Even FORBES agrees with the science: "There are many clear choices at stake in tomorrow’s Presidential election. One of the starkest is climate and it comes at a time when the planet is careening toward catastrophic levels of warming.
Vice President Kamala Harris has called climate change an “existential threat.” While she hasn’t detailed a climate plan, she’s widely expected to continue federal support for clean energy and electric vehicles in an ongoing effort to move the American economy away from fossil fuels. In 2022, she cast the tie-breaking vote for the Inflation Reduction Act and has pledged to fully implement it.
Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump has called climate change “one of the greatest scams of all time,” and vowed to end federal support for the clean energy transition, while ramping up drilling for oil and gas, including in the Arctic."
It is true that continuing with current policies woud be better than wholesale abandonment. Trump is even less likely than Harris to enact a tax on net emission of CO2 or reform other net CO2 emissions policies to mimic the effects of the tax.
Like I just told the nihilistic Hudson E. Baldwin III, perfect is the enemy of better-than-the-only-alternative. Our country's founders were suspicious of anyone who wanted power (especially each other). They created our Constitution by grudging compromise, agreeing to share power carefully rather than let it be concentrated in too few hands, and requiring power seekers to jump through specified hoops and stay within specified bounds. The resulting document is thus the product of pragmatic sausage-making. It gives duly registered US voters (however the Republican leadership insists otherwise) the choice only among greater or lesser evils. I, for one, generally approve of Harris, but especially her demonstrated commitment to collective decarbonization of the US economy, while wielding whatever power we may still have to influence global decarbonization in addition, even if other nations have progressed farther than we. I favor a national per-ton fee (i.e. tax) on carbon producers at the wellhead or Port of Entry, in addition to tariffs on embodied carbon in imported goods; along with a periodic 100% dividend to every federal taxpayer. Politics being the art of the possible, I'm at least hoping for more incremental incentives for renewable energy ramp-up and consumer adoption. Not ideal, but better than otherwise-unbounded global warming!
And they tried to frame Trump as the anti-establishment, anti-deep state hero. What a joke. The power of the fossil fuel and animal ag lobbies (that gained huge traction from the backlash against the measures for the 'covid' debacle) may well ensure that he's elected.
For folks trying to bring climate-motivated voting through down-ballot candidates, I'll mention Climate Cabinet (https://climatecabinet.org/). Their whole thing is weighing the effective climate change stances of down-ballot candidates in state and local elections -- roles that hold a lot of aggregate influence.
That's a great looking organization. I love the concept of "money ball for climate politics". I hadn't heard of them before, but will keep them on my radar.
no one is actually offering us statistical significant climate mitigation policy since the green party has been co-opted by Putin and his vile cocksleeves…
What a fucking waste of energy these people must be.
You write like the US is voting for the president of the world! Yes the US leads in per capita emissions but BRICS, the Global majority also putting sovereignty ahead of global climate action which muust surely involve some kind of multilateral degrowth, makes a huge difference. Yes the US makes environmentally devastating war that could so easily be avoided if it accepted the end of unipolarity- but America is not the only country!
It seems that in every country, people say the same thing: “But we’re not the only ones!” In my country (mostly the far-right and climate change deniers, but not exclusively) often argue, “Look at the US, China, Russia, etc. We’re only responsible for 2% of global emissions, so whatever we do will make almost no difference.” It is an excuse that in plain terms means: “Let’s carry on with business as usual and do nothing.” It’s like being on a sinking ship where everyone blames others and expects them to take action first, unwilling to do anything themselves. Greetings from Germany.
Though my point is really that Harris cannot save the world from the climate crisis even if all Americans were behind her. America is becoming less and less important globally.
Hiya to you in Germany from London, yes the argument that one country or person can’t change anything-means nothing can ever change. This argument, climate denial and the blaming China etc has been deliberately circulated on social media aimed at the right but it is also significantly increasing among the ‘lefties’. It supports legacy industry nicely.
You have a point about American exceptionalism, but I'll comment on "Yes the US leads in per capita emissions but BRICS, the Global majority also putting sovereignty ahead of global climate action which muust surely involve some kind of multilateral degrowth, makes a huge difference. "
The BRICS parties (Brazil, Russia, India, China, Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates) have responded variously to their international commitments, while always maintaining their sovereignty. Their domestic policies are intended to favor their own economies over everyone else's, just as the USA's are. Why would we expect them, or us, to do otherwise?
But some of those nations contribute more emissions than others:
China's emissions are much larger than India's, which are greater than the other BRICS nations, so China's actions carry the most weight among them. The USA, as the globally highest cumulative emitter so far, arguably carries the greatest quantitative responsibility for global warming, and therefore its abatement. And practically speaking, every decrement in our emissions, even in their growth rate from what it would otherwise be, counts quantitatively toward the global zero-emissions goal. IOW, we get the same climate-stabilization benefit of our emissions reductions the rest of the world gets!
China in particular has mitigated some of its ballooning energy demand by building out renewables production, but is having to burn more coal to make up for the shortfall to date compared to demand growth; nonetheless, international energy analysts are optimistic China's emissions will start falling this year or the next, as renewables supply ramps up. The US has reduced its own CO2 emissions by about 15% since 2000, largely by switching from coal to natural gas, for market-driven reasons that continue to socialize our fossil carbon emissions. Only two years ago was federal legislation to intervene in the US energy market, largely by subsidizing renewable energy development and consumer adoption, finally enacted (https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2024/08/18/inflation-reduction-act-two-years-later-americas-best-climate-action/).
So yes, the pace and duration of decarbonization, and therefore the total global heat content when equilibrium is finally reached, depends proportionally on each nation's emissions going forward. But sovereignty is exercised at the national rather than international level. Therefore, the US should not wait for every other nation to decarbonize their economies while trying to meet their burgeoning energy demand. We have to secure and extend the decarbonization progress made by the IRA of 2022 at a minimum, if global warming is to be capped short of global disaster. A Harris victor tomorrow offers a path forward. A Trump victory leads only backward, to official climate-change denial by the US government.
Lastly, quite apart from the USA's disproportionate responsibility to the rest of the world, Prof. Dessler and I happen to be Americans, with more than climate change at stake. Let me add my assurance to his: this election means a great deal to us!
“The US could lead the world’! Those days are well and truly over- the world ain’t listening anymore, fed up with decades of US interference, invasions and regime change- the global majority have made it quite clear their own growth comes first. I think a carbon tax on would go down especially badly.
This neocolonial attitude, even if for valid reasons, is hard to let go of.
Heh. Of course, the same could be said of the country you're writing from, as you're no doubt aware. The USA's star has waned, but has not yet set. We've still got a lot of buying power on the global marketplace. Even if we don't lead, we can at least keep from falling further and further behind!
You are right, the stars of the US (and its puppet UK), have not yet waned, but are fading fast. Lavrov's post-BRICS statement makes a very interesting read about the US led future in the multiopolar world
'The German government has shamefully accepted the humiliating destruction of the Nord Stream gas pipelines to the detriment of the fundamental interests of the German economy and people. Now Berlin has "taken a visor" when the United States announced its decision to deploy American ground-based medium-range missiles on German territory. Chancellor Olaf Scholz only called this decision "good."
Reckless proposals are being thrown in about strikes by Western long-range systems deep into Russian territory. I will not talk about the meaninglessness of the very idea of "fighting to victory" with Russia. At the very least, this will sharply reduce the chances of potential participants in such a war for any role in a multipolar future.'
'I would venture to suggest that you speculate about "when and if the West comes to its senses" and "when its conscience wakes up". Such a plot, in my opinion, would be interesting. When the West (there are still many smart people there) will understand that neocolonial habits are harmful, including for the West itself, that arrogance destroys its reputation. Let us recall EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell: Europe is a "blooming garden" and there is a "jungle" all around. Or US Secretary of State Antony Blinken: "Everyone who will not be at the table of democracy will be on the menu." This is a quote. I was horrified when I read this.
I also urge you to fantasize about what the countries of the world majority should do to speed up the process of bringing our Western colleagues to their senses, who, including for the sake of the future of their peoples, must realise that they need to behave decently.'
I just deposited my ballot in the official drop box nearest me. Then I bought a bottle of wine and a pint of ice cream. We may not know the final result for some time. The hell with stoic endurance.
The immediate thing you can do to help mitigate climate change & biodiversity loss, plus environmental pollution & ecological degradation in general, is to eat a healthy plant & fungi based diet (quit eating meat)
There are so many emotions and feelings to unpack. I take comfort in the fact that there are like minded people here, who value science, who know that the climate change is real and serious and caused by man. I share everyone's concern not just about climate change but about science and expertise in general in this country. Embracing the likes of Robert Kennedy Jr. is scary stuff.
But let's take a moment and think back to the stupid things that Trump has said, e.g. "Coal is king." We know how that story turned out in this country and in Europe. Fortunately, we have had the last four years to make more progress on driving down the cost of renewables and batteries. There is some momentum here that I think will be hard to undo.
In the meantime, we may need meet to look for areas where we do agree like nuclear power.
Oh, come on. Trump's victory means four more years of official climate (and vaccination, etc.) science denial by the US government. That will presumably mean incrementally greater warming, more lethal pandemics, illegal abortions, summary deportations, etc. than a Harris Presidency would have. But Americans are increasingly "alarmed" or "concerned" about climate change (climatecommunication.yale.edu/about/projects/global-warmings-six-americas/), just not yet enough to win this time. I fully expect our alarm to grow as weather extremes get more destructive. Meanwhile, other nations are decarbonizing with alacrity, AFAICT, and thank goodness for that! It's not a done deal, of course, but IMHO there's sufficient reason to keep trying, if you can "keep your head above water" as it were. No knows the future with certainty, after all, not even Hudson E. Baldwin III. Hell, "The future's uncertain and the end is always near" (J. Morrison). Have another beer.
Er, we just announced to the World that at least half of us are morally bankrupt. The other half of us will get another chance in the mid-term elections, for our votes to help determine the future. Be that as it may, this morning the near future of the planet looks grimmer than it did yesterday morning. I'm trying to take the long view!
I’m not sure this severity of your illusion of choice. From here, it doesn’t look good. Neither party has even mentioned or breached the topic of ending BIG DARK MONEY and the barriers to ACCESSING the BALLOT.
Without these dual absolute prerequisites, there is absolutely no path to restoring our intended constitutional republic. Therefore, zero chance of complex life survival on this rock.
We're now waiting to see if our national decarbonization policy will be sustained and extended, or reversed, by majority vote. Yeah, the Republican Party's strategy for gaining and holding power includes denying ballot access to as many potential opponents as it can get away with. The underlying problem, however, is that there are too many Republican voters! Would you be so kind as to heckle them instead of us?
What fucking national decarbonization policy? We’re extracting more fossil fuels than anytime in history. Jesus Christ you’re a fucking moron or a fossil fuel industrycock sleeve. I guess they’re not mutually exclusive…..
You’re a complete fucking idiot if you think we’ve done anything of statistical significance to mitigate the climate catastrophe ahead of us. Shut the fuck up. You’re not a reliable source.
There are only two things that can put a dent in mitigating the absolute climate catastrophe. The ending of fossil fuel extraction and use along with an unimaginably scaled direct carbon sequestration from the atmosphere. Neither one of those things are happening anytime soon. I know very much about this subject. Go away.
Except it will be completely depopulation. There’s not much of a chance for a complex life forms survival let alone human being. You’re Trippin. Stop speaking on topics of which you possess no knowledge. It’s embarrassing
I see you don't appreciate dark humor. The world was destined to end at some point, no matter what; it is just happening a lot sooner than we all expected. Relax and enjoy what is left of the ride.
Nearly 4,000,000,000 years of evolution. The sun isn’t going to absorb earth for another four or 5 billion years. Fuck you and you’re stupid fossil fuel 24 seven cock holster bullshit. There is no justification for being responsible for your own extension let alone all the other species on the planet.you’re extremely dumb, one gigantic asshole or both.
Snort! Don't you get pushback when you post stuff like that? Just because my fellow US voters chose the greater evil yesterday, that doesn't let you off the hook here. Demanding to be recognized and admired whether or not you've done anything to deserve it, and insisting without evidence that not only are you right but you're the only one who is, are manifestations of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (scientificamerican.com/article/the-2-faces-of-narcissism-admiration-seeking-and-rivalry). Or maybe it just takes one to know one 8^). In any case, the Abrahamic religions consider vanity, or pride, to be the deadliest sin, for it enables all others. Atheists must defer instead to the Mediocrity Principle (fearlessculture.design/blog-posts/this-one-principle-will-change-how-you-see-yourself). In my humble opinion, it's the most persuasive argument against self-importance in any scope. When atheist blogger PZ Myers, a teacher of undergraduate Biology, was asked "What scientific concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit?", his first thought was "algebra". Yet upon reflection, he recommended the MP (edge.org/response-detail/11272):
"The mediocrity principle simply states that you aren't special."
Lastly, you’re the only one exhibiting any self importance here. If it was about any other subject it would be rather amusing. Now fuck off. All the way off. And when you get there, you can fuck off some more. you should try to fake middle-class and possession of a few social sensibilities….
Confidence in one’s knowledge of a subject has nothing to do with narcissism. You are a complete fucking parody of yourself. I am an organic farmer who happens to enjoy raising organic Angus beef. You can skip the bullshit I have plenty.
I insist I am correct because I know what I know. Now I know what you don’t know. I never said nor insinuated everyone else is wrong. Your pseudo intellectual bullshit is rather tiresome.
When I need any kind of advice whatsoever for my fucking silicone ship dumb fuck Russian in a basement somewhere in St. Petersburg, I’ll get back to you. Fuck off
Tsk. Now you're displaying narcissistic rage. We're not the only participants on this blog, you know. Prof. Dessler reserves the right to ban obstreperous commenters.
I've looked into NPD for personal reasons, but I know what I don't know. So don't just take my word for it. Google's AI engine says (google.com/search?q=narcissism+criticism+rage):
"Narcissistic rage is an intense, disproportionate emotional response to criticism or other perceived threats to a person's self-esteem. It can be characterized by impulsive outbursts of anger or aggression, and can include: Verbal or emotional abuse, Demeaning tactics to protect their self-image, Lashing out aggressively, Retreating into silence, and Manipulation to regain a sense of control."
Actually, retreating into silence would be adaptive at this point! The more fool me ;^).
Sadly, those afflicted with NPD seldom seek therapy for their disorder. That's because the narcissist knows he has a problem dealing with other people, but he thinks it's their problem, not his! If you ever break through your layers of denial and disguise, Dialectical Behavior Therapy has been shown to help (google.com/search?q=narcissism+therapy). My final advice to you, welcome or not: get help!
A hydrological imbalance on the planet now exists. The homeostasis of the past 500-1000 years has changed. It would be extremely short cited to say this has to do with "climate change". Also short sited that it only has to do with fossil fuels burning. However, sometimes there are reasons that are so basic and right in our faces but because many of us are siloed scientists, stuck in our little boxes silos we often refuse to see the easiest explanations. What is the other greatest change of significance that has occured to many rivers and flowing waters on this planet within the last 150 -200 years? If you can figure this really tough question out you will discover the simple direct correlation to Hydrology and why our planets hydrological system is now stuck in feast or famine no longer in that sweet spot of homeostasis.
I'd love to know how you talk to students - if any - who are so hyper-passionate about climate (or Gaza) that they're pissed at Biden and Harris and poised to vote for Jill Stein or skip altogether? Some valuable progressive voices chimed in on this - rounded up on Sustain What: https://revkin.substack.com/p/for-those-voting-for-jill-stein-a
to be honest, I don't talk to students that explicitly about who to vote for. as their professor, I never want to say "you should vote for X". rather, I tell them that, if they care about climate, they should vote for people who support policies to minimize climate change. we also (of course) talk about what the range of those policies would look like.
also, I have talked to literally zero students who said they were voting for Stein or were skipping as a protest. I have talked to students who never registered, which is very sad.
Cliff, do you know you can edit or delete your own comments after they're posted? Look for the ellipsis ('...') to the right, under your comment. Beware over-editing yourself 8^|.
Even FORBES agrees with the science: "There are many clear choices at stake in tomorrow’s Presidential election. One of the starkest is climate and it comes at a time when the planet is careening toward catastrophic levels of warming.
Vice President Kamala Harris has called climate change an “existential threat.” While she hasn’t detailed a climate plan, she’s widely expected to continue federal support for clean energy and electric vehicles in an ongoing effort to move the American economy away from fossil fuels. In 2022, she cast the tie-breaking vote for the Inflation Reduction Act and has pledged to fully implement it.
Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump has called climate change “one of the greatest scams of all time,” and vowed to end federal support for the clean energy transition, while ramping up drilling for oil and gas, including in the Arctic."
It is true that continuing with current policies woud be better than wholesale abandonment. Trump is even less likely than Harris to enact a tax on net emission of CO2 or reform other net CO2 emissions policies to mimic the effects of the tax.
Like I just told the nihilistic Hudson E. Baldwin III, perfect is the enemy of better-than-the-only-alternative. Our country's founders were suspicious of anyone who wanted power (especially each other). They created our Constitution by grudging compromise, agreeing to share power carefully rather than let it be concentrated in too few hands, and requiring power seekers to jump through specified hoops and stay within specified bounds. The resulting document is thus the product of pragmatic sausage-making. It gives duly registered US voters (however the Republican leadership insists otherwise) the choice only among greater or lesser evils. I, for one, generally approve of Harris, but especially her demonstrated commitment to collective decarbonization of the US economy, while wielding whatever power we may still have to influence global decarbonization in addition, even if other nations have progressed farther than we. I favor a national per-ton fee (i.e. tax) on carbon producers at the wellhead or Port of Entry, in addition to tariffs on embodied carbon in imported goods; along with a periodic 100% dividend to every federal taxpayer. Politics being the art of the possible, I'm at least hoping for more incremental incentives for renewable energy ramp-up and consumer adoption. Not ideal, but better than otherwise-unbounded global warming!
And they tried to frame Trump as the anti-establishment, anti-deep state hero. What a joke. The power of the fossil fuel and animal ag lobbies (that gained huge traction from the backlash against the measures for the 'covid' debacle) may well ensure that he's elected.
For folks trying to bring climate-motivated voting through down-ballot candidates, I'll mention Climate Cabinet (https://climatecabinet.org/). Their whole thing is weighing the effective climate change stances of down-ballot candidates in state and local elections -- roles that hold a lot of aggregate influence.
That's a great looking organization. I love the concept of "money ball for climate politics". I hadn't heard of them before, but will keep them on my radar.
Having to purchase policy, as well as federal office is fucking pathetic, no matter the policy….
no one is actually offering us statistical significant climate mitigation policy since the green party has been co-opted by Putin and his vile cocksleeves…
What a fucking waste of energy these people must be.
I can’t remember the last time we’ve had a significant, soaking rain. Western Maryland Very scary.
You write like the US is voting for the president of the world! Yes the US leads in per capita emissions but BRICS, the Global majority also putting sovereignty ahead of global climate action which muust surely involve some kind of multilateral degrowth, makes a huge difference. Yes the US makes environmentally devastating war that could so easily be avoided if it accepted the end of unipolarity- but America is not the only country!
It seems that in every country, people say the same thing: “But we’re not the only ones!” In my country (mostly the far-right and climate change deniers, but not exclusively) often argue, “Look at the US, China, Russia, etc. We’re only responsible for 2% of global emissions, so whatever we do will make almost no difference.” It is an excuse that in plain terms means: “Let’s carry on with business as usual and do nothing.” It’s like being on a sinking ship where everyone blames others and expects them to take action first, unwilling to do anything themselves. Greetings from Germany.
Though my point is really that Harris cannot save the world from the climate crisis even if all Americans were behind her. America is becoming less and less important globally.
Hiya to you in Germany from London, yes the argument that one country or person can’t change anything-means nothing can ever change. This argument, climate denial and the blaming China etc has been deliberately circulated on social media aimed at the right but it is also significantly increasing among the ‘lefties’. It supports legacy industry nicely.
You have a point about American exceptionalism, but I'll comment on "Yes the US leads in per capita emissions but BRICS, the Global majority also putting sovereignty ahead of global climate action which muust surely involve some kind of multilateral degrowth, makes a huge difference. "
The BRICS parties (Brazil, Russia, India, China, Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates) have responded variously to their international commitments, while always maintaining their sovereignty. Their domestic policies are intended to favor their own economies over everyone else's, just as the USA's are. Why would we expect them, or us, to do otherwise?
But some of those nations contribute more emissions than others:
(https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-it-matter-how-much-united-states-reduces-its-carbon-dioxide-emissions)
China's emissions are much larger than India's, which are greater than the other BRICS nations, so China's actions carry the most weight among them. The USA, as the globally highest cumulative emitter so far, arguably carries the greatest quantitative responsibility for global warming, and therefore its abatement. And practically speaking, every decrement in our emissions, even in their growth rate from what it would otherwise be, counts quantitatively toward the global zero-emissions goal. IOW, we get the same climate-stabilization benefit of our emissions reductions the rest of the world gets!
China in particular has mitigated some of its ballooning energy demand by building out renewables production, but is having to burn more coal to make up for the shortfall to date compared to demand growth; nonetheless, international energy analysts are optimistic China's emissions will start falling this year or the next, as renewables supply ramps up. The US has reduced its own CO2 emissions by about 15% since 2000, largely by switching from coal to natural gas, for market-driven reasons that continue to socialize our fossil carbon emissions. Only two years ago was federal legislation to intervene in the US energy market, largely by subsidizing renewable energy development and consumer adoption, finally enacted (https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2024/08/18/inflation-reduction-act-two-years-later-americas-best-climate-action/).
So yes, the pace and duration of decarbonization, and therefore the total global heat content when equilibrium is finally reached, depends proportionally on each nation's emissions going forward. But sovereignty is exercised at the national rather than international level. Therefore, the US should not wait for every other nation to decarbonize their economies while trying to meet their burgeoning energy demand. We have to secure and extend the decarbonization progress made by the IRA of 2022 at a minimum, if global warming is to be capped short of global disaster. A Harris victor tomorrow offers a path forward. A Trump victory leads only backward, to official climate-change denial by the US government.
Lastly, quite apart from the USA's disproportionate responsibility to the rest of the world, Prof. Dessler and I happen to be Americans, with more than climate change at stake. Let me add my assurance to his: this election means a great deal to us!
True, but the US could lead the world to adopt the least costly policy for reducing net emissions, a tax thereon.
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/market-forces-are-not-enough-to-halt
“The US could lead the world’! Those days are well and truly over- the world ain’t listening anymore, fed up with decades of US interference, invasions and regime change- the global majority have made it quite clear their own growth comes first. I think a carbon tax on would go down especially badly.
This neocolonial attitude, even if for valid reasons, is hard to let go of.
Heh. Of course, the same could be said of the country you're writing from, as you're no doubt aware. The USA's star has waned, but has not yet set. We've still got a lot of buying power on the global marketplace. Even if we don't lead, we can at least keep from falling further and further behind!
You are right, the stars of the US (and its puppet UK), have not yet waned, but are fading fast. Lavrov's post-BRICS statement makes a very interesting read about the US led future in the multiopolar world
'The German government has shamefully accepted the humiliating destruction of the Nord Stream gas pipelines to the detriment of the fundamental interests of the German economy and people. Now Berlin has "taken a visor" when the United States announced its decision to deploy American ground-based medium-range missiles on German territory. Chancellor Olaf Scholz only called this decision "good."
Reckless proposals are being thrown in about strikes by Western long-range systems deep into Russian territory. I will not talk about the meaninglessness of the very idea of "fighting to victory" with Russia. At the very least, this will sharply reduce the chances of potential participants in such a war for any role in a multipolar future.'
https://karlof1.substack.com/p/lavrovs-important-post-brics-summit
'I would venture to suggest that you speculate about "when and if the West comes to its senses" and "when its conscience wakes up". Such a plot, in my opinion, would be interesting. When the West (there are still many smart people there) will understand that neocolonial habits are harmful, including for the West itself, that arrogance destroys its reputation. Let us recall EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell: Europe is a "blooming garden" and there is a "jungle" all around. Or US Secretary of State Antony Blinken: "Everyone who will not be at the table of democracy will be on the menu." This is a quote. I was horrified when I read this.
I also urge you to fantasize about what the countries of the world majority should do to speed up the process of bringing our Western colleagues to their senses, who, including for the sake of the future of their peoples, must realise that they need to behave decently.'
Why not put it more bluntly? Anyone who doesn't vote Democratic tomorrow is a stupid, selfish, short-sighted asshole.
I just deposited my ballot in the official drop box nearest me. Then I bought a bottle of wine and a pint of ice cream. We may not know the final result for some time. The hell with stoic endurance.
Dang. At least I'm not hungover today.
The immediate thing you can do to help mitigate climate change & biodiversity loss, plus environmental pollution & ecological degradation in general, is to eat a healthy plant & fungi based diet (quit eating meat)
Vote with your "wallet" (money, choices)
There are so many emotions and feelings to unpack. I take comfort in the fact that there are like minded people here, who value science, who know that the climate change is real and serious and caused by man. I share everyone's concern not just about climate change but about science and expertise in general in this country. Embracing the likes of Robert Kennedy Jr. is scary stuff.
But let's take a moment and think back to the stupid things that Trump has said, e.g. "Coal is king." We know how that story turned out in this country and in Europe. Fortunately, we have had the last four years to make more progress on driving down the cost of renewables and batteries. There is some momentum here that I think will be hard to undo.
In the meantime, we may need meet to look for areas where we do agree like nuclear power.
November 6. The US has just announced to the World that it is morally bankrupt.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap. We blew our very last chance to take some of the grimness out of our future. Too bad.
Oh, come on. Trump's victory means four more years of official climate (and vaccination, etc.) science denial by the US government. That will presumably mean incrementally greater warming, more lethal pandemics, illegal abortions, summary deportations, etc. than a Harris Presidency would have. But Americans are increasingly "alarmed" or "concerned" about climate change (climatecommunication.yale.edu/about/projects/global-warmings-six-americas/), just not yet enough to win this time. I fully expect our alarm to grow as weather extremes get more destructive. Meanwhile, other nations are decarbonizing with alacrity, AFAICT, and thank goodness for that! It's not a done deal, of course, but IMHO there's sufficient reason to keep trying, if you can "keep your head above water" as it were. No knows the future with certainty, after all, not even Hudson E. Baldwin III. Hell, "The future's uncertain and the end is always near" (J. Morrison). Have another beer.
Er, we just announced to the World that at least half of us are morally bankrupt. The other half of us will get another chance in the mid-term elections, for our votes to help determine the future. Be that as it may, this morning the near future of the planet looks grimmer than it did yesterday morning. I'm trying to take the long view!
The dinosaurs were taking the long view too.
I’m not sure this severity of your illusion of choice. From here, it doesn’t look good. Neither party has even mentioned or breached the topic of ending BIG DARK MONEY and the barriers to ACCESSING the BALLOT.
Without these dual absolute prerequisites, there is absolutely no path to restoring our intended constitutional republic. Therefore, zero chance of complex life survival on this rock.
$10 side bets. Venus, or Mars?
Wow. That's as succinct an expression of pure political nihilism as I've heard.
You're right: under the laws of Physics, NOTHING LASTS FOREVER. And the Mediocrity Principle (https://www.fearlessculture.design/blog-posts/this-one-principle-will-change-how-you-see-yourself) assures us NOTHING'S PERFECT, not even you. Your purism is the archenemy of incremental melioration, IOW. But how do you know you're not living under an illusion of your own superiority?
Zero chance of survival? In the long run, the sun shall engulf the earth. In the shorter term, how long we survive, and how well, depends on our behavior. Bringing dark money to light over the last few election cycles (e.g. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/kochland-examines-how-the-koch-brothers-made-their-fortune-and-the-influence-it-bought) was a contributing cause of the USA's first collective step toward taking the profit out of selling fossil fuels. According to Forbes, "the capitalist's tool" (https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2024/08/18/inflation-reduction-act-two-years-later-americas-best-climate-action), the IRA of 2022 has reduced our aggregate emissions, but not as much as its backers hoped. I baldly assert that's BETTER THAN NOTHING.
We're now waiting to see if our national decarbonization policy will be sustained and extended, or reversed, by majority vote. Yeah, the Republican Party's strategy for gaining and holding power includes denying ballot access to as many potential opponents as it can get away with. The underlying problem, however, is that there are too many Republican voters! Would you be so kind as to heckle them instead of us?
What fucking national decarbonization policy? We’re extracting more fossil fuels than anytime in history. Jesus Christ you’re a fucking moron or a fossil fuel industrycock sleeve. I guess they’re not mutually exclusive…..
You’re a complete fucking idiot if you think we’ve done anything of statistical significance to mitigate the climate catastrophe ahead of us. Shut the fuck up. You’re not a reliable source.
There are only two things that can put a dent in mitigating the absolute climate catastrophe. The ending of fossil fuel extraction and use along with an unimaginably scaled direct carbon sequestration from the atmosphere. Neither one of those things are happening anytime soon. I know very much about this subject. Go away.
Depopulation can, and will, mitigate the catastrophe.
I don’t think the surviving single celled organisms are going to give a fuck. You really don’t understand any of this. Best to sit and be quiet
Except it will be completely depopulation. There’s not much of a chance for a complex life forms survival let alone human being. You’re Trippin. Stop speaking on topics of which you possess no knowledge. It’s embarrassing
I see you don't appreciate dark humor. The world was destined to end at some point, no matter what; it is just happening a lot sooner than we all expected. Relax and enjoy what is left of the ride.
You can eat the peanuts out of my shit, fossil fuel Fluffer boi.
Nearly 4,000,000,000 years of evolution. The sun isn’t going to absorb earth for another four or 5 billion years. Fuck you and you’re stupid fossil fuel 24 seven cock holster bullshit. There is no justification for being responsible for your own extension let alone all the other species on the planet.you’re extremely dumb, one gigantic asshole or both.
That’s the dumbest fucking rationalization and defense of the indefensible I’ve ever ever heard. It’s beyond morally bankrupt to tank
"I know very much about this subject. Go away."
Snort! Don't you get pushback when you post stuff like that? Just because my fellow US voters chose the greater evil yesterday, that doesn't let you off the hook here. Demanding to be recognized and admired whether or not you've done anything to deserve it, and insisting without evidence that not only are you right but you're the only one who is, are manifestations of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (scientificamerican.com/article/the-2-faces-of-narcissism-admiration-seeking-and-rivalry). Or maybe it just takes one to know one 8^). In any case, the Abrahamic religions consider vanity, or pride, to be the deadliest sin, for it enables all others. Atheists must defer instead to the Mediocrity Principle (fearlessculture.design/blog-posts/this-one-principle-will-change-how-you-see-yourself). In my humble opinion, it's the most persuasive argument against self-importance in any scope. When atheist blogger PZ Myers, a teacher of undergraduate Biology, was asked "What scientific concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit?", his first thought was "algebra". Yet upon reflection, he recommended the MP (edge.org/response-detail/11272):
"The mediocrity principle simply states that you aren't special."
Lastly, you’re the only one exhibiting any self importance here. If it was about any other subject it would be rather amusing. Now fuck off. All the way off. And when you get there, you can fuck off some more. you should try to fake middle-class and possession of a few social sensibilities….
Confidence in one’s knowledge of a subject has nothing to do with narcissism. You are a complete fucking parody of yourself. I am an organic farmer who happens to enjoy raising organic Angus beef. You can skip the bullshit I have plenty.
I insist I am correct because I know what I know. Now I know what you don’t know. I never said nor insinuated everyone else is wrong. Your pseudo intellectual bullshit is rather tiresome.
When I need any kind of advice whatsoever for my fucking silicone ship dumb fuck Russian in a basement somewhere in St. Petersburg, I’ll get back to you. Fuck off
Tsk. Now you're displaying narcissistic rage. We're not the only participants on this blog, you know. Prof. Dessler reserves the right to ban obstreperous commenters.
I've looked into NPD for personal reasons, but I know what I don't know. So don't just take my word for it. Google's AI engine says (google.com/search?q=narcissism+criticism+rage):
"Narcissistic rage is an intense, disproportionate emotional response to criticism or other perceived threats to a person's self-esteem. It can be characterized by impulsive outbursts of anger or aggression, and can include: Verbal or emotional abuse, Demeaning tactics to protect their self-image, Lashing out aggressively, Retreating into silence, and Manipulation to regain a sense of control."
Actually, retreating into silence would be adaptive at this point! The more fool me ;^).
Sadly, those afflicted with NPD seldom seek therapy for their disorder. That's because the narcissist knows he has a problem dealing with other people, but he thinks it's their problem, not his! If you ever break through your layers of denial and disguise, Dialectical Behavior Therapy has been shown to help (google.com/search?q=narcissism+therapy). My final advice to you, welcome or not: get help!
Your pseudo intellectual gibberish isn’t even humorous.
A hydrological imbalance on the planet now exists. The homeostasis of the past 500-1000 years has changed. It would be extremely short cited to say this has to do with "climate change". Also short sited that it only has to do with fossil fuels burning. However, sometimes there are reasons that are so basic and right in our faces but because many of us are siloed scientists, stuck in our little boxes silos we often refuse to see the easiest explanations. What is the other greatest change of significance that has occured to many rivers and flowing waters on this planet within the last 150 -200 years? If you can figure this really tough question out you will discover the simple direct correlation to Hydrology and why our planets hydrological system is now stuck in feast or famine no longer in that sweet spot of homeostasis.
I'd love to know how you talk to students - if any - who are so hyper-passionate about climate (or Gaza) that they're pissed at Biden and Harris and poised to vote for Jill Stein or skip altogether? Some valuable progressive voices chimed in on this - rounded up on Sustain What: https://revkin.substack.com/p/for-those-voting-for-jill-stein-a
to be honest, I don't talk to students that explicitly about who to vote for. as their professor, I never want to say "you should vote for X". rather, I tell them that, if they care about climate, they should vote for people who support policies to minimize climate change. we also (of course) talk about what the range of those policies would look like.
also, I have talked to literally zero students who said they were voting for Stein or were skipping as a protest. I have talked to students who never registered, which is very sad.
Cliff, do you know you can edit or delete your own comments after they're posted? Look for the ellipsis ('...') to the right, under your comment. Beware over-editing yourself 8^|.