The US atmospheric chemist on why she doesn’t share the pessimism of most climate scientists, fixing the ozone layer, and why Jacques Cousteau is her hero
Sharing this here as I feel it's relevant to the GE campaign.
The evidence suggests that in about three weeks, we're going to give a landslide to the party promising the most radical green policies in this country's history. Environmentalism is just about to win the argument in Britain, as long as we vote for it on the 4th of July. Don't give in to cynicism and despair!
I'm very cynical and I despaired long ago, but giving these Tories a kicking is giving me motivation. I live in one of those formerly safe Tory seats, so I'm going to enjoy placing my cross this year.
There's not enough evidence for that statement imo. We see a drop in emissions here because we see a drop in emissions in general. This is however not strictly scalable and might bottom out at a certain point, at which point GDP growth will again cause emissions to rise.
Global energy related CO2 emissions could peak by 2025:
Not a good thing (and also hypothetical), considering that we should be carbon neutral within the decade.
Remember, pessimism isn't useful:
I'm rather pessimistic and want much more action to be taken, instead of spreading toxic positivity that causes people to slack off or shift blame.
Back in the 1970s, just the possibility of ozone depletion led lots of people in the US to get rid of spray cans and use underarm roll-on instead.
Aside from the ozone crisis, what did you learn from researching other issues such as smog and lead that we might carry forward to the fight against global heating?Over the years in America and in the UK, we developed this anti-regulation mindset: regulation is bad, the market will find the best possible solution.
And they have all these assets, whether it be the rights to go out and cut down this mountaintop and sell it as coal, or offshore oil rigs that are very expensive pieces of equipment.
But it’s interesting that the concept of stranded assets has become part of the vocabulary, and people are beginning to realise how much power they actually have, in terms of the way we make our investments – in your retirement fund, or your choice of bank.
In the Guardian last month, 380 climate scientists were surveyed and many reported feeling despair – 77% of respondents believe global temperatures will reach at least 2.5C above pre-industrial levels and 42% think they’ll exceed 3C.
You see it go in both directions, but in this case there has long been a group of people out there who believe we should tell the worst stories we possibly can, because then the public will get it and wake up and that will enable change.
The original article contains 1,334 words, the summary contains 245 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
The evidence suggests that in about three weeks, we're going to give a landslide to the party promising the most radical green policies in this country's history.
The article doesn't mention which party the evidence points to or which party is promising the most radical green policies in the country's history, and neither did you, I'd like to know.
Could you elaborate on this please? I assume the Green Party are the group that support the most radical environmental reforms, but it would be nice to have some more context and information, thank you :-)