To much fanfare, global leaders have agreed to tackle the climate crisis by ratifying the Paris climate agreement, but a group of esteemed scientists is warning that current pledges to reduce emissions are far from sufficient and, in fact, put the world on track to reaching the dangerous 2°C climate threshold by 2050.
Bill McKibben is all over this topic with a new book explaining how we are in the middle of fighting the Third World War against the fossil fuel industry and its apologists and supporters.
What we need, I would argue is a real war on terrorism; climate terrorism..that is! Major climate devastators, like Exxon Mobile, and many,many other corporate entities that are eviscerating our beautiful planet for their personal greed and profit need to be put on a climate, terror watch list and we the 99%, need to declare war on this, real enemy who by 2050 could very well make this planet uninhabitable for most of us.
There have been so many of these type of reports I dobut if anyone can expect people to react to this one. We know pretty much what must be done to stay below 2C and we have some sense of what is politically possible and there is a very large gap. Based on the current political election it is clear that there is no overwhelming majority of people in the US who want action. The candidate who says climate change is a hoax is running close to the candidate who has a plan to fight climate change. That is the political reality. In that context, there can be no WWII type effort so it is basically useless to keep talking about it. It is not going to happen. Whatever plans are made they have to based on the political reality. Some scientists several years ago said forget 2C, the real question is can we avoid going beyond 4C. And in fact a number of years ago Robert Watson himself said 2C is virtually out the window. Not going beyond 4C is critical because scientists are not sure adaption on a wide scale is possible beyond 4C. Not being able to stay below 2C is not a reason to give up. It would only add to the urgency of the situation.
I give up. What in the world does Zionism have to do about this topic? It sounds like some kind of antisemitic rant. The topic is climate change. You should be talking about installing solar panels and wind turbines and increasing the energy efficiency of buildings and cars so we can get off fossil fuels.
"In that context, there can be no WWII type effort so it is basically useless to keep talking about it. It is not going to happen."
You said that right?
So I gave up and talked about something else hoping to please you.
Instead you called my words an "anti-Semitic rant."
That wasn't very nice.
Unfortunately, not until some climate devastation that takes millions if not billions of lives, but of course, by then it could be too late.
Russia, Putin, nukes...., oh my!!! They're easier on the pallet of the 'Murican consumers than dealing with climate change is, because dealing with Russia, Putin, and nukes doesn't require any action whatsoever from the common every day layperson, other than allowing oneself to get worked up in a fervor of blind patriotic nationalism. Leave them to the politicians to handle!!
Mitigating climate change, on the other hand, absolutely requires that people get off their asses and take action by making radical lifestyle changes; something that will never happen in a society that has grown far too accustomed to the gratuitous comfort of bread and circuses.
Ever heard of "wet bulb temperature"?
I guess humanity can adapt by going Morlock and live underground...
The sad truth is that we blew past the real CO2 / carbon upper limit back in the late 19th century when we passed 280 ppm. Since then the Ocean has already risen 2 feet and the rate of rise is now rapidly accelerating. Turns out the remaining glaciers on the planet are far more sensitive to temp. rises then anyone predicted. The average amount of CO2 in the atmosphere for the last 2 mil. or so yrs. was between 190 ppm ( in the middle of an Ice age) and 280 ppm in the middle of an interglacial warm period.) The last time it was as high as 400 ppm was I believe over 4 mil. yrs. ago before the present cycle of glaciations. Sea level back then was much higher than it is today. Chances of us stopping a radical warming event now are IMO zero to none. At a min. were going to lose much of our coastal infrastructure over the next 100 yrs. or less.
No kidding - and who is he backing to implement solutions? Is he going to be content to "pressure" a Dem as he was before?
In another article on Climate change and polluters I pointed out that the US Military was one of the largest polluters in the world.
It in fact the single largest and in the USA as example dumps more toxins into the environment than the largest 5 chemical companies combined.
What is interesting is that in all discussions regarding Climate change and the measuring if ghg emitters, the Miltaries of the world have been exempted.
If there to be a war on climate change we will have to start with a war on war itself and the war machine.
"We know pretty much what must be done to stay below 2C and we have some sense of what is politically possible and there is a very large gap."
A very large gap - no kidding - and neither Trump nor Clinton will close that gap ...
We decide what is "politically possible" - the only candidate treating this as the emergency it is is Stein ...
We had here in Canada an election.
Like Donald Trump we had a leader of a political party, one Stephen Harper, who did not really believe in Climate Change and as human activity as being a factor.
We had in the way of one Justin Trudeau acknowledging it as real and claiming that a vote for Harper would see nothing done to protect the Environment.
Harper lost. Trudeau won.
Nothing has changed and Trudeau promotes yet more fossil fuel expansion.
The same will happen in the USA under Clinton.
We are going to need both - we will need to adapt to the changes already in the "pipeline", but we need to do the most we can to stop this freight train ..., the longer we wait and the less we do, the more "adaptation" we will have to effect, including to the millions of climate refugees, even in our own country. And you seem to forget that we are not the only ones affected - thousands of other species, not having enough time to "adapt" will disappear ...
Not a viable option, since human food relies upon sources and resources that cannot survive global warming, pollutants, and diminishing potable water, sufficiently to feed a 9 billion population. The hotter it gets the less food will be available.
True, if it gets much hotter and it's going to faster than most people would believe, the present grain growing areas will become wastelands or dustbowls without enough water to grow anything. That's when people will start to understand climate change. Food will become the issue along with water. Famine on a scale nobody has seen in a very long time will return with a vengeance.