4 ms·

We need coordinated, urgent political action on climate change. We already have the technology needed to solve this - we just need to deploy it. Now.

fsloth 7y ago
You could start calling it global warming. Climate change was brought forward as a term to make it sound less frightening to the voting population.
- newnewpdro 7y ago
  I thought climate change was preferred as being more accurate than global warming, since not all regions will be warmer, some will actually become colder as things like the jet stream evolve.
  - ska 7y ago
    Global warming is accurate, the problem is people confuse weather with climate. A global warming trend means more energy in the atmosphere, which in turn leads to higher weather variability, bigger storms etc. It doesn't mean everywhere on the planet will get a higher (pick your temperature statistic).
- notabee 7y ago
  Average people don't understand local variability or averages. They hear "global warming" and think that means every place must be hot at once. There's the stellar example of a congress critter bringing a snowball in and claiming that disproved global warming. Now, climate chaos or something like that might be a better way to convey what's in store. Average people need to understand it better as simply energy added to a system making it increasingly unstable and unpredictable.
  - skosch 7y ago
    Correct – more effective terms are climate crisis, climate chaos, climate emergency.
- at-fates-hands 7y ago
  > You could start calling it global warming. Except that the planet has been warming and cooling for millions of years. To put into perspective: Age of Earth: 4.6 billion years How long Dinosaurs lived: 400 million years Age of humans: 200,000 years. The human species is literally less than a blip on the earth's historical radar. I'm convinced whatever we do to the planet, it will recover, like it always has. Humans not adapting? That's the real problem.
  - ska 7y ago
    This sort of perspective, while true, doesn't seem very germane to the conversation of our current, rapid, and human caused climate change. We collectively will have to deal with that (or die out, I suppose) and understanding it and how to mitigate effects seems to be the sensible response. Understanding that the planet, if not the current biological configuration, is likely to be around much longer that we are doesn't seem to add much; at least to me.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    Then what name would you suggest?
  - stefco_ 7y ago
    > Except that the planet has been warming and cooling for millions of years. This does not invalidate calling it "global warming". Just because it's happened before doesn't mean it's not happening now. When you hit the gas, do you restrict yourself from saying that the car's speed is increasing just because it's increased before?
- ska 7y ago
  That particular ship, and the inherent confusion caused by people not understanding that weather isn't climate, has long sailed. Recently people have been suggesting "climate crisis" which isn't going to help on the "less frightening" aspect, but I think that's a feature.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- robin_reala 7y ago
  The Guardian’s current styleguide suggests “global heating” instead of “global warming”, and “climate emergency” to replace “climate change”.
- nixpulvis 7y ago
  I think more semantic arguments only detract from action at this point. It's already an "emergency" according to a number of official organizations. Showing more physical evidence and pushing developed plans is the only way forward I can see.
  - notabee 7y ago
    How concepts are communicated matters a great deal, because one of the primary obstacles is simply lack of awareness and education about the graveness of the threat facing humanity. We have decades worth of very good physical evidence that hasn't changed much yet on its own. Disinformation tactics have been very effective so far. I'm sure people will start paying attention more when the northern ice cap goes away (though since we live in an age where flat earth theories are gaining followers, it's easy to dismiss anything as fake for some conspiracy nuts). However, waiting at all for more dramatic physical manifestations is far too long. There are also many solid plans being worked on that simply need money and support. So again, what matters is how the concepts are conveyed to the lay public. Politicians are not going to fix this until they're afraid of losing elections over it. And even then it's more likely that they'll make token gestures such as declaring emergencies without making any real, drastic changes.
- bobbylarrybobby 7y ago
  I always thought that "climate change" was coined to be harder to dispute for laypeople. A global warming denier can point to a chilly day, or a day of snow, and say "some global warming, huh?" because they are ignorant of the concept of global average temperature. Much harder when the it's phrased as climate change — snow certainly isn't warm, but can one really argue that it is a counterargument to the existence of change?
  - Bombthecat 7y ago
    Maybe climate war? That should start a fight and open pockets.. Sadly half kidding..
- tapoxi 7y ago
  Climate apocalypse.
swalsh 7y ago
This is true, the problem is people are trying to co-opt the urgency of the problem to funnel in unrelated agendas. Saikat Chakrabarti for example, in an article published in the Washington Post said that the Green New Deal was about redesigning the economy. From https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/07/10/feature/how-saikat-chakrabarti-became-aocs-chief-of-change/?utm_term=.0b78a808d099 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/07/10/f...: "Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” EDIT: for those downvoting me. Please feel free to leave a comment. Am I wrong to believe that we should concentrate on the main issue?
- notabee 7y ago
  The economy is inseparable from the climate issue. The way humanity conducts itself economically greatly determines the scale of emissions we produce through energy use, agriculture, concrete production, land use, etc. There is no way to maintain indefinite growth to sustain such an economy on a finite planet. We overproduce and inefficiently distribute or waste goods. All of that energy consumes fossil fuels. There's no way to address the climate issue adequately without also addressing economic incentives, short of us stumbling on some magical technology that allows massive net negative carbon capture from the atmosphere. Nothing like that exists, and we're far past the point where planting trees will make that math work out. Just asking everyone nicely to please consume less, or pleading with the fossil fuel industry to please stop pumping disinformation out in order to continue reaping profit, is not going to cut it. This economic engine still runs on oil and we need a new one very quickly. The excess that flows as wealth mainly and increasingly to those who already have far too much is brought about by cheap energy, labor, and automation. That party is about to end, both due to increasing cost of fossil fuel extraction and the climate turning hostile.
maximente 7y ago
what technology is that, exactly? genuinely curious as the way you've framed the issue is that the only thing holding us back is unleash the war machine type setup where we have tons of e.g. solar panels and batteries at the ready, just waiting to be deployed. assuming it's not ready in the necessary quantities, the amount of carbon needed to produce and deploy it means that there's /necessarily/ an increase in carbon output required to produce and deploy said tech, not to mention environmental ruin e.g. mass cobalt/lithium/etc. production. the only real alternative that i see is decimating current consumption levels. there doesn't seem to be any real willingness to talk about the necessary uncomfortableness people will have to go through in order to do that yet, though - people's mindsets seem to be stuck on growing or teching our way out.
- andromeduck 7y ago
  Nuclear and some Geo engineering presumably.
- notabee 7y ago
  It's quite possible that we have already passed the threshold for triggering feedbacks that make cutting consumption insufficient to ward off cataclysm. The permafrost is one, among many others that we're still discovering. Even if industrial civilization stopped on a dime today, it's quite possible that we've already initiated a runaway hothouse scenario. That only becomes more likely the more we emit. Technology will be necessary to mitigate and adapt, and so switching our energy systems to carbon neutral is the first of many steps. Consumption will also have to come down, but I don't imagine many places will manage to do it voluntarily. Perhaps some more pro-social, community oriented countries will do so, but the more hyper-capitalist, individualist countries will likely fight tooth and nail to continue consuming until nature forces an end to it. Classic tragedy of the commons, except the commons is our only known habitable biosphere.
JVIDEL 7y ago
What tech?

fsloth 7y ago

You could start calling it global warming. Climate change was brought forward as a term to make it sound less frightening to the voting population.

newnewpdro 7y ago
I thought climate change was preferred as being more accurate than global warming, since not all regions will be warmer, some will actually become colder as things like the jet stream evolve.
- ska 7y ago
  Global warming is accurate, the problem is people confuse weather with climate. A global warming trend means more energy in the atmosphere, which in turn leads to higher weather variability, bigger storms etc. It doesn't mean everywhere on the planet will get a higher (pick your temperature statistic).
notabee 7y ago
Average people don't understand local variability or averages. They hear "global warming" and think that means every place must be hot at once. There's the stellar example of a congress critter bringing a snowball in and claiming that disproved global warming. Now, climate chaos or something like that might be a better way to convey what's in store. Average people need to understand it better as simply energy added to a system making it increasingly unstable and unpredictable.
- skosch 7y ago
  Correct – more effective terms are climate crisis, climate chaos, climate emergency.
at-fates-hands 7y ago
> You could start calling it global warming. Except that the planet has been warming and cooling for millions of years. To put into perspective: Age of Earth: 4.6 billion years How long Dinosaurs lived: 400 million years Age of humans: 200,000 years. The human species is literally less than a blip on the earth's historical radar. I'm convinced whatever we do to the planet, it will recover, like it always has. Humans not adapting? That's the real problem.
- ska 7y ago
  This sort of perspective, while true, doesn't seem very germane to the conversation of our current, rapid, and human caused climate change. We collectively will have to deal with that (or die out, I suppose) and understanding it and how to mitigate effects seems to be the sensible response. Understanding that the planet, if not the current biological configuration, is likely to be around much longer that we are doesn't seem to add much; at least to me.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  Then what name would you suggest?
- stefco_ 7y ago
  > Except that the planet has been warming and cooling for millions of years. This does not invalidate calling it "global warming". Just because it's happened before doesn't mean it's not happening now. When you hit the gas, do you restrict yourself from saying that the car's speed is increasing just because it's increased before?
ska 7y ago
That particular ship, and the inherent confusion caused by people not understanding that weather isn't climate, has long sailed. Recently people have been suggesting "climate crisis" which isn't going to help on the "less frightening" aspect, but I think that's a feature.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
robin_reala 7y ago
The Guardian’s current styleguide suggests “global heating” instead of “global warming”, and “climate emergency” to replace “climate change”.
nixpulvis 7y ago
I think more semantic arguments only detract from action at this point. It's already an "emergency" according to a number of official organizations. Showing more physical evidence and pushing developed plans is the only way forward I can see.
- notabee 7y ago
  How concepts are communicated matters a great deal, because one of the primary obstacles is simply lack of awareness and education about the graveness of the threat facing humanity. We have decades worth of very good physical evidence that hasn't changed much yet on its own. Disinformation tactics have been very effective so far. I'm sure people will start paying attention more when the northern ice cap goes away (though since we live in an age where flat earth theories are gaining followers, it's easy to dismiss anything as fake for some conspiracy nuts). However, waiting at all for more dramatic physical manifestations is far too long. There are also many solid plans being worked on that simply need money and support. So again, what matters is how the concepts are conveyed to the lay public. Politicians are not going to fix this until they're afraid of losing elections over it. And even then it's more likely that they'll make token gestures such as declaring emergencies without making any real, drastic changes.
bobbylarrybobby 7y ago
I always thought that "climate change" was coined to be harder to dispute for laypeople. A global warming denier can point to a chilly day, or a day of snow, and say "some global warming, huh?" because they are ignorant of the concept of global average temperature. Much harder when the it's phrased as climate change — snow certainly isn't warm, but can one really argue that it is a counterargument to the existence of change?
- Bombthecat 7y ago
  Maybe climate war? That should start a fight and open pockets.. Sadly half kidding..
tapoxi 7y ago
Climate apocalypse.

swalsh 7y ago

This is true, the problem is people are trying to co-opt the urgency of the problem to funnel in unrelated agendas. Saikat Chakrabarti for example, in an article published in the Washington Post said that the Green New Deal was about redesigning the economy. From https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/07/10/feature/how-saikat-chakrabarti-became-aocs-chief-of-change/?utm_term=.0b78a808d099 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/07/10/f...: "Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” EDIT: for those downvoting me. Please feel free to leave a comment. Am I wrong to believe that we should concentrate on the main issue?

notabee 7y ago
The economy is inseparable from the climate issue. The way humanity conducts itself economically greatly determines the scale of emissions we produce through energy use, agriculture, concrete production, land use, etc. There is no way to maintain indefinite growth to sustain such an economy on a finite planet. We overproduce and inefficiently distribute or waste goods. All of that energy consumes fossil fuels. There's no way to address the climate issue adequately without also addressing economic incentives, short of us stumbling on some magical technology that allows massive net negative carbon capture from the atmosphere. Nothing like that exists, and we're far past the point where planting trees will make that math work out. Just asking everyone nicely to please consume less, or pleading with the fossil fuel industry to please stop pumping disinformation out in order to continue reaping profit, is not going to cut it. This economic engine still runs on oil and we need a new one very quickly. The excess that flows as wealth mainly and increasingly to those who already have far too much is brought about by cheap energy, labor, and automation. That party is about to end, both due to increasing cost of fossil fuel extraction and the climate turning hostile.

maximente 7y ago

what technology is that, exactly? genuinely curious as the way you've framed the issue is that the only thing holding us back is unleash the war machine type setup where we have tons of e.g. solar panels and batteries at the ready, just waiting to be deployed. assuming it's not ready in the necessary quantities, the amount of carbon needed to produce and deploy it means that there's /necessarily/ an increase in carbon output required to produce and deploy said tech, not to mention environmental ruin e.g. mass cobalt/lithium/etc. production. the only real alternative that i see is decimating current consumption levels. there doesn't seem to be any real willingness to talk about the necessary uncomfortableness people will have to go through in order to do that yet, though - people's mindsets seem to be stuck on growing or teching our way out.

andromeduck 7y ago
Nuclear and some Geo engineering presumably.
notabee 7y ago
It's quite possible that we have already passed the threshold for triggering feedbacks that make cutting consumption insufficient to ward off cataclysm. The permafrost is one, among many others that we're still discovering. Even if industrial civilization stopped on a dime today, it's quite possible that we've already initiated a runaway hothouse scenario. That only becomes more likely the more we emit. Technology will be necessary to mitigate and adapt, and so switching our energy systems to carbon neutral is the first of many steps. Consumption will also have to come down, but I don't imagine many places will manage to do it voluntarily. Perhaps some more pro-social, community oriented countries will do so, but the more hyper-capitalist, individualist countries will likely fight tooth and nail to continue consuming until nature forces an end to it. Classic tragedy of the commons, except the commons is our only known habitable biosphere.

JVIDEL 7y ago

What tech?