Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Showing Original Post only (View all)

OKIsItJustMe

(21,703 posts)
Thu Jul 4, 2019, 02:30 PM Jul 2019

Climate scientist calls for 'world war type mobilization' to combat climate change [View all]

Last edited Thu Jul 4, 2019, 04:28 PM - Edit history (1)

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/451497-climate-scientist-michael-mann-calls-for-world-war-type-mobilization-to-combat
Climate scientist calls for 'world war type mobilization' to combat climate change

7/3/2019

(Video available at link - OKIsItJustMe)

Climate scientist Michael Mann is calling for a “world war-type” mobilization to address climate change.

“We do need a world-war type mobilization and that means putting in place incentives to move our economy as quickly as we can away from fossil fuels to renewable energy,” Mann, a scientist at Pennsylvania State University who is known for taking on climate skeptics, told Hill.TV in an interview that aired Wednesday.

“Now how we do that, there’s a legitimate policy debate to be had about how we do that but there isn’t a legitimate debate to be had anymore about the need to do that,” he added.

Mann warned that lawmakers should take immediate action, arguing that the Trump administration is actively seeking to dismantle 50 years of environmental protections put in place by both Democratic and Republican administrations.



James Hansen (et al) made a similar call in 2008:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_ha00410c.pdf


The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO₂, is Herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.

31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I hope humans get their act together but I don't see any action. BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2019 #1
I have decided that the "birth control"/"climate change" meme is racist OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #2
I have a hybrid car, rarely drive, keep my temperature affordable BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2019 #3
Your hybrid probably produces less CO₂ per mile than my (old) conventional car OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #4
Again, the global population rate is growing and that is a problem. BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2019 #5
The global population is growing. The population growth rate is not. OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #6
Since 1980 the world's population growth has been linear, at 80 million per year. The_jackalope Jul 2019 #9
Thank you for explaining so well. BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2019 #18
I would like me to point out that climate change is just one of many impacts from pop. growth NickB79 Jul 2019 #10
Which is more responsible? OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #11
Dunno, maths says total waste equals population X waste per capita progree Jul 2019 #16
"low fertility countries lead, by far, in both waste per capita and total waste" OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #20
Sounds rosy. But the U.N. also projects a 41% world population increase by 2100 progree Jul 2019 #26
"Population Momentum" OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #28
Reducing population growth will help in many ways other than just GHG emissions progree Jul 2019 #29
That may be OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #30
And reducing population growth will help. progree Jul 2019 #31
Another reason African women have a lot of children (on average) progree Jul 2019 #27
Mother Nature doesn't give a damn about per capita numbers NickB79 Jul 2019 #23
So... nature only cares about gross emissions for entire nations? OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #25
Yes yes absolutely yes. BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2019 #19
Yup. Or nearly 11 billion by 2100, despite those nice declining fertility graphs progree Jul 2019 #7
Yep. BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2019 #8
If you want to decrease the population, cut health care OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #13
I donated my farm to Population Connection progree Jul 2019 #15
It is "a modest proposal" OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #21
As Dwight said on The Office-- We need a new plague. BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2019 #17
Well, another strategy might be called "World War III" OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #22
Sad but true, population control has been war and sickness. BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2019 #24
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against population control. OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #12
True, or even if they had a per-capita emission the same as China, we would be screwed progree Jul 2019 #14
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Climate scientist calls f...»Reply #0