We’re paying a high price for the wrong people’s way of life

'Tom Camfield
Blogger
Posted 1/22/20

As fire has been continuing to consume much of Australia, the latest update 0n Jan. 20 described 40,000 square miles, about the equivalent of the state of Ohio, having burned since the many blazes …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

We’re paying a high price for the wrong people’s way of life

Posted

As fire has been continuing to consume much of Australia, the latest update 0n Jan. 20 described 40,000 square miles, about the equivalent of the state of Ohio, having burned since the many blazes began along in September and joined forces. That’s considerably more than the area of land that burned during 2019’s devastating Amazon rainforest fires and around 100 times larger than the total area burned in the 2019 California wildfires.

According to one expert, if it’s in Canada, California, Greece, Portugal or Australia, “this portends what we can expect”—not a “new normal” but a “downward spiral,” in the words of another climate expert.

It must be the equivalent of mid-summer down there in the southern hemisphere.

The Australian continent is almost identical in size to the lower continental 48 states of the U.S. (excluding Alaska). Untold millions of native creatures have perished in the flames. Fire-fighters have flown to the scene from the U.S. (Only 90 more years until you’re my age, Simon. Presuming humankind survives, however, you quite possibly will have lost a grandson in some battle over fresh water. The winter snow packs and aquifers should have all but disappeared in many areas, temperatures risen disastrously, foodstuffs of all manner diminished.)

Meanwhile back here in 2020, we’ve just had the world’s hottest decade on record. You were counting on seeing nine decades, Simon, but there’s some serious doubt about that.

Findings released by NASA and the NOAA (National Oceanic and Oceanic Administration) show 2019 to have been the second-hottest on record, trailing only 2016. The last five years each rank above among the five hottest since record keeping began. Some 19 of the hottest 20 years have occurred during the last two decades.

SO WHAT’S NEXT? Humans are continuing to emit 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. (Just a single 10 billion tons equals 20,000,000,000,ooo pounds, by way of visual example.)

The Washington Post recently noted that leaders of nations around the world have vowed to try to limit the Earth’s warming to no more than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels in an effort to stave off catastrophic sea level rise, extremely increasing weather episodes . . . but hitting that line would require a rapid, transformational shift away from fossil fuels that has yet to materialize.

Donald Trump, for instance, is not aboard—and shows no sign of ever being so. He has announced withdrawal of the U.S. from the only major multi-nation effort to save the planet, the Paris Accord. As of May 2019, a total of 194 states and the European Union have signed the Agreement. 186 states and the EU, representing almost 97% of global greenhouse gas emissions, have ratified or acceded to the Agreement, including China, the United States (which has notified the UN of its decision to withdraw from the agreement) and India, the countries with three of the four largest greenhouse gas emissions of the UNFCC members (totaling about 42% together).

“You have not seen anything yet,” 17-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg of Sweden said Friday as she marched with 10,000 protestors in Lausanne, Switzerland—before heading on this week to Davos to challenge the global political and financial elite in fighting climate change. Thunberg is attending for the second time and is participating in two panel events.

Thunberg, who launched the #Fridays for Future movement that has sparked worldwide protests, continues to denounce a lack of government action to cut heat-trapping emissions before it is too late. She says: “We have entered a new decade and so far, during this decade, we have seen no change whatsoever that real climate action is coming and that has to change . . . you have not seen the last of us. And that is the message we will bring to the World Economic Forum in Davos.”

The federal 9th District Court of Appeals Jan. 17 dismissed a lawsuit by 21 young people who claim the national government’s policies and reliance on fossil fuels are harmful to them, jeopardize their future and violate their constitutional rights. The court wrote that the youngsters made a compelling case that action is needed and agreed that climate change is undeniable, but said the proper venue for addressing the nation’s emission policies and fossil fuel use is the U.S, Congress or the executive branch.

That would be—let’s see—Donald Trump and/or a Congress including a Republican Senate headed by Trump lapdog McConnell. Our only true choice appears to be the coming 2020 election.

Comments

15 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment
Justin Hale

"Our only true choice appears to be the coming 2020 election.".....fear-mongering much Tom?

I would ask that if someone is going to vote against President Trump based on his position on the Paris Accords and the GND, that they actually read the documents first and then decide, and not fall prey to partisan Trump-haters telling you that the world will soon come to an end if you don't vote Trump out of office, or some such nonsense.

Wednesday, January 22
Tom Camfield

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . .” This is the essence of the oath taken by each and every incoming member of the United States Senate.

I do not feel anything much would be accomplished by my devoting a mere 750 words this morning to the matter of Donald J. Trump’s proposed impeachment. I’m not going to change any minds in the Senate during the next day or so. Turn on any reputable news channel and you will hear hundreds of thousands of words dealing with how Republican senators are withholding applicable witnesses and documents in this supposed trial being presided over by the Chief Justice of the United States.

So Climate Change (as well as the Green New Deal) is not presented as part of the basis for impeachment. The Constitution of the United States is at stake there. Those of us who seriously feel that two-thirds of the Senate won’t find the president guilty this week just hope the public will take his total character into amount on election day.

We might begin arguments of the Green New Deal by wondering how often we can tack $1- or S2,000,000,000,000 onto the federal debt, merely for high incomes and big coal-burning business. Our debt is now more than $23,000,000,000,000, and we taxpayers budget interest on that each year. See https://usdebtclock.org

Wednesday, January 22
Justin Hale

Both the House and the Senate take the same oath, and the Democrat majority in the House ran the Impeachment they way they wanted, Partisan of course, and now the Senate gets to run the trial the way they want, Partisan of course. Flip the sides and we would have the same situation, as I often say "a pox on both their houses".

As far as the Democrats wanting more witnesses goes, they had their chance, they could have taken the rejection of their subpoenas to the courts to settle the matter, they chose not to. For them now to come to the Senate and ask them to do the job they neglected to do is preposterous.

Wednesday, January 22
Tom Camfield

One's trying like hell to get evidence; the other's trying to cover it up. Not exactly similar where the oath of office is concerned. And which is bigger, the Oath or criminal partisanship?

Wednesday, January 22
Justin Hale

Tom, the Democrats in the House failure to do due diligence when they had control is not, nor should it be the responsibility of the Republicans in the Senate.

What I see in these hearings is criminal partisanship on both sides, a pox on both their houses.

Thursday, January 23
Tom Camfield

If you're trying to ignore guilt/innocence, it isn't working. You need a better detour from the main issue.

Thursday, January 23
Justin Hale

Tom, so far the only law that I see President Trump MAY have violated would be the Impoundment Control Act, and that is not in the charges. Maybe if you tell me what exact crime he committed it might help me decide innocence or guilt.

Sunday, January 26
Tom Camfield

Article II, Section 4—The Constitution and Impeachment. The Constitution, Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/12/politics/impeachment-articles-annotated/

I think scanning this site will give some idea of the conception of bribery and other high crimes . . . maybe cover the oath of office and abuse of power. We’re not talking here about some minor “crime” like over-harvesting shellfish,

Sunday, January 26
Justin Hale

Tom, I don't see any charges of Treason, high crimes, maybe misdemeanors depending on how one interprets that term. It's not as cut and dry as the POTUS standing before the American people and lying as Clinton did. Abuse of power and obstruction of justice are such nebulous terms, totally subjective. I'm betting he will be acquitted of all charges. Personally I don't see any difference in what the House charged Trump of doing with what Biden had already done.

Sunday, January 26
Tom Camfield

I imagine he'll be found "not guilty" by perhaps less than half the senate—which will be enough to have him sounding off in the usual manner between now and November. Meanwhile, history will forever have him impeached by the House of Representatives. And we'll see what the voters have to say.

Monday, January 27
Justin Hale

Watching the Impeachment hearings today, Pam Bondi (R. Florida) laid it out perfectly, the Democrats impeached Trump and want him thrown out of office for attempting to do exactly what Joe Biden actually did.

I have no idea how the November elections, but I will be voting for Trump. I urge everyone to heed Alan Dershowitz's warning about this particular impeachment.

Monday, January 27
'''tom Camfield

I've yet to see that Joe Biden did a thing,—except in the evasive mind of make-believe that is an all-too-familiar Trump tactic.

Tuesday, January 28
Justin Hale

Tom, you've got to be kidding. Here take a look.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPvMuzyVOig

I know that you are old and had some issues lately, but good lord Tom, " there are no so blind that they will not see".

Tuesday, January 28
'Tom Camfield

I know that you are old and had some issues lately, but good lord Tom, " there are no so blind that they will not see".

Well, I see you've reached the bottom of the barrel, Justin. And still you haven't actually responded to any of the charges made against Trump. And thank goodness he's finally shut up about McCain. I believe you can readily see that I'm letting impeachment arguments, in the hands of many more competent than I, do their way with the nasty-character of 'Donald

Trump in that particular arena. My concern is more with his being patted on the bottom by a feckless Senate—then returning to lie and shout his way through another presidential campaign.

In the meantime, I'm proud of both my age and and my resilience. I truly intend to be around longer than Trump is in office.

Thursday, January 30
Justin Hale

I think I've stated my opinion of the impeachment charges more than once, Alan Dershowitz laid it out pretty clearly.

It's good to hear that you will still be with us in 2024.

Thursday, January 30