Lloyd, it was highly insightful of you to include in your MNN article the Bruce Gibney quote of: “‘Unlike acid rain, which had immediate impacts on Boomers’ quality of life and was therefore swiftly addressed, climate change is a problem whose consequences will fall most heavily on other generations, so far too little has been done.’” Gibney couldn’t be any more correct.
I prefer to frame the situation thusly: The construct of climate change is abstract while that of global warming (like acid rain) is exact.
While the catchphrase “climate change” may be all the rage, as in the notion itself having the impact it is having on people’s lives, between climate change and global warming, the former with most people IMO resonates the least. Just saying.
What I would rather the focus of discussion be on, is in addressing the underlying causes: combustion from the burning of fossil fuels and that which is derived from other human-driven inputs like deforestation activities, for one.
In my one small corner of the world, California’s San Joaquin Valley, the cold-weather climate has over the past couple of decades changed appreciably. Area farmers should know this better than anyone regarding the way in which said change has altered growing seasons, harvests and the most impactful of all, water use. The last has become such a contentious issue here of late.
>>"But as David Foot noted, “demographics explain about two thirds of everything,”
Then be of good cheer, because U.S. fertility rates—as are all of every Western developed nation—are in steep decline, and as I've oft pointed out in the past, it's all about the raw number of people in developed nations using energy that has the greatest influence on emissions. Eliminate 100% of U.S. citizens Thanos-style, all 341 million of us, and I guarantee that within 2 years' time there would be 341 million from elsewhere around the world who would move in to replace us native citizens because our economy represents such a vast improvement over so many other less fortunate ones.
A. Eliminate billions of people = reducing emissions to desired levels
B. Reduce the standard of living for all Western nations = reducing emissions to desired levels
Which option has the better chance of occurring voluntarily?
Lloyd, it was highly insightful of you to include in your MNN article the Bruce Gibney quote of: “‘Unlike acid rain, which had immediate impacts on Boomers’ quality of life and was therefore swiftly addressed, climate change is a problem whose consequences will fall most heavily on other generations, so far too little has been done.’” Gibney couldn’t be any more correct.
I prefer to frame the situation thusly: The construct of climate change is abstract while that of global warming (like acid rain) is exact.
While the catchphrase “climate change” may be all the rage, as in the notion itself having the impact it is having on people’s lives, between climate change and global warming, the former with most people IMO resonates the least. Just saying.
What I would rather the focus of discussion be on, is in addressing the underlying causes: combustion from the burning of fossil fuels and that which is derived from other human-driven inputs like deforestation activities, for one.
In my one small corner of the world, California’s San Joaquin Valley, the cold-weather climate has over the past couple of decades changed appreciably. Area farmers should know this better than anyone regarding the way in which said change has altered growing seasons, harvests and the most impactful of all, water use. The last has become such a contentious issue here of late.
>>"But as David Foot noted, “demographics explain about two thirds of everything,”
Then be of good cheer, because U.S. fertility rates—as are all of every Western developed nation—are in steep decline, and as I've oft pointed out in the past, it's all about the raw number of people in developed nations using energy that has the greatest influence on emissions. Eliminate 100% of U.S. citizens Thanos-style, all 341 million of us, and I guarantee that within 2 years' time there would be 341 million from elsewhere around the world who would move in to replace us native citizens because our economy represents such a vast improvement over so many other less fortunate ones.
A. Eliminate billions of people = reducing emissions to desired levels
B. Reduce the standard of living for all Western nations = reducing emissions to desired levels
Which option has the better chance of occurring voluntarily?