David Roberts lays it out: to avoid severe, irreversible, and overwhelmingly negative impacts "would require a level of immediate, global, coordinated action never before seen in human history."

The most extreme climate “alarmists” in U.S. politics are not nearly alarmed enough. The chances of avoiding catastrophic global temperature rise are not nil, exactly, but they are slim-to-nil,...

Nothing approaching that level of action is on the table, in the U.S. or any other country.

...a carbon tax big enough to generate the reductions these researchers are talking about would be gargantuan, on the order of hundreds of dollars per ton, not to mention the massive tariffs that would have to be levied on carbon-intensive imports. The fact is, achieving these reductions would require rethinking and rebuilding most of the political and economic systems that govern the country. [emphasis mine]


Yikes: Avoiding dangerous climate change is still possible, but jus...

Would that the public grasped we're facing a planetary emergency.

Tags: Climate Change, Climate Destabilization, Planetary Emergency, media bias, reatinking economics, rethinking politics

Views: 36

Replies to This Discussion

I agree - more people are ignoring the problem.

Jason Mark thinks this is behind the mass media's dwindling coverage of Climate Change.

Media coverage of climate change peaked in late 2009, during the Copenhagen summit, and has since dropped off dramatically. The decline in climate change coverage has occurred in both print articles worldwide and television broadcasts in the US.

Why is this happening?

A couple of factors are at play. The US political establishment’s neglect of the issue is a central reason why the mainstream media gets away with ignoring this existential threat.

The media has a hard time wrapping its (herd-like, Borg-like) mind around climate change because climate change is the kind of story that calls into question the foundational assumptions of our economy and society.

The media’s built-in bias for staying close to the center of economic orthodoxy isn’t going to disappear anytime soon. [emphasis mine]

Bill McKibben’s Rolling Stone Article Was a Hit — So Why Didn’t It ...

And what we see is the usual: politicians don't want to act on what they must know about climate change; it would need drastic and very impopular measures and that would cost votes! So they ignore the problem and think that the next government should act - but they themselves want to finish their career first...

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service