100 billion, no problem. We spend over 7 times that on “defense.” Actually, over 10 times that amount if you count everything military-related.
Whew! I was afraid the Climate Catastrophe might wind up being awfully expensive. Now I’m feeling so relieved. Order me a steak sandwich, to celebrate!
It’s a great plan, and if they had the courage to add funding for free, safe, easy access to abortions, contraceptives, birth control and education about anti-natalism, they’d have a perfect plan.
Unfortunately, humans won’t go along with the UN plan. Most humans just don’t care much if at all about the biosphere or innocent animals. That’s why less than 1% of all people are vegans.
The only way you can sell environmentalism to most people is to tell them that as they destroy the entire web of life, they create a terrible world for humans, especially their children.
But so far, even that pitch doesn’t seem to work.
This is nonsense. The solution is to dramatically increase the deployment of renewable energy–solar and wind. However, unless we dramatically decrease the military to what we need for defense and not continue to be a military empire, you can kiss the planet goodbye. It’s not just animals and insects that will be killed, but humans will be too. How will they die? Because the temperatures will go up to 150 degrees. It’s unlikely that we will get the politically will to do what is necessary. It make me sad to realized that my young grandchildren will not live to be old adults. It’s called extinction. Look at what’s happening in Australia now.
Unfortunately under President Du-fuss the only thing we will ever get is a Drilling Crew and an Anti Environmental Secretary of the Interior Department and a former CEO for a Fossil Fuel Company to head the EPA.
We have as much chance of getting an new National Park under Wrecking Ball Trump as we have for getting the Sun to rise in the West.
The only person that will come close to fulfilling the Road Map For Saving Earth, is:
BERNIE SANDERS - 2020
“The presence of wildlife brings joy and enriches us all—and each extinction makes our home a lonelier and colder place for us and future generations,” the report states.
Every species–wild, domestic, captive–has an INHERENT RIGHT TO EXIST regardless of how we benefit. What a total lack of humility for the human spirit! It’s ALWAYS about ourselves! In that regard, we are just like Donald J. Trump–“the chosen one.” We are nothing more than divine legends in our own minds.
Another inconvenient truth about ourselves: HUMAN OVERPOPULATION wipes out species after species.
Why is it always a question of OUR children and grandchildren? From John Aspinall’s “The Best of Friends” (1976):
From our earliest childhood we are bombarded with the rights of man—the bill of rights—the declaration of rights—civil rights—ethnic rights—women’s rights—pupils’ rights. Who has ever heard mention of the rights of beasts? Or the rights of birds and plants? Have they no rights also? If not, let us incorporate them into a new constitution, into a new religion. After all as the poet, De Vigny, says, animals are the ‘rightful tenants of these woods and hills’. Have we no place for them—none to offer? Are we such strangers to justice that we cannot bring ourselves to give back to them a tithe of what was once their own? Are we such foreigners to pity that we cannot even mourn for them or drink from ‘pity’s long-unbroken urn’? The call goes forth from nature’s advocates ‘save them for our children’s heritage’, ‘save them for one day their gene pools may prove useful to us’, ‘save them to enrich our cultural options’. I find these exhortations reek of hubris. What about their own heritage, their own gene pools proving useful to themselves? What about their own cultural or behavioural options? To have survived every geological catastrophe, every climatic change, every biological invasion, every genetic shift, every seismic upheaval since life emerged from the Cambrian slimes. To have accomplished all this, and even to have outlived what Professor Kurten, in The Age of Mammals, calls man’s ‘peripatetic pyromania’, surely entitles them to be granted a stay of execution?
It will be extremely expensive if we fail to act. It will be quite expensive even to act (more than $100B), but not nearly as much as it will if we don’t act.
Probably more chance to get the sun to rise in the west.
And it will all unfold far faster than people think. Human Extinction most likely coming by mid-century.
Let us hope 2many that the innocent creatures you talk about will eventually inherit the earth. (After the abominations humans have inflicted upon it have dispersed and been nuetralized.)
Well that was a perverse laugh from me. Hmmm a steak sandwich. Hmmm someone might slip a piece of puffer fish in and then----oh my. : )
Yes! Is there any human alive who has not had an animal friend? And in having that animal friend, or friends-----who among us did not find that the beauty in that animal’s trust of us,—who did not feel that these friendships make us more human?
Nice effort. As always, they omit any mention of Step One:
- Dis-empower the looting class; dismantle their machinery (abolish the limited-liability, investor-owned corporation; amend the constitution to revoke “personhood” from corporations and “rights” from money; make elections publicly financed, and make media including social media publicly owned; etc.); and distribute “their” looted wealth equitably among humanity, with a dual emphasis on reparations for genocide, enslavement and colonization, and instituting a fair stake for everyone in “the economy.”
If we do not swiftly transform power in our political economy, and reform wealth and “ownership,” then all our efforts to reform the outcomes – even such obviously horrific outcomes as ecological breakdown and civilizational collapse – will be stymied by the empowered narcissistic human ego embodied in the looting class.
Actually if we don’t act it will not cost anyone a dime. When you are dead you don’t pay for your mistakes. Capiche?
Natural habitats will have glaring limits on a violently changed planet. We need climate zoos for vast numbers of species that aren’t going to survive in the wild.
Many trees can’t migrate north fast enough to stay ahead of drought and heat. I’ve seen a picture of a few acres of forest turned into vertical light grey sticks by an insect infestation in Colorado. When the general forest starts dying, the whole area is a megafire trap. Is that going to help endangered species?
If we want essentially outdoor zoos then we will try to artificially manage the local heat and humidity. Trees control heat and humidity if they survive. In arid areas, planted tree saplings sometimes get extra care so that they get more water.
there is no saving the planet as long as we have donnie and his emotionally led cultists defining the rules. how do we get the majority of our citizens involved in a reasoning, thoughtful gov’t? all things positive have to come together now to bring about the planet we all know we want.,
I had to wonder how anyone presumed to place a dollar price on such an activity, and what conception of the activity might allow for a dollar price. I am still wondering, though part of that is just the level of abstraction here: calling something a national park does not offer a lot of clues as to how the land is to be treated. It would be good to see most or all of these bullet points unpacked in one or another way.
Meanwhile, though, acknowledging that the missing explanations might offer something of interest, there is an enormous omission here. The roadmap as rendered here fails almost entirely to confront the issue of how the money and associated efforts are to integrate human activity with all this.
It is tempting to conclude that this oversight relates to some philosophical difficulty that may lie at the core of the proposition. Because of the great damage done by humans to ecological systems, one might imagine that humans should stop humans from interacting with such systems–an idea associated with “national parks,” for instance.
This fails, not in every instance, but as an overall strategy. The trouble is that once the humans who are to police these other humans fall upon needy or greedy circumstances, ecological considerations will reliably vanish. it is still necessary, overwhelmingly necessary, to develop and ecologically regenerative system that provides for human need. That failing, humans will quickly and thoroughly trash whatever accord they perceive as standing in their individual or collective way.
So the question is not really answered here. The Fed could produce 100 billion US for this in a snap, though I am not holding my breath either. Congress could withhold the money from the next Pentagon budget, though I think that we are better off working out what we are going to do without that money than how we might bide our time while waiting for it.
No, it is not mostly the money that we lack, but a fuller appreciation of the task. The cost will not be a quantity of money, but the costs of going forward to build a new system while the old is standing and defending itself–and the costs of the time that we inevitably continue with the old system in place.
One decision would wipe out all the questions about money –
wiping out war and the role our MIC plays in creating it – often on purpose
as we’ve just seen with Trump where discussions on impeachment dropped
to something like 1/4 of what they had previously been.
My opinion is that very soon humanity is going to begin to understand that the
answer to Global Warming should have been heard 60 years ago in age of JFK –
And that what we can still do has to happen immediately –
STOP animal/dairy eating –
STOP wars – end MIC –
STOP burning fossil fuels – nationalize our natural resources –
STOP oppression of women all over the world – end Elite/Patriarchy –
STOP “White male supremacist” culture wherever it exists –