|
WoodrowSkillson posted:This one winter was a random fluctuation that has happened before, it's not evidence of global warming. Hopefully it wakes a few people up though. You're right, it's not by itself evidence of global warming. The number of high temperature records though, some decades old, is pretty startling and disturbing, though. It's not the climapocalypse, but I'd argue it's a bit more than "a random fluctuation".
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
Radbot posted:You're right, it's not by itself evidence of global warming. The number of high temperature records though, some decades old, is pretty startling and disturbing, though. It's not the climapocalypse, but I'd argue it's a bit more than "a random fluctuation". This one is simple physics. Earth is producing more heat (energy) and trapping more heat (energy). With more energy in the atmosphere, you're going to end up with: 1. More storms. 2. Bigger storms. 3. More extreme climate swings (ie blizzards in Algeria and heatwaves in Nebraska). The world climate is just going to get "super"-charged. Super-droughts, super-hurricanes, super-blizzards, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
Nowa posted:This one is simple physics. Earth is producing more heat (energy) and trapping more heat (energy). With more energy in the atmosphere, you're going to end up with: Right, but at the same time I think it's important not to pull the leftist equivalent of putting a copy of An Inconvenient Truth in a snowbank.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Yes, shutting down large-scale industrial projects is going to be easier (not easy) than convincing people not to procreate. Welcome to reality. I have news for you buddy, somebody already convinced a heckuva lot of people not to procreate pre:Nation Total Fertility Rate Population Growth Rate Japan 1.21 children born/woman -0.278% Bulgaria 1.42 children born/woman -0.781% Russia 1.42 children born/woman -0.47% Germany 1.41 children born/woman -0.208% Thailand 1.66 children born/woman 0.566% Canada 1.58 children born/woman 0.794% There is no way we can possibly have a sustainable economy and maintain population growth forever. The more people there are the thinner we have to slice the pie for everyone. Don't you think shutting down those big carbon emitting industries like tar sand mining will be a bit more difficult if you add a couple billion more dissatisfied youth clamoring for jobs and energy? The earlier our population plateaus the easier it'll be to control emissions. There's a reason the IPCC puts so much effort into modeling population growth scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
Thing is, it is completely inevitable that all the fossil fuels in the earth will be used up. There's no stopping that, the developed world is too slow to curb usage, and the developing world is only increasing usage. We have to figure out what to do once the inevitable comes. Plant more trees? Terraform?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
It ain't over til it's over dude, defeatism will get you nowhere. You might be dead already but some of us still have some kick. As far as mitigation goes if you have archives you could check out Dreyland's geoengineering thread here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3422047&userid=55080 but if we really went and burned every ounce of coal in the earth's crust I doubt any mitigation strategy in that thread could save us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
Radbot posted:You're right, it's not by itself evidence of global warming. The number of high temperature records though, some decades old, is pretty startling and disturbing, though. It's not the climapocalypse, but I'd argue it's a bit more than "a random fluctuation". From what I understand it is La Nina combined with a lack of the normal high pressure system over greenland that shoves the jet stream down into the US. We have had warmer winters on record with less snowfall, and considering last winter was cold and snowy, it's disingenuous to call this an effect of global warming. Winter is going strong in other parts of the northern hemisphere. When these start coming in rows, it's finally starting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 05:43
|
|
|
Ervin K posted:Thing is, it is completely inevitable that all the fossil fuels in the earth will be used up. There's no stopping that, the developed world is too slow to curb usage, and the developing world is only increasing usage. We have to figure out what to do once the inevitable comes. Plant more trees? Terraform? Peak fuel , personally would be an ideal scenario if it where to be so simple. Theres a tonne of coal still in the ground, and a tonne of shale oil. Unfortunately shifting dependence onto those forms will amplify CO2 emissions as both are completely grotty sources of fuel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 08:44
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:From what I understand it is La Nina combined with a lack of the normal high pressure system over greenland that shoves the jet stream down into the US. We have had warmer winters on record with less snowfall, and considering last winter was cold and snowy, it's disingenuous to call this an effect of global warming. Winter is going strong in other parts of the northern hemisphere. No whats happening has been occuring for a while now, and doesn't neatly fit the el-nino/la-nina pattern. There has been absolutely absurd things going on weather wise. Last year we had a month of over 40c days which is unheard of, here in perth. But regardless, the diagnosis that its already happening already accounts for what you mention. Its not predicted anymore. That would imply an event in the future. Its happening right now. At least for the time being, some years will be utterly hosed in the head, and some will be mild and reasuring. Thats to be expected too. duck monster fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Feb 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 08:47
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I have news for you buddy, somebody already convinced a heckuva lot of people not to procreate
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 09:55
|
|
|
I'm well aware of the relationship between wealth and birth rates, strudel man. I'm merely demonstrating that in many countries a majority are already forgoing large families. As obvious as that sounds there is literally someone arguing that it is impossible a few posts up
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 14:43
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:When these start coming in rows, it's finally starting. Define rows? Are you talking about warm winters? Global warming doesn't mean "warm winters", the effects are much greater than that and they have been coming in rows for quite some time now. We are already at 1 degree of warming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 16:13
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Define rows? However, "global warming" is an oversimplification of the process of climate change. It really means more erratic weather patterns worldwide, with a warming trend on a macro level, but in a more local sense every place will be affected differently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:However, "global warming" is an oversimplification of the process of climate change. It really means more erratic weather patterns worldwide, with a warming trend on a macro level, but in a more local sense every place will be affected differently. It's not really an oversimplification, it's just confusing to people who equate a warming earth with warmer temperatures and nothing more. Climate change is the preferred nomenclature because it's easier to understand, not because its more accurate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Define rows? I meant winters completely inconsistent with the normal ones for that area. I'm not a climate change denier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
If any of you guys are interested in a good comprehensive summary of recent studies on ocean acidification I recommend this publication that I just finished: http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/review-of-ocean-acidification-edited-by-j-p-gattuso-and-l-hansson/
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
Does ocean acidification necessarily lead to a run-away affect of basically the entirety of ocean life disappearing within a few years once a certain pH threshold is reached? Or will it be a gradual regional falloff where dead-zones continue to expand and the upper layers are able to support less and less?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I'm well aware of the relationship between wealth and birth rates, strudel man. I'm merely demonstrating that in many countries a majority are already forgoing large families. As obvious as that sounds there is literally someone arguing that it is impossible a few posts up Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Feb 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I'm well aware of the relationship between wealth and birth rates, strudel man. I'm merely demonstrating that in many countries a majority are already forgoing large families. As obvious as that sounds there is literally someone arguing that it is impossible a few posts up I never said it was impossible, I said it would be easier to shut down large scale industrial projects. I'm aware that birth rates can be lowered via the education of women, providing easy access to birth control and increasing the economic conditions of the people. It doesn't really matter if it's easier to shut down large scale industrial projects or to provide the aforementioned things for the developing world, there's no political will to do either. Beyond that, even if we wanted to provide those conditions for the developing world, we simply do not have the resources available to provide that for seven billion people using the current distribution methods our society employs. Also if you're going to misrepresent what I posted (see: "literally someone arguing that it is impossible") you might as well quote me so everyone else can know you're making poo poo up too. a lovely poster posted:Yes, shutting down large-scale industrial projects is going to be easier (not easy) than convincing people not to procreate. Beyond that, why don't you go read what I was originally responding to, someone asking why the media doesn't address these things. I still am not convinced that we need to be drilling the idea that having children is bad for the environment into people's head. Put it this way, we've been having children for a very long time and only recently has our environmental footprint gotten too large. It's not that there's seven billion of us, it's how we've chosen to organize. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Feb 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Does ocean acidification necessarily lead to a run-away affect of basically the entirety of ocean life disappearing within a few years once a certain pH threshold is reached? Definitely the second one, Ocean Acidification is so far happening slower the colder the water. There are definite zones where the impact can/will be seen first. Upper layer warm water areas will be hit the hardest. The problem with this is that those are the areas that most of the worlds large reefs are in, and ocean acidification is really, really bad news for coral. How the overall ecosystem will be hit is still unknown of course, though there are a few negative feedback loops that have been found. One is that as water heats up, the vertical ocean currents slow down. This has a couple worrisome implications. We can already see the rate of ocean absorption of CO2 slowing down, due to saturation. This will get worse as the slowing vertical currents bring less fresh/unsaturated water to the surface where it can absorb CO2. Meaning that current models assuming a certain rate of CO2 getting stored in the ocean may be inaccurate, the situation could be worse than we thought. There is also the issue that slower vertical currents means hotter surface water, as less deep, cool water is cycled up. Warmer surface temperatures mean worse storms, and that combines with the loss of the coastal tropical reefs which provide an (important) natural sea barrier. Worse storms and less natural protection spells fun times ahead. Less vertical cycling also means trouble for the existing dead zones, as less oxygen just exacerbates the issue. Reefs also serve as very important fisheries for many species, and their loss will have a large impact on fishing worldwide, problematic for the portion of the world dependent on sea food to eat. There is some good news though, as test studies have shown that some species have a pretty great ability to adapt to slightly more acidic water. So we don't have to worry about total loss from just ocean acidification. Late Edit: I didn't make it very clear above, but for a fairly large portion of sea life ocean acidification has no direct impact at all. It only interferes with certain processes that not all ocean life uses/needs. The problem is that quite a few of the species at the bottom of the food chain fall onto the harmful ocean acidification side. No one knows for sure how that will impact the overall ecosystem. There are also the indirect issues such as found in the coral reefs, while ocean acidification doesn't necessarily hurt the fish itself, the loss of their habitat in the reef system will be just as harmful. But there's no reason to worry about total extinction or anything like that. There are some crazy resourceful creatures out there. Fuck You And Diebold fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Feb 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:
Thanks for the info. That last bit of "good" news may actually mean that the human race won't extinct itself. As I'm sure you are aware, current governments are really good at addressing/solving important problems once the political climate is right, however if an event like total ocean extinction occurs, there won't be enough time to mandate/repair as we will all literally suffocate within a few months. However a gradual, quantifiable process happens over a few decades, we may see some surprisingly forceful legislation that would have been perfect back in the 70's. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2012 09:23
|
|
|
Heartland Institute financial and planning documents leaked. There is a lot of stuff here and it's pretty scary poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 10:03
|
|
|
Heresiarch posted:Heartland Institute financial and planning documents leaked. There is a lot of stuff here and it's pretty scary poo poo. I would personally like to see these people lined up against a wall and shot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 10:13
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:From what I understand it is La Nina combined with a lack of the normal high pressure system over greenland that shoves the jet stream down into the US. We have had warmer winters on record with less snowfall, and considering last winter was cold and snowy, it's disingenuous to call this an effect of global warming. Winter is going strong in other parts of the northern hemisphere. When exactly was this winter that was warmer, with less snowfall? I mentioned records being broken because, by their very nature, broken records indicate something historic. Also, I don't understand why climate conspiracies seem to find such purchase with people (other than the obvious answer that it would force them to do something they don't want to do in the face of an amorphous threat) - to me, it seems like you should be able to unravel them with a single question: qui loving bono? It would be a conspiracy on a scale that would make Trutherism seem quaint. Radbot fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Feb 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
Radbot posted:When exactly was this winter that was warmer, with less snowfall? I mentioned records being broken because, by their very nature, broken records indicate something historic. Well his point was that it depends on where you are. I know that at least for Minnesota it has been a crazy warm winter. It was like 50 on Christmas day, and I've only had to use my window scrapers once. We've barely had any snow and it often gets above freezing. Also, it was linked a bit ago, but the article on why exactly the problem of global warming (it happens over a long period of time, there is no one group/actor to blame, etc.) did a pretty good job of explaining why people have a hard time grasping the actual situation. This would also seem to make it easier to slip into conspiracy theories. It might be much simpler for someone to be able to blame a single group for 'creating' global warming than it would be for them to really understand what is going on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
Heresiarch posted:Heartland Institute financial and planning documents leaked. There is a lot of stuff here and it's pretty scary poo poo. Heartland claims that the worst document "stop teachers from teaching science" is a fake. The document in question varies greatly in format from the other ones, and contains phrases like the above that seem really suspect. That's the kind of phrase you'd accuse someone of, not the type of phrase that you'd use to describe what you were doing (even if that was exactly what you were doing). edit: The other ones appear to be real, but they primarily discuss funding sources and budget items, in my understanding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
Any good reads on scenarios where the United States is the last country to get on board carbon emission control and finds itself the target of sanctions organized outside the U.N.? Severe sanctions from a global community that recognizes its future is being imperiled (by a rogue island nation) are fascinating to ponder. It's worth thinking about because it's possible the United States' internal political issues do not improve for many years. "Okay guys, let's take it easy" regarding the consumption of cheap hydrocarbons implies a sort of consensus that just seems light-years away here. Still, I can see it being much more difficult to convince the Chinas and the Indias that they are just a few years late for the fossil-fuel gravy train, and they'll have to accept measly wind-powered growth. Has the climate science community basically already retreated to carbon sequestration?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
agarjogger posted:Severe sanctions from a global community that recognizes its future is being imperiled (by a rogue island nation) are fascinating to ponder. It's worth thinking about because it's possible the United States' internal political issues do not improve for many years. "Okay guys, let's take it easy" regarding the consumption of cheap hydrocarbons implies a sort of consensus that just seems light-years away here. I don't think this would happen. While the world doesn't really need America as such, they would be extremely inconvenienced by any sanctions simply because America imports and exports quite a lot of things. E.g. China would not be able to expand as rapidly as it is currently without the custom of the American market. That and the US isn't the only major polluter - China is the largest greenhouse gas emitter and has been for quite some time now. No nation is going to implement economic sanctions when they import billions of dollars worth of goods from China. The problem right now is that climate change is consumed with political rhetoric in the US, while the other major polluters such as China don't wish to sacrifice their economic growth over pesky considerations such as the environment. It's like that saying about only when the last trees and fish are gone are people going to realise they can't eat money - only when we're completely and utterly hosed will any of the major emitters do anything. froglet fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Feb 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
It's difficult really. America built itself on the back of staggering amounts of emissions, but is no longer capable of 'paying back' all the nations it left behind. The nations who are catching up don't wish to sacrifice their own economic growth when America and other first world nations already got theirs, which in a competitive aspect is kind of reasonable. Let's say we start hitting peak everything in half a century or so and resource wars start up. The countries with the advantage of industrial growth are the ones that can defend and take as necessary, be it oil, food, minerals, whatever. Without major concessions by those who have already benefited from the economic power of oil, countries abandoning their own economic growth would likely seal their fate when push comes to shove. This doesn't make it a good thing, but it does make the political situation complicated because very few would vote for the sacrifices required to level the playing field once again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:It's difficult really. America built itself on the back of staggering amounts of emissions, but is no longer capable of 'paying back' all the nations it left behind. The nations who are catching up don't wish to sacrifice their own economic growth when America and other first world nations already got theirs, which in a competitive aspect is kind of reasonable. Let's say we start hitting peak everything in half a century or so and resource wars start up. The countries with the advantage of industrial growth are the ones that can defend and take as necessary, be it oil, food, minerals, whatever. Honestly, the only way to get developing nations completely on board would be developed nations throwing themselves behind a global climate agreement 100%. This would involve massive concessions, such as developed nations promising to begin reversing the damage they caused once they've met certain renewable energy goals as well as huge financial incentives. Of course, that's never going to happen because "our jobs!" and it would be extremely expensive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 15:51
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:It's difficult really. America built itself on the back of staggering amounts of emissions, but is no longer capable of 'paying back' all the nations it left behind. The nations who are catching up don't wish to sacrifice their own economic growth when America and other first world nations already got theirs, which in a competitive aspect is kind of reasonable. Let's say we start hitting peak everything in half a century or so and resource wars start up. The countries with the advantage of industrial growth are the ones that can defend and take as necessary, be it oil, food, minerals, whatever. This notion has always been problematic for me, too. I see it as similar to the nuclear armaments debate in geopolitics: the established nuclear powers (also global powers, not coincidentally) seek to maintain a monopoly on nuclear arms and hence power. Similarly, the nations who first industrialized (also global colonial powers now or in the past, not coincidentally) seek to maintain a monopoly on the benefits they gained from polluting industrialism. I know this is not an environmental way of looking at things--obviously, it's a bit of a "me-too" situation--but it's another way that the West leverages their "civilized" viewpoints to guilt and dominate the developing world. "We figured out that pollution is bad (after 150 years of it), you guys need to stop polluting now!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
Well at least something is being done:quote:U.S. Joins Coalition to Cut Methane and Soot Of course it's not anywhere even close to the kind of action that needs to be taken, but it's still a step in the right direction. Every little bit helps. At least it's nice to see the U.S. do something. It's amazing that here we are in 2012 and it still seems like half the drat country believes that global warming is all made up by Al Gore to make money or for the left to gain political power or some New World Order conspiracy to create world government or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
$15 million? That's the political equivalent of a paper launch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
It says in the article though that a number of solutions cost little money and involve already existing technologies and air pollution laws. I don't know what to make of that though. It also said that policies to curb those emissions could be cheaper than the older technologies they replace. Since all that anyone cares about is money, that's good isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
Aufzug Taube! posted:It says in the article though that a number of solutions cost little money and involve already existing technologies and air pollution laws. I don't know what to make of that though. It could be something like compact fluorescent light-bulbs where the daily cost of using it is cheaper than an existing incandescent, but requires an up front capital cost to replace the equipment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Aufzug Taube! posted:Well at least something is being done: No, it doesn't. This kind of thinking prevents the real action that needs to be taken. If your house is on fire, you don't go grab your neighbor's garden hose, and it wouldn't 'help' if you did. We had time for incremental changes like this twenty years ago, now the only thing that will help is swift and pervasive action of the sort that is politically impossible. Here is the only viewpoint that I think will help at this point: "I want to abolish democracy and start up a worldwide totalitarian dictatorship in order to implement the changes we need to stop climate change. There is no way this will happen without everyone's participation, and there is no way we can democratically agree to do what needs to be done. I will use whatever violence is needed to seize power and implement the changes needed, the deaths caused by this will be nothing compared to what will happen if climate change is left unchecked." I'm 100% serious. Maybe we can try democracy again in a few hundred years, but there is no way it can work now. We'll have WWIII anyway once the serious effects of climate change hit and the oil runs out. If you look at the kinds of actions that need to be taken and when they need to be implemented, this is the only chance we have barring everyone in the world instantly agreeing to dramatically alter their lifestyles to prevent climate change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2012 08:04
|
|
Konstantin posted:I'm 100% serious. Maybe we can try democracy again in a few hundred years Is there any evidence that seizure of world government would be somehow easier than convincing a few major powers to lead the effort in exchange for major input on the terms of that effort? Democracy is not exceptionally strong in any of the major polluters, so it's not like you really have to convince billions of people. What is your opinion of our current class of leaders? Any of them you'd trust with the world? Even if the U.N. became suddenly and exclusively devoted to climate change, what could it really do without its member nations' cooperation? Responsibility for carbon pollution is so incredibly diffuse, diffuse power is what we'll have to work with. Until the eco-terrorists start kidnapping the Kochs and making them publicly renounce their climate activism at gunpoint, I don't see what means of coercion are even available, should people start to warm to their use. I see this as our species' first big test of cooperation, and I think we should start treating it as such. Though if you think you have a real shortcut around cooperation, I'd be glad to hear it.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2012 09:27
|
|
Konstantin posted:No, it doesn't. This kind of thinking prevents the real action that needs to be taken. If your house is on fire, you don't go grab your neighbor's garden hose, and it wouldn't 'help' if you did. We had time for incremental changes like this twenty years ago, now the only thing that will help is swift and pervasive action of the sort that is politically impossible. Here is the only viewpoint that I think will help at this point: This type of thinking is ridiculously out of touch, to say the least. Probably founded on the assumption of "well, slow but effective environmental activism is so lame and not very glorious at all. What we need is eco-Hitler, right now  ".Also, I challenge the "we must sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice our rights, comfort, everything" loons to lead by example instead of idle appeals. You're some privileged first world individual who makes LPs and plays video games, not much of an example.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2012 11:02
|
|
|
We can still get under the emission threshold if we geo-engineer, but that does require global treaties and international scientific and political cooperation. Not an easy thing to do. Although the major polluters are the democracies, in the case of total CO2 emissions. China might be really turning up their emissions but they're not really relevant to current C02 emissions so far. That's on the countries who industrialized first.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2012 11:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
Konstantin posted:No, it doesn't. This kind of thinking prevents the real action that needs to be taken. If your house is on fire, you don't go grab your neighbor's garden hose, and it wouldn't 'help' if you did. We had time for incremental changes like this twenty years ago, now the only thing that will help is swift and pervasive action of the sort that is politically impossible. Here is the only viewpoint that I think will help at this point: That doesn't seem even remotely close to being possible though. I kinda think that long-term, we are going to see the exact opposite happen instead. We won't see a big centralization of power in the world, but a decentralization instead. I think we will be less likely to see things like world wars, world governments and giant international alliances and more likely to see fractured nation-states, civil wars, riots and domestic upheaval. Countries will turn inward, not outward. Once the cheap oil fiesta is done with, and catastrophic climate change begins to really take its toll, I think we will see more and more people retreating back into their own little enclaves, hoarding what they can, keeping everyone else out, and attempting to localize everything they can so they don't have to depend so much on others in an increasingly unstable world. Remember that all this climate change will bring about unprecedented human migrations. No one is going to give a poo poo about the world when this happens; they will only give a poo poo about themselves and their own little town or valley that they live in. Good luck trying to control them. I think we will see large political systems and power structures more or less lose their legitimacy, and we will see local city and state governments become more prominent, at least in the U.S. Right now when people think of 'the government' they think of the federal government, but I think that in 50 years people will think of their local city or state government when they hear that word. No one is going to give a drat about Washington when the world has gone to poo poo any more than they will give a drat about the U.N. or some world government based halfway across the planet. In the meantime, any kind of effort to fight climate change is good, it doesn't matter what it is. Even if it's only a $15 million coalition to fight methane and black carbon, it will still help. Every little bit really does help, because it adds up over time. If your house is on fire you do take your neighbor's garden hose, because while you will still lose your house anyway, you can at least help keep the fire from spreading and burning down the rest of the neighborhood. It's better than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2012 12:37
|
|