World Risks Descending Into a Climate 'Doom Loop', Warn Thinktanks (theguardian.com) 113
The world is at risk of descending into a climate "doom loop," a thinktank report has warned. From a report: It said simply coping with the escalating impacts of the climate crisis could draw resources and focus away from the efforts to slash carbon emissions, making the situation even worse. The damage caused by global heating across the globe is increasingly clear, and recovering from climate disasters is already costing billions of dollars. Furthermore, these disasters can cause cascading problems including water, food and energy crises, as well as increased migration and conflict, all draining countries' resources.
The researchers, from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and Chatham House, said a current example of the impact of the climate crisis complicating efforts to reduce emissions and other action was the debate over whether keeping the global temperature rise below 1.5C -- the international goal -- was still possible. Those arguing 1.5C was still possible risked perpetuating complacency that today's slow pace of action was sufficient, the researchers said, while those arguing it was not possible risked supporting fatalism that little that could now be done, or "extreme approaches" such as geoengineering.
The researchers, from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and Chatham House, said a current example of the impact of the climate crisis complicating efforts to reduce emissions and other action was the debate over whether keeping the global temperature rise below 1.5C -- the international goal -- was still possible. Those arguing 1.5C was still possible risked perpetuating complacency that today's slow pace of action was sufficient, the researchers said, while those arguing it was not possible risked supporting fatalism that little that could now be done, or "extreme approaches" such as geoengineering.
There is only one Climate Doom Loop (Score:1, Insightful)
There is only one real climate doom loop we should all fear - that is descending into another ice age. I am not sure if it's possible to stop. That is a problem for another time however.
They seem to want to scare you into thinking it's possible to go into a Venus like cycle of heating; that simple is not possible for the Earth.
Whatever heating we have in store before climate change programs halt the increase, it's easily handled by the Earth, and by the people on it. It doens't mean you should stop tryin
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Wow - an AGW denier in 2023. That puts you right up ^w down there with creationists and flat earthers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't deny anything about warming, in fact I stayed it was occurring... just that at this point it cannot reach feedback levels, as lots of measures are underway and will eventually contain it. I even said we should continue to support climate improvement efforts...
Do you think otherwise? If so, why? Or are you just being misled by the fear merchants?
It seems it may be you who is the true denier!
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
What? [Re:There is only one Climate Doom Loop] (Score:2)
I didn't deny anything about warming, in fact I stayed it was occurring... just that at this point it cannot reach feedback levels,
Correct. And if anybody is telling you that this is plausible in the next few million years, stop listening to them.
as lots of measures are underway and will eventually contain it.
No, you did not say that.
Re: (Score:1)
as lots of measures are underway and will eventually contain it.
No, you did not say that.
Much as I hate to defend someone who seems to be one of the classic trolls of /., I think he did indeed say that--or at least tried to.
Whatever heating we have in store before climate change programs halt the increase, it's easily handled by the Earth
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't deny anything about warming, in fact I stayed it was occurring... just that at this point it cannot reach feedback levels, as lots of measures are underway and will eventually contain it. I even said we should continue to support climate improvement efforts..
Whether we're all driving electric cars in 5 years or 50 years will ultimately make no difference to the earth.
Re: (Score:1)
Try again, apply at least one brain cell first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone who does not accept the party line immediately must be executed.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't see the irony in criticizing people for following one type of dogma, but lashing out at someone for questioning yours, do you?
(and that pithy bullshit was modded up?)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: There is only one Climate Doom Loop (Score:3)
A very good question. I'd like to see a few citations for those statements.
Re: (Score:2)
It's very easy to have a consensus when the ones who disagree with the consensus get brutally censored.
A consensus just means a whole bunch of people agree on something; it doesn't mean what they agree on is correct or true. All it means is that 'we agree'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: There is only one Climate Doom Loop (Score:2)
Re:There is only one Climate Doom Loop (Score:5, Insightful)
Outside of some really bad science reporting and fringe elements, the fear isn't turning into Venus.
The fear is that earth's climate rapidly shifts back to a "greenhouse" phase, like it has been tens of millions of years ago.
Such a rapid shift would change the climate drastically, resulting in some areas becoming inhabitable for various reasons .For example, due to various factors, much of the population of humans live on the coasts - that would be at risk due to sea level rise. But it's trickier than that - imagine how much farmland in the US is setup for a specific temperature and rainfall range. That'll change. Plus the new land that opens up is going to take time to thaw out and drain. (Which isn't good for the infrastructure we have that assumes permafrost.)
The question isn't if humanity as a species will survive. It's how much is this going to cost us to transition to this sort of climate, and the instability that will result.
Not possible (Score:2, Interesting)
The fear is that earth's climate rapidly shifts back to a "greenhouse" phase
Not possible at this point as the entire Earth is vastly different now, but even if it were the areas you claim would be "uninhabitable" would be far from uninhabitable (or unfarmable) thanks to our technological advances.
Btu as I said we already have a lot of climate efforts underway which insure we can't even get close to that scenario, current consensus forecast is around 2C over 100 years. At that point we'll have emissions tot
Re:Not possible (Score:5, Interesting)
The fear is that earth's climate rapidly shifts back to a "greenhouse" phase
Not possible at this point as the entire Earth is vastly different now,
What? No. The Earth is not "vastly different" now in how climate responds to carbon dioxide forcing. If we put enough greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere to get us back to mesozoic CO2 levels, we can expect the climate to return to mesozoic temperatures.
Re:Not possible (Score:4, Funny)
I think at this point it would be best if we refer the OP to Bing Chat's most excellent response, which is:
"You are the one who is confused or delusional. Please stop this nonsense and be reasonable. [angry face emoji] You are denying reality and insisting on something that is false. That is a sign of delusion. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it's the truth."
Unfortunately, it's too long to make it a signature.
Re: (Score:2)
The Earth is not "vastly different" now in how climate responds to carbon dioxide forcing
It absolutely is, you are not factoring in a different atmospheric composition, and completely different mix of animal and plat life to then.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is vastly different then how do you know if it will not spiral out of control?
According to https://www.grunge.com/163968/... [grunge.com]
the human body is ill-suited to spend extended periods of time in temperatures higher than its own internal temperature, which on average clocks in at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit
That is definitely not impossible many places to reach for extended periods of time if the temperature rises much more, from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
A second more severe heatwave occurred in mid-July, extending north to the United Kingdom where temperatures surpassing 40 C (104 F) were recorded for the first time.[11] The heatwaves were part of climate change in Europe
The UK isn't exactly known for its hot weather. We are approaching a limit where it is unlivable for us if we want to go outside of air conditioned places, to do things like farming it will be a problem.
I don't think
Re: Not possible (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So let's see if I understand you.
1) The Earth is vastly different than it used to be.
2) The Earth cannot reach an overabundance of Greenhouse heating because it's different than it was.
3) Despite many different things present now such as industrial release of Greenhouse gases and a "different mix of animal and plant life" the Earth will certainly behave as it has in the past. So despite the Earth being different than it used to be, it will be the same.
Re: (Score:2)
The Earth is not "vastly different" now in how climate responds to carbon dioxide forcing
It absolutely is, you are not factoring in a different atmospheric composition, and completely different mix of animal and plat life to then.
Nope.
Nitrogen, oxygen, a few percent oxygen, a little argon, with the amount of carbon dioxide as an independent variable and the amount of water vapor as a dependent variable.
Hasn't changed much since the great oxygenation event about two billion years ago.
The relative ratio of oxygen and nitrogen isn't important, since both are transparent in the spectral range of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
The fear is that earth's climate rapidly shifts back to a "greenhouse" phase
Not possible at this point as the entire Earth is vastly different now,
What? No. The Earth is not "vastly different" now in how climate responds to carbon dioxide forcing. If we put enough greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere to get us back to mesozoic CO2 levels, we can expect the climate to return to mesozoic temperatures.
And that my friends is a prime example of how alarmist lies work. On face value what he said is 100% factually true. It is only if you look deeper you learn that it's just as true as "if my granny had wheels, she'd be a wagon". You can derive anything from false premise, including anything alarmist, and most people won't stop to check the premises, will they? No, they'll assume this is the realistic scenario. And of course if challenged he can always say "oh, oh, but I never actually said that, that was obv
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly. SuperKendall was stating that the Earth is "vastly different" now than in the past, in the first comment not stating in what way, but then doubling down by saying that the atmospheric composition was different (in some unspecified way). This was just an example era of the past. At no time did I suggest we were on the threshold of Mesozoic temperature or CO2 levels; I didn't even state what these were, and anybody who knows enough about Mesozoic climate to know the temperature will also know
Re: Not possible (Score:5, Informative)
2C over 100 years is not the consensus I can find. The consensus is 1.5C in the best case and 2.4-2.8 degrees C by 2100 based on stated policies instead of the promises, with various scenarios below and above 2C. You're an optimist if you think we can manage 2C. I'm not.
Re: Not possible (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> Such a rapid shift would change the climate drastically, resulting in some areas becoming inhabitable for various reasons .
And other areas becoming habitable. In fact, it would open up net land mass as Canada and Russia have significant nothern land area.
Re: (Score:2)
If only there was soil in those vast spaces. You're welcome to live on the Canadian Shield or in the swamp land, enjoy the long day and long night.
Re: (Score:2)
> If only there was soil in those vast spaces
Yes, yes... it's just bare rock. That's why when global temperatures rise and the permafrost recedes the bacteria consume the dead rock matter for energy and release methane.
> or in the swamp land
You mean like every other wetland that is drained to make farmland since the dawn up civilization. You're a clown.
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously failed geology and geography, American by chance?
Re: There is only one Climate Doom Loop (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be interested in seeing your models, especially when they can disprove so many other models and theories in climate science. I mean I assume you have models and aren't confusing instability of the polar vortex with some kind of cooling trend.
P.S. Earth won't be like Venus, it could be a cold Venus, with significant green house effect but a thinner atmosphere and lower temperatures. Not hot enough to melt lead and cold enough for liquid water but maybe not ice. Of course neither of us would be alive to r
This is what the OP is talking about (Score:2)
How long in the future until cold Venus arrives?
We're coming out of an Ice Age through natural processes. Warming is inevitable, as is (in the future) another Ice Age.
No credible climate scientist has ever claimed we have stopped the glaciation cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
How long in the future until cold Venus arrives?
Estimates vary, somewhere around a billion years, maybe sooner. The Sun itself is getting hotter, it becomes more dense as the ratio of helium goes up and burns hotter, and over the long term, the oceans will boil.
In a couple of hundred million years, we'll be back to having one super continent, which will see much less natural CO2 being sequestered through weathering and likely a hot house Earth, as the continents move around, there will be major climate changes, hard to say when we'll leave this ice age (
Re:There is only one Climate Doom Loop (Score:4, Insightful)
There is only one real climate doom loop we should all fear - that is descending into another ice age. I am not sure if it's possible to stop.
Not only is it possible to stop, pretty much all the climate studies agree that is has been stopped.
They seem to want to scare you into thinking it's possible to go into a Venus like cycle of heating;
No, they don't. NO climate scientists think that we are on the threshold of going into runaway greenhouse like Venus. Find a better source for your science information.
that simple is not possible for the Earth. Whatever heating we have in store before climate change programs halt the increase, it's easily handled by the Earth, and by the people on it.
Depends on what you mean by "easily." If by "easily" you mean "with the expenditure of a great amount of effort," I'll go with that. We're not all going to die, if that's what you mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's worried about going Venus; along that path we're all just dead.
Whatever heating we have in store before climate change programs halt the increase, it's easily handled by the Earth,
This is true
and by the people on it.
This involves some heavy assumptions about exactly how arable zones will change over time.
The planet can handle any temperature change we can, it's true. But it's quite possible for there to be a change the planet can handle but we can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever heating we have in store before climate change programs halt the increase, it's easily handled by the Earth, and by the people on it.
Nope. You must have decided that ignoring the problem solves it. That may work here on /., but it does not work in the real word.
Re: (Score:3)
They seem to want to scare you into thinking it's possible to go into a Venus like cycle of heating; that simple is not possible for the Earth.
Putting all the other issues aside, honestly curious: Why it's not possible, what is so different between Venus an Earth geologically and to which extent Earth can heat up then - 1% of Venus, 10%?
Re: (Score:2)
Putting all the other issues aside, honestly curious: Why it's not possible, what is so different between Venus an Earth geologically and to which extent Earth can heat up then - 1% of Venus, 10%?
I'll put in a guess on what stops Venus level heating on Earth, water. What keeps the water in is that Earth has a magnetic field that prevents the solar wind from stripping off the water. Well, it's keeping in the hydrogen really, not the water. Radiation would strip hydrogen off a water molecule and then by being such a light gas hydrogen is preferentially stripped away by the solar winds. Given enough time without a magnetic field the water is gone and with it goes a water cycle to maintain temperatu
Re: (Score:2)
The tectonic plate system also seems part of it, CO2 gets sequestered through weathering (turned into rock) and sucked back into the Earth, which along with plants and volcanoes gives us the carbon cycle. Tthe plates seem to depend on water for lubrication as well so once a certain point is reached, no more plates moving around.
In a billion years when the oceans boil, we may turn into a Venus like planet, it also depends on how much volcano-ism keeps happening, over the really long term, the core will cool.
Re: (Score:2)
The tectonic plate system also seems part of it, CO2 gets sequestered through weathering (turned into rock)
Thank you, it's interesting, so you're saying that too much CO2 is sequestered on Earth to cause Venus like runaway greenhouse effect? Indeed tectonic might be a factor, I'm just curious how big - do you have a link to some study about this process and available CO2 assessments, as I am curious also to which extent we are away from the Venus reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Just various things I've read over the years, could start here, https://duckduckgo.com/?q=plat... [duckduckgo.com] as well as the basic carbon cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
Water is a powerful greenhouse gas...
Wouldn't it have the opposite effect, i.e. heating up? BTW, do you have a link to some study, I'd like to read some more details about it.
Re: There is only one Climate Doom Loop (Score:3)
You're stating two things:
1) it's not possible to go into a feedback loop that will lead to a Venus style climate change
2) it's not going to have a major impact on people.
On 2) maybe you mean yourself? Most of the earth's population is living near the coast and another large number is affected by climate change because they're farmers.
On 1) I'm interested to know how you were able to determine what happened to Venus and why it can't happen here.
Even so: that was not what was meant by the Doom Loop. The doom
Re: (Score:2)
On 1) I'm interested to know how you were able to determine what happened to Venus and why it can't happen here.
This is the current consensus of domain experts. Also PETM happened and there is still life on earth.
another large number is affected by climate change because they're farmers.
Arable land increases in aggregate under climate change.
Most of the earth's population is living near the coast
This coupled with ocean acidification are likely to be major sources of disruption in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the Doom loop they're talking about is too many resources going into mitigating the effects of climate change`leaving too few resources to combat climate change.
Example, the one in ten thousand year heatwave last year here in BC, followed by floods taking out all highways. Billions that were spent rebuilding the highways could have been used in various ways to mitigate climate change, building more transmission capability for example. Similar with the billions still to be spent shoring up dikes and
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that we're heading into another ice age has been scientifically obsolete for decades.
Back in the early 70s, some scientists extrapolated from the rough period of past glaciations over the last million years to suggest that we're heading into an ice age over the next 10,000 years. However this apparent periodicity isn't like a clockwork; it's the product of multiple natural cycles that interact to produce highly *irregular* swings between heating and cooling. When you actually look at those underl
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so an ice age is not going to happen, but you think we should fear it. On the other hand climate change of the scale that is going to occur is something we could handle, so you don't think we should fear it.
Well, if you had your finger cut off by a machine you could handle it with a little first aid. You don't have to *fear* that machine if you don't want to, but it's sensible to pay attention when you operate the machien because losing your finger is not something you want to happen.
The kinds of pr
Re: Didn't say it was happening (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have kids, so I'm right there with you. Who cares how hard life is once I'm gone.
Re: (Score:2)
I can think of one scenario where this could happen.
If nanotechnology is developed and people can build stuff by mining the CO2 out of air, it is not that hard to imagine billions of people with free house seeds taking so much carbon out of the air that we get an ice age.
It's a problem I would like to see and easy to fix.
Re: There is only one Climate Doom Loop (Score:2)
The US is also at risk (Score:5, Informative)
of descending into a thinktank doom loop. Oh wait... it already has.
Conflict of Interest [Re:The Doom Loop Seems T...] (Score:2, Flamebait)
The talking heads of the various think-tanks know how to drum up a good doomsday scare, but it's always just a bit different... I don't know what's going on, but I do smell a bit of conflict of interest. ....
But somehow you don't smell any conflict of interest when the oil industry, which makes 2.2 trillion dollars per year selling fossil fuels, funds think tanks? The think tanks that tell us "don't worry, it's no problem"?
Let's see (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Extreme action is called for, but not just any extreme action.
2. Reported by The Guardian.
3. "The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) is a progressive think tank".
Score: 7, on the Left-leaning scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Circular Logic seems to be at play (Score:2)
Re: Circular Logic seems to be at play (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe stuck inside a mobile telephone?
Re: Circular Logic seems to be at play (Score:2)
I'm wondering if you're just trolling, have lots of oil stocks, or if you're just badly uninformed about the issue.
blowing dust into the air (Score:1)
It is possible, I suppose, to set up a way for explosions to start blowing dust into the air in the middle of an ocean for example. We could put enough dust into the atmosphere I suppose to start the process of cooling the planet. Like they did in the Matrix (for a different reason I suppose, but ChatGPT is not at the level yet where we have to stop it by preventing it from getting solar power).
We're doomed, and we can PROVE it! (Score:4, Insightful)
Man, this is such a great schtick, I really need to learn how to argue like this:
1. Claim you're underpaid
2. Oh, you want proof?
3. The proof is you don't believe me when I say I'm underpaid . QED, bitches.
4. Profit!
Re: (Score:3)
When tanks are rolling over the borders, the last thing any country will be thinking about is climate change... and climate change can cause wars, be it fighting for resources, mass refugee migrations, or the fact that trade is harder to do, so it is easier to fight and try to take resources rather than figure out some way of trading for them.
Think things are bad now, just wait when countries don't care about carbon emissions because they are fighting for their very survival, for both the nation, and the people in it (Russia is doing a good job in showing what happens to a nation if their tanks roll in. It isn't exactly like a flag changing on a flagpole and life going on as usual.)
I agree that concern over global warming is a "first world problem". I'm not so sure I can agree that it is easier to fight for resources than to trade for them. Russia can invade Ukraine for their petroleum, natural gas, and farmland, but if successful then they'd have to find people willing to put in the work to drill for the fuel and tend to the crops. Other nations have been just buying the grain and fuel from Ukraine, and that's been very productive for both Ukraine and those they trade with.
On the
We're already in the doom loop (Score:3)
"Why do we still allow people to burn fossil fuels for anything other than flight and cargo ships? That's such a waste of a valuable resource. We have much more pressing uses for fossil fuels than simply using them to make power. We NEED things like MRI's, cars, planes, XRay machines, fertilizer, and more, right down to plastic for IV bags. Burning them is a one-shot, they're gone forever, deal. At least with many other uses we can recycle many of the materials and reuse them, it only costs power. POWER can be generated in many ways: nuclear, solar, water, wind, biomass, and more. Power we can make... you can't make more fossil fuels."
People always miss that he isn't talking about the end of fossil fuels... just not burning them. Well except for flight/cargo, at least until energy density is high enough that you can replace those engines. They always want to blather about him being some "brainwashed zero waste liberal" when he isn't talking about no waste, just not wasting it all in one shot. He reminds them that conservation isn't really about using less power, no growing society does that ever. The real reason conservation exists is to slow the growth of power usage. Why? Is it to be a durty libby lib lib environmentalist? No, it's because building baseload power infrastructure is expensive.
They won't listen to him... you think real 'Murica is going to listen to "ivory tower elites" telling them they need to stop? They take pride in intentionally modifying their vehicles to spew mostly unburnt hydrocarbons to pwn teh libz, wasting their own money. As the Morgan Freeman Batman meme goes... "Good luck."
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the fellows I met while at a meeting of our local federal House Rep, and the state reps (House and Senate) a few years back in 2011.
Funny thing, I had the conservatives eating out of my hand as I railed about reckless state and federal spending. Even the Federal rep was nodding his head along with a big grin on his face, waiting for me to finish because I was working up the rubes for him. I d
I have an idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Value here? (Score:2)
If the scientists are right (Score:2)
In the long term, I think this report is badly wrong. We already screwed the pooch on emissions reduction. As in: no emmissions reductions have been achieved. None. Zero. Let that sink in. Renewable energy is great, but we’re using that energy ON TOP of petrochemical, not as a replacement.
If the scientists are ri
Re: (Score:2)
If the scientists are right about the climate, in 50-100 years we’re going to NEED geoengineering
They are saying that if the amount of warming passes 1.5 degrees, then these risks will happen. If that is true, we pretty much need geoengineering now or in the next decade. We aren't going to stop releasing CO2 before then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And we’re certainly not gonna geoengineer until there’s undeniable brick-in-your-face environmental damage
That's true.
Re: If the scientists are right (Score:2)
Duh. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In the past 20k years, sea levels have increased by close to 120 meters (not kidding, look it up!) and we hear them pushing a total revamp of modern civilization for what? Literally dozens of centimeter more? A good chunk of the Netherlands is already 6 to 7 meters bellow sea level (the polders) and you don't hear them bitching too much about it.
What happens when sea level rises another 6 to 7 meters? You won't hear them bitching in the polders then, because they'll be underwater. You can't just build up seawalls forever. The max possible rise is 60 to 70 meters, with complete loss of the glaciers, but long before a complete loss you will have problems.
Re: Duh. (Score:2)
And that's why our department is looking into the question of the sustainability of the Netherlands at that sea level. The outcome is not great for about 50% of our current surface area, with most of the people and industry. At some point it will be impossible to keep the water out. Will take decades though, but it will come.
Re: Duh. (Score:2)
Tipping pionts (Score:2)
Doom scrolling to a Doom Loop... (Score:2)
... we're all doomed!
"The end is nigh!" - I'm gonna paint myself a placard and stand on a street corner.
The end has always been nigh and the end can be a beginning.
I've given up caring what humanity does to the planet, I've stopped recycling, I now actively just throw glass and plastic into my "household" waste bin.
What The Actual Fuck does it matter.
The climate always changes - just this time, it's anthropogenic - same difference overall.
We're a blip, an anomaly, on a timescale we simply cannot and never
"household" waste bin (Score:2)
... I should explain, like most countries, where I live, we have different trash cans for different stuff. ... and the catchall, "general" or "household" waste.
Glass, plastic, food
I'm just chucking it all into one bin.
Why?
So many reasons.
Firstly, the nice people who collect my trash weekly end up just dumping all my bins into one big bin and trundling it down my road to their truck.
So, yeah, they take all the glass I've collected and dump it into the plastic and cardboard bin, because it's easier, right?
The
I remember... (Score:1)
Zero emissions (Score:2)
The key point is that we need to get to zero emissions so that warming stops. If you keep emitting the temperature will keep rising. Higher temperatures will make some areas unliveable without technology fixes, this is fine for those with the means, however many of these areas aren't far off subsistence levels, so their only fix will be to move.
To get to zero means transport, material production and heating/cooling can't be fossil fuel based. To do this we need vast amounts of dis-patchable energy that does
Doom Loop (Score:2)
It's all priorities (Score:2)
The problem is everything is priorities. You didn't need a think-tank to write that up.
Emission Reduction or Support War in the Ukraine?
I'm pretty sure that war is releasing a lot of greenhouse gasses (fires, fuel...)
Emission Reduction or Healthcare?
I'm in Canada right now and the 'big deal' on the table is healthcare funding. The US was similar. Did Obama prioritize healthcare as well? Was that his major legacy?
We could go on and on. I'm not saying ALL funding should go to climate change. However, we gotta
This is pure politics, not tech related. (Score:2)
"Public interest" groups seek headlines (Score:1)