You might want to take a little time this afternoon to peruse a report on the health and future of our oceans. You can choose from the short summary or the long one (both in PDF form). The report was created by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO). The bottom line is that the oceans are absorbing large quantities of carbon dioxide which is causing them to turn into acid. No one wants to swim in an acid bath. The oceans are also warming at a worse-case scenario pace.
I don’t know what we have to do to get people to recognize that climate change is happening, but maybe talking about the oceans and sea-life can help. One byproduct of a more acidic ocean is that it makes it harder to have a shell. Shells will soften, or even dissolve in water that is too acidic. Imagine a world with no shellfish! That might grab someone’s attention. I don’t know, we’re all idiots. From the report:
Technical means to achieve the solutions to
many of
the
problems
the
workshop
identified
already
exist,
but
current
societal
values
prevent
humankind
from
addressing
them
effectively.
Overcoming
these
barriers
is
core
to
the
fundamental
changes
needed
to
achieve
a
sustainable
and
equitable
future
for
the
generations
to
come
and
which
preserves
the
natural
ecosystems
of
the
Earth
that
we benefit
from
and
enjoy
today.
Basically greedheads are making it impossible for us to prevent the destruction of marine life. And, you know what comes after that.
link
Boo:
It’s all thanks to that “pro-business” agenda. When you put business before people and the planet, I don’t need to tell you what happens next.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."This topic is distressing to me because it’s pretty obvious that these changes in the climate have global implications. How do we know where the point of no return is? How do we know we haven’t already reached it?
If only this could be discussed in non-political terms. Apparently even when data is plainly shown and the facts stated, opponents simply dismiss and ridicule them. The politics and the corporate anger make fighting for this cause almost impossible.
Even discussing climate change among other people, I’ve found a parroting of Talking Points and people just won’t budge. I guess that when the oceans are dissolving ships and shorelines and ocean wildlife is parboiled and dying on the beaches then maybe someone will notice.
By that time there won’t be any someones. Unless you’re referring to some new species of intelligent worms or insects.
I tried hard to think about our ocenas, but couldn’t seem to visualize them. Did you take that break yet, Boo?
had to laugh, very funny
Now see, that’s what BooMan is talking about. No imagination. Sometimes you gotta think outside the box. Next thing you’ll be denouncing clamite change as a hoax.
Is that like making clam chowder with (shudder) tomato?
I don’t think I have an ocena. Life is unfair.
Isn’t an ocena some sort of small musical instrument? I don’t have one, anyway; not even a harmonica.
what you’re thinking of is an ocarina ……glad to be of help.
do the ocarinas imitate the music of the whales?
I don’t know what we have to do to get people to recognize that climate change is happening,
For me this is THE most important issue of our time (and yes, a big part of the reason I am a former-supporter-now-detractor of Obama). I spend more time reading about this than any other, and love all of Steven D’s posts on the topic.
I personally think we’re way beyond trying to figure out better communication strategies. To borrow a popular political analogy in the US — this is a war. A war between good and evil. Exaggeration? How do you define evil? Usually the definition has something to do with causing harm to others for personal enjoyment or gain. And that is certainly what the pro-Carbon-Pollution crusade is all about.
Even if you don’t fully agree with that characterization, the model is a useful one to have. Because once you realize that the enemy — the pro-carbon-pollution lobby — is evil you also realize they have no rules, no fair play, no concessions of even minor points, and that absolutely NOTHING you say or prove will make a difference.
I mean, a few years back it seemed to me that we’d at least made one gain — it seemed no one on the wingnut side was arguing that the earth was cooling. Then, suddenly, that article appeared in the Daily Telegraph — as logically deficient as “Liberal Fascism” or any other wingnut book — and before you knew it all the pro-carbon-pollution pundits, even those who had acknowledged the earth was warming, were on board with the new meme.
And, as long as they own most of the press and the rest aren’t any good at counteracting then, they’ll succeed in making most people believe that there is real doubt about whether there is global warming. That’s why it’s war. You can’t win this thinking that it’s a debate. It’s a war with evil and the future of the species depends on winning it.
It’s by far the most important issue of our time. By far. It’s why I fucking supported Obama over Hillary. But no, he chose health care as more important. Ugh.
I think what “most people” believe is near-irrelevant. Most people believe that climate change is real, but it doesn’t matter. The real triumph of the enemy is in infecting people with despair over the chance that the problem can be solved — which then turns into practical indifference. It’s a venerable reaction for vertebrates: the prey sees the end is here and quits struggling.
I don’t think Obama’s attitude is wrong on climate change — he’s done more to reckon with it than any predecessor. His long-term vision and planning is pretty good, IMO. The problem is the “no drama” nature of his personality. The Gulf spill, the fires, the drought emergencies were all opportunities for a massive, dramatic, and immediate response, something everybody could root for right now. A giant windfarm on the Gulf to replace the oil rigs, for example, or a TVA-like solar generating complex in the desert. Or a massive energy/water conservation campaign with real carrots and sticks that redistributes wealth from the wasters to the conservers. There seems to be no one among the leadership who understands — or is it cares about — making environmental survival the core cause that everyone can rally around.
Meanwhile, the enemy passes a bill to protect the most enormously wasteful, environmentally damaging lighting technology there is. And nobody much cares, by the look of things.
I don’t think Obama’s attitude is wrong on climate change — he’s done more to reckon with it than any predecessor. His long-term vision and planning is pretty good, IMO.
Not so sure. More than any predecessor? Well, that’s not saying much, is it? The first major push on this topic was in 1988 with Hansen’s paper, and GHWB did sign laws funding more study on the topic, which was warranted. Clinton didn’t do much, but then the science was still building during most of his presidency. GWB did nothing — and even blocked some EPA regs. Obama has removed the blocks on the EPA regs. Not exactly inspiring, is it?
Contrast Obama’s stance to the politically risk stance being taken down in Australia by their PM. Night-and-day.
Heck, if you really want to compare, Nixon, Ford and Carter all did far more to fight global warming than Obama has, and that was before global warming, per se, was even understood to be an issue. Nixon signed the CWA and CAA and honestly (what an odd adjective to apply to Nixon) oversaw the creation of the EPA and CAFE. Ford pushed through the national 55 limit and the extension of CAFE. Carter, of course, tried his best to fund a national program of energy independence based on renewable technologies. Most of Carter’s dreams fell flat, but he did accomplish a lot of investment in that area before Reagan killed most of it.
Hell, at the bare minimum Obama could give a great speech on the topic (it’s what he’s good at after all) and install solar panels on the White House, like Carter did (and Reagan removed) as a symbol. But we don’t even get that from him.