The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the climate arm of the United Nations, said on Monday that climate change is occurring at an "alarming rate" and that world leaders must act to curb greenhouse gases now, "before we pass the point of no return."
The time to act was yesterday but acting now is as good as we can do. Based on the dire warnings from the natural world the response should be all hands on deck but I don't think we will see too many Republican hands responding to the crisis. Every major polluting country needs to put a crisis plan into effect but I don't expect that either. After almost three decades of trying to deal with this crisis there has been far too little progress made.
The charade goes on - claims of 'action" by politicians that amount to wishful thinking and little or zero mandated change. Top US and world politicians perpetrate fraud to maintain business as usual......hey, gotta keep that economic "growth" going......
"To understand who (Max) was, you have to go back to another time when the world was powered by the black fuel and the deserts sprouted great cities of pipe and steel. Gone now, swept away. For reasons long forgotten, two mighty warrior tribes went to war and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all."
"... the "startlingly high" temperatures seen so far in 2016 "have sent shockwaves around the climate science community." Strong language regarding climate has become alarmingly common, as the Guardian points out in a separate piece published Monday, in which reporter Dana Nuccitelli rounds up some of the recent words scientists have used to describe temperature in 2016, including "stunning," "wow," "shocker," "bombshell," "astronomical," "insane," and "unprecedented." "We're capable of solving the climate problem, but with temperatures already approaching dangerous thresholds, the time to act is now" "
Somehow, myself, years ago, looking at "the greenhouse effect" and human effect on the atmosphere, figured out that the time to stop unleashing fossil fuels was here. That was in like 1971 for me.
The rate at which top scientists express shock at the accelerating rate of climate change... is accelerating.
Unless we get it into the average citizens' thick heads that something on a mass movement (such as seems to be mobilizing against Donald Trump) is done.....it will only get worse.
We have got to scare people into realizing this will affect their pocket books....cynical as it sounds, that it all that I think will work....
that jobs will be lost, etc., homes, etc.
Again, all I hear my co-workers talk about is how beautiful the weather is....and God forbid, if its
50 degrees or below, it's "too cold"...this is in New York City. They were all thinking how fabulous it was to have over 70 degrees a few days ago and hoped it would keep up! (about 25 - 30 degrees higher than it should be)....even the weatherpeople, who should know better, say how glorious it is!!!
people all complain about getting sick and say it's the "crazy weather"...but do they bother to put two and two
together? No, no they don't...either that or they simply don't care.
webwalk: start praying....
The way to get people to take is action is to convince them that by doing so they will save money. And they actually will save money if they invest wisely in solar panels for their roofs and various things to reduce their electricity and heating bills. I think scaring people will largely result in adaptation measures not mitigation. If you want mitigation the answer is saving money.
i think this is a form of social insanity that is contributing to killing everything:
If we talk about material reality... we are "scaring people!" As if we had some grim motive...
Yet another article stuck in the failed mindset that humans will awaken and altruistically save the planet, when in the past 35 years of warnings have resulted in nothing but near universal and shared guilt.
Reduce emissions? Although I can plainly see that if CO2 is too high, and man put it there, the logic of the thinking that we should put less in. But the devil is in the details. If the world population was just 1 billion, would not emissions be lowered? In every continent but Africa populations are declining. It is well known that affluence depresses birth rates, and the poorest of the poor have never had it better. Will diminishing the use of CO2 producing fuels aid those in poverty today? Could we use that same fuel to assist developing nations bring greater affluence, and lower birth rates below replacement numbers?
Further, global warming is going to happen, even if we elect to go back to the stone age. It is already too late. No amount of reduction of carbon fuels will offset the use of those fuels over the last 150 years.
We, humanity, should try to save as many as possible, and the rich will always be able to cope better than the poor. So environmentalists should be working not to reduce emissions but use those emissions to bring the poor, the ones who drive global population rises, into the middle class. Those who will now have discretionary income can elect to buy solar panels, build micro dams or wind turbines. Richer farmers can manage water better, terrace land, try new crops, or simply move.
Reducing carbon ideology has failed. It is time for a new suggestion; bring justice to Africa; Open trade world wide, even though it harms our workers, but it raises incomes everyplace else (see China); Fight corruption as it undermines financial security and investment hinges on security; Use foreign aid to strengthen justice systems world wide. Use our (USA) influence on the banking system to expose corruption world wide.
Hey kids! You can't entrust your future with anyone over the age of 25. It's you and your children who are going to pay the full bill for the stupid and insane people who are currently in charge of the world. In practical terms, that means you're probably not going to live to a ripe old age, and today's babies are utterly doomed to middle age, at best. I'm sorry. That's the simple facts of life. Forget the traditional American dream--- it was always planned that you youngsters would be stuck dealing with our pollution (don't even ask about the nuclear waste-- it's your problem, not ours... )
Lately, I'm fresh out of ideas. I'm sorry (again) for failing you kids. I think we all secretly knew that educating the public and protesting the man would only get us so far. I, for one, badly underestimated the power of the media to control information in the digital age. I also figured logic, reason, and a shared grim fate would galvanize people to save the world, and their children from climate change. Boy, was I wrong.
Clearly, the political establishment is rigged in such a way that nothing substantial will happen through the legitimate legislative processes our forefathers provided us. Yes, we will continue to exhaust those legal channels, but it's time for young people to be very, very, very realistic about their own futures. Save yourselves while you still can. Nobody else will lift a finger. We're probably out of time to save the planet, but we're still obliged to try. If we're going to act, right now is all the time we've got left.
Those in charge are simply trying to run out the clock. With 22 trillion in buried assets waiting to be dug up, the fossil fuel industry isn't going to just roll over and walk away. They will fight every single step of the way, and they won't fight fair, or stick to legal, moral, or ethical standards. A stall is a win for these people, and the payoff is huge. They've got time, money, lawyers, politicians, judges, regulators, super pacs, media empires... Everything money can buy, including the power to rule the globe (no matter who gets elected, or where...)
Their big plan isn't a mystery. It's to just keep running the machines until we all die from their greed. It's really that simple. There's no great conspiracy, or a secretive Mr. X maniacally pulling the world's strings to satisfy some deeper agenda. No, it's just a cabal of mostly elderly, greedy assholes killing us all, and the planet, for nothing more than their own short term gains of money and power. They will attempt to stop every single reform to the system until long after they're dead. That's their whole stupid plan. It's insane, I know. It's called gold fever-- a distinctly dehumanizing mental illness.
Sadly, you can't reason with a person who has gold fever. Logic won't work against greed. They'll never be satisfied with what they've got. If you want them to stop digging, you simply have to club them over the head and drag them out of the hole. Thus, I urge you to think globally, and act locally. With a cudgel, as you deem it necessary to save yourselves and your children. Best of luck with your resistance. Personally speaking, I don't think you, or the planet, stand a chance.
I've pretty much given up on sounding the alarm to those around me. I'm labeled "Dr. Doom" at work as I've been warning those that this prolonged record warming is not "glorious weather" (as blueseahorse1 was referring to) but is a very ominous portending of our new normal and is a great risk of Human survival as a species. We keep reading about "By the year 2100" in article after article. Collapse will come much sooner. Humans have a hard time understanding nonlinearity. We're seeing an exponential rise and destabilization of climate systems and an ensuing nonlinear collapse of our ecosystems and habitat. I fear the next decade will be one of a global "Ah ha" moment and mass panic as to what we've done. So, I remain silent and lament for all living things.
Common Dreams is on the case, and have published Hanson's new report....thanks SeaDog!
I suspect our best chance of slowing climate change at all is to tax energy regardless of carbon footprint to BUY at generous prices fossil fuel as mineral rights. Whatever revenue energy tax raises--use it to BUY fossil fuel as mineral rights. Since we should want to tie up as much carbon for the money as we can (mostly coal) and fossil fuel giants want to continue selling for use what commands the most money for the effort and expense they put into extracting it (mostly petroleum), at least both sides will not be trying to corner the market on exactly the same product.