Who Cooked the Planet? (Paul Krugman, NYT)

[swag]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/opinion/26krugman.html?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman

Never say that the gods lack a sense of humor. I bet they’re still chuckling on Olympus over the decision to make the first half of 2010 — the year in which all hope of action to limit climate change died — the hottest such stretch on record.

Go to Columnist Page »Blog: The Conscience of a LiberalOf course, you can’t infer trends in global temperatures from one year’s experience. But ignoring that fact has long been one of the favorite tricks of climate-change deniers: they point to an unusually warm year in the past, and say “See, the planet has been cooling, not warming, since 1998!” Actually, 2005, not 1998, was the warmest year to date — but the point is that the record-breaking temperatures we’re currently experiencing have made a nonsense argument even more nonsensical; at this point it doesn’t work even on its own terms.

But will any of the deniers say “O.K., I guess I was wrong,” and support climate action? No. And the planet will continue to cook.

. . .

By itself, however, greed wouldn’t have triumphed. It needed the aid of cowardice — above all, the cowardice of politicians who know how big a threat global warming poses, who supported action in the past, but who deserted their posts at the crucial moment. There are a number of such climate cowards, but let me single out one in particular: Senator John McCain.

There was a time when Mr. McCain was considered a friend of the environment. Back in 2003 he burnished his maverick image by co-sponsoring legislation that would have created a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. He reaffirmed support for such a system during his presidential campaign, and things might look very different now if he had continued to back climate action once his opponent was in the White House. But he didn’t — and it’s hard to see his switch as anything other than the act of a man willing to sacrifice his principles, and humanity’s future, for the sake of a few years added to his political career.

[90-percent]

1. Taken as

Taken as a whole, humanity is so collectively stupid, in a way it seems like we all deserve to be cooked. It's too bad the young and unborn will bear the brunt of the ecological suffering my generation has wreaked upon this planet. Instead, they should have chosen to have been born forty years earlier, and then to not have any kids when they go out into the world.

-90% Jimmy

[glitch]

2. All the species going extinct because of ours did not deserve it either.

FWIW we didn't stand much of a chance either, our species had already plundered and polluted most of our planet by the beginning to mid-20th century.

This planet used to be swarming with wildlife.

[guardian]

3. This planet used to be swarming with wildlife.

And it is not now???? Have you stepped outside lately?

[glitch]

4. The skies black with birds, the seas so full of whales you could smell their breath

rivers so full of salmon you would think you could walk across them.

Unless you read the logs of people in the 19th century and before you have no idea.

Read "Destruction of California" http://www.amazon.com/destruction-California-Raymond-Fredric-Dasmann/dp/B00070TCWU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280117043&sr=8-1 or watch "Saving the Bay" http://savingthebay.org to get an idea of what our early ancestors squandered and our more recent ancestors brought partially back.

You can't imagine it, it is not in our memory.

And yes, I am outside quite a lot in a fairly natural habitat. But even mine is recovered from 19th century gold miners, a very destructive group of people, not even a loose approximate to the original ecosystem.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Soon to add: "So many people they could not be all counted ..."

The solution imposed by blind nature will be as simple as our bellies which demand food from time to time -- there will be a mass human die-off.

Far from being a pleasing, if painful, moral equation, the poor will die first, in the largest numbers, and in the most misery. If you own a computer, an automobile, or you experience guilt over not buying more CFL bulbs, chance are that you will NOT be counted among the dead.

We CAN still avoid that fate. Whether we DO avoid it is still in question.

--d!

[Moostache]

6. You sound like James Earl Jones in "Field of Dreams"...

I am inherently distrustful of ALL recollections of "the good old days". They were never as good as they are portrayed and they were never as pure either. This does NOTHING to excuse wanton destruction of nature in pursuit of the all-powerful "profit-motive", but there is some balance between wistfully remembering a long dead past and vilifying the sordid present while lamenting the lost future.

Use Google to find the video of the famous Jimmy Valvano speech ("Don't Give Up, Don't EVER Give Up..."). Life is too short and too precious to waste on reminiscing over a past that was never all that it is cracked up to be anyway...

[glitch]

9. Learning from history is not a bad thing, it can actually aid survival.

Nothing wistful about trying to know reality as best you can and basing your actions from there.

And I am not recommending giving up, even when the odds are and have always been against us.

But I am saying most of us are totally unaware of the incredible planet we lost before we were born.

If you are interested, google European and North American primeval forests, for a start.

[tavalon]

7. I did and I did

and yet, I don't feel one damn bit better about the death of our earth. Humans suck.

[azul]

8. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.

http://www.vhemt.org/

“May we live long and die out”

Less dense = smarter?

Educating women seems to be the ticket.

[guardian]

10. Will you be leading by example? n/t