The Trump administration has formally notified the United Nations that the U.S. is withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement. The withdrawal will be complete this time next year, after a one-year waiting period has elapsed.
"We will continue to work with our global partners to enhance resilience to the impacts of climate change and prepare for and respond to natural disasters," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement Monday.
— NPR.com
Rachel Cleetus of the Union of Concerned Scientists told NPR, “The reality is, to really deliver on our climate goals, we do need strong federal action," adding, "The unfortunate reality is U.S. carbon emissions actually rose last year."
23 Comments
With this I've officially moved into being embarrassed to be a US citizen. World, we welcome your disdain for us, because we know we deserve it. I just hope we can find our way again.
Welcome to the club.
It just shows we are no different than the rest of the world. We will certainly come back though. It's only by going through shit like this that propels us to do good. The question is will we be able to stick together and allow for actual diversity of opinion.
Ft. Jefferson was subsiding before it was completed in 1861. It was originally supposed to have a third story but the sinking called for a change of plans and it was capped at two stories. It never became much of a fort but was used as a prison by the Union in the Civil War. Dr. Samuel Mudd was the most famous prisoner. He had set John Wilkes Booth's broken leg so, of course, he had to go to prison. When the prison doctor died of malaria Dr. Mudd took over and provided prisoners and staff with medical care. His sentence was later commuted and he was freed to go home and resume his medical practice. And the USS Maine stoped there to take on coal right before going to Havana and blowing up or being blown up by factions wanting to start a war.
Did you get lost on the way to your point?
No. The point is Fort Jefferson is not sinking because of global warming or climate change; it was sinking before it was completed in 1861. In fact, it never was completed according the specifications because it WAS sinking during construction. The photo does make good ecoporn for the ecozealots, though. Maybe Greta can stop by on her next boatride to the next upcoming conference.
Did anyone ever point out that you're a real asshole?
Volunteer, are you really that triggered by the photo and caption? Which, by the way, doesn't even make the claim that it's sinking because of climate change. It notes that investments to repair it are being informed by climate change considerations. So aside from pointing out something that no one claimed to be something else, you've accomplished what now?
I stand by my original comment.
"Climate changes such as warmer air and sea surface temperatures, which are expected to increase the frequency and severity of storms and hurricanes in the Gulf, will impact Dry Tortugas National Park. Storm damage, compounded by an on-going lack of maintenance, may compromise the structural integrity of the Fort. Meanwhile, a projected sea level rise of 0.6 to 1.2 meters over the next 100 years (Loehman and Anderson 2010) will re-configure the shoreline of Garden Key, potentially undermining the structural stability of Fort Jefferson." https://www.ncptt.nps.gov/blog/climate-change-at-dry-tortugas/
Aside from the all the name calling on both sides, Volunteer makes a valid point. The image is ecoporn. Is it possible to have a conversation without someone being "triggered" or being "a real asshole" or making flip comments about "ecozealots" and Greta?
How is the image "ecoporn" won? If anything it is a perfect example of what Pompeo is claiming will be the focus of the administration, "We will continue to work with our global partners to enhance resilience to the impacts of climate change ..." What better to illustrate that than a structure that is being threatened by the effects of climate change and could use some investment toward resilience? As tduds stated, Volunteer got lost on the way to whatever their point is ... unfortunately it looks like you got caught up in it as well.
The image is certainly editorialized, but I find it appropriate. Is there something you'd rather see?
I live in Detroit, so I'm very familiar with building porn. Basically the above image of a building in decay (even with camera oddly tilted to imply it is falling into the sea) is intentionally dramatized to show the destructive force of climate change. It's not very honest in my opinion. This is my issue with climate activism at large - it just goes too far. Yes, climate change is happening, but to blame every forest fire, every hurricane, every cold snap, every drought, or in this case a building in significant decline, on climate change is dishonest. It used to be in journalism (and in keeping with good science) that journalists were very careful to dissociate individual climate phenomena from climate change. In this age of political activism, supported by a larger media narrative, that is no longer the case.
You seem to be laboring under the false impression that there was a time in the past where "...journalists were very careful..."
Might I suggest that the fact that it bothers you has more to do with your personal biases than some drastic shift within journalism?
What was dishonest then is still dishonest now. Without sending this on too much of a tangent, I would argue that in a click-driven era of journalism, yes, standards have declined, and the line between reporting and opinion has been irredeemably blurred.
Can you point to other areas where "standards have declined, and the line between reporting and opinion has been irredeemably blurred"? Are there correlations between these areas that may point to a confirmation bias?
I find that people clamoring on about tone saps much more energy from productive conversations than the tone itself.
Like if your first response to people concerned about a planetary existential threat is that they're too worked up, perhaps it is you who is not worked up enough?
.
Here are fairly recent photos of the fort which is what it looked like when I was there a few years ago. Focusing in on the areas next to be treated and assume nothing is being done is really irresponsible. You can make it there and back in one day by several daily boat services. The boat journey itself is well worthwhile also.
Seems like the picture is inconsequential to the story.
Story: US will address only preparation for disaster and damage recovery after disaster. Will do nothing for prevention or advance mitigation of climate change disaster that is within its power.
Because there is no profit in preparation.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.