Rolling Stone Mobile - Politics - Politics: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
Politics
Politics: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
A wildfire in Colorado
Politics: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
By Bill McKibben
July 19, 2012

If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for our nation – in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it represented the "largest temperature departure from average of any season on record." The same week, Saudi authorities reported that it had rained in Mecca despite a temperature of 109 degrees, the hottest downpour in the planet's history.

Not that our leaders seemed to notice. Last month the world's nations, meeting in Rio for the 20th-anniversary reprise of a massive 1992 environmental summit, accomplished nothing. Unlike George H.W. Bush, who flew in for the first conclave, Barack Obama didn't even attend. It was "a ghost of the glad, confident meeting 20 years ago," the British journalist George Monbiot wrote; no one paid it much attention, footsteps echoing through the halls "once thronged by multitudes." Since I wrote one of the first books for a general audience about global warming way back in 1989, and since I've spent the intervening decades working ineffectively to slow that warming, I can say with some confidence that we're losing the fight, badly and quickly – losing it because, most of all, we remain in denial about the peril that human civilization is in.

When we think about global warming at all, the arguments tend to be ideological, theological and economic.

Post Comment
I was talking to a relative about global warming jus the other day so i totally agree wit this article, i jus wonder how bad the situation REALLY is?? #smdh
Posted by JBvorheez August 10, 2012, 9:49 am
The object of government is to NOT PANIC THE MASSES so of course they are gunna ignore it and play it off...Uno Nuno
Posted by JBvorheez August 10, 2012, 9:46 am
That's what the lemming said as he followed the lemming in front of him off a cliff. Doing nothing will result in a horrible reduction in our standard of living and will be the equivalent of walking off a cliff. All of the systems on this planet, whether they be environmental or economic, are connected. You cannot have a healthy economy without a healthy environment. So, whether you link your standard of living to the environment or the economy, it's a bad idea to do nothing.
Posted by Nimbus August 2, 2012, 8:32 pm
The enemy is not Shell; the enemy is ourselves. Our pension funds and 401ks are the owners of the oil giants. We are the consumers of the dirty fuel, providing demand to support prices and profits. We are allowed to dump our CO2 waste at no economic cost. There is no way out. Killing the fossil fuel industry through regulation and sanctions would be economic suicide. We have no choice but to try and adapt to a changing climate and hope that technological innovation will preserve our way of life and perhaps prevent an economic and social collapse.
Posted by DaReal McCoy August 1, 2012, 11:00 pm
Ok, the following statement required me to take a moment and leave a reply.....
Posted by Nimbus July 30, 2012, 8:07 pm
Ok, the following statement required me to take a moment and leave a reply.....
Posted by Nimbus July 30, 2012, 8:01 pm
Ok, the following statement required me to take a moment and leave a reply.....
Posted by Nimbus July 30, 2012, 7:57 pm
Ok, the following statement required me to take a moment and leave a reply..... One major volcano can easily put more pollution into the atmosphere than mankind has in his entire existance I'm not sure where to begin!?! The use of easily and entire existence makes me think the author is either mindlessly passing on nonsense he (or she) heard or is willfully trying to deceive those who are willing to mindlessly pass on garbage information. These things are measurable! Cars and light trucks emit ~2 billion metric tons of CO2 per year. All volcanic activity emissions is 0.5 billion metric tons of CO2 per year. So, one major volcanic eruption is not even close to man's entire CO2 emissions!
Posted by Nimbus July 30, 2012, 7:56 pm
Nuclear energy is not as clean as we have been led to believe, even if thorium rather than uranium is used. The earth cannot support it's current overpopulation that desires to emulate the futile and self destructive lifestyle of the USA. Changing to using the natural energies such as wind,solar and the many other natural energies will require lifestyle changes that will lead to healthier lives other than those that the wasteful energy consuming flat screen TV is bringing to you from Hollywood scriptwriters. Wake up and live a healthier life without fast food while connecting with Mother Earth.
Posted by gwayne919 July 29, 2012, 5:58 pm
I absolutely agree with the previous post. The refusal of environmentalists the world over to accept and support nuclear power will equal the death of the planet. It has already allowed the continuance of a fuel that should have died out by now (coal) and the hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide caused by its health effects. Whatever your political affiliations, whatever your views on solar and wind, whatever lightbulbs and grocery bags you use, whatever car you drive...the reality is there is only ONE power source that can save the planet. As far as i can see, if you are anti-nuclear you are the enemy.
Posted by ErinS-ga July 27, 2012, 6:50 pm

More Comments