Yeah, the chance of World War III pales in comparison to a slight rise in the Earth’s average temperature, something that has happened multiple times since the end of the last ice age
Opinion: Ukraine is at war. Climate change is still our biggest emergency
Good morning. I’m Paul Thornton, and it is Saturday, March 5, 2022. Let’s look back at the week in Opinion.
Fully aware that most adults can chew gum and scratch their heads at the same time, I am about to make what may seem a zero-sum comparison of the threats posed by Russia’s unprovoked assault on Ukraine and climate change. So allow me to make a few points upfront: The Biden administration and the rest of us have the capacity to address both crises vigorously, while acknowledging that the gratuitous death and disruption inflicted on 44 million Ukrainians pose graver immediate consequences for a lot of people right now, whereas climate change looms over every problem faced by humanity.
That said, it’s hard not to be discouraged about our ability to focus on climate change right now. For this gloominess, I have none other to thank than the president who has put forth the most ambitious environmental agenda in our history.
“Our”? Go for it, Paul. Give up all use of fossil fuels, no flying, buy an EV, get rid of your ice maker, turn the AC up/heat down, etc and so on. Demand that the Los Angeles Times give up use of fossil fuels for all their operations. Seriously, this is the ravings of a doomsday cultist, more concerned with things that have always happened over a war started by a nuclear armed nation.
And fast is important. As the Times Editorial Board pointed out this week, a report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change noted what should be obvious to anyone living in Southern California (where this week, during our “wet season,” a wildfire burned hundred of acres in the Cleveland National Forest) — that the climate catastrophe is already upon us and wreaking havoc sooner and more intensely than anticipated, and the window to cut fossil fuel use in half to avoid the worst effects down the road will likely close by 2030.
Not decades — eight years.
What happens if we aren’t seeing doom in 8 years? Who’s held responsible for this bit of scaremongering?
In other words, complicating factors like wars and pandemics and, yes, Republican control of government are always present and pose significant threats to us. There’s also the objection that higher fuel costs disproportionately burden middle- and low-income earners. This is true, but so is the reality of global warming, pollution and environmental injustice — which also disproportionately harm traditionally marginalized groups.
In other words, F*ck those middle and lower income earners. They don’t know what’s good for them, and should just listen to their betters. Just like in any cult.
Teach: What happens if we aren’t seeing doom in 8 years? Who’s held responsible for this bit of scaremongering?
We can’t discern whether Mr Teach is being deliberately obtuse or if he just doesn’t understand. The idea that we may have 8 years or 10 years of 20 years to ‘do something’ isn’t that in 8 years the seas will suddenly rise 10 feet, that wildfires will burn through 90% of the west or that Stage 10 hurricanes will destroy NYC, Miami, New Orleans, LA, Houston, Boston and Honolulu. It means that our ability to keep the future mean global surface temperature under a certain mark could become impossible. The reason for this is that atmospheric CO2 is long-lived. Unless we humans invent and manufacture a massive system for carbon capture and storage we will need to reduce CO2 by reducing emissions.
Teach repeatedly asks who will be held responsible for exercising their free speech rights! Who will be held responsible for ignoring the warnings?
Rimjob: It means that our ability to keep the future mean global surface temperature under a certain mark could become impossible.
It’s impossible now, dipshit.
My God, you are one stupid hillbilly.
#LetsGoBrandon
#FuckJoeBiden
Bwaha! Lolgf
“Keep the global mean temp under a certain mark…”. Why? There’s no proof it’s to be under a certain mark. By the way, what’s the “mark” supposed to be? And how does one figure that out? The original 1.5 or 2.0 degree limit was simply pulled out of thin air.
“Held responsible for the warnings…”. Yes, we’d love to hold those responsible for all the “warnings” that haven’t come true over the last 30 years or so. Tar and feather comes to mind..