We get it: It鈥檚 hard to hear bad news about how global warming is affecting the sport we love, especially when Mammoth stayed open into August and Alta broke historic snow total records just last season. Yet we still have to heed to what science is telling us, which is that U.S. winters are indeed getting shorter and shorter.

A new report detailing climate change鈥檚 effect on the ski industry takes a look at both the past and future. , which was published in the trade publication Current Issues in Tourism, examines global warming鈥檚 effect on different aspects of the ski industry, including season length, average winter temperatures in different U.S. regions, and projected economic losses if climate issues go unchecked.

One of the most unique aspects of the report is that it presents an alternate reality of what our ski seasons would have looked like over the last 20 years without any climate-change impacts. Using data from ski resorts gathered between 1960-1979, before the effects of global warming started to impact our winters, the researchers concluded that our ski seasons would have been extended by 5.5 to 7.1 days. Those days equaled around $252 million in lost revenue.

Using similar extrapolated data, the researchers also projected how our future ski seasons will be impacted by global warming. Instead of only gloom and doom, however, they offer a glimpse of what it might look like if we successfully lower our fossil fuel emissions鈥攁s well as if we don鈥檛.

听 听 听 听Also Read: 5 Reasons I鈥檓 Convinced We Can Stop Climate Change

We鈥檒l give you the bad news first. If we continue on our current trajectory, our seasons risk losing up to 60 days in the high-emissions scenario. That鈥檚 two months. And if we do manage to reduce our carbon emissions, we鈥檒l only lose an estimated 14 to 33 days. Those estimates take into account not only reduced snowfall, but also higher temperatures that will make it more difficult or impossible to make snow.

It鈥檚 not a great scenario, but it鈥檚 also not surprising given the way global warming has left its mark in every corner of the globe. Yet despite evidence of climate change touching our everyday lives, we can鈥檛 seem to move the needle.

That鈥檚 why the study鈥檚 authors targeted skiing.听 鈥淸People] may not care about the loss of the species halfway around the world, or a flood that鈥檚 happening in some other part of the world,鈥� said scientist Daniel Scott, a professor at the University of Waterloo and a co-author of the study. 鈥淏ut sport is often something people care about. And they can see some of these changes happening.鈥�

So are we actually reducing our carbon emissions? No, and what鈥檚 more,. Climate meetings in December in Dubai , with 200 countries agreeing to move 鈥渕ore quickly鈥� toward renewable energy sources and away from relying on fossil fuels.

It feels bleak, but the only thing to do if you鈥檙e a passionate skier鈥攁nd a passionate outdoorist鈥攊s get loud. , and make changes in your life that reflect your dedication to greener practices. At this point, every little but matters, even if it doesn鈥檛 always feel like it.

The post Your Ski Season May Get Drastically Shorter appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

At听age听65, Bill Gates continues to walk through life with all of the brashness听of an algebra teacher. While his peers among the ultrarich enjoy , , or , the cofounder of Microsoft has devoted听his spare time to book collecting and . With a soft voice and vigorously boring听fashion sense, it鈥檚 as if he鈥檚 trying to politely underplay his immense success as a businessman听or the $36 billion he and his wife, Melinda, have donated to their , which specializes in public health, education, and poverty reduction.听

This听brand of blandness is听on prominent display in his new book听. Writing with an uncommon level of calm and self-assurance when discussing the perils of a warming planet, Gates presents climate change as simply a technical problem waiting to be debugged, and finding a solution as more of a mechanical question than a human one. 鈥淚 think more like an engineer than a political scientist,鈥� he writes in the introduction. 鈥淎nd I don鈥檛 have a solution to the politics of climate change. Instead, what I hope to do is focus the conversation on what getting to zero [emissions] requires.鈥澨�

This approach provoked a range of responses when the book dropped last week, with ample exposure from 听迟辞 . While The Wall Street Journal and 鈥渃an do鈥� spirit, the听New Statesman 听鈥渢ypical of privileged men.鈥� Amid all the takes, it鈥檚 been hard to parse whether his points are brilliant and original or oblivious and not worth your time听because they come from an overconfident billionaire.

What you can expect from the book听is a readable, broadly听drawn guide to global warming, its roots in human activity, and the suffering that will surely follow if our听activities aren鈥檛 made carbon-neutral. Writing with an approachable vocabulary and level of detail, Gates introduces inventors and engineers who are developing听alternatives. Conveniently, they often work for companies in which he is a direct investor, such as , a firm focused on nuclear-reactor development. Little is said about the need to change consumption habits in rich countries, or about whether people in Chad or Nicaragua should yearn for the same vision of prosperity as those rich countries; instead, Gates focuses on how all countries, rich or poor, can enjoy the same quality of life,听powered by a green version of activities that would otherwise accelerate the process of global warming.

In many cases, those versions already exist听but have built-in expenses鈥攚hat he calls Green Premiums鈥攖hat are too great for poorer countries to access. In the case of heavy manufacturing (see the chapter 鈥淗ow We Make Things鈥�), a green alternative to cement can cost 140 percent more. In transportation (鈥淗ow We Get Around鈥�), the cost of advanced biofuels is 106 percent. For power generation (鈥淗ow We Plug In鈥�), Gates estimates that the added expense听of a carbon-neutral alternative to our country鈥檚 electrical system is in the range of just 15 percent. The main goal, in his opinion, is to bring the specific Green Premium down as low as possible by harnessing technology, so that the cost of a zero-emissions alternative (or one close to it)听is as low or lower than one reliant on fossil fuels.听

It鈥檚 telling that in the category of heating and refrigeration (鈥淗ow We Keep Cool and Stay Warm鈥�), the Green Premium is actually negative鈥攁n air-source heat pump, which works like a conventional freezer, would be 26 percent cheaper than using an air conditioner and a natural-gas-powered furnace. Unfortunately, many state and local building codes have made it more cumbersome,听or even illegal, to replace their gas appliances with alternatives powered by carbon-neutral electricity, which is a point that Gates doesn鈥檛 dwell on for long. It can be frustrating to read many passages in How to Avoid a Climate Disaster that seem to avert attention from the decisive effect that government intervention can have on a given technology鈥檚 commercial success. Only toward听the end of the book does Gates acknowledge that the business of personal computers (including Microsoft鈥檚) would have been inviable without decades of R&D support, made possible by听taxpayers through grants from the National Science Foundation. Similarly, much of the 鈥渃heapness鈥� of oil and gas can be traced to subsidies and write-offs, borne out of tireless government lobbying, which distort the market in their favor.

These distortions are stubborn听and more meaningful than Gates is ready to concede. The word 鈥渓obbying鈥� never appears in his book, and he gives a sheepish explanation for the foundation鈥檚 own divestment from fossil fuels. (In The Nation, writer Tim Schwab the听divestment decision听may have had less to do with outright moral principle than with the plummeting of oil and gas business.) Gates also leaves the last election cycle out of the conversation, perhaps because Microsoft donated $81,995 during that time (RAGA), an advocacy group intent on forcing approval for the Keystone XL pipeline. (The company has since withdrawn support for RAGA, citing 听that led to the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.)

Clearly, Gates has some blind spots. He is a nonexpert听who travels frequently on private jets, and he readily calls himself an 鈥渋mperfect messenger.鈥澨齅ore importantly, he is not willing to talk frankly about the ways in which a zero-carbon future might conflict with the interests of for-profit business. Without addressing that problem, his only remaining credential is that he鈥檚 a well-meaning person who cares.听

There鈥檚 nothing shameful in his being well-meaning, of course. Nor is there anything really wrong with endorsing a future based on shared progress and prosperity, in which everyone has a chance to be heard, and, in a sense, everyone wins. It just so happens that the reality is much more adversarial. Gates would do well to admit it.

The post Is Bill Gates鈥檚 Climate-Change Book Worth Reading? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

In the early months of the pandemic,听as travel ground to a halt, news outlets and random Twitter users breathlessly pointed out that听smog was clearing up, animals were roaming the streets, and even听 were looking better than ever. Many of these 鈥渘ature is healing, we are the virus鈥� factoids were eventually , then听, then shown to be a blip of as global warming听. Looking back, they mostly seem like a听 to celebrate the side effects of a virus that has devastated听millions of people. It felt odd to be reminded of this early pandemic phenomenon in the afterword of beloved nature writer听Gretel Ehrlich鈥檚 new book, . 鈥淎s the pandemic spreads, animals wander through empty cities as if to say that we humans have been in the way all this time,鈥� she writes in an ever-so-brief nod to the coronavirus. I certainly don鈥檛 wish she鈥檇 written more about COVID-19. It鈥檚 just that the sentiment, vaguely waving as it does at a complex global catastrophe, encapsulates the elements of the book that left me feeling cold.听听听 听 听 听 听听

Ehrlich describes Unsolaced as a follow-up to , a series of essays about life in Wyoming published in 1986, which remains a treasured piece of outdoor literature for many. In this new memoir, she revisits friends and familiar landscapes听from Wyoming to Greenland,听despairing at how they鈥檝e been affected by climate change. As a work of nature writing, Unsolaced is a demonstration of what Ehrlich does best: use lush prose to breathe life into landscapes that have brought her comfort. But when she turns her analysis to the proliferating signs of a warming world, Ehrlich鈥檚 insights fall short.听

In just 256 pages, Ehrlich provides a quick overview of four decades of her life, often expanding on topics she鈥檚 covered in her many other books. She听describes dedicating herself to ranching in Wyoming after her partner died when they were both 29. She recounts being struck by lightning in 1991, then spending a couple painful years recovering before traveling around the world, writing about dramatic landscapes and regenerative land practices. There鈥檚 plenty to like in these pages. Ehrlich devotes lots of space to fascinating acquaintances like Jens Danielsen, a hunter in northern Greenland whom she first introduced to readers in her book . And her descriptions of land and animals are as evocative as always. A听basin in northern Greenland, for instance, is 鈥渄istinct, direct, precise. Yet everything seemed to overlap everything else: crumbling glacier ice, meltwater splashing against pincushions of moss, moss edged by shoaling gravels.鈥�

These stories are not just a rehashing of Ehrlich鈥檚 past work:听she clearly means to set this book apart with an undercurrent of unease about melting ice and increasing land desertification. But while Ehrlich usually writes about her inner life with precision, she analyzes her climate despair in nihilistically broad strokes. 鈥淲e indulge in delusional behavior to protect ourselves from painful realities,鈥� she writes late in the book. 鈥淲e鈥ake demands on the earth without ever inquiring what the needs of the earth might be.鈥� These sweeping observations are, disappointingly, the most thorough analysis Ehrlich provides on climate change as a whole. To be fair, maybe we shouldn鈥檛 expect Ehrlich to provide in-depth climate analysis in a memoir. But she doesn鈥檛 apply her usual self-awareness to the personal aspects of climate change, like the carbon footprint听she generates from traveling so much. Instead, the climate crisis is something to be pointed at from a distance;听it appears in terms that barely mean anything.听This gives the book a feeling of impotence at best and dangerously misdirected blame at worst.听

Although 100 companies are responsible for of the world鈥檚 carbon emissions, Ehrlich mentions the specific causes of climate change only a handful of times听and names corporations even less frequently. In one of the few passages that mention听extractive industries in any detail, Ehrlich recalls driving behind Halliburton oil field trucks near her home in California. She spends only a paragraph on Halliburton, mostly to wave a hand at the 鈥渟ocial ills that come with oil and gas extraction: drugs, prostitution, and domestic violence.鈥� Earlier in the book, in western Zimbabwe, she describes farmers who burn fields rather than use natural fertilizer, as if they鈥檙e contributing as much to the problem as extractive industries. 鈥淚t鈥檚 right here that we are causing your beloved Greenland ice to melt!鈥� jokes her companion,听ecologist Allan Savory. Unsolaced so often turns its gaze away from the responsible corporations听and toward groups of people who hardly have any impact听that it starts to feel willfully ignorant.

In these moments, the book feels like a callback to writers like Henry David Thoreau, who idealized nature while being unwilling to think critically about the 鈥渦nnatural鈥濃�攑olitics, capitalism, other people. But in the 21st century, that wilderness versus humans binary just blocks the way to seeing our crisis clearly: to argue that 鈥渨e are the virus,鈥� as Ehrlich so often does, dispels any responsibility for more rigorous thought. Writers like Wendell Berry and听 have demonstrated that it鈥檚 possible to be a steward of the environment while acknowledging that wilderness is not something separate from where humans live鈥攊n fact, it鈥檚 counterproductive to set the two in opposition.听

When Ehrlich describes man-made global warming without addressing politics, extractive industries, or socioeconomic nuances, it鈥檚 not just dismissive. It gives a听completely听inaccurate idea of what climate change really looks like, as it鈥檚 already disproportionately affecting and 听and not just the untouched landscapes Ehrlich holds dear. She does see humans as a part of the solution, but her narrow mindset clouds her vision of a brighter future: she points only to the broad idea that we must all embrace regenerative land practices, and to the oddly specific example of Pleistocene Park, a Siberian reserve that recreates an ancient grazing ecosystem. It鈥檚 no wonder her writing on climate change feels so self-defeating; Unsolaced presents a world in which those who don鈥檛 have access to pristine, unpeopled nature aren鈥檛 even worth including in the conversation.听

In the end, one of the book鈥檚 greatest strengths turns out to be a weakness as well. After all, Ehrlich is just applying the tools of nature writing to climate change,听laying out a series of images and observations to give more of an impression than a thesis. Ehrlich does often share striking descriptions of what climate change looks like on the ground: 鈥淎s we flew north the next day, the icebergs鈥� rounded shoulders suggested premature old age,鈥� she writes of one visit to Greenland. But this particular set of fleeting images and pointed statements doesn鈥檛 add up to a very enlightening portrait of climate change. Just as it seems increasingly difficult to write nature books that don鈥檛 address global warming, it seems half-baked to write about climate change in the purely aesthetic terms of nature writing. It鈥檚 easy to point out all the ways nature suffers in a warming world; the equally beloved David Attenborough did this just as in his 2020 documentary, A Life on This Planet. But most of those who love the work of Ehrlich听or Attenborough have probably been worried about climate change for years, and younger readers don鈥檛 need a reminder of how much better it used to be. It鈥檚 worth holding our most established nature writers to a higher standard than pointing out the obvious.听听

The post What Gretel Ehrlich Gets Wrong About Climate Change appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

If you keep your money in a checking account with a major bank in the United States, there鈥檚 a good chance you鈥檙e inadvertently funding projects that directly negate the efforts you make to mitigate your climate impact. If you鈥檙e signed up with a big bank like Chase, Wells Fargo, Citibank, or Bank of America, bad news: your money is .

Massive oil and gas companies need to borrow money to build new pipelines or start extracting from new areas. They get that money from institutions, like JPMorgan Chase鈥攖he bank I鈥檝e used for the past several years鈥攚hich over the past three years. And Chase gets that money from people like us, who store our paychecks and savings with the bank in exchange for a paltry few cents of interest each year.

During conversations I had with several leaders from financial institutions and environmental agencies, the same idea kept coming up: we often think of our money as a pile of cash sitting in a bank vault, waiting for us to need it. But in reality, about 90 percent of that money is being lent out at any given time, and it鈥檚 鈥渄riving the destruction of the planet,鈥� says Andrei Cherny, CEO and co-founder of , a new banking option. Banks have invested an average of roughly $2.4 billion per day in fossil fuel companies since the was signed in 2015, according to the , a group that assesses greenhouse gas emissions associated with loans and investments. And while some major players have recently to slow down such funding or , a total environmental ceasefire is a long way off. In May, Chase shareholders a to force the company to be more transparent about its fossil fuel investments and outline plans to reduce its impact in line with the Paris Agreement.

鈥淭here are a lot of people out there who are recycling their aluminum cans and drinking out of metal straws and making all kinds of differences in their lives, and yet thinking nothing about buying that drink with a Wells Fargo debit card,鈥� Cherny says. 鈥淭heir money sitting in a big bank is actually having a much bigger negative impact than all the other positive impacts they鈥檙e making.鈥�

Why You Should Switch Banks

鈥淚 had a lightbulb moment myself thinking, wait a second, I recycle, I work for an environmental nonprofit, I do all these things,鈥� says Kate Williams, CEO of . 鈥淏ut in a way, is the biggest way that I can drive impact through what鈥檚 happening with the dollars I have in my bank account or retirement account?鈥� The organization itself, which is based in Burlington, Vermont, now banks with a local credit union, VSECU, which Williams says is a positive community force. It sponsors a community co-working space, runs an investment platform to support local businesses, and offers a , among other initiatives.

Williams says 1% for the Planet has seen a recent uptick in new members from the financial sector, including investment firms and financial planners, which is a good sign that tides could be changing. 鈥淭here is this growing awareness that what I do with my dollars, from investing to how I set up my retirement accounts, all of that makes a big difference and is a big driver of change,鈥� she says.

It can certainly be a hassle to switch banks, but moving your money not only pulls your own dollars out of fossil fuels, but also sends a message to the big banks that you鈥檙e not willing to let them profit off extracting from the planet.

Greener Banks

John Oppermann, executive director of the environmental awareness nonprofit , recommends starting your search with local credit unions, which typically have better sustainability records and are more focused on your community. But there are also some bigger options with solid records.

Bank of the West

On July 20, launched a . One percent of the revenue the bank makes from every such account will be donated to environmental causes at no cost to the account holder. Based on internal calculations, Bank of the West estimates this will amount to $150,000 to $200,000 from the first year of the program and has selected to be the first beneficiary. Account holders can keep an eye on their own footprint as well, thanks to a tool that estimates the carbon output of every purchase. Bank of the West has that rule how it lends your money: it won鈥檛 fund Arctic drilling; irresponsible palm oil production; coal-fired plants that aren鈥檛 working to transition; fracking, shale, and tar sands mining; tobacco; or unsustainable wood pulp production. It has committed to divest from thermal coal by 2040, and hasn鈥檛 funded new coal projects since 2017. 鈥淓nergy is big business, so some of the largest American banks are some of the largest fossil fuel financers in the world,鈥� says Ben Stuart, chief marketing officer at Bank of the West. Walking away from that money is a 鈥渂old choice,鈥� he says, but an important one.

Amalgamated Bank

is a B Corp and a member of the , which is committed to making the banking industry more socially and environmentally sustainable. Aside from promising to refrain from funding fossil fuel companies and instead investing heavily in clean energy, Amalgamated has a long list of credentials holding it accountable to its promises. It鈥檚 one of just a few U.S. banks that have signed the , a commitment to evaluate its impact on people and the planet, set targets for improvement, and publicly report on their progress. Amalgamated also signed the , which promises to make no new loans to the top 200 fossil fuel companies, exit any existing investments within five years, and contribute to climate solutions. And it led the charge to bring North American banks on board with the , a global effort for transparency in the financial sector. Morgan Stanley and Bank of America have since joined the cause.

Aspiration

A certified B Corp and 1% for the Planet member, online-only launched in 2015 with a mission that includes a promise to keep deposits fossil fuel-free. Co-founder听Cherny听worked under Vice President Al Gore during the Clinton administration, including on climate change issues, and has also spent time consulting for big banks. He says he鈥檚 seen firsthand that they鈥檙e making 鈥渨ay too much money on things that are destroying the planet鈥� to have any incentive to change of their own accord. One of Aspiration鈥檚 most unique features is a tool called , which analyzes hundreds of thousands of data points to create scores for companies based on their sustainability records and their reputations for how they treat their employees. Customers can use this tool to decide on the fly, say, whether they want to shop at CVS or Walgreens. You can also opt in to programs that will automatically deduct money from your checking account to plant a tree every time you make a purchase or to on your behalf, calculated from an estimate for how much you drive based on the gas you purchase with your debit card.

Don鈥檛 Leave Your Bank Quietly

If you decide to switch banks鈥擨鈥檓 planning to!鈥攄on鈥檛 go in silence. Earth Day Initiative鈥檚 Oppermann says you should be a 鈥渃limate communicator鈥� and tell the bank you鈥檙e leaving because you disagree with its climate policies. Likewise, if you move to a bank or local credit union with policies against supporting fossil fuel companies, express when you join that you chose it because of that.

鈥淭here鈥檚 a widespread belief in a lot of industries that people aren鈥檛 actually motivated to change their behavior or who they shop with based on climate change,鈥� Oppermann says. 鈥淏ut if you start providing that feedback, that can get passed up the channel, so there鈥檚 more and more pressure for those organizations to actually change their behavior and divest from fossil fuels.鈥�

Don鈥檛 call it quits after you switch banks, either. Oppermann has been involved in an effort to get Harvard, where he attended law school, to transition away from investments in fossil fuels, and it鈥檚 not the only institution with such investments. In addition to moving your own money, Oppermann encourages speaking up to all organizations where you have a voice. You can ask your own university where it invests its endowment, if it has one, or you could ask your church or a nonprofit you volunteer for where it does its banking.

鈥淭his works across the spectrum,鈥� Stuart says. 鈥淚f you think about how organic yogurt got into Walmart, it鈥檚 because consumers came and said, 鈥楧o you have organic yogurt?鈥� Consumers pushed it. We want people to do the same thing with their banks.鈥�

The post How to Make Your Savings Work for the Environment appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

No energy-bar wrappers litter base camp. No climbers clog the Hillary Step. Thanks to the pandemic, Mount Everest is taking a much needed break after last year鈥檚 record crowding.听

But the coronavirus-hit climbing season has not been entirely quiet. Amid the COVID-19 outbreak, this week three Chinese teams scaled the world鈥檚 highest peak.

On May 26, at around 5:30 P.M. local time, six mountaineers fixed the ropes on the Northeast Ridge听leading to the top and made the first successful ascent of the season. On May 27, eight surveyors spent two and a half hours on the summit, attempting to get听the most accurate measurement to date听of the mountain.听

On the morning of May 28, 14 Chinese clients听and 21 guides topped out. With no other teams waiting their turn atop the 29,029-foot peak, the climbers took their time to enjoy the summit, snapping selfies with Tibetan prayer flags.

鈥淚 feel more than lucky,鈥� said Ru Zhigang, a native of central China鈥檚 Anhui Province, who climbed Everest last year from the Nepalese side. 鈥淚n February, I didn鈥檛 think it was possible, because of the coronavirus.鈥�

On March 11, China closed the north side of the peak due to the global spread of COVID-19. The next day, Nepal canceled all spring Everest expeditions on its side. But听as China appeared to contain the COVID-19 outbreak within its borders, a glimmer of hope appeared. On March 17, Chinese outfitter Yarlha Shampo, the only Everest operator authorized to work on the north side, informed its high-paying clients that the country鈥檚 sports authority had given its听expedition the green light.听

Under arguably the world鈥檚听strictest quarantine orders, climbers prepared themselves as best they could. In addition to jogging in his residential complex, Ru carried a weighted pack up and down the stairs of听his apartment building almost every day, sometimes up to 257 floors in a single go. Talking to me听from听his tent at 21,300 feet beside the sprawling Rongbuk Glacier in the days leading up to the summit push, he said he felt more 鈥減hysically ready鈥� and 鈥渕entally relaxed鈥� than last year.听

Ru was one of the climbers caught in the middle of the infamous traffic jam on the Hillary Step.听鈥淚 wanted to cut my legs due to their numbness after squatting against the icy ridge at 28,800 feet for hours,鈥� Ru told , a Chinese online publication, 鈥淎nd suddenly, a huge black shadow, which I initially thought was a rock, rolled down. I jumped to dodge subliminally, and 鈥榯he rock鈥� glided past me. That鈥檚 when I realized it was a climber.鈥澨�

Having survived the queue, he became a wang hong鈥攁n internet celebrity鈥攊n China. Dubbed Beardy Henry听by his three听million followers on Douyin, TikTok鈥檚 Chinese-sister app, Ru shared short videos and photos during his expedition. Thanks to Everest鈥檚 newly installed , he was also able to livestream Q and A鈥檚 with his fans.

In total, 49 people summited Everest this year, compared with 876 summits in 2019.听There was seldom any traffic on the road to Everest鈥檚 northern base camp. But the team鈥檚 ascent to the top was bumpier than expected鈥擟yclone Amphan delayed its听summit by more than a week.听

鈥淭his year鈥檚 weather is noticeably different. No flights across the Himalayas means less air pollution and global warming,鈥� said Mingma Gyalje Sherpa, a Nepali听climbing guide who has听frequented the peak from both sides since 2006. As Nepal started a countrywide lockdown on March 24, Mingma followed China鈥檚 progress from his home in Kathmandu. 鈥淐hina has gone through the quarantine hardship and won the war. They taught us that everything could resume after containing the coronavirus,鈥� he said, 鈥渁nd even Everest adventures will return.鈥�

The post The Loneliest Everest Expedition appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

I had a bit of an existential crisis in my rural Walmart recently. I am not ashamed to admit it was not my first Walmart-induced existential meltdown, but听this one was brought on by the lettuce.听I weighed my options: I could put a naked head of romaine into my mesh produce bag, or I could grab the shrink-wrapped three-pack.

I looked at the sheer mesh, purchased last year to limit my plastic usage. Each tiny hole felt like a portal built just for the coronavirus鈥檚 pleasure. The plastic-wrapped package won the day.

There鈥檚 something about a global pandemic that makes you want to hermetically seal yourself into a cocoon of single-use everything. I鈥檓 not the only one feeling this way. San Francisco, which previously had a plastic-bag ban, about-faced . Massachusetts听, too. Some retailers across the country听听the cloth versions by telling shoppers they鈥檒l have to sack听their own groceries听and nixing听bag credits.

But it鈥檚 not just bags. On an individual level, many folks are wearing plastic gloves and cleaning听everything with single-use wipes that likely don鈥檛 biodegrade. Someday, when we have a vaccine, it will be shot into millions of arms with millions of single-use syringes.

My crisis in the lettuce aisle was about whether I could square the value of my existence with the mountain of plastic I was contributing to in order to protect my health. The bag suctioned tight around my romaine will outlive me, whether I get COVID-19 or not. To believe that trade-off is fair takes hubris.

鈥淗ow do I know my life is valuable enough to justify all this waste I鈥檓 creating?鈥澨齀 asked when I got John Nolt, a philosophy professor at the University of Tennessee,听on the phone last week. Nolt lectures and writes extensively on generational ethics鈥攚hat our generations owe those coming after us, especially from an environmental standpoint. He politely laughed and听thought back to the early 2000s, when a colleague of his, John Hardwig, published titled 鈥淒o We Have a Duty to听Die?鈥� The paper debated the merits of prolonging a life in a strained health care system. 鈥淗e was really hated for that article, but I think it鈥檚 a wonderful question,鈥� says Nolt. At the heart of Hardwig鈥檚 paper is the seesaw of determining听what makes a life worth living. Every single one of us existing听in the era of climate change should probably be听thinking about this question now and then鈥攇lobal pandemic or not鈥攁s our very presence on earth is a resource burden.

To be clear, Nolt doesn鈥檛 believe that humans are a stain on this planet, or听that COVID-19 should wipe us off the map. Such thinking, he says, is both reductive and unproductive. And who is one individual to assign value or blame to every other life on this planet?

However, he does suggest that 鈥測ou can ask the question of your own life:听Is what I鈥檓 doing with my life valuable enough to compensate for all the harm I鈥檓 doing?鈥�

Fair warning: asking this makes you take a hard look at what you鈥檙e really doing for the planet. And considering all the ways in which we impact the environment, not using plastic bags is negligible. (For instance, even with Americans听and other people in various countries around the world leaving their cars parked and not flying anywhere, global carbon emissions in April.)

In fact, Jacob Erickson, who teaches theological ethics at Trinity College in Dublin,听says that thinking about my environmental actions through the lens of what I鈥檓 personally consuming鈥攐r not consuming鈥攊s a trap that many environmentalists keep getting caught up in. He points to the work of Sarah McFarland Taylor, an associate professor of religion at Northwestern University and author of the book ; it听indicates that we think of being green in really intensely individualistic ways. Most often听we think of it from a consumption standpoint: What am I buying or consuming, and is it green enough? It鈥檚 why a lot of the discussion on reversing global warming has focused on whether almond or oat or cow鈥檚 milk is best听instead of dismantling an economic system built on rampant consumption.

I鈥檓 falling into this trap by worrying about plastic bags in a pandemic. Yes, we all need to reduce our . However, we also must advocate for large-scale structural change, at the very least making our voices heard at the ballot box. That听second issue is far more critical than the first, but听individual actions do听matter.

So听is it OK听迟辞 use cloth bags? Probably, but you need to take some extra precautions when doing so. (And do not expect a cashier to handle them.)听听shows the virus can live up to 24 hours on听cardboard. To be safe, assume the same is true for cloth. However, like washing your hands, washing your bags will kill the virus. The washing cloth bags in warm water with laundry detergent. If you鈥檝e got reusable plastic or nylon bags, it鈥檚 recommended that you wash them inside and out with warm, soapy water and spray them with disinfectant or diluted bleach. And always wash your hands after putting everything away.

The post The Ethics of Plastic Waste During the Pandemic appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Beginning later this year, every public-school student in Italy will spend a week鈥檚 worth of classroom time (33 hours per year) learning about a vitally important topic: climate change.

鈥淚 want to make the Italian education system the first education system that puts the environment and society at the core of everything we learn in school,鈥� education minister Lorenzo Fioramonti .

Italy鈥檚 national commitment to climate education puts the country in sharp contrast with the United States, where individual states, school districts, and even teachers are free to decide how students do鈥攐r don鈥檛鈥攍earn about climate change. That鈥檚 because the United States has 鈥渁 remarkably decentralized education system,鈥� explains Glenn Branch,听deputy director of the听nonprofit National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Each state implements its own standards, around which things like standardized tests are based. But state standards are just guidelines; the information actually taught in classrooms depends largely on听curriculum, and each of the country鈥檚 13,000-odd school districts can write its own. As a result, what students learn varies not just from state to state听but from one county to the next. 鈥淚t鈥檚 all very patchworky,鈥� he says.

In 2013, a consortium of states tried to instill some uniformity by developing the , which say that 鈥渉uman activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels,鈥� are making the planet hotter and less hospitable. But only 36 states have adopted these or comparable standards. (See the list below.) Ten other states insist that anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change is a mere possibility or scientifically controversial (it鈥檚 not; 97 percent of climate scientists contribute to global warming), while four fail to mention human responsibility at all.

Complicating the matter further, even teachers in states that do include anthropogenic听climate change in their standards are often unsure of听how to teach the topic. When the听 1,299 middle听and high school science teachers five years ago, 71 percent taught students about our warming climate; but of those, only 54 percent told their students that scientists agree human actions are driving it. That鈥檚 in part because teachers 鈥渢hemselves are unaware of the depth and solidity of the scientific consensus,鈥� Branch says.听

The fossil-fuel industry is only stoking instructors鈥� uncertainty. In 2017, the Heartland Institute, a funded in part by fossil-fuel interests, sent every science teacher in the United States a misleading book called Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming.听Meanwhile, politicians鈥攐ften with or oil and gas interests鈥攌eep introducing legislation that would limit or muddle how climate science is taught in public schools. In 2019 alone, a from Florida to Connecticut to Arizona fielded such measures.听

Still, there are signs of hope. In schools that use the Next Generation Science听Standards, students spend science classes learning about climate change, compared to 1 percent before the standards were created. Washington State recently to train teachers on climate science. And many efforts to strip climate science from state-education standards have failed. In Connecticut, for instance, a state representative鈥檚 attempt to revert from the Next Gen standards听迟辞 an outdated standard听died without so much as a hearing.

Educators听like Mary Morrow, who teaches ninth-grade geoscience at Lincoln East High School in Lincoln, Nebraska, are also making a difference. Although Nebraska doesn鈥檛 mention human responsibility for climate change in its state standards鈥攁nd some students come to class already convinced that climate change isn鈥檛 real鈥擬orrow determinedly presents facts and data showing that听humans are warming the planet. 鈥淚鈥檓 direct with how I address it,鈥� she says. 鈥淚 want to empower my students.鈥澨齅orrow also trains Nebraska teachers on climate change. 鈥淚f you have some teachers who are trained on climate science and some who are not,鈥� she says, 鈥渢hat鈥檚 not an even playing field for the students.鈥澨�

While it鈥檚 unlikely that the United States will take Italy鈥檚 lead and mandate national standards anytime soon, efforts听like Morrow鈥檚 are nonetheless paying off. Morrow says her students are less likely to dispute lessons on global warming than they were ten years ago. Nor are kids falling for oil and gas companies鈥� propaganda. Eric Fishman, a third- and fourth-grade teacher from Massachusetts, wrote in the magazine听听that after he showed students the Heartland Institute鈥檚 climate-denial book, a pupil听emphatically crossed out the title and bestowed a new one: Stupid Book of Wrongness.

States that recognize the reality of anthropogenic climate change in their science standards:听Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming听

States that mention human responsibility for climate change only as a possibility or a听possible factor:听Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, Virginia

States that do not mention human responsibility for climate change:听Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania

States that misrepresent anthropogenic climate change as scientifically controversial:听Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia

(Information from Glenn Branch, National Center for Science Education)

The post American Kids Aren’t Learning About Climate Change appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Because I鈥檓 an antisocial freelance writer who works in my house, I have to take myself out into the world every morning听for a walk around my neighborhood听迟辞 hold onto some semblance of sanity. On one of my routes, there鈥檚 a听wooden听box听that a neighbor听occasionally听fills听with new poems to read, and recently a piece听by Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh caught my eye.听Called 鈥�,鈥� it starts like this:

They don鈥檛 publish
the good news.
The good news is published
by us.
We have a special edition every moment,
and we need you to read it.

There is a lot of bad news. I would love to pretend otherwise, but I can鈥檛, and sometimes it feels so bad that it鈥檚 paralyzing.

We鈥檙e in the depths of winter here in the Northern Hemisphere, and it鈥檚 dark in so many ways. But there are reasons why many听cultures have rituals that point toward trying to find a light. We鈥檙e past the solstice, and even though we can鈥檛 transpose the return of daylight onto societal or environmental darkness, I want to suspend disbelief, at least for a little while, and think about the good news: the wins, the ongoing fights for a livable planet, and the challenges that are on the horizon now that we鈥檝e rolled听into a new decade.

What Are the Wins?听

We鈥檝e passed bipartisan conservation legislation.

Last year, lawmakers came together across social and political divides to push policies through, like permanently reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund (although, ahem, we鈥檇 like to see more funding), signing a听historic compromise of the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan, declaring White Sands America鈥檚 62nd national park, and introducing the bipartisan , which will expand outdoor opportunities for veterans and low-income youth, prioritize recreation at federal agencies like the Bureau of Reclamation, and make permitting for outfitters easier. Those actions are big on their own, but more importantly, they set a baseline for compromise, demonstrating听that conservation is important across the country and across the aisle.听

We are listening to new voices.

Part of addressing environmental issues is unpacking historic inequity, particularly because disenfranchised groups are usually the ones who are hit the hardest. Slowly鈥攁nd often through nontraditional channels鈥攑reviously silenced voices, like those of tribes and outdoors people who aren鈥檛 white, straight, or able-bodied, are being brought into conversation. It is not nearly fast enough, but change is coming, and we鈥檝e seen it in听, pollution lawsuits, and more.

And across the spectrum, young people are organizing and pushing action on climate change. It鈥檚 not just Time鈥�s听Person of the Year Greta Thunberg: the youth are ascendant.

Science has helped us make smart choices.

Technology isn鈥檛 just turning us into screen-watching . Remote cameras are alerting us to wildfires, satellites are monitoring ocean pollution, and we can now see exactly how much sea ice we鈥檝e lost. When we know the shapes of challenges and damages, we can address them.

Companies are putting their money where their mouths are.

Money drives change, politically and socially, and more companies than ever are get behind the message that听what鈥檚 good for the planet is good for business. Big corporations, from McDonalds to Microsoft, are shifting their energy use. And the outdoor industry is putting more emphasis on听, including turning to recycled materials and renewable energy.听

We鈥檙e finally talking about climate.

Until recently, environmental issues were a听 for the majority of Americans. We cared about it, but not more than we did about the economy or health care. As we鈥檝e started to see personal impacts, that鈥檚 changed. Every remaining Democratic听presidential candidate has pledged to shoot for .听

Where Can We Make a Difference?听

Watching for sneaky rollbacks and negligence in politics on every level

The Trump administration has rescinded a whopping number of environmental regulations鈥斺�� public-land resources to unnecessary locations, and triggered an听exodus of employees at federal agencies. To stanch the flow of those shortsighted losses, we have to vote and keep every branch of government accountable.

Figuring out a fossil-fuel-free economy

We have to cut carbon consumption听迟辞 keep the world from turning into a charcoal briquette. It needs to come from everywhere: holding oil companies accountable, passing legislation, developing renewable energy sources and non-carbon transportation. Many such pathways are often already technologically viable. We have to make sure they are financially stable.

Amplifying the truth

I worry daily about the听, and with it, the exposure of truth and our ability as citizens to check power. That, to me, is a big, scary environmental issue. So if I can proselytize one piece of advice, it would be to dig in locally. Look for the news outlets spotlighting what鈥檚 important in your area, and support them.听Subscribe to them. Fund them. Reporting, especially the kind of deep dives that uncover corruption, oversights, and wrongdoing,听doesn鈥檛 happen without resources.

Where Is the Light on the Horizon?

A national election

November is hurtling toward us, and so much is tied up in the upcoming American presidential election. Pick听, it鈥檚 on the table: the Green New Deal, the tenability of the Paris accords, clean energy, the ocean.听

Translating science into policy and action

That sea-ice thing I mentioned above? Sure, awareness is important, but knowing is much less than half the battle. The science behind our role in global warming is unarguable and has been for three decades. Now听we need to act.

Thinking globally

A normal response to any threat is to protect yourself and the people you love. But in the face of climate change, that very human logic doesn鈥檛 help in the long run. We need to think globally and听fight the urge to draw inward.听

None of these things are going to be easy. But I don鈥檛 think getting bogged down by the bad news does any good. We have to look for鈥攁nd we have to create鈥攖he light. Like Thich Nhat Hanh says:

The good news is that you are alive,
and the linden tree is still there,
standing firm in the harsh Winter.

The post Good News, Even in Darkness appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

This fall we were spoiled by听five of our all-time favorite authors releasing new books.听They range from essay compilations听迟辞 memoir听迟辞 science writing, but all boast lyrical prose that explores听what it means to be a human during these strange times.听

If You鈥檙e Body Positive

鈥�The Body: A Guide for Occupants,鈥�听by Bill Bryson听

A huge amount of research went into , covering everything from the skin and the skeleton to aging, reproduction, and death. But Bryson has a unique ability to camouflage his hard work and depth of knowledge with a light and self-effacing voice, which fans of his Appalachian Trail classic, , will instantly recognize. He uses it to deliver an avalanche of surprising and eminently sharable facts about how our bodies鈥斺�渁 product of three billion years of evolutionary tweaks鈥濃�攁re built. (Ever wondered how many species of bacteria live in your belly button? Read on.) Like your favorite teacher, Bryson is someone who loves his subject. Before he鈥檚 finished, he鈥檒l make you love it, too.听($30, Doubleday)

If You Are F鈥搆ing Freaked Out by Climate Change

鈥�We Are the Weather,鈥�听听by Jonathan Safran Foer听

Foer begins his newest book as a climate-based argument for eliminating meat, eggs, and dairy from the American diet. But the novelist and is really too thoughtful and self-doubting to stop the conversation there. Probing the contradictions that seem built into how we talk, think, and write about global warming, he concludes that the only way we鈥檒l actually do anything about the crisis is through a collective embrace of personal responsibility. 鈥淭he ways we live our lives, the actions we take and don鈥檛 take, can feed the systemic problems,鈥� he writes, 鈥渁nd they can also change them.鈥� is not just a polemic, it鈥檚 also a vigorous and unflinching meditation on Foer鈥檚 own status as a father鈥攁nd a descendant of Holocaust survivors鈥攖rying to answer for his role in a man-made disaster.听($25; Farrar, Straus and Giroux)

If You Want Training Advice from Animals

鈥�Running with Sherman,鈥�听by Christopher McDougall听听

Not everyone would understand the impulse to rescue a donkey from a hoarder, load it with mining tools, and lead it on a trail run in the Rocky Mountains. But burro racing is a real thing, involving real competitors who travel side by side with stubborn quadrupeds over distances that range from a few miles to an ultramarathon. To the author of , now living with his family in Amish country, there was no better way for him to learn about humanity鈥檚 relationship with working animals than to train an equine named Sherman for the sport鈥檚 world championship in Fairplay, Colorado. If you can forgive the reliance on dad jokes, you鈥檒l find a smart critique of the culture of conventional American sports. 鈥淵ou鈥檝e got one hope of getting to the finish line,鈥� McDougall writes, 鈥渁nd that鈥檚 to forget about dominance and ego and discover the power of sharing and caring.鈥澨�($28, Knopf)

If You Feel Like a Wanderer听

鈥�Travel Light, Move Fast,鈥�听by Alexandra Fuller听

Fuller was born in England, raised in southern Africa, and resides in Wyoming. She has a gift for depicting the forces that compel people to move, and in her new memoir鈥攚ritten shortly after her father died in a hospital in Budapest鈥攕he reflects on how an itinerant farmer who chased zebras and drank to excess could also be a nurturing and perspicacious parent. Ultimately he helped her appreciate the value of restlessness and impermanence: although grief strikes her as 鈥渁 place between countries, a holding pattern, a purgatory,鈥� the author nevertheless emerges from it with a clearer understanding of what it means to have a home.听($27, Penguin Press)

If You鈥檙e Trying to Make Sense of It All

鈥�Erosion,鈥�听by Terry Tempest Williams听听

Few writers can match Williams鈥檚 talent for capturing big, abstract notions of environmental justice and connecting them to the lived experiences of individuals, families, and communities. In this collection of essays, written between 2012 and 2019, the lifelong activist and educator celebrates the power of friendship and dialogue to bring about authentic change. 鈥淲e tell stories that remind us we will resist,鈥� she writes, 鈥渁nd insist that our communities be built upon the faith we have in each other.鈥� Crashing oil and gas lease auctions and visiting tea ceremonies in the desert, Williams lyrically depicts global disputes over climate change and public lands through her own community of art making, collective organizing, and prayer.听($27, Sarah Crichton)听

The post The 5 Smart Books You Need to Read This Fall appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

If you ask the average person in the U.S. about global warming, you鈥檒l learn a lot about how they were raised, who they trust, and how they vote. It鈥檚 tempting to think of climate change as a cultural issue rather than, say, a fiscal one. At times the conversation can feel abstract or otherworldly, as if driven more by personal feelings or beliefs than the actual, material concerns of the present moment.

As three books released this fall illustrate, anthropogenic climate change is, in fact, already a trillion-dollar category of economic activity. This has been well-documented by writers and activists like Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben, but bankers, builders, brokers, developers, oil-tank workers, Marine Corps colonels, insurers, and engineers also share in the consensus. To many in these professions, it is abundantly clear that the U.S. derived a century and a half of comfort and security from the assumption that fossil fuels did more good than harm and were available in infinite supply. It was fun. But now anyone who cherishes that comfort and security will have to adjust their plans and rethink how they work, invest, travel, or simply make a living.

In denying the reality of climate change, many commentators depict these adjustments as prohibitively expensive or a magnet for careless spending. Staying the course, however, can be even more wasteful. As Pulitzer Prize winner Gilbert Gaul observes in his probing new book ($28, Sarah Crichton), the ever more frequent hundred-year hurricanes of the past two decades have already cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. And perversely, these costs create a windfall for FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies that help towns and cities recover from floods.

While these parties aren鈥檛 inherently corrupt, their work relies on a persistent cycle of building and rebuilding along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. The government can鈥檛 help but enable this: after every major storm, politicians survey the abandoned neighborhoods and shredded boardwalks, vowing to bring beach communities back to full strength. Real estate interests nod in agreement鈥攊f a town can鈥檛 rebuild, then property values collapse鈥攁nd government grants are handed out to reconstruct homes and replace the sand, with no guarantee that they鈥檒l stay in place. A few years later, they鈥檙e washed away again, and the cycle repeats. 鈥淚nstead of homeowners retreating out of harm鈥檚 way, they build back, often in the same dangerous locations,鈥� Gaul writes. 鈥淚nsurance money and federal aid fuel building booms. Speculators and developers bid up prices. Land rushes follow.鈥�

Once federal resources are available, it can be hard to keep track of how they鈥檙e handed out. In places like Florida and Alabama, the government helps subsidize flood insurance that would be unaffordable on the open market. After Hurricane Sandy, calls to restore homes and businesses in New Jersey resulted in FEMA spending $204,000 on a hockey rink and $194,000 on a baseball field. In one case, relief money was spent on repairs for an apartment complex that was more than 50 miles from the ocean. Even the owners of second homes can qualify for public assistance, and filling out the applications, according to Gaul, has become 鈥渁n industry unto itself.鈥� And not only real estate: tourism, transportation, recreation, and hospitality all have an incentive to pretend the coasts aren鈥檛 disappearing and hit up the feds to reconstruct their beaches. Clearly, there鈥檚 a lesson about developing our coastlines to be learned from Gaul鈥檚 reporting, but it鈥檚 not one that everyone is ready to hear.

Jeremy Rifkin, a consultant and business professor at the University of Pennsylvania, paints a more cheerful picture in ($28, St. Martin鈥檚 Press). Noting trends in renewable energy in the European Union and China, where the solar industry is thriving, Rifkin foresees a world in which fossil fuels rapidly lose their competitive advantage over enterprises based on renewables. In the U.S., he sees this shift leading to a massive restructuring of the economy. He鈥檚 convinced that worker pension funds, worth $25.4 trillion, will soon pull their investments out of oil and gas, and that new technologies will make communication, logistics, construction, and agriculture more efficient, causing energy prices to fall even further. All of this, presumably, will lead to a 鈥渟howdown鈥� between solar and wind energies and the fossil-fuel industry, which Rifkin argues will take place within about ten years.

It鈥檚 a bold prediction, resting on peer-reviewed papers and plenty of straightforward arithmetic鈥攔ight down to the amount the U.S. should invest in fossil-fuel-free infrastructure if it wants to stay competitive. Unfortunately, Rifkin relies on a lot of slippage between the conditional and future tense, and he doesn鈥檛 always distinguish between how he hopes things should go and what will actually happen. Somehow it鈥檚 taken as a given that Americans consistently follow their own best interests, including in the energy sector, and that no party has more influence than it should. 鈥淭he thing to bear in mind is that the collapse of the fossil fuel civilization is inevitable, despite any efforts by the fossil fuel industries to forestall it,鈥� Rifkin writes. 鈥淢arket forces are far more powerful than whatever lobbying maneuvers the fossil fuel industry might entertain.鈥�

If this optimism is justified, then we鈥檇 have to assume that oil and gas companies in 2018 on campaign contributions to U.S. senators and congressmen like Ted Cruz, Beto O鈥橰ourke, Kevin Cramer, and John Barrasso, without expecting anything in return. I鈥檇 love to think Rifkin has assessed the fossil-fuel lobby fairly, but that is an awfully large sum to shake off鈥攐r to exclude from any discussion of 鈥渕arket forces,鈥� as if lobbying were somehow separate from these companies鈥� plans for survival. I鈥檝e never met a fossil-fuel lobbyist, but I assume they鈥檙e not messing around.

You know who else isn鈥檛 messing around? The Pentagon. Michael Klare, a defense correspondent for The Nation and an author of 17 books on geopolitics, has all the material he needs to write a military espionage thriller set in 2035. His newest book, ($30, Metropolitan Books), isn鈥檛 desperate to entertain, but it will fascinate anyone who wants to know how warming seas and scarce resources might affect the work of the armed forces. In one scenario, Klare describes a drought in the Middle East that causes a spike in food prices, forcing thousands of farm families to leave the countryside. In the cities, ethnic conflict intensifies into a civil war, threatening allies and catalyzing a migration crisis. At the very least, the U.S. military would have a humanitarian role to play, but perhaps relief operations are also needed at home, following a tropical storm in the Southeast, a flood in the Midwest, or a cholera outbreak in the Caribbean. The Arctic has become a busy place, too, as melting ice caps have made mineral extraction more profitable and contentious. Meanwhile, the military鈥檚 own bases must adapt to the effects of storm surges, wildfires, and unstable shorelines. All of these things are easy to imagine, of course, because . What comes next is even scarier. 鈥淚f the Pentagon itself dreads a troubled, chaotic world like this鈥攅ven if solely out of its own institutional concern about military 鈥榦verstretch鈥欌�攁ll the rest of us should be at least as alarmed,鈥� Klare writes.

Preparing for these scenarios is expensive鈥攂ut not as expensive as ignoring them. After a hurricane, it could cost $5 billion to reconstruct an Air Force base or over $300 million to replace a single F-22 Raptor aircraft. Again, these sound like figures that Jack Ryan might rattle off to the president, but they are 100 percent nonfiction. And while some military sources use opaque language or jargon to describe the costs of doing nothing, Klare finds people who lay them out quite clearly. In the best passage in the book, he describes the unfailingly polite admiral Sam Locklear, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, speaking to senator Jim Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma and an outspoken opponent of climate regulation, during a meeting of the Armed Services Committee on Capitol Hill. When Inhofe pushes Locklear to voice doubts about climate change and endorse the full-scale exploitation of America鈥檚 domestic energy supplies, the admiral stays silent. It鈥檚 awkward and grating to see Inhofe try and put words into the admiral鈥檚 mouth, but after several attempts, he quits and changes the subject.

The entire exchange lasts a minute or two. Maybe, if there were space in the committee鈥檚 schedule, Locklear would have made a more earnest attempt to convert a man who . But like most people, he was simply too preoccupied with his obligations here on earth. These obligations are serious and urgent and leave little time to wrestle with another adult鈥檚 concept of self-sufficiency, individual merit, or the 鈥渨ise use鈥� of natural resources. By talking the way he does about global warming, Inhofe may present himself as a shrewd and worldly operator, rather than someone whose feelings and beliefs have begun to collide, more and more, with how much things actually cost. But for the rest of us: those costs are real, and they are already immense. Frankly, Inhofe鈥檚 feelings don鈥檛 matter.

The post The Price Tag for Climate Change Is in the Trillions appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.