General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt would be nice to hear it straight for once. Stopping climate change means giving up on growth.
from Dissent magazine:
Growth vs. the Climate
Daniel Immerwahr ▪ Spring 2015
[font size="1"]"We have the solutions." At the Peoples Climate March, September 21, 2014 (Light Brigading/Flickr)[/font]
The year 2013 was one of the ten hottest on record. So was 2010. So were 2009, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2003, 2002, and 1998. Last year, with its polar vortex and biting winter, seemed to bring relief to North America. Except it also brought temperatures of over 120ºF to Australia, massive flooding to Malaysia, and the third harrowing year of drought to California. As it turns out, 2014 was the hottest single year since meteorologists started measuring in 1850.
By now, weve raised the average global temperature a little less than one degree Celsius since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The best predictions suggest that, if we go about our business as usual, we will raise it somewhere between four and six degrees by 2100. With the heat will also come side effects: fiercer and more frequent storms, droughts, acidifying oceans, melting glaciers, and the loss of species.
And the bad news is, thats not even the bad news. Although the altered climate is threatening in its own rightheat alone killed tens of thousands of Europeans in the lethal summer of 2003the thing to really worry about is the infrastructure. Each drought, each megastorm, each scorching summer puts a strain on the complex systems that provide us with water, food, and power and that keep disease and disorder at bay. These systems can often endure a single crisisone Sandy, one Katrina. The problem is what happens when the Sandys and Katrinas start coming back to back, piling up on each other. Thats when the money runs out, the electricity goes off, and everyone starts wondering where to find water. If true catastrophe arrives, it will not come graduallythe frog in boiling waterbut, as the historian Nils Gilman writes, as a series of radical discontinuitiesa series of bewildering oh shit events.
Welcome to the future. Oh shit.
Those with long memories will know that this isnt the first time it felt like we were testing the earths ability to support us. In 1968, the biologist Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, which prophesied civilizational collapse for societies unable to rapidly bring down their birth rates. There were simply too many people, he argued, for the planets dwindling supply of resources. Ehrlich got a vasectomy and preached birth control, though he also advocated for more extreme measures: compulsory sterilization, a ban on cars, and a tax on cribs. Internationally, he proposed triage, aiding the countries that remained viable but writing off those, like India, that he saw as too far gone. .......................(more)
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/growth-vs-the-climate
pscot
(21,024 posts)Which makes it a non-starter.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesnt always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one youre already in.[/center][/font][hr]
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I have been an advocate for zero population growth since being a teenager in the 1970's and the evidence that we're fucking up only grows worse.
One of the reasons I cannot abide a Clinton is that Bill halted efforts to improve vehicle efficiency and did more harm than good by allowing SUVs and Light Trucks to be excepted from the rules.
Anyway, just as the Princeton Wedge game to find ways to end the annual increases in emissions doesn't go far enough (we need to halt and then reverse the trends) it's not enough to end growth, we actually have to reduce.
Of course both parties are pro business, pro growth, and very few people have the courage to speak the truth about it.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Even if it is the only way to really save the earth for your grand children and so on.
Bryant
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...that brought us to this point...
raccoon
(31,136 posts)Which is also a non-starter.
pampango
(24,692 posts)liberals. That may work for "I never have enough" conservatives who think that way with regard to our own poor but it won't work with liberals. In the West we need to minimize our carbon footprint while redistributing the income we already have - over $50,000 per capita.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and an environmentalist so very devoted to the good of the planet that one should instantly overlook his raging bigotry against LGBT people.....
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)And this same progressive is a raging bigot against LGBT people?
Please tell us who that is.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Naomi Klein's brilliant book "This Changes Everything." And that's why the reichwingers fight effective remedies do desperately and deny it: climate change kicks the props out from under the entire neoliberal construct.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)They're not only fighting it, they're grabbing as many scraps as they can, while they can.