Trump’s re-election is “the final nail in the coffin” for the Paris Agreement's North Star goal, nine experts told HEATED. But we can still limit the damage.
Democratic senators etc should educate the public about what adding Trump carbon to the atmosphere means. People even in florida etc that have been affected directly by storms should be fed a constant narrative of why it is happening. A young guy running for a seat in Florida (can't remember name) has said people are starting to wake up but each event no matter how small has to be talked about, and it won't be the MSM that does it.
The world will be taking a step backwards over the next four years. All we can do is hang on as best as we can as the storm blows through and hope that the voters in the U.S. learn their lesson and move the pendulum back the other way in 2028. Meanwhile, the storms and fires will continue to get worse. The air and water pollution will kill more life forms. All we can do is try to survive the storm as best as we can and try to keep the casualties to a minimum until something changes for the better.
If Chinese leaders are smart, they will see T's reelection as an opportunity for China to dominate the world's renewable energy markets. Fossil fuels are a dead end regardless of what T and his followers think!
Thanks for the good synopsis and for continuing the good reporting on climate-related issues. Us climate activist types are grieving after the election outcome. What will be moving ahead will be corruption that benefits the already wealthy and connected. All of whom can buy insulation from the impacts of climate. The rest of life on earth besides humans has no money or voice. But I do hope, imagine and will work for what I think is the innate good in humanity to want to care for this earth and all that lives on it. Our lesson: we ain't perfect. But dammit we keep trying! Onward!
My response to this (besides sadness) has been wanting to donate to an organization that can still achieve good things even without the government cooperating. I'm just not sure which org is most effective.
It's an uphill battle considering Democrats seem willing to tack to the center on pretty much every issue, including climate change, but the point is well taken. There's still work to be done.
I think it’s time we start having conversations about Carbon Removal to repair the damage we’ve already done. We may already be at the point where solar radiation management is needed
I live in the US NE. In the past, commenting on climate would either illicit blank stares, or " that's not for a hundred years. I'm not worried about it". Now, any mention of climate returns angry (at best, at worst guns air cocking) replies, and I'm a fool because "everyone know's it's a hoax" (genuine quotes). Please note that the last comment was while we stood around in New England in mid November in shorts and tee shirts. Granted, that's 'weather' and not 'climate', but it's worth noting. I can say positively that the 'public' has ZERO idea what average temperature means. ZERO. "It's changed 10 degrees this morning, so what if it's 12 degrees?" (another quote). Anyway, I'm all for giving the roaches another shot at it. Maybe they will do better.
Totally agree with Claudia's statement about educating the public about what adding Trump carbon to the atmosphere means.
I think we need to re-tool the way we talk about climate change in general to start saying exclusively that FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS are causing more droughts, more floods, more wildfires, sea level rise, etc. INSTEAD OF SAYING THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS DOING THIS. Climate change is not causing anything--it is the fossil fuel emissions that have the causal links that are driving the changes. in the climate and the more we start saying this, the sooner folks will get it. Specifically, here are the causal links:
FFE>IT>more frequent, severe droughts>more extreme wildfires
FFE>IT>more frequent, severe flooding caused by increased water in atmosphere
FFE>IT>poleward shift of species habitats
FFE>IT>increased glacial melt>sea level rise, exacerbated by expansion of water volume by it being warmer
FFE>IT>warmer oceans>coral bleaching, myriad other effects
FFE>increased acidification of oceans>plankton die-offs>myriad other effects
Where is the causal link to climate change? "Climate change" is an abstraction that has been reified to give it causal qualities that it doesn't have. This reified abstraction has been given false attribution qualities that properly belong to fossil fuel emissions. People understand that anabolic steroids enhance performance of athletes, and injecting fossil fuel emissions into the air is juicing the atmospheric chemistry in exactly the same manner. Folks will understand this causal link in exactly the same way if we only use the term "climate change" as the OUTCOME of fossil fuel emissions, not the CAUSE of the changes that are taking place.
As conservatives take power, I'm curious to learn more about whether or not people who care about climate change can trust the work being done within the Republican party by groups like American Conservation Coalition. Is it worth trying to work within the existing framework to try and help them move their party closer to adopting better environmental policies, or are our versions of reality just too different to be able to work together?
I'm eager to see how places like Bangladesh and the small island developing states move through Baku at COP29. Of course every .1C matters, but (not Arielle but we see this elsewhere) a false dichotomy of 'We either stick to the line of 1.5C still being possible or we are giving up on climate', which just isn't tenable. But the threshold of 1.5C was there for a reason. A guesstimate of level above which a lot of places would be written off. What do those places say over the next two weeks?
Democratic senators etc should educate the public about what adding Trump carbon to the atmosphere means. People even in florida etc that have been affected directly by storms should be fed a constant narrative of why it is happening. A young guy running for a seat in Florida (can't remember name) has said people are starting to wake up but each event no matter how small has to be talked about, and it won't be the MSM that does it.
The world will be taking a step backwards over the next four years. All we can do is hang on as best as we can as the storm blows through and hope that the voters in the U.S. learn their lesson and move the pendulum back the other way in 2028. Meanwhile, the storms and fires will continue to get worse. The air and water pollution will kill more life forms. All we can do is try to survive the storm as best as we can and try to keep the casualties to a minimum until something changes for the better.
If Chinese leaders are smart, they will see T's reelection as an opportunity for China to dominate the world's renewable energy markets. Fossil fuels are a dead end regardless of what T and his followers think!
Thanks for the good synopsis and for continuing the good reporting on climate-related issues. Us climate activist types are grieving after the election outcome. What will be moving ahead will be corruption that benefits the already wealthy and connected. All of whom can buy insulation from the impacts of climate. The rest of life on earth besides humans has no money or voice. But I do hope, imagine and will work for what I think is the innate good in humanity to want to care for this earth and all that lives on it. Our lesson: we ain't perfect. But dammit we keep trying! Onward!
Here is my estimate of the climate impact of Trump 2.0--
https://leadthechange.bard.edu/blog/how-much-would-trump-2.0-heat-up-the-planet
My response to this (besides sadness) has been wanting to donate to an organization that can still achieve good things even without the government cooperating. I'm just not sure which org is most effective.
It's an uphill battle considering Democrats seem willing to tack to the center on pretty much every issue, including climate change, but the point is well taken. There's still work to be done.
I think it’s time we start having conversations about Carbon Removal to repair the damage we’ve already done. We may already be at the point where solar radiation management is needed
I live in the US NE. In the past, commenting on climate would either illicit blank stares, or " that's not for a hundred years. I'm not worried about it". Now, any mention of climate returns angry (at best, at worst guns air cocking) replies, and I'm a fool because "everyone know's it's a hoax" (genuine quotes). Please note that the last comment was while we stood around in New England in mid November in shorts and tee shirts. Granted, that's 'weather' and not 'climate', but it's worth noting. I can say positively that the 'public' has ZERO idea what average temperature means. ZERO. "It's changed 10 degrees this morning, so what if it's 12 degrees?" (another quote). Anyway, I'm all for giving the roaches another shot at it. Maybe they will do better.
Totally agree with Claudia's statement about educating the public about what adding Trump carbon to the atmosphere means.
I think we need to re-tool the way we talk about climate change in general to start saying exclusively that FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS are causing more droughts, more floods, more wildfires, sea level rise, etc. INSTEAD OF SAYING THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS DOING THIS. Climate change is not causing anything--it is the fossil fuel emissions that have the causal links that are driving the changes. in the climate and the more we start saying this, the sooner folks will get it. Specifically, here are the causal links:
Fossil fuel emissions (FFE)>changed atmospheric chemistry> increased temperatures(IT).
FFE>IT>more frequent, severe droughts>more extreme wildfires
FFE>IT>more frequent, severe flooding caused by increased water in atmosphere
FFE>IT>poleward shift of species habitats
FFE>IT>increased glacial melt>sea level rise, exacerbated by expansion of water volume by it being warmer
FFE>IT>warmer oceans>coral bleaching, myriad other effects
FFE>increased acidification of oceans>plankton die-offs>myriad other effects
Where is the causal link to climate change? "Climate change" is an abstraction that has been reified to give it causal qualities that it doesn't have. This reified abstraction has been given false attribution qualities that properly belong to fossil fuel emissions. People understand that anabolic steroids enhance performance of athletes, and injecting fossil fuel emissions into the air is juicing the atmospheric chemistry in exactly the same manner. Folks will understand this causal link in exactly the same way if we only use the term "climate change" as the OUTCOME of fossil fuel emissions, not the CAUSE of the changes that are taking place.
As conservatives take power, I'm curious to learn more about whether or not people who care about climate change can trust the work being done within the Republican party by groups like American Conservation Coalition. Is it worth trying to work within the existing framework to try and help them move their party closer to adopting better environmental policies, or are our versions of reality just too different to be able to work together?
Hi! I've written about this before, when conservatives were in power. My thoughts largely hold but probably need to be updated: https://heated.world/p/why-im-skeptical-about-climate-bipartisanship
I'm eager to see how places like Bangladesh and the small island developing states move through Baku at COP29. Of course every .1C matters, but (not Arielle but we see this elsewhere) a false dichotomy of 'We either stick to the line of 1.5C still being possible or we are giving up on climate', which just isn't tenable. But the threshold of 1.5C was there for a reason. A guesstimate of level above which a lot of places would be written off. What do those places say over the next two weeks?