Domed cities image courtesy Alexander Ratko
For some time, I have been trying to figure out how billionaires can be denying climate change, and the United States of America can have refused to sign onto so many treaties and initiatives to control carbon emissions, and fight global warming. Then I figured it out – the top 1% of the top 1% (the folks who send 32 trillion out of their own countries) are ready to automate all processes that produce what they care about, create domed cities, and let everyone else bake fry.
Can you come up with a better explanation, anyone? Denial won’t stop this problem. Just look at this view of the Greenland Surface melt:
Here is the source article.
It cannot be that “they don’t know” ; it must be that “they don’t care” because they have made other plans.
It does, however, boggle the mind to think of the Romney Dynasty Domed City – and the Walton Dome. Other suggestions, anyone?
gated community
Have you read Marge Piercy’s He, She, and It? </strong Describes that future precisely.
Domed cities aren’t practical at all plus some of you people might sneak in. We’re building boats for the 1%ers (even all the rich Democrats)…
Over the last few weeks I’ve asked a question here about Global climate change… but haven’t heard any responses.
I don’t deny the earth is getting warmer. From June 21, 2012…
How were our CO2 levels in 1949?
So, if we switch over to Volts for cars, eliminate coal burning plants completely… what will happen to global temps? How long before Greenland freezes again and the polar ice caps melting start to reverse? How much of the current temperature rise is man-made vs the cyclical nature of the Earth? Maybe if we believed changing our ways would make a difference, more people would care. Just a thought!
First, I fear you’re asking the wrong question. A better question is “what if we do NOT …?” We have our pedal to the global warming metal. You may be right that it’s already too late, but that is by no means a reason to then continue business as usual.
Your question about natural cycles has been answered over and over — there are no “natural cycles” that explain what we see unfolding all around us. The science is clear and compelling — we just don’t like what it says.
My more cynical feeling is that the 1% have already done a reasonably good job of insulating themselves from the devastating and catastrophic impacts of global warming. Billions of people will die (of hunger, thirst, disease and water-wars), and most of them will be the world’s poorest and least powerful. I suspect the very wealthy assume (though they won’t say so) that they will end up in heavily fortified and armed enclaves — sort of a darwinistic dystopia where they hope and believe that their wealth, power and might will ultimately save them.
I note, in passing, that today’s Gospel reading (for Proper 12, in the Episcopal cycle) is the John 6 accounting of the feeding of the five thousand.
The question you ask about CO2 is, in essence, the same question asked by the disciples — “How will these meager baskets of bread and fish feed this multitude”. It seems to me that if our answer is “so let them starve”, then we ignore the message of faith that so many of our right wing brethren profess to believe in.
maybe medicine is a better analog. If someone is dying from a heart problem and someone asks if we should give them some expensive drugs or protein therapeutic treatment costing 100’s of thousands of dollars… don’t you think we should first ask “will this expensive treatment work?” If the answer is no, then why do it since we will not treat another person who may need the treatment. No we have only so much money to spend and changing to electric cars and getting rid of coal will be very costly. My question remains, what will the results be? You try to turn it around and say what if we don’t change things and quite frankly I don’t know what that answer is either, do you? Do you have a miracle up your sleeve that you can use on the global temps going up… if so, use it!
Miracles are above my pay-grade, I have none up my sleeve. Most Americas, and especially the GOP, claim to be Christian. The miracle of the feeding of the five thousand is a prominent fixture of every interpretation of Christianity that I’m familiar with. Regardless of your feeling or mine, it is striking to me that a political tradition that so loudly beats the Christian drum is so unwilling to embrace this most basic call to action of Christian belief.
If you want to talk about money, that works too. When you add up the staggering costs of doing nothing, multiply them by any non-zero risk that the catastrophe occurs, and compare the result to the costs of mitigation/avoidance, mitigation and avoidance wins hands-down.
Medicine is a fine analog. When we look at public policy towards heart disease, do you suggest that because some drugs and treatments are expensive that we should not only let people die but insist that heart disease doesn’t exist?
The reason we have effective and affordable drugs and treatment is that we have, until now, been willing to face terrifying and daunting challenges like heart disease and cancer head-on. Where would we be if the researchers of 1930 had said “we don’t see how to solve heart disease” and given up?
It sounds to me as though you advocate turning Vince Lombardi’s favorite aphorism on its ear — “The going looks tough, so I’m gone”.
It’s not the expense of drugs, it’s knowing whether they work or not. If a patient has 3 weeks to live, I don’t think we should spend money giving that patient Lipitor. I acknowledge we have a problem, I just want to know the cause before we start treatment and I want to know the treatment will work.
I very rarely give up (I’m still here on BMG). But I am someone who likes to know my work, effort, blood, sweat and money is being used wisely and effectively.
When the efficacy of a drug is evaluated, it is done so by comparing the results to the consequences of doing nothing.
We know the cause (emphasis mine):
We know the treatment works, but we don’t know whether the patient is willing to make the effort needed. If the smoker waits until his or her lungs hurt to even admit that smoking might be dangerous, the cancer is already terminal.
To stay with your medical analogy, the clinical team has unanimously recommended a course of action. We have gathered second, third, and fourth opinions, and they all unanimously concur (it is true that some witch doctors and faith healers argue that the symptoms are “natural”).
I think we owe it to our grandchildren to do everything humanly possible to mitigate and avoid this unfolding climate catastrophe.
Moon colonies would be so much better…
who needs death panels.