Last edited Fri Jan 5, 2024, 10:44 PM - Edit history (1)
Or an oceanographer, or an atmospheric physicist, or an atmospheric chemist, or a botanist or a fisheries scientist, or any other field that intersects directly with the planet's climate. If she'd spent her career out in the field with people like Jason Box or Konrad Steffen or Lonnie Thompson or Terry Hughes, I dare say she'd be singing a different tune.
Also, the core focus of those of us worried about climate collapsed is very much on the near- and medium-term future, and she's citing child mortality figures from the past 200 years as grounds for optimism? She then comes up with this:
"But the realisation I came to was that we have the opportunity to improve both of these things at the same time: we can continue human progress while addressing our environmental problems." "Progress" defined as what? Gross domestic product? Smart phone download speed? Stock market gains? Wage growth? Vaccination rates? Diabetes rates? Electric grid stability?
Beyond that, the idea that we're "addressing" environmental problems is laughable. There are microplastics in our blood, in fetuses, at the top of Mount Everest and at the bottom of the Challenger Deep. What natural habitats and wildlife biomass that remain are outweighed by multiple orders of magnitude by humans, our livestock and our waste streams. And every week, every month, every year, atmospheric CO2 content continues to grow, along with all other GHGs
But hey, children live longer than they did when Andrew Jackson was president, so yay us.
= new reply since forum marked as read