need to contain the reaction requires buildings that require a decade each to build. Over time the radiation corrodes and irradiates the structures making the buildings unsafe and re0lacing them includes sequestering them for the duration of the half lives of the radioactive materials. Then the spent fuel which is still radioactive must also be sequestered. The more that is used the bigger the burden which can extend to the end of the existence of this planet. So fission nuclear energy is a dead end solution.
1
We are already developing the tech to speed up the denuclearization of the spent fuel to a simple few yrs. Plow govt. funding into this and the building designs for the reactors will design themselves as the need becomes a matter of survival. Nuclear power is the only viable bridge to green power RIGHT NOW. Dont complain and whine like chicken little that the world is falling apart when you have the ONLY answer that can be put into action tomorrow with huge results in several yrs. It gives us time to develop better batteries for storage which is truly the key to the future of green energy.
1
The leadership that is failing us is not just the blind eye and the continued support of the petro industry, but the failure to generate a plan to stimulate the economy with renewable energy industries and technologies. Elizabeth, where is your plan for this?
Nothing, absolutely nothing will be done because the wealthiest countries and the wealthiest people are running the biggest polluters. Those people will never make any proper moves because each year they have to face the shareholders and show growth and increase production. The catastrophes are not their problem because simply they won't happen to them. They have enough money to never have to live in areas seriously affected by climate change. And by the time those people are dead it will be too late for this planet anyway.
3
Only in an historical sense but China, Russia, India, and South East Asia have long overtaken us. Cant be late to the Industrial Revolution by 100 yrs only to benefit from western ingenuity and then slam the same tech. as the downfall of the world. If the Chicken littles are right, these nations will flood and burn with or without our Middle class wealth in the form of Carbon taxes. If they dont fix the issue from the inside out, then let them reap the consequences. We simply cant stand by and let them destroy the planet. The 3rd world has benefitted greatly even by latecomer status as they have moved from hovels to highrises. We need our money here to move out cities in a few blocks, develop flood gate systems, and engineer our crops to resist the new weather and take advantage of our warming here in North America.
1
If the U.S. were leading the way, we certainly could move the needle. The Trump administration has chosen to decline this opportunity, at the peril of future generations around the globe.
9
Don't buy property within 10 feet of today's sea level.
3
@fact or friction Obama just did in Marthas Vineyard, what was he thinking?
Consume less this holiday season. We don’t need more stuff. Give love.
6
I keep asking why we are focused on what Trump did in Ukraine, when his gaslighting the nation on the climate crisis and his enthusiastic promotion of the use of fossil fuels makes every other offense he has committed seem like a parking violation.
The refusal of the powers that be in the Democratic Party to allow a debate on the climate crisis is insane. The climate crisis is not only the most significant threat to humanity and 75,000 years, it also has the potential be a winning political issue. If the American people come to realize just how dire the situation is, Trump and his enablers in the Republican Party will never win another election.
The Green New Deal is an attempt to put the climate crisis front and center, and frame all social and economic policy in the context of responding to it. This isn't the time for so-called "moderation". Nature knows nothing of moderation, or what we think is politically doable. Nature is firmly on the side of the death penalty for species that don't adapt to her rules.
5
@writeon1
Before anyone can focus on environmental issues, Trump and his prehistoric GOP enablers need to be thoroughly discredited and voted out. Only then can environmental concerns be addressed. That's why so much is invested in getting Trump and his minions out of positions of power. As long as they remain, things will get worse.
*To the tune of “America, the Beautiful”*
Oh beautiful, for smoggy skies; insecticided grain.
For strip mined mountains’ majesty, above the asphalt plain.
America, America; man sheds his waste on thee.
And hides the pines with billboard signs
from sea to oily sea.- George Carlin, c. 1972
5
I’ve worked in reducing energy in the corporate sector my entire career. I’ve also followed climate science that whole time. The victories while satisfying are far too small in number. So I know the science and have also been in the trenches. There is no dearth of technical solutions. There is no political will because it will hurt special interests but it would create opportunities. The answer is much more complicated than solar panels and wind farms. NO ONE of the Dem. candidates has enunciated a plan that is comprehensive and leading ( except perhaps Jay Inslee), and Trump Is an unmitigated disaster when it comes to climate change.
Why all this hot air about candidates? Because as I said there is no dearth of technical solutions, but the economics must be changed so that it is attractive in a real bottom line sense for everyone to switch to no fossil or low fossil alternatives. This is the proper role of government in my view for this kind of issue.
One other addendum about the mention of SUV’s and trucks as a major rising contributor to climate change. I’d just true the numbers don’t lie. A Chevy Tahoe or Ford F-150 just don’t get the same mileage as a Prius or Ford Fusion Hybrid. Low mileage = high CO2 and High mileage = low CO2. People buy these things for all kinds of reasons and everybody’s entitled to do what they want. Just don’t say climate change is important to you as you climb into your Suburban...
5
The sky is falling!
The sky is falling!
Relax, global warming is an epic farce:
-Glaciers were Already Retreating Before 1900
-Ice ages have been coming and going for eons.
-The last 20 years have shown zero warming (hence the switch to 'climate change').
-Man produces less than 1/2 of 1 percent of C02 on the planet.
-It was warmer in the 15th century than it is now.
-The greatest warming in the 20th century was between 1935 and 1950.
-NASA confirms: Sea levels FALLING across the planet in 2016 and 2017.
-NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18
-Scientists have been caught manipulating and hiding data.
-None, NONE, of their prior predictions have come true.
-In 1995 Al Gore said by 2005 Miami will be under water "due to Global warming". Miami is NOT underwater.
-The highest record temperature ever reported was 136 degrees Fahrenheit in Libya in 1922. The record high temperature for the United States was 134 degrees Fahrenheit in Death Valley, California in 1913.
-Excavations in the Antarctic have shown vegetation use to cover the continent.
-If all the C02 was removed from the atmosphere, we would die. Plants need C02 to live and we need plants to live.
7
The sky is not falling. The seas are rising. And they will increase your cost of living close to sea level.
So if you live within a few miles of the coast anywhere from Long Island NY to Padre Island TX your local taxes will go up to repair and replace roads, sewage treatment, water treaty, schools and private property. Federally, via FEMA you’ll also have to pay higher federal taxes to relocate towns that are too expensive to save like many towns on the barrier islands.
Naval Bases at sea level like those in Norfolk VA will also need to be moved or protected at great federal expense. Again higher federal taxes.
You’ll need to hire more federal workers to clean up after all the storms. More bureaucracy in Washington for you to grumble about.
Beach front vacations will get much more expensive to pay the higher taxes and flood insurance.
Future voters will blame Republicans and elect others in their place. They’ll have to raise taxes to pay for all the costs.
Impoverished immigrants from the many poor nations in the Caribbean will arrive at our shores.
No one can dispute the steady measured increase in temperature and the reduction in arctic sea ice as evidence of climate change.
2
@Walter Holemans the sea level has been rising for hundreds of years at a constant rate. Look up the BatteryPoint (New York) tidal station data. There has been a constant rate in rise since 1850. If CO2 atmospheric rates were directly causing a sea level rise, wouldn’t there be a spike or increased rate in the data? There isn’t the rate of sea level rise continues at the same rate as in 1850.
2
@George Orwell Your post is an archetypal example of a Gish gallop, which is a technique used by those who are terrified and/or incapable of rational and fact based discourse. A Gish gallop involves spewing out a long string of blatant lies and distortions. The person who does this is counting on the sheer quantity of falsehoods to overwhelm the possibility of any rational fact based response. Should someone choose to respond to the large quantity of lies in a Gosh gallop such as your post, the perpetrator of the attack on rational discourse, will never respond to the disproof of his or her lies. Instead the perpetrator of the Gish gallop will simply spew out another Gish gallop. I choose only to categorize the nature of your attack on rational discourse in order to help others to recognise such assaults against rationality as your post. Directly addressing your lies is a waste of time. Our best hope for mitigating the damage caused by attacks against science and rationality such as your post is to identify them for what they are and not to waste time responding to each of the lies contained in a Gish gallup.
If we are so stupid as to continue on in our intentional destruction of nature, then we deserve what is coming.
and it's coming. Humanity dying out is exactly what this planet needs as we have destroyed it in about 200 years.
I feel for the animals, we have killed off a large majority of them too. How many children experience nature or can identify a newt or a dragon fly? Very few I bet.
Nor see the value of every living creature including bugs and insects.
and for what? s we can all watch tv and drive SUVs?
1
I stood in the wave-zone on North Carolina's Outer Banks for the first time in 1997 in time off from duty at Langley Air Force Base, Hampton, Va. That spot, near the soon-to-be-lost-forever Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, is itself now under seawater.
the blame is ours. "Keeping America Great" (the 2020 Trump slogan) is all about doing the right thing. We continue to fail this duty.
" "
3
It was the first day of winter break during my senior year. I was just sitting down to start a 15-page assignment. I figured if I wrote a page a day, I'd have it finished before break was over. But the sun was shining, and the guys were throwing snowballs outside. So I figured I'd write two pages tomorrow. The next day, our snow forts were complete and we'd chosen sides. I could easily kick out three pages the next day....
The night before the assignment was due, I sat in my room, paralyzed; so massive a task ahead of me that I could not think.
I got an F.
Climate change denial is a frighteningly harsh teacher.
6
Thank you for keeping the climate change story top of mind. Maybe more readers will change their own diets, cars, and lifestyles for “cooler” choices. As a Californian, who has evacuated for major fires multiple times, in the past two years, I know apocalyptic climate change is here. Please. Wake up, everyone! Do your part, too.
P.S. Large swaths of Santa Barbara, Calif. is now on fire. Australia...
1
Please include data when you publish these articles. I shouldn’t have to go hunting to look for emissions totals or increases.
2
To all of you climate specialists who want to raise my taxes, do you drive a car? Do you heat your house? Ahh...thought so. Now be quiet you bunch of hypocrites.
If you want to prevent more CO2 emissions, allow more loggers in California so the place doesn't burn down every single year.
2
“Children are our most precious resource. Let’s just hope it doesn’t come to that!” Emo Philips.
Institute a carbon tax to fund free condoms and birth control for everyone. That might help.
6
Would be nice if the comment section on these climate articles were written by scientists instead of a bunch of opinions from who knows who. It's how ignorance is spread.
Trump is the most honest leader in the world. All the others are ignoring the Paris Accords while lapping up the moral signaling of simply having signed it. Trump had the basic honesty to just scrap it - the easy course would have been to praise the Accords and cut a ribbon at a wind farm while making a speach about further generations.
4
For decades, people have hoped that technology would save us. Others have hoped that changes in human behavior would save us. Many have worked urgently to these ends.
We should face reality. Neither technology nor human behavior will solve this situation. Climate change will be a less urgent threat when human population and the human activities which drive carbon into the atmosphere lessen. And there's only one event which is likely to lessen population and carbon production: A global climatic and economic catastrophe. Climate change will solve itself when the climate becomes so devastating that billions die and the global economy contracts by 20-40%. That's not alarmism. It's reality.
I imagine the world some 50 years from now as looking somewhat like the societies in Children of Men and Elysium. In such a world, governments will falter, warlordism will strengthen, and the very rich will be the only ones able to protect themselves. If you want to survive climate change, get rich. Get ready. And when, decades hence, we can think of rebuilding our societies, give some thought to the mechanisms which will prosper humanity in the centuries to come.
Or don't. Maybe humanity deserves nothing better. Maybe deserve's got nothing to do with it.
3
As an individual, my pledge to myself is to cut my personal consumption, choose carefully what I consume, and reuse and recycle as much as I can.
7
@earthling Good call. Noone is forcing you to live a certain lifestyle. We're going to forgo the bigger house in the "more preferred area of the city". Staying in the blue collar area of the city with the old small house, and we're fine with that.
2
The grand foolishness of the Trump Administration's war on the climate is that we are missing a massive opportunity to create jobs and develop the adaptations that the rest of the world will be clamoring for in short order. Trump's anti-climate actions will ensure that we will be buyers rather than sellers of technologies to reduce carbon footprint and develop 21st century electric grid and microgrid systems. It is almost like the Mandarins destroying technology and scientific systems in an era when China was poised to explore the world.
4
Which Dem candidate is our best hope for powering the US and globe away from this doom? I really have no idea. Does anyone know who is most dedicated and would fight hardest against this?
@Susan LC Bernard Sanders
2
@Susan LC
We can trust Bernie to support the restoration.
This is my second comment on this article this morning, so I guess I am kind of worked up about it. And this comment may get a lot of people riled up, but here goes.
One of the least discussed aspects of climate change is the fact that it is not only carbon emissions that are degrading our atmosphere but methane. In fact, climate scientists say that molecule for molecule methane does more damage than carbon dioxide.
And where do methane emissions come from? The answer is that methane is by and large produced by animal farming, an industry which by the way, is growing rapidly by the year. In the Amazons they are constantly clearing thousands of acres for pasturing livestock, destroying the environment in the process.
So a simple way for everyone to reduce the impact of climate change is to reduce their consumption of meat, or go the whole enchilada and eat plant foods only.
There is a wonderful side benefit of eating less meat: you significantly increase your chances of living healthier and longer.
And maybe even be a sexier partner. My experience as a male is that no woman has ever turned me down because I am vegetarian. On the contrary, it helped. (The greatest quarterback in the history of the NFL is a vegan. His name is Tom Brady, married to a gorgeous woman.)
5
@erneih1 Carbon emissions is an umbrella term that includes other greenhouse gases such methane and nitrous oxide. These are converted into C02-e (equivalent) numbers and included in total emissions calculations. The general term carbon really should be stated as C02-e.
2
@Sandi Thanks for the chemistry lesson.
But putting chemistry aside for a moment, it is useful to know that the atmosphere is being damaged not only by cars and jets, but also by the human habit of eating animals. And that was my whole point.
50 years ago, when I was in 8th grade, a teacher asked us what we thought was the biggest problem facing mankind (or humankind if you prefer). A smart girl said "ignorance."
I think that partly explains it. What it doesn't explain is why some people (Republicans) refuse to face reality. For decades scientists have been telling us about climate change. It hadn't yet reached the crisis we are in today - and it was at best a fringe issue in public consciousness.
Today, it seems, Republicans ignore science and facts out of habit and party and tribal loyalty more than anything. They can't be seen accepting reality, because that would contradict decades of party identity.
Humanity sure is in a pickle.
2
Everyone should tear their eyes off of "bleak" for a moment and switch to getting the US to move further along to resume what had been declining emissions until our current President started handing the keys over to the fossil industry.
Let your Representative and your Senators know you support this new bill.
https://mikethompson.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/chairman-thompson-ways-and-means-democrats-unveil-growing-renewable-energy
"The bill will:
- Promote the use of green energy technologies and incentivize the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through new and existing tax benefits,
- Increase energy efficiency and green energy use in both residential and commercial buildings,
- Support the use of zero-emission transportation and supporting infrastructure,
- Invest in a green workforce through energy credits for manufacturers,
- Advance environmental justice through tax credits for research and academic programs, and
- Require the Treasury Department to analyze the feasibility of a price on greenhouse gas emissions, using the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program."
More here.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/house-clean-energy-tax-bill-sees-broad-industry-support-but-senate-path-un/567628/
The US has been making progress, even states like Kansas and Oklohoma now get well over 30% of their electricity from wind. We can continue making progress - as Ms. Sengupta put in the tail end of the article.
3
Number of humans X consumption per human = Earth's total economic activity
You have to reduce one of the variables. However, it's not going to happen willingly in the USA, so it will happen via disasters.
1
We have a president that doesn’t believe in climate change! Beyond voting for a president that does believe in climate change, what are we ordinary people supposed to do that will actually make a difference? It feels so hopeless, we need large scale changes and that is not going to happen with this president. There is nothing we can do right now.
Climate deniers don't care about any reports, even if there was a dire report daily, for 2 reasons-
1) either they know what's going on but they have so much to gain financially that their short term greed wins out over the long term future of humanity (ie., Trump and his cronies)
or
2) They don't believe that climate change is real because they don't believe in science.
we'll never be able to argue/convince #2. The "good" thing is that most of these people are older, white men, and they're going to die within the next 20-30 years.
#1 is harder, because greed is a powerful force.
1
Meanwhile the Cornelius Fudges of our government attack the messengers.
This is why one must never, ever accept politicians for whom facts are negotiable, who conflate reality with reality television. Facts always win in the end.
2
To give you a sense of just how clueless we are, recent reports detail how Alberta is threatening secession from the rest of Canada. Among its major complaints -- the lack of infrastructure to take advantage of one of the Province's major "assets" - petroleum. But not just any petroleum....tar sands...the most polluting form of carbon based energy on the planet. They are just chomping at the bit to get this stuff flowing, but are dealing with a market chock a block full of alternatives from traditional petroleum to natural gas and ALL of it being pumped into the earth's ecosystem with virtually no abatement, even as we face the highest recorded C02 levels in history.
2
Hold my beer while I forget about the 1st week of October in the high 90's in Virginia......ok gone! Wait I still remember planting 2 tomato plants outside in February, and they survived and eventually took over half the garden. Record setting heat year after year, record setting cold spells, record setting rain. Ok maybe another beer will do and some football games, maybe some social media where I can laugh at all the climate alarmists!
1
While almost all climate scientists have been boxing our ears about this since at least 2000, and saying we have to stop polluting with heat-trapping gasses, one study showed that Fox News gave nearly 70% of its airtime on climate change to deniers. Unfortunately, that's where Republicans get their "news".
That's why barely anything's been done, why they won't approve of any climate treaties, and are dragged kicking and screaming toward any sensible regulation of carbon pollution. On behalf of Exxon et al they squealed like stuck pigs when Obama tried to improve car mileage and require coal fired plants to tone it down a bit, and now that a Republican is in office they're busy undoing everything Obama did. When people like Al Gore spoke up about it, or anybody came on Fox News to try to break through their bunker of denial, Republicans laughed at them and shouted them down.
That's why we are where we are today. They are beneath contemptible. They have wrecked our future. On purpose. For all of us.
1
Sorry, but every time a time an”off season” tornado rips thought a midwestern town I think, “Those people voted for Trump and hate the government.” Now they’ll be whining for federal aid, and complaining about how it’s delivered.
4
Meanwhile, Americans believe their opinions on scientific research are as valid as the data itself. And they opt for their continued "revenge" on Obama by allowing this to all happen. Good job America!
3
We need a ban-and-replace regulation on industry.
Ban the production of machinery that runs on fossil fuels, require replacing all of that machinery with renewable energy alternatives.
There are alternatives.
1. Every small vehicle -cars, boats, ferries- could be EV instead of ICE
2. Every large vehicle - big rigs, buses, trains, ships - could be hydrogen fuel cell
3. Every utility could buy solar or wind, geothermal, hydro, existing nuclear, instead of gas or coal
4. Every ex-coal or ex-gas thermal power station could be converted to thermal batteries to store and discharge solar and wind surplus
https://www.solarpaces.org/nrel-awarded-2-8-million-to-develop-a-long-duration-thermal-energy-storage-technology/
This is where the era of Fake News has brought us. We can cite every reputable scientific study possible, listen to climatologists, and see with our own eyes the changes in our world that have fairly recently occurred. But there will always be those who claim it’s all a “leftist hoax” (just to keep the politics of division alive), or scoff when we get a January thaw. As long as some have plausible deniability, thanks to their echo chambers, no headway will be ever made on this urgent issue.
They remind me of a GIF that some of you may be familiar with: A dog sitting calmly at a table, insisting that he’s “fine,” as flames engulf him. It’s funny, but not, because it is this precisely this delusion that is slowly killing the planet.
If we cannot come together on this as a society, a nation, a world community, or as mankind, we’re lost.
4
It is a bizarre experience to behold the smartest animal on the planet kill the planet. Since we humans are part of the universe, we abide by all the same rules like the smallest creature. In my lifetime, I expect to watch millions lose their homes/countries and lives. I expect to watch the coastal communities become like Venice has become. And like the Florida Keys to name a few. I expect to watch business sell us on clean coal and fake public relations. I expect government will continue to spend untold dollars on wars and murder of innocents. I expect to see millions staring down at their screens, amused by the latest cat video. In the end, humans have always been the most flawed of creatures, without humility- always afraid. And that fear of death will will be our undoing.
1
There is simply not enough known climate sensitive illnesses and how these might affect the mass population. This subject is almost totally ignored by the media. It is generally agreed that the proliferation of ticks as a result of milder climate contributes to the spread of Lyme disease. What about equine encephalitis, or Hanta virus? How will the microscopic world change as the planet warms? Long Island is packed with SUV owners who shop at Whole Foods, oblivious to the growing threats from the unseen world. Flooding in Venice is too far away to worry about. Will it take a mass epidemic to make anyone understand?
1
There may be another explanation for the Fermi Paradox, which is sometimes boiled down to "Where are the aliens?" If there are so many planets in the galaxy why hasn't intelligent life made itself known? There have been innumerable scientific reasons put forth, but I am coming to believe that we are the perfect example of unconscious civilization suicide.
As our technology and population explodes our social and political sense has not kept pace. The greed of a very few controls everything on the planet and they have decreed climate change to not be in the best interest of their bank accounts.
There is no reason to believe that those holding on to the levers of power will change their beliefs in any way significant enough to save civilization. The planet will survive. Life will survive as it has through every other extinction event. Civilization, however, will not. We will become simply another example of of a species extinction that was on the cusp of breakthrough.
2
Here in Alaska, climate change is hitting us hard.
Here in Kodiak, it has basically stopped snowing. The entire state is in drought conditions. The salmon are dying from warmer water temps. The rivers are lower than anyone's ever seen them. This summer, Anchorage hit 80 degrees for the first time in history. Fairbanks cancelled their winter ice festival because there's no ice in the ponds for carving. The permafrost is melting. Yesterday I read that the caribou are now dying. The scientists say they 'don't know why.' I'll tell you why...
In the meantime, our Trump-wannabe governor gives away the store to the fossil fuel industry, a big driver of the Alaskan economy.
I hate to say it, but personally, I think it's too late. I'm just glad I'm 62 and never had children. I'm gauging how much longer I have (20 years?) as opposed to how much longer the earth has.
3
We’ve been seeing numerous impacts catching many scientists by surprise with how soon they are occurring. In 2014 two independent teams of scientists reported that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is likely irreversibly retreating. 3.3 meters of sea level rise equivalent of ice there is being destabilized by a warming ocean and energy is going into the net melting of ice all over the planet.
The paleoclimate record indicates that increasing global temperature by just 1.5-2°C above preindustrial temperature commits the system to an eventual 6-9 meters of sea level rise, a large fraction of which could arrive within the next 100 years.
Corals may not survive this century of warming and acidifying oceans, and droughts and floods linked to global warming—and conflict linked to those droughts—have already caused four countries to face famine.
Because of the decades to millennial long lag between a climate forcing and our feeling the full effect, due to the thermal inertia of the ocean and response time of the ice sheets, the effects we are feeling now are largely just the beginning of the result of emissions from the 20th century. And emissions have been increasing steadily for decades.
We are also seeing numerous amplifying feedbacks: loss of albedo (heat reflectivity) from ice melt, permafrost melt, methane release and massive wildfires; the Earth is starting to wrest any possible further human control of the climate away.
We're about out of time on this, if not already.
3
I'm a believer in man mad Climate Change!
However, I am also realistic about the path forward. Just last week, Fiona Hill responded to the balance of power and the importance of US Fracking. This is lot more complicated than getting the Globe to buy in and stick with behaving good for Centuries.
Now is the time to look at proposed mitigation's with a realistic perspective. All of them!
Vote Democratic in 2020!!!
Register to vote if you have not done so yet.
Volunteer to help others to register to vote.
https://www.vote411.org/register
https://www.rockthevote.org/action-center/volunteer/
https://swingleft.org/p/voter-registration-guide
Vote in EVERY election!
Volunteer to help others get to the polls.
If you want urgent and essential action on addressing man made climate change, vote Democratic!!! for every office: President, US Senate, US House, Statewide offices, local offices.
Your future, your children’s future, your grandchildren’s future, humankind’s future depends on it.
The impact from man made climate change is already here. Millions die worldwide from pollution already.
We cannot wait. Vote Democratic!!!
3
Opulence in just about all its forms is the enemy of the environment. Regularly getting a new car - even an electric - drives your emissions through the roof because of the emissions it takes to build a car. We need a war against being fashionably forever new. Cruising? The tons and tons of stuff per passenger being pushed about in the waves is another emissions disaster. Obsessing about flying needs to take a back seat to obsessing about cruising. Huge house? Just think of the extravagant energy to heat it and cool it! Global warming wasn't brought upon us by the poor of the world. But their only legitimate pension is their offspring. Yet population is a huge part of the problem. All the technical obstacles to overcome are utterly trivial compared to the social obstacles.
2
We need to begin thinking about ways we can leave a permanent record of all human accomplishments for those who will come after us. It shouldn't be difficult with miniaturization.
Then seed the moon and Mars with multiple copies.
1
The developing countries populations are exploding at an alarming rate.We are soon to experience tens of billions of new citizens in perpetuation in all of Asia and Africa which climate and war ,food nor water have much of an impact.Nobody will prevent them from using airlines ,nor autos ,they are hungry for electricity and western values.China is building hundreds of new coal fired facilities to serve the new billions and why should they not have what the US and Europe have had for a century ,who ,or what government will deny. The answer is none,the answer is that the global population is going to multiply into the tens of billions and nobody is going to stop it.Forget the ocean pollution and the rain forests that's already a given today ,look towards the future.
2
Can we do a thought experiment and think the impossible?
I know, I know - you're going to glance at the beginning of the experiment, roll your eyes, and go on to whatever.
But it's just a thought experiment. No harm trying.
Imagine this.
Tomorrow morning, every person on the planet (yes, Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani, and add whomever your favorite villain is) wakes up and with a calm, peaceful mind and open, kind, compassionate heart, spontaneously dedicates their life to doing whatever it takes to make a peaceable, sustainable, caring planet.
Eat less meat?
Done.
Choose the healthiest foods in sufficient amounts, sharing whatever is necessary so all human beings have enough to eat (hey, you've saved half a trillion dollars in medical expenses alone just doing this!)
Share whatever it takes so all have sufficient food, clothing and shelter.
Live simply enough, in combination with global sharing and networking, that a profound previously unthinkable reduction in use of any kind of fuels - renewable or not - is the result.
******
If you think this through sufficiently, you're hit with the fact that there's an elephant in the room. Why do we never talk about changing our inner state (which after all is the foundation of all this behavior change described above)?
Because we KNOW it is impossible on a global scale.
Well, what if we're wrong?
And, what if the only way we will survive is to ALWAYS consider inner along with outer global change?
5
@Don Salmon
Just to make it extra clear that I'm talking about both, I perhaps should have written:
"ALWAYS consider inner ALONG with outer global change."
And not that it's going to happen overnight, or in a year, or even in 10 years.
Just that, it may be the only way we will survive.
1
What other creature destroys the only home they have and know?
It is intriguing how modern humans are so intent on making money and how profits make the world go round.
Money isn't going to make this a better world. Only people can make our home habitable.
Humans are such amazing creatures with such great potential to do good. About the only thing we do get right is we keep breeding.
2
“What other creature destroys the only home they have and know?”
Well, mindless bacteria for one. And us.
2
This U.N report is massive and detailed yet I see numerous replies asserting it's absolute accuracy without a hint of skepticism. As if climate change is a religious belief.
Let me burst some bubbles. Unless you have a PhD in one of the hard sciences, you most likely are not capable of thoroughly understanding this document. Have some humility and less blind faith.
4
@Gordon
These reports have tended to be either accurate or conservative rather than alarmist.
@Gordon I don't understand Einstein's theory of general relativity nor big bang theory either. Should that stop me from believing what scientists say?
1
@Gordon
Don't patronize. Anything can be explained to the layperson who actually wants to be educated. Even the most complex ideas can be stated in plain language. I have no difficulty in following along.
2
Funny how none of the ‘progressives’ herein are mentioning the only essentially zero carbon source out there: nuclear.
Probably because they’ve done everything in their power to kill it.
4
@EGD
Personally, I can't see how we'll manage without it. And I'm about as progressive as they come. But we need better safeguards on nuclear plants, from both within and without.
1
Meanwhile the Indispensable Nation finds itself under the horrendous 'leadership' of the worst president ever who yammers on like it was 1955.
Talk about bad timing. Catastrophic timing.
6
No solutions concerning climate change will be implemented in the U.S. until Mar-a-lago is 10 feet underwater. Or, until we elect a Democratic president and senate with spine enough to stand up to the Kochs, the oil industry and their frontmen in the Con party. Until then, it's all "fake" science, "fake" droughts, "fake" super storms, "fake" floods, "fake" fires.
4
This will be the end.
2
Only when billions die from the multiple predicted consequences of Man made Global Warming, will the survivors riot world wide demanding the politicians “just fix it”.
But , of course , the supreme irony will be that only a thousand years without carbon fuels can then slowly reverse the catastrophe. How will Homo Sapiens then judge the risks of nuclear power against the certainty of the great extinction of planet earth?
To put it bluntly, Bolsonaro, Savini, Trump, Xi Jin, Modi, and so many other extreme-right wing dictators (Xi Jin is difficult to place on the reign-left spectrum, but he is otherwise a dictator), are already climate criminals, and clearly want to deepen their crimes.
But almost all other political leaders are guilty, too.
1
The Paris Accord has been an unmitigated disaster. These so called "Climate Summits are a monumental waste of time !
3
"The world’s 20 richest countries, responsible for more than three-fourths of emissions, must take the biggest, swiftest steps to move away from fossil fuels"
Good luck with that. This country "elected" a psychologically damaged gangster who stuck a hose from the tailpipe under the garage door and hit the gas. He promised he would - no mystery here.
The "animal with the brain" will soon go the way of the Dodo, and Mother Earth will breathe a sigh of relief.
2
My earlier comments didn’t make sense as i was in a hurry and missed the auto correct. I meant the majority of American BELIEVE in climate change.
1
As someone who has worked for the UN, I can assure you they are a bunch of pompous incompetents who are DESPERATE to invent more programs and projects to justify their existence.
2
To Mr Trump, there is no climate change, only weather.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
Trump golfs while Earth burns.
2
This makes me feel so pessimistic and down, the people in power don't even care and don't even think its true, and then proliferate a narrative to their followers about this and meanwhile nothing is getting done. I want to have hope and believe but all I can do is dismay that this may be the best there is and the worst is yet to come. No one cares and just keeps up business as usual. I care but who else is with me? How can I be optimistic in the face of such ignorance and stupidity? We must act now and do something and stop electing fools who discredit science and facts.
2
The data is terrifying. But we can’t just wait for disaster or build sea walls - our defenses won’t be nearly enough to stand up to the mega storms. Have some hope and continue to make change - here is your list of Top 100 ways to do it:
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/drawdown-100-solutions-reverse-global-warming/
1
Remember the President of the United States says with a straight face and I quote "Climate change is a Chinese hoax".
This man is extremely dangerous and Americans are not safe while he occupies the Oval Office.
3
When will we finally admit that we are going to have to resort to geo-engineering? I can't see us going "gentle into that goodnight." There is nary a word about this topic, and my question is "Why is discussing this is off the table?" We know volcanic eruptions will lower temperatures in the short term, so why aren't we studying and testing ways to replicate this effect?
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,
...the powerful evidence presented during the House impeachment hearings,
...and the anticipated sham trial of Trump in the U.S. Senate,
...at what point does the NYT take the lead and call for Trump’s resignation (without the benefit of a Pence pardon – for Trump or himself)?
Thank you.
2
Did anyone ever think of curtailing the human population??? Maybe to many mouths to feed , water and provide health care for is just to much for this place....
3