Home | About | Donate

This Election, We Can’t Afford to Ignore the Climate


This Election, We Can’t Afford to Ignore the Climate

Aaron Mair

Our great coastal cities could be flooded within the lifetime of children born today.

That’s the conclusion of researchers studying the West Antarctic ice sheet — a mass of ice larger than Mexico that could rapidly break apart over the next century.

Meanwhile, our presidential candidates are debating who has bigger hands and whose wife is hotter.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Those mud slinging Republican presidential candidates do not even say there is a climate change problem. So whatever conclusions researchers have come to about climate are lost on the mud slingers. This article might be trying to say that if your candidate is not chosen as the nominee on the Democratic side that the climate crisis is so serious that you should vote for the other nominee rather than not voting, or voting for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning. I would guess the Sierra Club is very concerned about all the talk about supporters of Sanders who say they will not vote for Clinton if she is the nominee. This message from the president of the Club is probably the beginning of an attempt by the Club to get those Sander's supporters to think harder about what they are saying and conclude that the climate crisis is so serious that they should vote for Clinton if she is on the ballot in November.


Everyone should voice their opinions but when someone says something about facts rather than opinions, then they need to say why they feel their comment is factual. You have every right to believe solar and wind may not be the answer but you also need to explain why you don't otherwise you are just spreading the denial and lies of trolls who visit this site simply to cast doubt.

So with all due respect since you are talking facts and scientific facts at that (current facts and not out of date facts like one troller keeps talking about old less efficient and more expensive forms of solar from twenty years ago)... Please explain why you are spouting that troll talk?


Good piece, I concur.

But at least as important as getting politicians on board is getting greedy ne'er do wells like the Koch brothers out of the way by constantly exposing their efforts to subvert crucial work to transition to alternative energy. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-koch-brothers-dirty-war-on-solar-power-20160211

The end of the era of petroleum reliance is long past due. Now to turn that corner before we have passed the available window to shift.


I agree with you. Wind and solar are certainly an answer. I don't see how anyone cannot see that now. Because the problem of greenhouse gas emissions is so comprehensive additional answers like ending deforestation, changing certain agricultural practices, and finding replacement fuels for planes and ships are also needed. Whether or not military spending is reduced I think the US has enough money. The big question is whether the US and some other developed countries are willing to give developing countries enough money so they will be able to also mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. .


You need help or at the very least intensive training in ethics. Perhaps you suffer from multiple personality disorder however I don't think so. You are just weird and there is nothing special about that.

Nevertheless, perhaps you aren't doing your quick switch false face routine where you think everybody is stupid or won't remember your other negative posts on an issue... In this case solar and wind developments etc. Perhaps you really have had a change of heart or maybe a change of meds has helped you regain some measure of sanity?

But don't agree with me... Have mercy please!!!


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


They are far less harmful than the cost of providing the energy in other ways. If you would kindly do the research ( we've discussed this same point before) you would soon see that solar and wind are the least environmentally harmful means of providing electricity. Everything has a cost both economically and environmentally. The problem is adding new sources of carbon into the atmosphere like by using fossil fuels. They add new amounts of carbon not already in the environment. All manufacturing of any sort requires electricity. Using solar and wind is the most efficient, cheapest and least harmful to the environment ways we have (tidal turbines too and where applicable geothermal as well).

Btw you are still looking at old style solar. Here is a site you might find interesting concerning new developments in solar and renewables. e360.yale.edu

Also for general science news (magazine style articles not in depth scientific papers) try ScienceDaily.com... They have lots of short quick updates on just published science stuff like you would find on CD or any popular site about everything from Neanderthals to When Swiss Cheese got holes and why...lol. Not heavy duty stuff but factual not entertainment fluff. A fav site that is easily approachable by non scientists and pesky debaters like me...lol

We have only one hope which is to get off fossil fuels as fast as we can. That is the truth. Our only hope. Solar and wind are the answer because they provide clean energy and will employ tens if not hundreds of millions of people (eventually). Our best bet and pretty much the only one.


I'll try to ignore your baseless opinions of me although that isn't easy and just say that solar is now proving to be a solution as you say. It has had challenges to overcome such as costs and low efficiency but certainly we are now seeing both rooftop solar and utility scale beginning to really take off. Here is some advice. Try to keep it civil. Also, go back and read the policy statement on this website that refers to civility. I try to follow it. I hope will also.


By the way I was quite civil and did not resort to crude exposition however I stated my opinion and meant what I said although you might not have wanted to hear it, I nevertheless was very civil. Being civil doesn't mean that the other person wants to hear the things being said however. I neither resorted to foul language or anything like that. I simply spoke in a civil way (much as you do when you say one thing when you know it is untrue or slant it to sound reasonable while your content is anything but) I also tried to sound reasonable just like you. Civility is important. Try to remember that you posted to me and not the other way around. I still remember the forked tongue baloney about the polls and about carbon trading. You spout lies and disinformation with a civil tongue that nevertheless is disdainful of people's sincerity of purpose and intelligence. I simply responded in a similarly civil way. Also remember how so many people consider you a troll.

So unless you want to have the same type of civility that you practice on others practiced on you try to remember that you really don't fool anyone with that nonsense and so you best find someone who doesn't remember you ... But then maybe you actually don't remember you? Please seek help. You were never that skillful at being snide but you sure tried. It got boring after a while which Is why I stopped correcting your attempts to play psyops lol. I thought you were just strange really.