I question the rationale for the writing of and printing of this week’s NY Times Magazine article,
A New Climate Reality Is Coming Into
View by David Wallace-Wells
The effect of the article, days before the election and with new troublesome issues being brought to light every week, let’s face it: what do you think the impact is? If the author and magazine editor really thought there was a real danger in climate change, would/could they have written/published such an article? And at this time?
I am tired and will not review all the news about continuing or escalating environmental practices by the giant corporations. There appears to be some widespread but meager meaningful initial response to the problem, but certainly not sufficient to warrant or justify such a reassuring widespread article. No Catastrophe in sight? I pray its publication does not reflect any of the current shifting shadows in our land. A small admission that the article may not justify its title entirely is one I picked out at random. Sorry, this is nervy of me but I am still aghast at the effect it will likely have on the future of the Earth, which is a pretty big deal:
….All of which suggests an entirely different view of the near future, equally true. The world will keep warming, and the impacts will grow more punishing, even if decarbonization accelerates enough to meet the world’s most ambitious goals: nearly halving global emissions by 2030 and getting to net-zero just two decades later. “These dates — 2030, 2050 — they are meaningless,” says Gail Bradbrook, one of the British founders of Extinction Rebellion. “What matters is the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and there is already way too much. The dates can be excuses to kick the problem into the long grass. But the important thing is that we’re doing harm, right now, and that we should stop absolutely as soon as possible with any activities that are making the situation worse.”
A lot, then, depends on perspective: The climate future looks darker than today but brighter than many expected not that long ago. The world is moving faster to decarbonize than it once seemed responsible to imagine, and yet not nearly fast enough to avert real turbulence. Even the straightest path to two degrees looks tumultuous, with disruptions from the natural world sufficient to call into question many of the social and political continuities that have been taken for granted for generations.
My comment: When the world is not moving fast enough to avert real turbulence, why this article at this time? I’m not questioning the author’s freedom of speech, just reflecting on the probable impact of it for so many fervently engaged grassroots individuals. Maybe something along the lines of “How Far We’ve Come but How Far Yet to Go” might be more palatable.
When I went to double-check the author’s name I came across a column by German Lopez, recommending the above-discussed article. Lopez’s column was titled “What was once the worst case scenario for climate change seems much less likely”