Growing Out of Climate Change
Growing Out of Climate Change
Mar 16Growing out of Climate Change
I planted spinach yesterday. Just a few plants. Its not even St. Patrick’s Day yet. The ski season was too short, and I feel like we really did not have much of a winter. The soil is warm enough to get my early starts in–a good month earlier than last year.
As I was digging in the dirt, I started thinking about
climate change. How could I not? I have tan lines and have not gone to the beach. We are making too much CO2. Its really too much of a good thing. Plants need the CO2 for photosynthesis. We need the O2 that they give off. Will we make too much CO2 where the plants will finally drown in too much? I sure hope not. What if each of us committed to plant? And plant A LOT this year. I suspect that we would not make a dent in the CO2 to to offset the amount emitted from coal-fired power plants and cement factories and all the other big emitters. But, if we planted our plants with consciousness that we are doing something, then maybe we have a shift… our own little off-set project. We took responsibility.
And maybe that consciousness and responsibility would spread. To our driving behaviors and our consumption patterns. Then the impact gets bigger. And then with our consciousness we start to pressure our politicians to speak about climate change and even ACT!
Our little plants are the start of a change, a shift. We can grow. We can make change happen.
Hi just wanted to say that I like your article very much. Please keep up the good posts Thanks a ton! and Have a good day
http://www.businesstraveltours.com is my blog.
Definitely believe that that you said. Your favourite justification seemed to be on the internet the easiest thing to understand of. I say to you, I definitely get irked while other folks consider worries that they plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nail upon the highest and defined out the whole thing with no need side effect , people can take a signal. Will probably be again to get more. Thank you!
I posted this in resspnoe to a comment on another blog and think it offers some answers to previous questions posted here:First, we should have clarified that we weren’t suggesting no groups focus on building more consensus around the need for climate change mitigation. We absolutely need that, and I didn’t anticipate people would draw this conclusion.What we were suggesting – and where we believe President Obama, Secretary Chu, and much of the administration are correct – is that we cannot win meaningful federal policy reform anytime for the foreseeable future with a climate-centric strategy, and we need an alternative approach with a greater chance of success.Some of you are saying that most or all climate activists don’t push climate-centrism, but I don’t think that’s accurate. Look carefully at the writing of Bill McKibben, David Roberts, Joe Romm, and several other climate thought leaders. Are they okay with talking about other benefits from clean energy, sure. But they’ve said numerous times that, most importantly, we need to make this about climate change.Cap and trade is sine qua non for comprehensive climate policy, and it turned out to be a political disaster that wasted (literally) hundreds of millions of dollars in advocacy resources and years of effort. Did US-CAP members discuss other benefits of clean energy, clearly. But cap and trade for climate change was the main event, and it collapsed. There’s little to no evidence that it would have succeeded if Obama talked more about climate, as some suggest.How we frame the challenge, and what we put at the front and center of our political and policy agenda, matters enormously. What we’ve argued for years is that an investment-centric approach, primarily justified for economic competitiveness and national security, puts us on much more solid ground to win. It can also be more effective at driving down the price of low-carbon energy technologies as rapidly as possible (which may be the single most important factor in determining whether the world gets anywhere close to meeting IPCC emission reduction targets).This doesn’t mean that Obama and others should never mention the word “climate” (characterizing what we wrote in this way is a straw man), and it doesn’t mean that parts of the movement shouldn’t be working to advance the climate consensus. I would be surprised if these efforts don’t eventually pay off, but we can’t keep making our federal policy success dependent on climate consensus.Will this new approach require an aggressive campaign and debate, absolutely. We can’t know if it will succeed, but we’ve never tried. Until now – hopefully – unless Obama backs out and/or climate-centrist advocates shoot it down. That would be a huge mistake, in my view, and I hope other climate thought leaders will step up to defend and advance this approach.
I was studying some of your content on this site and I believe this web site is very informative ! Continue putting up.
Arthur JosephsonOctober 3, 2009I’ve just returned to Australia after seven years aabrod. It has been seven years largely ignorant of Australian media so I judge hesitantly. Many thanks for your article it helped me begin updating myself on the current state here. My first impression on returning is strong surprise at how little has been accomplished in the climate change agenda here. One would expect us to be strong pioneers, innovators and consensus builders; especially when one considers that we are such an extreme example in terms of drought, bushfire, top soil erosion, and that many countries in our immediate sphere are island nations who are already suffering under sea level changes. Perhaps climate change is Australia’s version of America’s healthcare problem? i.e. Change is in the direct and obvious future benefit for all our citizenry however their is so much money in lobbying from parties benefiting from the status quo (largely our fossil fuels sector and agriculture, but the short-term interests of diverse elements of industry and society) that debate can be sidelined and action undermined. From an external perspective on both countries situations it seems impossible that such resistance is effective, yet it still determines the very paradigm through which media, discourse and policy is shaped.Many thanks for your pieces, always a stimulating, concerning and enjoyable perspective.Arthur
You left out the best part. Imhofe tried to get Mann into legal trouble by clinmaig he broke several US laws. But I think those same laws can be used against the people who actually did falsify evidence. Some who come to mind are big pharma, big oil, big war, and other big toxic industries who continue to pollute the planet with impunity.