It has almost no role at all in the current rounds of debates of those running for the Democratic Party nomination, but it does seem to be the most important issue for the nation, the state, the world: Climate change. There is this, in today's NYT, about the disaster looming for food supplies for human beings. And stories about the shortages of potable water for human beings, already on us and of increasing severity, and of course the change in the heat of the atmosphere and oceans. But nothing much from the candidates, or from the Administration. As what the candidates are asked is what the reporters think interesting, the reporters must think the near time probability of the destruction of human civilizations and life not an interesting topic.
There are some ways in which they are right. People, meaning relatively rich folk like me, are not willing to be much inconvenienced to help with the problem. No one seems to win elections by pointing that we must make investments and sacrifices as a nation in order to address an issue. What Joe said 40 or 50 years ago matters more, what Pete manages not to say about much of anything matters more (he went Iraq or Afghanistan to do something, though no one knows what). Or maybe it is the plans to completely alter the health care system, whose practicality can't matter because the Senate is Republican and it will not ever ever happen during the next administration.
But is also something that should be on the top of the list. The world is getting hotter and there is nothing on line to halt the rise or even slow the rise. And with the rise comes extinction. Likely millions of species. Okay, they are mostly doomed anyway because we, if not burned up, are going to destroy all habits not hospitable and usable by and for us. But burned up we will be. Which is the introduction to the question of what should one do -- use it and go, or try to prolong our presence?
Recent Comments