Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think your quote from Katharine Hayhoe clarifies things: "The net result was not that the sinks stopped absorbing, but that the balance for one year tipped in the direction of absorbing less than humans produced." If the balance between sinks and human production in other years had NOT been tipped in the direction of absorbing less than humans produced, we wouldn't have been discussing the climate crisis for the past umpteen years.
Imagine you are a Palestinian. Now tell me how important it is that Harris become president. Or any of the pearl clutching Dems or lunatic Republicans. Rapid genocide and slow mo environmental disaster are all of a piece.
Agree that Kamala has to win. But if she wins can she lead a frank conversation on climate change with the American public?
Such as: 1) climate justice (by the math) is all about the 8bn lives put at risk by 0.3bn Americans having loaded a quarter of today's atmosperic GHG concentration…so if polluter pays then we owe!
2) Kamala either proposes some form of economy-wide carbon tax (with dividends) or all her net zero goals will be headed for the (growing) corporate greenwashing dumpster…we are the world's "markets leader" (who drove globalization) - if we blow off markets that might achieve some kind of aligned global mitigation, then other countries will too,
3) Kamala's roughly half trillion $/yr over 20 years is >10% of government annual receipts, while our public/private (blended finance) is thus far a joke in international climate finance…a plan anchored by blended-finance-pixie-dust is no more seroius than decades away net zero pledges unmoored to the carbon pricing that economists (loads of Nobel laureates) have pounded the table on for decades.
Bottom line: Elite or not, climate scientists are right about the earth's energy imbalance and the lognormal risk its growth presents - and economists are right that developed market economies should already be leading global carbon pricing. Instead of leading with (domestic) climate justice (important but not mission critical) can Kamala speak "climate reality"?
Whether or not you believe Biden courageously withdrew or, as seems much more likely he was forced to and whether or not you believe Harris will follow through on green policies once elected, if your joy was tempered by at least a few reservations about the continued genocide of thousands of Palestinians (over the fossil fuels near where they live) and the proxy war in Ukraine that the US is 'loosing' (though much of now belongs to Blackrock/stone) that Biden would be handing over to Harris then you would have much more credibility as a cheer leader for the Democrats.
Thank you, Bill. I dearly hope your bump of optimism here is good intuition. This has been a hard call, wondering whether or not Biden was better to get us over the November finish line. At this point, that's my highest goal: any D elected and inaugurated. A tennis ball with eyes painted on will do. The alternative is not a bad election; it's a path to a deep and abiding chaos, socially and climatically.
For anyone interested in a broader review of the environmental consequences of Project 2025 and a 2nd Trump presidency, one source is my recent post "Project 2025 in the Real World" (https://jasonanthony.substack.com/p/over-the-cliff-620).
Bill, you are correct in all counts, but I think the climate crisis is worse than any of us hithereto thought and is, perhaps, irremediable. What I see coming are changes in atmisospheric dynamics. Similar to what is going to happen with the AMOC perhaps. We may see prevailing latitudinal winds, like the mid latitude westerlies or the roaring forties, slow down or conversely speed up, or develop internal phenomena not previously seen. All these changes with perhaps huge effects on our agriculture. Carbon is definitely not our only challenge.
Thank you, Bill. I shared your post with a lot of my relatives including trumpers. I have long supported Kamala and voted for her in the Presidential primary of 2020. She had her ups and downs as a DA in San Francisco, but she was a great Attorney General and a decent Senator - she didn't hold that office long enough to settle in.
She's NOT going to be able to beat Trump. Hell's bells, don't you remember what happened to her last time she tried to win -- before Biden scooped her up? Her records as DA and AJ are atrocious! Totally disgusting. Plus, she has all sorts of annoying, giddy, inane habits! She's a lousy candidate and she will NOT win! No matter how hard the money-boys and party "controllers" try--she's a loser!
Conspiracy theories are titillating, sure, but in this case there was no conspiracy. Pretty basic. Most Dems wanted Biden to step down and he was tanking in the polls.
Trump will get his second term i fully suspect. And relative to the subject of this post, it will make no difference. It will make no difference because the climate catastrophe is not our primary problem. It is, rather, a symptom of something much larger - our scale. That, and the fact that you can’t run the techno/industrial economy 8 billion people are dependent on to keep eating on ‘renewables.’ (Which aren’t actually renewable but rather “rebuildable”. A horse is renewable.) On the other hand, if we try to, and collapse sooner than we are doing anyway, billions will die sooner than they’re going to anyway (cos that’s how overshoot works with species) and this will help address the scale issue. But it won’t be of any utility to this civilization at that point. What’s going to happen is, (Trump will get re-elected, but so what) this civilization will run its course, our scale will contract radically, and the earth will explode back to life. Our problem isn’t really a problem, it’s a predicament. And a predicament is by definition something that cannot be solved in this case by ourselves, it can only be negotiated successfully, or not.
Bill writes that Elon Musk will "pledge of $45 million a month in campaign contributions" and that Trump "was heard to say yesterday that maybe electric cars weren’t so bad after all." Trump has said he will end EV subsidies.
However, the link that Bill supplies as evidence that Trump "was heard to say that" does not actually claim this. Likewise, Musk has denied he's spending that amount.
Keep up the good work Bill! Would you be willing to share my latest post "Young People Put Biden in Office, Where Are They Now" with your readers? Winning this election is all about bringing voters 18-29 back to the polls---the data prove it. Appreciate your help in getting the word out.
The scarecrow once famously said - "If I only had a brain"-
Just look back at all the misinformation you have been told and
ask yourself some basic questions about your quality of life, the lies that have been debunked and the harm its has done to our country.
Common Sense is not something that can be bought but can be
learned if you’re willing to open your mind to balanced News feeds. MSNBC, CNN, ANC, NBC have become toxic over the last 15 years.
Kamala placed more African American, Hispanics in jail while she was attorney Genral of California 2004-2010 ,hid evidence that would have shown many of the convicted were innocent and she thinks we dont rememeber.
Join the winning team of Freedom for American and Make America Great Again
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I rather doubt that any president is gonna be able to change the trajectory of the climate significantly. Sounds like typical American hubris more than a realistic assessment of the importance of one country's election. At what point do you accept that the climate is not under our control?
Bill, I am always curious to hear why people dislike Trump so deeply, and I give you credit for stating your reason so clearly: for you it hinges on the climate issue. The climate issue is your reason "Why Beating Trump is Absolutely Necessary." If you are going to place so much weight on this issue, you owe it to yourself and your readers to be well informed about it. If you are inclined to rely on the conclusions of eminent scientists, please consider these. Dr. William Hopper, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics, Princeton University has written, "The alleged "climate emergency" has no more substance than the "climate emergency" in Salem Massachusetts, more than 300 years ago." Dr. John F. Clauser, winner (with two others) of the 1922 Nobel Prize in Physics, has declared himself a "climate denier" and says "There is no climate crises." Dr. Richard Linden, formerly Alfred P. Sloan Professor in Atmospheric Sciences and now Professor Emeritus at MIT, says "This [climate alarmism] is exploiting people's ignorance to promote fear and use it as a lever for God knows what they want to do." What should we do about CO2 emissions? "Nothing," he says. We are "nowhere near" an "existential threat" due to global warming. If you are willing to go beyond accepting the word of "experts" and to dig into the science yourself, you must read at least these two books: Dr. Steven E. Koonin, "Unsettled" (2021) and Dr. Judith A. Curry, "Climate Uncertainty and Risk" (2023). Dr. Koonin was chief scientist in the U.S. Department of Energy under the Obama administration, and Dr. Curry is Professor Emerita at Georgia Tech. Both books are easily available on Amazon. You will probably also want to take a look at the newsletters of Dr. Roger Pielke, Professor Emeritus at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The newsletters are named "The Honest Broker" on substack. I suppose we can all agree that if the climate crises is not a crises at all, then it would be a great shame to squander trillions of dollars trying to fix it.
Bill, I’m baffled by this as it contradicts the current reality and a gradual approach to “Net Zero” will lessen what Professor Mann calls “the best climate science you’ve never hear of”:
<<The authors warn: “If very high warming rates continue in the next decade and negatively impact the land sink as they did in 2023, it calls for urgent action to enhance carbon sequestration and reduce greenhouse gasses emissions to net zero before reaching a dangerous level of warming at which natural CO2 sinks may no longer provide to humanity the mitigation service they have offered so far by absorbing half of human induced CO2 emissions.”>>
Yes, I want Harris elected, but not because I believe that as President she would have the power to "truly help stem the tide" of climate disasters – or make any gains in reducing total CO2e emissions.
My skepticism comes from the obvious problem with her “Climate Plan for the People” (the same problem I have with Katharine Hayhoe & Michael Mann's boilerplate positivity and with degrowth people): There is no actual plan.
No political/ economic/ legal and social road map that navigates a path to any of the core goals & targets. Instead there is the listing of goals and then crickets where a hard look at the web of obstacles should be. Any master plan for sequestering & reducing emissions would have to confront several intractable obstacles/ realities/ conditions that no doubt keep specific strategy & plans from emerging:
1. The integrated Earth system is in irreversible, feedback-driven breakdown, guaranteeing more intense climate disasters, crop failures, heat deaths, migrations, extinctions, etc., none of which can be forestalled by human technologies or aspirational policies.
2. The only way to reduce emissions is to reduce the amount of energy produced and consumed. Since doing so would deter growth, shrinking the economy, no politician or candidate will advocate any such thing. In other words, there will be no draconian legislation aimed at reducing emissions.
3. Energy is the economy and 80% of primary energy is from oil, gas & coal. The power sector, stuff that can be electrified, the other 20% of energy used, is itself ~70% supplied by FFs with wind & solar clocking in at around 10-16%. Renewables account for ~4% of total global energy and their much touted buildout can in no way compensate for the incessant ramping up of FF production to meet rising demand. The claim for a "clean energy future" based on renewables is not founded in credible fact or analysis. Add to the equation that "renewables" are made with FFs, have a carbon footprint not much discussed, add to resource overshoot, perpetuate growth and have to be replaced in +/- 25 years.
4. The end of Nature is upon us no matter what we do with our energy system. We've lost the Arctic & soon the rest of ice. The oceans are heating up, acidifying and dying. Plastic & chemical pollution is destroying ecosystems, animal & insect populations and human health. Tropical & boreal forests are relentlessly savaged to make 2x4s, pellets or to make way for cattle, soy beans & palm oil.
There is absolutely no sign that the damage we are doing can be slowed, much less stopped. So yes, I'm a doomer, but always and cheerfully ready to hear other evidence based perspectives.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think your quote from Katharine Hayhoe clarifies things: "The net result was not that the sinks stopped absorbing, but that the balance for one year tipped in the direction of absorbing less than humans produced." If the balance between sinks and human production in other years had NOT been tipped in the direction of absorbing less than humans produced, we wouldn't have been discussing the climate crisis for the past umpteen years.
Imagine you are a Palestinian. Now tell me how important it is that Harris become president. Or any of the pearl clutching Dems or lunatic Republicans. Rapid genocide and slow mo environmental disaster are all of a piece.
Agree that Kamala has to win. But if she wins can she lead a frank conversation on climate change with the American public?
Such as: 1) climate justice (by the math) is all about the 8bn lives put at risk by 0.3bn Americans having loaded a quarter of today's atmosperic GHG concentration…so if polluter pays then we owe!
2) Kamala either proposes some form of economy-wide carbon tax (with dividends) or all her net zero goals will be headed for the (growing) corporate greenwashing dumpster…we are the world's "markets leader" (who drove globalization) - if we blow off markets that might achieve some kind of aligned global mitigation, then other countries will too,
3) Kamala's roughly half trillion $/yr over 20 years is >10% of government annual receipts, while our public/private (blended finance) is thus far a joke in international climate finance…a plan anchored by blended-finance-pixie-dust is no more seroius than decades away net zero pledges unmoored to the carbon pricing that economists (loads of Nobel laureates) have pounded the table on for decades.
Bottom line: Elite or not, climate scientists are right about the earth's energy imbalance and the lognormal risk its growth presents - and economists are right that developed market economies should already be leading global carbon pricing. Instead of leading with (domestic) climate justice (important but not mission critical) can Kamala speak "climate reality"?
Whether or not you believe Biden courageously withdrew or, as seems much more likely he was forced to and whether or not you believe Harris will follow through on green policies once elected, if your joy was tempered by at least a few reservations about the continued genocide of thousands of Palestinians (over the fossil fuels near where they live) and the proxy war in Ukraine that the US is 'loosing' (though much of now belongs to Blackrock/stone) that Biden would be handing over to Harris then you would have much more credibility as a cheer leader for the Democrats.
Thank you, Bill. I dearly hope your bump of optimism here is good intuition. This has been a hard call, wondering whether or not Biden was better to get us over the November finish line. At this point, that's my highest goal: any D elected and inaugurated. A tennis ball with eyes painted on will do. The alternative is not a bad election; it's a path to a deep and abiding chaos, socially and climatically.
For anyone interested in a broader review of the environmental consequences of Project 2025 and a 2nd Trump presidency, one source is my recent post "Project 2025 in the Real World" (https://jasonanthony.substack.com/p/over-the-cliff-620).
Bill, you are correct in all counts, but I think the climate crisis is worse than any of us hithereto thought and is, perhaps, irremediable. What I see coming are changes in atmisospheric dynamics. Similar to what is going to happen with the AMOC perhaps. We may see prevailing latitudinal winds, like the mid latitude westerlies or the roaring forties, slow down or conversely speed up, or develop internal phenomena not previously seen. All these changes with perhaps huge effects on our agriculture. Carbon is definitely not our only challenge.
Thank you, Bill. I shared your post with a lot of my relatives including trumpers. I have long supported Kamala and voted for her in the Presidential primary of 2020. She had her ups and downs as a DA in San Francisco, but she was a great Attorney General and a decent Senator - she didn't hold that office long enough to settle in.
She's NOT going to be able to beat Trump. Hell's bells, don't you remember what happened to her last time she tried to win -- before Biden scooped her up? Her records as DA and AJ are atrocious! Totally disgusting. Plus, she has all sorts of annoying, giddy, inane habits! She's a lousy candidate and she will NOT win! No matter how hard the money-boys and party "controllers" try--she's a loser!
Disagree. And she’ll look pretty good compared to what she’s up against
Conspiracy theories are titillating, sure, but in this case there was no conspiracy. Pretty basic. Most Dems wanted Biden to step down and he was tanking in the polls.
The perfect is the enemy of the good and Kamala is plenty good vs the verifiably bad Dishonest Donny.
Disagree.
Raised $240 million in 31 hours from SMALL DONORS.
Young voters are already wearing HARRIS 2024 T-shirts.
She has clinched the nomination.
Why are you here???
Scurry off to "truth" Social...
No reasoning with "true" believers. So, get ready for another Trump election.
Still disagree.
Why are you so negative?
Why are you here, Debby Downer?
The CULT is a minority.
Trump will get his second term i fully suspect. And relative to the subject of this post, it will make no difference. It will make no difference because the climate catastrophe is not our primary problem. It is, rather, a symptom of something much larger - our scale. That, and the fact that you can’t run the techno/industrial economy 8 billion people are dependent on to keep eating on ‘renewables.’ (Which aren’t actually renewable but rather “rebuildable”. A horse is renewable.) On the other hand, if we try to, and collapse sooner than we are doing anyway, billions will die sooner than they’re going to anyway (cos that’s how overshoot works with species) and this will help address the scale issue. But it won’t be of any utility to this civilization at that point. What’s going to happen is, (Trump will get re-elected, but so what) this civilization will run its course, our scale will contract radically, and the earth will explode back to life. Our problem isn’t really a problem, it’s a predicament. And a predicament is by definition something that cannot be solved in this case by ourselves, it can only be negotiated successfully, or not.
Bill writes that Elon Musk will "pledge of $45 million a month in campaign contributions" and that Trump "was heard to say yesterday that maybe electric cars weren’t so bad after all." Trump has said he will end EV subsidies.
However, the link that Bill supplies as evidence that Trump "was heard to say that" does not actually claim this. Likewise, Musk has denied he's spending that amount.
Keep up the good work Bill! Would you be willing to share my latest post "Young People Put Biden in Office, Where Are They Now" with your readers? Winning this election is all about bringing voters 18-29 back to the polls---the data prove it. Appreciate your help in getting the word out.
The scarecrow once famously said - "If I only had a brain"-
Just look back at all the misinformation you have been told and
ask yourself some basic questions about your quality of life, the lies that have been debunked and the harm its has done to our country.
Common Sense is not something that can be bought but can be
learned if you’re willing to open your mind to balanced News feeds. MSNBC, CNN, ANC, NBC have become toxic over the last 15 years.
Kamala placed more African American, Hispanics in jail while she was attorney Genral of California 2004-2010 ,hid evidence that would have shown many of the convicted were innocent and she thinks we dont rememeber.
Join the winning team of Freedom for American and Make America Great Again
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I rather doubt that any president is gonna be able to change the trajectory of the climate significantly. Sounds like typical American hubris more than a realistic assessment of the importance of one country's election. At what point do you accept that the climate is not under our control?
Bill, I am always curious to hear why people dislike Trump so deeply, and I give you credit for stating your reason so clearly: for you it hinges on the climate issue. The climate issue is your reason "Why Beating Trump is Absolutely Necessary." If you are going to place so much weight on this issue, you owe it to yourself and your readers to be well informed about it. If you are inclined to rely on the conclusions of eminent scientists, please consider these. Dr. William Hopper, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics, Princeton University has written, "The alleged "climate emergency" has no more substance than the "climate emergency" in Salem Massachusetts, more than 300 years ago." Dr. John F. Clauser, winner (with two others) of the 1922 Nobel Prize in Physics, has declared himself a "climate denier" and says "There is no climate crises." Dr. Richard Linden, formerly Alfred P. Sloan Professor in Atmospheric Sciences and now Professor Emeritus at MIT, says "This [climate alarmism] is exploiting people's ignorance to promote fear and use it as a lever for God knows what they want to do." What should we do about CO2 emissions? "Nothing," he says. We are "nowhere near" an "existential threat" due to global warming. If you are willing to go beyond accepting the word of "experts" and to dig into the science yourself, you must read at least these two books: Dr. Steven E. Koonin, "Unsettled" (2021) and Dr. Judith A. Curry, "Climate Uncertainty and Risk" (2023). Dr. Koonin was chief scientist in the U.S. Department of Energy under the Obama administration, and Dr. Curry is Professor Emerita at Georgia Tech. Both books are easily available on Amazon. You will probably also want to take a look at the newsletters of Dr. Roger Pielke, Professor Emeritus at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The newsletters are named "The Honest Broker" on substack. I suppose we can all agree that if the climate crises is not a crises at all, then it would be a great shame to squander trillions of dollars trying to fix it.
Bill, I’m baffled by this as it contradicts the current reality and a gradual approach to “Net Zero” will lessen what Professor Mann calls “the best climate science you’ve never hear of”:
<<The authors warn: “If very high warming rates continue in the next decade and negatively impact the land sink as they did in 2023, it calls for urgent action to enhance carbon sequestration and reduce greenhouse gasses emissions to net zero before reaching a dangerous level of warming at which natural CO2 sinks may no longer provide to humanity the mitigation service they have offered so far by absorbing half of human induced CO2 emissions.”>>
Can you help us reconcile the inconsistency?
Yes, I want Harris elected, but not because I believe that as President she would have the power to "truly help stem the tide" of climate disasters – or make any gains in reducing total CO2e emissions.
My skepticism comes from the obvious problem with her “Climate Plan for the People” (the same problem I have with Katharine Hayhoe & Michael Mann's boilerplate positivity and with degrowth people): There is no actual plan.
No political/ economic/ legal and social road map that navigates a path to any of the core goals & targets. Instead there is the listing of goals and then crickets where a hard look at the web of obstacles should be. Any master plan for sequestering & reducing emissions would have to confront several intractable obstacles/ realities/ conditions that no doubt keep specific strategy & plans from emerging:
1. The integrated Earth system is in irreversible, feedback-driven breakdown, guaranteeing more intense climate disasters, crop failures, heat deaths, migrations, extinctions, etc., none of which can be forestalled by human technologies or aspirational policies.
2. The only way to reduce emissions is to reduce the amount of energy produced and consumed. Since doing so would deter growth, shrinking the economy, no politician or candidate will advocate any such thing. In other words, there will be no draconian legislation aimed at reducing emissions.
3. Energy is the economy and 80% of primary energy is from oil, gas & coal. The power sector, stuff that can be electrified, the other 20% of energy used, is itself ~70% supplied by FFs with wind & solar clocking in at around 10-16%. Renewables account for ~4% of total global energy and their much touted buildout can in no way compensate for the incessant ramping up of FF production to meet rising demand. The claim for a "clean energy future" based on renewables is not founded in credible fact or analysis. Add to the equation that "renewables" are made with FFs, have a carbon footprint not much discussed, add to resource overshoot, perpetuate growth and have to be replaced in +/- 25 years.
4. The end of Nature is upon us no matter what we do with our energy system. We've lost the Arctic & soon the rest of ice. The oceans are heating up, acidifying and dying. Plastic & chemical pollution is destroying ecosystems, animal & insect populations and human health. Tropical & boreal forests are relentlessly savaged to make 2x4s, pellets or to make way for cattle, soy beans & palm oil.
There is absolutely no sign that the damage we are doing can be slowed, much less stopped. So yes, I'm a doomer, but always and cheerfully ready to hear other evidence based perspectives.