General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsProbably Too Late To Do Much About Global Warming.
The GOP and its allies have probably succeeded with their denial on global warming. Every day of obstruction will likely make matters worse in the long run. Until the GOP is run out of all power we will be able to do nothing substantial.
Without a Manhattan project on global warming we will not be able to prevent the worst of it.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)won't help all that much. The way I understand it is that climate change is accelerating, and will continue, even if we magically stopped producing excess CO2 and the like tomorrow.
Lochloosa
(16,081 posts)Florida is going to be an island.
edhopper
(33,651 posts)just smaller.
[img][/img]
on point
(2,506 posts)This means executive orders mandating restrictions on carbon output and shifting to thinGS like mass transit
NutmegYankee
(16,204 posts)To restrict carbon output, a law would be needed. So in other words, we're boned.
on point
(2,506 posts)Gas and food rationing
Blackouts
Travel restrictions
Materials eminent domain or equivalent where govt jumped to front of line
Etc
NutmegYankee
(16,204 posts)The executive orders usually determined which agency would handle each piece.
An example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Act_of_1942
on point
(2,506 posts)philosslayer
(3,076 posts)But ultimately success will come down to individual action. Have you given up (or severely curtailed) driving? Have you moved to more energy efficient means of heating your home? Have you cut back on flying? Can you demonstrably demonstrate the reduction of your carbon footprint? Can all of us? THAT's what it will take.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But we can't allow it to run us over roughshod, either: remember, it's always been the pragmatic optimists who've gotten things done, more than anyone else. This was just as true in 1995 as it is in 2015. Only the players have changed a little.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)And the rest of us are just realists.
on point
(2,506 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Some of the AGW denying 'Pubs ain't just delusional, they're downright paranoid, and many of *those* are even loonier than the worst of the climate doomers(McPherson, Wasdell, et al.).....as annoying as the doomers are, at least they tend not to go quite into insane conspiracy theory territory, by and large.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)The Republicans, OTOH are the guys denying that climate change is even an issue at all, and amongst their ranks are those people scared to death that acting on this same issue will bring about a totalitarian Stalinist New World Order, etc.....their extreme pessimism and paranoia actually exceeds that of the doomers by and large, just that it comes from the opposite side of the spectrum,
on point
(2,506 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Unfortunately, it seems that some folks around here seem to have quite a hard time distinguishing between not having one's hair on fire and actual denial of climate change.....and that's just sad. Do we on the left *always* have to shoot ourselves in the foot, over every little thing? Really?
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)either won't do anything to seriously address it due to concerns about disruption preferring to kick the can down the road hoping for some technological magic wand to fix all the damage done with minimal inconvenience or what?
Seems more than somewhat unrealistic though not as flat out stupid as the TeaPubliKlans so hopefully it is better than that.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Is someone who realizes that climate change is a real problem that needs to be addressed as quickly and with as many available solutions as possible, but doesn't buy into gloom-and-doom fearmongering, whether it be the purportedly inevitable coming collapse and/or permanent decline of human civilization, or the Sahara spreading into Europe, etc.
A pragmatic optimist, I would suspect, is someone who looks at upcoming future trends and sees the possibilities that could greatly aid our efforts to combat climate change.....while the pragmatic pessimist is concerned about continued partisan bickering and corporatist manipulation of the news media, etc., but doesn't totally dismiss research into climate-related technologies, either, or future breaks in our current trend(such as the possibility of a climate hawk being elected President).
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)It seems to me to be a refusal to carry out the physics to their logical conclusion.
Seems like a phony way to straddle the line between anti science loon and realist.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...accepting the doom and gloom is part of being pragmatic about the responses, no?
Essentially: 'We're fucked, but let's see what we can do to mitigate the effect of the impending catastrophe's...'
The tipping point is quite a long way behind us, what we have to do now is plan for, as best as possible, the changes that we know are coming, and try and plan for those we don't see coming...
One of my favourite Robert Redford movie lines was in 'Spy Game'....he asked his secretary "When did Noah build his Ark? BEFORE the rain...."
Well....using that analogy it has been pissing down for quite some time...and that doesn't make me a "doom and gloomer" but rather a pragmatical realist. At least that's the way I see it...ymmv..
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)At least that's the way I see it...ymmv..
That's how you may see it, perhaps, but I'm more grounded in actual evidence, and right now, there's no indication that we have actually passed a tipping point(or "the" tipping point). Doesn't mean it *won't* happen in the future, but it's just that there's no evidence that it has.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)The actual science I have read quite clearly states that we are well beyond many tipping points, for example: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/17/climate-change-antarctica-glaciers-melting-global-warming-nasa ....but sure, keep telling yourself that isn't the case as sea levels continue to rise, along with the glaciers continuing to disappear as weather patterns become more and more unpredictable and violent...
The fact that there are climate change pacifists, for want of a better phrase, such as yourself that seem to think that what we need to do is just be positive and work towards a solution are ignoring the obvious fact that this is not something that can be reversed...
At best we may, MAY, be able to slow it down, or at least mitigate how bad it could get but we need to prepare now for the planet as it will be, not as it was, because this one, the one we were born on, is toast.
Food riots, water shortages/wars, mass relocation of tens, if not hundreds of millions of people around the world that have been dislodged due to the effects of melting ice caps...hundred year floods happening every year, tornadoes and hurricanes that cause destruction on unseen levels...weather patterns that cause droughts in places that used to be fertile bread-baskets, and torrential rains in places that haven't seen a drop in years....
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Seriously. It's not that hard to get: the "doomers", as they are called, keep insisting that the IPCC and other organizations are purposefully hiding the full current severity, and, even more, future severity, of climate change, as well as preaching the "gospel", as it were, of the inevitable fall of civilization and the permanent decline and/or extinction of humanity.....
Seems like a phony way to straddle the line between anti science loon and realist.
And how is it "phony"? I'm sorry, but I can't help but come to the conclusion that you're a bit clueless, dude.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Climate change is real, I just don't buy into the implications of it? That makes no sense.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Climate change is real, I just don't buy into the implications of it?
Wow. Did you honestly read, at all, anything I'd actually written?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That is the underlying message: denial
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I'm sorry, but there was nothing of the sort in anything I wrote. Not one iota.
hunter
(38,340 posts)Otherwise, welcome to hell.
Mosby
(16,401 posts)The real problem is China, India and Russia.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,405 posts)The USA has over twice the population; about the same oil and gas production; significantly more coal production; and over 3 times the carbon emissions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coal_production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
China is important - its emissions are already the largest. India is potentially important - if it got up to China's per capita emissions, it would be.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)toward as green a future as we can imagine and scientifically implement. Do it like the space program but nationally. Concentrate on what our people need and what is coming in the world. We can't afford to war our way around the globe. Neocons and Neoliberal policy goes in the trash and we work together as a nation, with hope.
It won't stop the disaster but it might make a difference in the future.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)At the moment it is up to the states and unfortunately all too many states are run by Rs who are not going to do anything.
flvegan
(64,423 posts)to offset our impact, on an individual basis.
Go vegan. Be inconvenient.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I fear that phrase and the sentiment that underlies it...
I have no doubt many Americans, and people around the world for that matter, think that when the problem becomes costly a great government somewhere will step in with just such a project.
I taught intro environmental science for decades, and always had students do reaction essays on how they saw their generation dealing with environmental problems that would face their future Faith that technology will emerge to save us was a dominant theme in their responses
jwirr
(39,215 posts)everything. Some of our problems today were created by science.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)or because of priorities, the non-target effects were deemed less of a problem than the target.
It's not so much that science created the problem as it is science made technology possible and thoughtful use of the technology has often overlooked or dimissed the non-target impacts...
It's hard to believe people thought dumping sulfuric acid ladden water in to streams after paper pulping via the Krafting process would have no effect. The effect was there to be seen. They just accepted it as 'part of doing business'.
Fossil energy subsidies makes modern societies with tiny percents of population dedicated to food production possible. The sky seemed enormously capable of absorbing CO2 emissions even while skies of industrial cities went dark with smoke.
The story of DDT suggests that fear of insect borne disease and the costs of insect damage to agriculture was great enough to make the non-target effects seem a fair trade-off to impacts on "dickey-birds".
And under all our problems there is the demographic based problem related to size of demand for products...the impact of production technologies even when they are the environmentally the best available is always made worse by per capita demand/impact for the technology in an expanding populations Sunlight seems limitless but diversion of land surface on which it falls from natural ecosystem into crop-systems, cuts off natural communities at their energy base. It is usually the number one problem in terrestrial species conservation.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)I think we have to add the fact that our democratic system of government was/is controlled by those who profit from abuse. They are paid to deny and abuse the natural system, which includes people. That is the primary reason we are and will suffer...
Don't worry I'm sure there will be lots do praying going on.....(sarcasm thingy)
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)But I do see one difference...historically those attacks were closer to the issue of accountability for the cause rather than the existence of the problem... for example the tobacco industry held out for years because its hard to show that a specific person got their cancer specifically from cigarettes.
In the climate change fight under old school rules that would result in a fight that acknowledges climate change is real, but that fossil fuel wasn't the problem. But that's not a credible place to argue...
While there are a number of gases that contribute, there is really no way to argue that the huge injection of CO2 from fossil fuel isn't the greatest contributor. So the argument has moved to aggressively denying that climate change is happening.
Climate change denial exploits the difficulty people have experiencing climate change first hand. It's a relatively slow process, and it stands as a global process that is compared to people's experience of local weather. which is quite variable and not infrequently daily and weekly weather looks to be opposed to the patterns of climate change.
The emergence of the "ridiculously resistant ridge" of winter high pressure in the NE Pacific, combined with stronger polar easterlies has recently produced several years with unusual episodes of cold. Cold is NOT what people expect under the name "global warming".
haikugal
(6,476 posts)all that has been true for 30+ years and very heavily for the past 20 or so years, but now we have to add the 'born again', and fundamentalist others to the Armageddon crew where "yes, it's happening but it's Gawds will and man is too puny to have impact on the planet" crew of imbeciles".....
You will never be able to have nice things as long as religion holds sway in so many parts of the world. Our country is held hostage by idiots.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)Quixote1818
(29,013 posts)Florida is too important for elections. Basically every car and building will need to be build to capture greenhouse gasses. It can be reversed but it will take a world wide effort. It won't be reversed quickly either. Miami and other costal cities will probably end up partly underwater before the planet starts to cool again. Their will probably be major wars. It's going to get pretty fucked up for our kids and grand kids.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Finally, a wakeup call!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/12/17/denmark-stakes-its-claim-in-the-war-for-the-north-pole/
Well, maybe not a wakeup call.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)make the rich richer - I think they think their money will somehow exempt them from the consequences of climate change, oil depletion, overstretch and other future changes.
A Manhattan Project would be good but it would help if they even bothered to do some thinking about programs that would help us survive the future. Things like alternative energy projects, reforestation, food & water issues, etc.
What the congress will be doing for the next 2 years is pretend that trickle down economics works and working to keep a status quo with a white "majority" in control.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)2C Rise was only a hope that it would be no worse than those effects, bad as they are. But that pales in consideration of what a 10C rise would mean. It is one thing to displace a Billion people. Quite another to see our population reduced by several.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)of an extinction level event of our own making, and we're on the list.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)We are on the list as in...we will be last on the list. Go read and then see what you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)You may wish to note that I did not argue against the existence of the proposed Holocene extinction: given how many species *are* disappearing, we may very well be living the sixth great extinction now.
But, frankly, as tough and resourceful as humans are, it'd take a lot more than 4 or 5 degrees of temperature rise to simply just wipe us out; even a full-blown nuclear war in the '80s couldn't, and the eruption of Toba 75k years ago didn't(though with only about 100k surviving individuals out of several millions, it did come close), manage that.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)For one, there would be a good chance that Antarctica really *could* lose all the ice it once had.....but what about the surviving cities?
I live not far from Dallas, Texas, and it's already hot in the summer.....average high temp in July is about 95*F.....but a 10*C rise in temperature could, unfortunately, essentially turn us into the next Phoenix: a high temperature of 107-108 or so would likely be the new norm for that month. The original Phoenix? Might as well be the new Death Valley!
Agriculture would be rather small-scale in most of North America, with maybe the Peace River Valley in Canada and the Cascadian valleys as a couple of rare exceptions to the rule, and there probably wouldn't be a lot of fishing: the Gulf of Mexico probably would be largely lifeless, even if mainly thru too much heat, rather than acidification so much.....and Miami might well be steaming in July high temps inching past a hundred degrees so there wouldn't be a lot of fishers anyway.
And even in the Arctic North, even with winters not as bitterly cold and with much more pleasant summers, there would be many problems; polar bears are probably extinct in the wild by now and many of the traditional aquatic species have likely been crowded out by others fleeing the warming waters elsewhere. The permafrost is probably mostly, if not entirely gone, and many areas were probably abandoned for a time, especially places like Wainwright and Barrow in the North Slope area of Alaska, or Tuktoyaktuk in the Northwest Territories in Canada.
And that's just our neck of the woods; North Africa and most of the Middle East would be the closest thing to a living hell one could imagine and even northern Russia and Scandinavia will have many, many problems to deal with. This would be a truly damaged world that could only certainly support maybe a couple of billion at best, and this assumes that technologies have been developed for humanity to cope(such as hydroponic farming, etc.).....but if it's Mad Max? Maybe a billion, possibly only half a billion.
So, although this scenario is actually extremely unlikely, it still does us no good to stick our heads in the sand. Better to have acted and maybe suffered a small amount of temporary hardship, than to do nothing, and have put humanity in much more danger than we are now.
I'm a realist who looks at things thru a historical lense: it seems highly unlikely that the worst case scenarios will come to pass.....they very rarely ever do. And a better future for humanity is possible. But at what cost will it come? That's the question.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Procrastination is one of humanities worst traits. OF COURSE we are going to wait until it is 'too late'. Of course.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)We can only effect our country. We need global warming treaties in ace.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Good luck with that. We need to address ourselves and stop pointing fingers at everyone else. If we show leadership others will follow...I look to Europe for leadership now and I know we have the brains and ability right here.
Like many others here I can see the writing on the wall and that doesn't make me a chicken little with hair on fire as some have suggested...it makes me a realist, a pragmatic realist. I see no gain in diminishing the danger and having a real discussion about the implications is to everyone's benefit. I also won't argue the meaning of extinction in regard to humans.
The bottleneck created by the Toba event was more like 5,000 to 10,000 humans from my understanding. Worst case scenario is not something I want for the world.