We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So

[Loulit01]

We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We're Going to Say So

It’s time to use a term that more than 13,000 scientists agree is needed

www.scientificamerican.com

An emergency is a serious situation that requires immediate action. When someone calls 911 because they can’t breathe, that’s an emergency. When someone stumbles on the sidewalk because their chest is pounding and their lips are turning blue, that’s an emergency. Both people require help right away. Multiply those individuals by millions of people who have similar symptoms, and it constitutes the biggest global health emergency in a century: the COVID-19 pandemic.

Now consider the following scenarios: A hurricane blasts Florida. A California dam bursts because floods have piled water high up behind it. A sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas. These are also emergencies that require immediate action. Multiply these situations worldwide, and you have the biggest environmental emergency to beset the earth in millennia: climate change.

Given the circumstances, Scientific American has agreed with major news outlets worldwide to start using the term “climate emergency” in its coverage of climate change. An official statement about this decision, and the impact we hope it can have throughout the media landscape, is below.

This idea is not a journalistic fancy. We are on solid scientific ground. In January Scientific American published an article about a study entitled “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” At the time, more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries had signed a report to signify their agreement that the world is facing a climate emergency that requires bold action. As of April 9 another 2,100 had signed on. As our article said, “the adverse effects of climate change are much more severe than expected and now threaten both the biosphere and humanity.... Every effort must be made to reduce emissions and increase removal of atmospheric carbon in order to restore the melting Arctic and end the deadly cycle of damage that the current climate is delivering.” Our article also noted that as of January, “1,859 jurisdictions in 33 countries have issued climate emergency declarations covering more than 820 million people.”

 

[Mycroft]

We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We're Going to Say So

It’s time to use a term that more than 13,000 scientists agree is needed

www.scientificamerican.com

An emergency is a serious situation that requires immediate action. When someone calls 911 because they can’t breathe, that’s an emergency. When someone stumbles on the sidewalk because their chest is pounding and their lips are turning blue, that’s an emergency. Both people require help right away. Multiply those individuals by millions of people who have similar symptoms, and it constitutes the biggest global health emergency in a century: the COVID-19 pandemic.

Now consider the following scenarios: A hurricane blasts Florida. A California dam bursts because floods have piled water high up behind it. A sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas. These are also emergencies that require immediate action. Multiply these situations worldwide, and you have the biggest environmental emergency to beset the earth in millennia: climate change.

Given the circumstances, Scientific American has agreed with major news outlets worldwide to start using the term “climate emergency” in its coverage of climate change. An official statement about this decision, and the impact we hope it can have throughout the media landscape, is below.

This idea is not a journalistic fancy. We are on solid scientific ground. In January Scientific American published an article about a study entitled “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” At the time, more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries had signed a report to signify their agreement that the world is facing a climate emergency that requires bold action. As of April 9 another 2,100 had signed on. As our article said, “the adverse effects of climate change are much more severe than expected and now threaten both the biosphere and humanity.... Every effort must be made to reduce emissions and increase removal of atmospheric carbon in order to restore the melting Arctic and end the deadly cycle of damage that the current climate is delivering.” Our article also noted that as of January, “1,859 jurisdictions in 33 countries have issued climate emergency declarations covering more than 820 million people.”

Let me know when they get China on board.

 

[calamity]

Let me know when they get China on board.

That's a bit like saying, "Well, since other people get away with rape, I might as well be a rapist too."

 

[PoS]

Argumentum ad populum.

Then again, there are like 8+ million scientists in the entire world, so 11K isnt even a drop in the bucket...

/thread.

 

[aociswundumho]

That's a bit like saying, "Well, since other people get away with rape, I might as well be a rapist too."

Who is the rape victim in this idiotic analogy?

 

[PoS]

Who is the rape victim in this idiotic analogy?

The weather, according to the climate cultists.

 

[nvflash]

Who is the rape victim in this idiotic analogy?

The tax payer.

 

[MamboDervish]

The weather, according to the climate cultists.

There are no climate cultists - there are only fossil fuel fools.

 

[Mycroft]

That's a bit like saying, "Well, since other people get away with rape, I might as well be a rapist too."

Not at all.

It's like saying "Why should I ruin my country to achieve a goal, that won't be attained unless every country is on board, when other countries won't do the same?

 

[nvflash]

I have an honest question, if man made Co2 emissions and other greenhouse gases are escalating global climate change( I believe they are, as far as the scientific data I have seen leads me to believe it ), and the permafrost in our polar regions is already melting, releasing vast stores of greenhouse gasses trapped within. That makes up many times the amount of greenhouse gases than man has ever released.

Why has every plan I see to reduce greenhouse gas emissions just seeking to slow the rate of growth?

Slowing the rate of growth will still mean polar regions getting warmer, melting more permafrost and releasing more greenhouse gases, or so it seem to me.

 

[OrphanSlug]

At the time, more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries had signed a report to signify their agreement that the world is facing a climate emergency that requires bold action.

Wake me up when "bold action" both includes nations like China and India and Saudi Arabia *and* liberalism running rampant across the UN does not use the climate change platform to create a giant wealth control and redistribution scheme tilted greatly towards nations not doing so well economically and/or ran by military and/or theocratic dictatorships.

Until then the conversation is dead in the water because the platform is being abused for political reasons far more than a real interest in dealing with a "climate emergency."

 

[MamboDervish]

Not at all.

It's like saying "Why should I ruin my country to achieve a goal, that won't be attained unless every country is on board, when other countries won't do the same?

It's a specious argument if ever I heard one. Suggesting that addressing climate change will somehow ruin our country is nothing short of hyperbolic horseshit.

 

[calamity]

Not at all.

It's like saying "Why should I ruin my country to achieve a goal, that won't be attained unless every country is on board, when other countries won't do the same?

"Why should I not rape to achieve a goal, that won't be attained unless every man is on board, when other men won't do the same?"

 

[Mycroft]

It's a specious argument if ever I heard one. Suggesting that addressing climate change will somehow ruin our country is nothing short of hyperbolic horseshit.

See post #11.

Yes...it will ruin our country.

 

[Mycroft]

"Why should I not rape to achieve a goal, that won't be attained unless every man is on board, when other men won't do the same?"

LOL!!

Umm...you do realize you are now equating climate activists with rapists. Right?

Somehow I don't think that was your intention with your blather.

 

[Peter]

The UK has just passed a law requiring we become carbon neutral by 2050.

UK becomes first major economy to pass net zero emissions law

New target will require the UK to bring all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.

www.gov.uk

It's not going to destroy the UK economy and it can be done.

 

[OrphanSlug]

... is nothing short of hyperbolic horseshit.

Irony, so is the idea of "climate emergency."

Until you get China (the #1 polluter on the planet and it is not even close) into the discussion then all you have is the current scheme by the UN to control wealth movement and actually help poor nations go into industrialization to build all the shit for other nations on the other side of industrialization.

The top 5 polluters in the world in order...

#1 China
#2 US
#3 India
#4 Russia
#5 Japan

The top 5 "energy producers" (i.e. oil) in the world...

#1 US
#2 Saudi Arabia
#3 Russia
#4 Canada
#5 China

Until that dynamic changes and until all of those nations are serious, the UN coming up with plan after plan to go after the US primarily as a means to fund other nations at the will of UN intentions (some of which having nothing to do with climate change) is dead in the water.

 

[nvflash]

I have an honest question, if man made Co2 emissions and other greenhouse gases are escalating global climate change( I believe they are, as far as the scientific data I have seen leads me to believe it ), and the permafrost in our polar regions is already melting, releasing vast stores of greenhouse gasses trapped within. That makes up many times the amount of greenhouse gases than man has ever released.

Why has every plan I see to reduce greenhouse gas emissions just seeking to slow the rate of growth?

Slowing the rate of growth will still mean polar regions getting warmer, melting more permafrost and releasing more greenhouse gases, or so it seem to me.

Submarine Permafrost Has Been Overlooked as a Major Source of Greenhouse Gases, Scientists Warn

e360.yale.edu

 

[MamboDervish]

See post #11.

Yes...it will ruin our country.

Like I said, a specious argument.

 

[MamboDervish]

Irony, so is the idea of "climate emergency."

Until you get China (the #1 polluter on the planet and it is not even close) into the discussion then all you have is the current scheme by the UN to control wealth movement and actually help poor nations go into industrialization to build all the shit for other nations on the other side of industrialization.

The top 5 polluters in the world in order...

#1 China
#2 US
#3 India
#4 Russia
#5 Japan

The top 5 "energy producers" (i.e. oil) in the world...

#1 US
#2 Saudi Arabia
#3 Russia
#4 Canada
#5 China

Until that dynamic changes and until all of those nations are serious, the UN coming up with plan after plan to go after the US primarily as a means to fund other nations at the will of UN intentions (some of which having nothing to do with climate change) is dead in the water.

LOL - continued unabated overuse of fossil fuels is what leaves things dead in the water.

 

[Dayton3]

occasional one offs, even a series of them together doesn't make something a "climate emergency".

 

[OrphanSlug]

LOL - continued unabated overuse of fossil fuels is what leaves things dead in the water.

The point of my post clearly raced over your head.

Until you get all of those nations to the table then all you get is the current plan, which is filled to the brim with questionable intentions.

 

[cabse5]

We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We're Going to Say So

It’s time to use a term that more than 13,000 scientists agree is needed

www.scientificamerican.com

An emergency is a serious situation that requires immediate action. When someone calls 911 because they can’t breathe, that’s an emergency. When someone stumbles on the sidewalk because their chest is pounding and their lips are turning blue, that’s an emergency. Both people require help right away. Multiply those individuals by millions of people who have similar symptoms, and it constitutes the biggest global health emergency in a century: the COVID-19 pandemic.

Now consider the following scenarios: A hurricane blasts Florida. A California dam bursts because floods have piled water high up behind it. A sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas. These are also emergencies that require immediate action. Multiply these situations worldwide, and you have the biggest environmental emergency to beset the earth in millennia: climate change.

Given the circumstances, Scientific American has agreed with major news outlets worldwide to start using the term “climate emergency” in its coverage of climate change. An official statement about this decision, and the impact we hope it can have throughout the media landscape, is below.

This idea is not a journalistic fancy. We are on solid scientific ground. In January Scientific American published an article about a study entitled “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” At the time, more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries had signed a report to signify their agreement that the world is facing a climate emergency that requires bold action. As of April 9 another 2,100 had signed on. As our article said, “the adverse effects of climate change are much more severe than expected and now threaten both the biosphere and humanity.... Every effort must be made to reduce emissions and increase removal of atmospheric carbon in order to restore the melting Arctic and end the deadly cycle of damage that the current climate is delivering.” Our article also noted that as of January, “1,859 jurisdictions in 33 countries have issued climate emergency declarations covering more than 820 million people.”

Yeah. A little actual scientific data to back up your claim and the reason for your OP would be nice.

 

[Evilroddy]

Who is the rape victim in this idiotic analogy?

aoc...ho:

The whole biosphere is the metaphorical victim, as are (more specifically) future generations of the human race. The Earth's natural history has been shaped far more by extinctions than natural selection, survival of the fittest and evolution, so unless we want to be reshaped out of existence, we better wise up and stop over-stressing the Earth's capicity to buffer our changes to the global environment. The Earth will soldier on, but we will wipe ourselves out. So it has been for the last 3.8 billion years or so.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[MamboDervish]

The point of my post clearly raced over your head.
Until you get all of those nations to the table then all you get is the current plan, which is filled to the brim with questionable intentions.

You have no clue or qualification to state what's over my head.

Fossil fuels pollute in their extraction, in their transportation, in their refinement, in their storage, and in their use. They are carcinogenic and mutagenic. They pollute the air we breathe, the food we eat, the ground our children play on, and the water we drink. No matter what one believes about AGW, and no matter what other countries are doing, this country should be doing everything in its power to reduce our use of fossil fuels, and promote development and use of alternative energy sources. Period.