Monday, December 12, 2016

The Donald: Much Too Much Media Coverage

During the 2016 election cycle, the "King  of Twitter" very astutely capitalized on that social medium which allows short snippets to speak volumes in a superficial way that appealed to the multitudes. Though I don't do Twitter, Facebook, etcetera, the media provided very thorough coverage of his clips of sarcasm and banality.  Thus, I could see how the professional entertainer tycoon was able to coax some people into believing in him.

At this point in time, however, I think it's time to start holding him accountable. Where he follows through on campaign promises, give him credit. Where he doesn't, don't. Also, do NOT click on "fluff pieces" (either pro or con) about him. It only encourages him and his minions in the wrong way. And for that, we have to hold ourselves accountable.

Silver Lining for Climate Change Future

"Climate change is an existential threat to the United States of America and to humanity as a whole, and time is running very short to undertake the necessary top-to-bottom overhaul of world society to stave it off.....Unlike previous existential threats — like Nazi Germany, for example — the really serious danger of climate change is far in the future, it will gather strength relatively slowly, and, above all, knowledge of it comes through a highly technical and abstract scientific process. "Armed men will invade and kill us all" is easy to understand and culturally familiar; "in 50 to 100 years climate feedbacks could spin out of control and do irreparable damage to the biosphere which supports human life" is not.

My Comment: When opportunity has been ignored, a challenge presents itself as conditions escalate. Effective international action to stave of excessive fossil fuel consumption is a lost opportunity from twenty years ago. Now that a fossil fuel growth proponent is the president elect, we shall now fail to meet the challenge. By 2037, the beginnings of the crisis will be upon us. That is unless the '4 Horsemen' intervene to both reduce overpopulation and consumption of industrial products, electricity, etcetera. Our new president's distorted ego may be the linchpin for such? Note: It is appropriate that his most staunch supporters are firm believers in the apocalypse. [Question: Are they right? Or will it be a case of a self fulfilling prophecy?]

FYI: Many people are under the mistaken assumption that reduction of CO2 emissions will correlate with a reduction of atmospheric CO2 levels. Not so. It would slow the rate of increase only. Why? The oceans' ability to absorb CO2 is steadily diminishing (correlates with increasing ocean acidification).