Whether you're new to climate topics or an expert you are most welcome. Before you can comment you'll need to register or sign in. Click one of the buttons below.
McKibben, writing in the New Republic:
"In the North this summer, a devastating offensive is underway. Enemy forces have seized huge swaths of territory; with each passing week, another 22,000 square miles of Arctic ice disappears. Experts dispatched to the battlefield in July saw little cause for hope, especially since this siege is one of the oldest fronts in the war. “In 30 years, the area has shrunk approximately by half,” said a scientist who examined the onslaught. “There doesn’t seem anything able to stop this.”
In the Pacific this spring, the enemy staged a daring breakout across thousands of miles of ocean, waging a full-scale assault on the region’s coral reefs. In a matter of months, long stretches of formations like the Great Barrier Reef—dating back past the start of human civilization and visible from space—were reduced to white bone-yards."
"War" certainly captures the sense of urgency of the climate crisis and the huge economic refocus that will be required if we are to meet the 2degree target, never mind 1.5degrees. But David Roberts at Vox has some problems with using that framing (as well as some praise).
Roberts mentions two problems, although they seem like one to me: getting buy-in from everyone across the political spectrum and talk of revolutionary mobilization, which may make that buy-in tougher than it needs to be. I share Roberts' problem with the metaphor:
"Who is the enemy in this war? If it’s physics, well, people don’t get very fired up over physics (though, to be clear, they should!). If it’s the people who emit carbon, that’s all of us. If it’s fossil fuel executives, that puts McKibben in the position of comparing them to Hitler, which is generally a bad idea (almost as bad as comparing the Paris climate agreement to Munich, which … come on).
And the metaphor of climate change as a war sits somewhat uneasily next to the other popular narrative about climate action, which is that reducing emissions will bring all sorts of benefits: new jobs, economic competitiveness, less pollution, and so on. It’s good for us.
Consider the odd tenor of McKibben’s assurance that "gearing up to stop global warming would provide a host of social and economic benefits, just as World War II did." I know what he means, but "a war that’s good for us" is a weird pitch."
Anyway, that's enough for now, this is turning into a blogpost rather than a start to a discussion.
Whether you're new to climate topics or an expert you are most welcome. Before you can comment you'll need to register or sign in. Click one of the buttons below.
Comments
Also, a 'war' is a conflict that is at its heart a temporary situation. You spend money and lives for however many months, years or decades it takes, and then the war is over. The American Revolution lasted eight years, the Nazis were beaten in six, and the most recent incarnation of the conflict with Islamic State is at two years and counting. But eventually, every single war will come to an end. A 'war on climate', on the other hand, is not temporary and will last for as long as there's a humanity to fight it. What we need is for society to realize we can't keep burying our head in the sand and ignore it, and calling it a war doesn't do justice to the sheer scale of the problem.
I myself think it's more a question of getting people to relate to this planet in a realistic manner, and as someone who's loved learning about evolution his entire life I know Earth's story is a grander and more 'spiritually' wonder filled - than any Holy Books people have devised. Those scriptures are all about war obsessions. Time for society to grow up and get away from that mindset. Well at least before any genuine healing can begin.
What else can inspire people to take ownership and responsibility for returning our biosphere back towards sustainability, and healthy outcomes.
We do have a change happening.
It is not caused by the energy source the sun as it is not increasing it's energy output and the Earth is not moving into a position where it receives more energy.
So there is a measurable change happening.
This is of course exactly what the various researchers from many different countries in many different disciplines are continuing to publish papers about.
Because the present technology is dated in some cases from the early 1900's there is obviously a push back to change the situation as normal.
So should researches speak out?
NO they present the findings it is up to you and I and others to realize that yes we have to get off the peacefully do nothing position we have and point out the situation to the parties and for that matter people you and I know.
How to do that is the question.
Frankly just talk to people when the subject comes up.
Do not go on about it all the time or you will be painted into the crank corner.
One thing I've noticed lately is that the tide is turning. It is becoming unfashionable to reject climate science. Deniers are much more likely to get pitying looks these days, when they are among their peers. (I've noticed that when in the company of farmers, for example. The pitying looks come from other farmers, some of whom are quite vocal about climate change and what they see happening on their farms.)