Home | About | Donate

Silence on Climate Change Is Another Form of Denial


Silence on Climate Change Is Another Form of Denial

Amy Goodman, Denis Moynihan

President Barack Obama made a brief statement in the Rose Garden on Wednesday, announcing that the global accord to combat climate change, the Paris Agreement, had achieved enough signatories to enter into force. “This gives us the best possible shot to save the one planet we’ve got,” Obama said. At that moment, about 1,200 miles due south, Hurricane Matthew, as reported by Weather Underground, was “reorganizing” and “restrengthening” over the Bahamas, after pounding Haiti and Cuba.


Thank you Amy for continuing to focus on issues that really matter, unlike the Kabuki Theater electoral process that is upon us. Your virtual presidential debate that included Jill Stein was a good example...

Climate change is THE big issue that is not being discussed in the current electoral process. There is a good reason for that. The Powers That Be have decided that it is not for common folk, the 99%, to decide. They know it's probably a done deal and are building their multi-million dollar bunkers in the vain hope that they can ride it out. They are wrong, but their hubris and lack of empathy for the billions on this planet for whom life will become a living hell keeps them from even discussing the issue. It is up to us to rise up and challenge them in any way possible. Don't go along with the insane wars, don't pay taxes when most of them go to support the MIC. Get with your "tribe" to act locally as we no longer have a voice for us at the national level.


I like your message... I think the same way... "get with your tribe, locally"...This can be tough call... now. However, as the time of even bigger catastrophe nears... more people may come to realize the predicament we are in. So, know your neighbors. Talk to them, about just anything. When the time comes... you will at least not be a stranger. Even the most right wing, climate denying blow hard could possibly, get a brain, soon. When it comes to protecting their families, they may be able to see you as on the same page as they are.


Talking about getting with your tribe, I even went so far as to join a Lutheran Church that is deep into community gardening and food banks for the homeless. I didn't tell them I was an agnostic from way back but maybe that doesn't make any difference now when it comes to doing what you're supposed to do.


Yes, a Trump/Pence White House would be a disaster for the Climate. So would a Clinton/Kane White House.

Time to vote Green if we want a world for our children (never mind the grand kids!) to live on.


It is not as simple as turning out solar panels and wind turbines. There are many issues involved such as who would pay for them, where would they be sited, and where would transmission lines be built to carry the electricity to where it is needed. And that only deals with electricity. What about heating? And what about transportation. Cars, trucks, planes, and ships for the most part need liquid fuel. And what about the agricultural sector. There are emissions from animals and fertilizers. Also, some industrial processes produce emissions. The WWII effort is a poor analogy. Addressing climate change is a much more complex problem than one country supplying its military with more tanks and ships. A global cooperative effort is needed among countries in different stages of development. Moreover, and perhaps most important, the political will is still lacking among large segments of populations throughout the world.


I agree with your concerns about the Paris agreement but if the developing countries are going to be involved this looks like the best way to go. They would never sign on to an agreement that required legally binding emissions reductions. I think Obama has done a great job in bringing the developing countries, which are now responsible for most of the emissions, into the process. The transparency aspect of the process is critical and it is legally binding. What I think is still needed is a stronger commitment of the developed countries to help the developing countries financially and stronger pledges to reduce emissions.


I plan to vote for Hillary Clinton who is committed to fighting climate change. But if you look at the Trump supporters in the US, Brexit supporters in the UK, most of the population of India, etc, what you see is a lack of political will or actually worse, people don't even care about the problem.


i could not believe the blatant political slant on yesterday's democracy now! broadcast! first we heard trump's statement of denial followed by wonder woman, hillary clinton's, promise to save the day, "Take clean energy. Some country is going to be the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it’s real. And I think it’s important——that we grip this and deal with it, both at home and abroad." yes indeed, folks, just vote for clinton, smile, hold your purple finger high then relax and know that hillary will "deal with it!"

how?, you say. well, that's really not our problem, is it? ours is not to question how; ours is but to follow our leaders. trust them! have they ever failed us? from guest, michael mann, we learn that the wrath of Nature is only the tip of the melting iceberg for u.s. security. climate change, you see, creates climate refugees who might storm our land seeking safe harbor, thus threatening our national security. just a bit from his comments here:

you’ve got a growing global population competing for less food, less water and less land as a result of climate change. And that is—to use the term again, it’s a perfect storm of consequences for instability, for conflict. And it is for reasons like that, and the fact that many of the poorest nations, like Haiti, are feeling the worst impacts—they have the least adaptive capacity, the least resilience to deal with impacts like this—this is going to create—you know, climate change impacts are going to create mass migration from regions which are no longer livable. That means, once again, more people in the remaining areas competing for resources.

It’s a national security and conflict nightmare. And our armed forces, our national security community here in the U.S. has recognized climate change as the greatest threat we face in the years ahead. So while politicians like Donald Trump are denying it even exists, our defense community, our national security leaders recognize that this is actually the greatest threat that we face in the decades ahead, from a national security standpoint, because it means more conflict, and conflict leads to global chaos and instability.

gee, no longer even the thin veneer pretense of even the slightest humanitarian concern.


when it comes to honoring treaties, we can count on the u.s. to break them. just ask tantanka-iyotanka, (bull that sits).


The second to last sentence should read: "Weather modification/manipulation (aka geoengineering) is real (and unacknowledged), and it is worsening."

Without inclusion of this fact, these 'reports' and discussions about "climate change" are completely moot. It is unfortunate that journalists such as Amy Goodman who pretend to stand for truth and democracy won't touch issues such as this or any real investigation on 9/11 for that matter. So this I say to Goodman and her ilk: "Silence on Climate Engineering is Another Form of Denial." It is also a crime; concealing the issue by politicizing and diverting attention away from root causes of the problem is criminal and journalists should be held as accountable as the groups who are conducting the highly toxic aerosol operations in the sky. Destroying the earth's natural hydrological cycles (to wit: the completely man-made California drought, or the take the fact of our desiccated atmosphere where relative humidity is so low that there is rarely any dew fall in the evenings) is a crime, pure and simple. It is being done for profit (weather derivatives, etc.) and military purposes at the expense of all natural life on earth. I am sorry, but quoting Bill McKibben from 350.org is not good journalism. "..Under attack from climate change..."??? What a completely infantile assessment; McKibben is a sell-out and he tows the line for big money. The truth is out there if you want it; but it's not pretty. Many will choose to continue to listen to Goodman speak out of one side of her mouth and take that as gospel, for others, I suggest you keep digging a little deeper. You can start here: Geoengineeringwatch.org


We are in Game Of Thrones: everybody is fighting for power, money, success (and to loose weigh and be fit on bathroom-selfies of course) while, in the north, the real danger is waiting to eradicate the humankind...


About 30 years after people in this country first really became aware of the threat of global warming who would have thought the one of the two major party candidates for president would be claiming it is all a hoax and this view would be pretty consistent with his party's view? I doubt if anyone would have predicted this would be the case. But it is. So rather than two candidate giving their views on how to address the problem and having the country think about which candidate has the better plan there is no such discussion. Hillary Clinton has presented her plan while Donald Trump keeps blaming the Chinese for the hoax. It is surreal. So this is where we are as the average global temperature passes the critical threshold of 1C and the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere passes 400 ppm apparently for the rest of this century and perhaps many centuries to come. This is a horrible situation to be in, Yes, the moderators are not dong their jobs by avoiding all question about this existential threat to the United States. The moderators continue to fail miserably. Hopefully someone in the audience at the town hall debate can do far better by asking a question about climate change.


But HRC may have a plan to stop global warming. We should give her credit. If she and her cronies bring about World War III, depopulation and nuclear winter could help out those remaining on the planet. Think positively!


Exactly. This is what we did in Colorado with Amendment #64 (yes, that's where the Kali initiative got it's number). We changed our state by repealing cannabis prohibition. And how many other states are following us with either med. or rec?

Only 24 states have voter initiative/referendum. We need this passed at the national level.


Like they say, "If you want to live the American Dream, move to Denmark."


It's perfectly clear who has to pay for them--the people and organizations with the money. And since the richest 7% of people emit half of human greenhouse gases and the richest 20% emit 80% of them, we can't stop global warming without radically equalizing both politically and economically. A carbon tax and dividend along with other ultra-progressive taxes etc. funding industrial transformation are just the start. (Industrial transformation = efficiency, wiser lives, clean safe resilient renewable energy, reforestation, low-meat organic permaculture and ecological production of all kinds.)

For the love of God, Montresor!
The WWII analogy is actually an excellent one, since it involved first, better planning etc. to improve on the inefficient, harmful mobilization from WWI, second, coordinating all aspects of society in the US plus helping allies, without whom we couldn't have won. The developing world has concerns about being bricked up behind a wall of starvation-level energy access with differential responsibility for the problem being ignored. I don't know why they'd think that, unless it's because the rich world has utterly refused to admit or address the cause of world poverty in the colonial, neo-colonial and corporate-military past and present. To fix that we need to make sure we provide whatever the poor world needs to bring everyone up--or down--to a sustainable and fulfilling life.

We have to make further improvements in the climate mobilization over WWII's, to avoid creating yet another industrial complex like those that arose from the original, the MIC. They now form a nearly intellectually impenetrable system of interlinked complexes that we need to dismantle to survive the larger eco-psychological crisis. But the first order of business is yes, to simply build enough wind turbines, solar panels, solar thermal plants, efficiency, etc. to replace all fossil fuel use.

Electrifying vehicle use is already going on, obviously, and heating can and will be electrified, too, along with (dispatchable) passive and active solar air and water heating, ACES, etc. High speed rail, reduction of wasteful travel as we equalize... Sail-assist electric shipping will be hard for some people to get used to; it will simply have to be somewhat slower and a lot less. With all due respect for the hardship of change and loss of privilege, people will have to get over themselves.

Our problem is not that climate change is more complex, though it is, because people remain unspeakably unconscious about the motives and psycho-poli-ecological systems of motivation for war, and if we expect to survive this crisis we need to become way more conscious about our relations to everyone and everything. Our problem is the search for the moral equivalent of war--the perpetual question of how to motivate people to do anything with the same fervor with which they happily and enthusiastically murder each other en masse. We gonna need therapists, every one.


Some years back, I was invited to address an environmental justice committee of the local Presbyterian Church. I was encouraged by their interest, and because my wife was missing the fellowship, and both liked the pastor and the members we had met, we "joined" them for a time.. As an ex-(recovered) Catholic, it was somewhat odd for me, and in our early meeting with the pastor we both acknowledged that we were somewhat agnostic. He immediately put us at ease, telling us that we were not at all alone in that regard. At any rate, we were surprised & pleased that many of the congregation were receptive & interested in environmental issues.


I haven't heard anything at all resembling a "plan". Such would require an outline of detailed steps - with measurable goals, etc. Instead, I hear only the same high-level concepts...platitudes about investing in renewables. And as always, defense of gas (fracking) as a "bridge fuel". No discussion of how we would meet the 2degree max limit, much less 1.5C; no acknowledgement that scientists make clear that if we extract & burn all that gas (along with other carbon already in the pipeline) we're screwed; no mention of the massive subsidies that skew the marketplace in favor of fossil fuels, etc.

Trump is ignorant, to be sure, but for Clinton to acknowledge the problem but persist in policies which will exacerbate it is possibly even more offensive to me. And those who cheer so loudly for her should realize that the election of either of these two will likely assure an inhospitable planet for their children, grandchildren and any to come.


Such promises (whether realized or not) illustrate one dimension of the real problem: the lack of understanding of a complex problem and lack of will to address it in a meaningful, systematic way.

First off, when someone says, they will install 500 million solar panels, the logical follow-up question should be, "How?" Yet no moderator and few if any of the nominally progressive organizations are willing to push for such answers.

Second, and more importantly, what needs to be changed is EVERY aspect of the energy production & consumption system. As long as both direct & indirect subsidies of fossil fuels production & consumption are maintained, and the more the fossil fuels infrastructure is expanded (such as by Keystone XL, which Clinton tried to enable, and as in DAP, et al, and such as by continued US focus on highway expansions over alternatives), the marketplace will continue to be skewed toward fossil fuels , and investment in R&D and other aspects of renewables development will be suppressed.

Also, this nation seriously lags behind much of the developed world when it comes to energy EFFICIENCY / conservation. A huge area of potential whose surface has only begun to be scratched.

In short, Clinton's vague promises are inadequate, even if met, as without a swift and comprehensive change of every aspect of energy production and use, will not forestall the looming cataclysm.