Chris Haynes’s podcast, “Exploring the Wicked Problems of Climate Change with Andrew Revkin” is a behind the scenes unfiltered experience.  It was refreshing to hear a newscaster (Chris Haynes of MSNBC/NBS News) be so honest about why stories concerning climate change are seldom on the news.  Like all media sources, television shows are all about ratings. And according to Chris Haynes, any news segment about climate change is an instant rating’s killer.  

​

The overall conversation between Haynes and Revkin was very casual and informative.  The tone drew-in the listener wanting to know more.  Revkin did an excellent job of explaining why there still is an overall apathy concerning climate change. It turns out, it is because of human nature (which agrees with the overall conclusion of The New York Times Magazine article “Loosing Earth”).  Some say that climate change is still a problem because of the oil companies, some say it’s the politicians, others say it’s because of the lobbyist.  The truth is, it is all of these.  And that’s because the problem is too big and spans several decades.  It took thirty years to get to the point where we are now.  According to Revkin, even if we all got it in gear and took every necessary means to stop global warming, it would still take another thirty years to see the effects.  In short, we are a culture of NOW.  If we can’t see the results now, we don’t want to be bothered. That is why so many Americans do not have any retirement savings; because you have to save for over twenty years consistently before you see any significant results.  

Near the end of the podcast, Revkin tells a story of how he was at the Vatican for a meeting called, “Sustainable Humanity”.  There he asked Walter Munk, “What do you think is going to get us through this century?”  His response was, “A miracle of love and unselfishness.” 

At the bar, I order another beer.  Right behind me is a table where Kate Aronoff and Naomi Klein are seated.  It is apparent to me that these two also have a “beef” with Rich and his conclusions.

“I don’t like it when Rich says that we are all to blame for the current climate condition. I mean who in the hell is the ‘we’that he is referring to? Aronoff asked.  “The ‘we’ is definitely not the countries in the southern hemisphere; places like Fiji.  But they are most certainty going to feel the ultimate effects. 

“Well then in your opinion who is the ‘we’”? replied Klein

“The ‘we’ are about the 100 companies that are responsible for about 71% of the CO2 emissions.  That’s who.  And it’s also politics at large.  Rich goes on in his article talking about the Montreal Protocol that band CFC’s and how it was such a global win. Rich was asking why this could not be used to band the production of CO2.  The answer is that the global economy is not built on CFC’s, it’s built on fossil fuels.  And you know damn well that those executives aren’t going to give up their money and power.”

Kline rolled her eyes, “Everything you’re saying is true, but you are missing the larger point.  The ‘we’ does not matter.  Rich was trying to paint a picture that everyone tried so hard to make a deal and that the environment was right, but everyone just got cold feet. The thing is, the environment was not there.  Rich was forgetting that he was talking about the time period of the big 80’s.  The time period where movies like Wall Street and American Phycho was made. It was a time of extreme excess and no one wanted the good times to end.  But I do agree with you about how the global south really had nothing to do with CO2 emissions.”

At this point my mind was swimming.  But what I got out of the Aronoff/Kline conversation was the following.  Aronoffframed the conversation in terms of who was specifically responsible or who in-fact was the “we” that Rich was referingto.  In general Aronoff blamed the northern hemisphere (mainly the U.S) for the problem that we all are now facing.  Kline, on the other hand, was agreeing with Aronoff to a point; but she was primary pushing the idea that the social and economic times of the big 80’s was in direct contrast to agreeing to anything that was going to derail the good times of a free unregulated market. 

I walked into a bar in Washington D.C. and the smell of beer and scotch linger in the air.  Glancing around, I see Nathaniel Rich sitting with Robinson Meyer and Emily Atkin.  I slowly walk over with my beer and causally ease-drop on their conversation.  

“Now look,” said Rich with a look of annoyance on his face, “You weren’t the ones talking to these people.  There were some things that I left out, but I stand by my conclusion; we all are responsible for not getting legislation passed.  We all are at fault for the current climate catastrophe.”  

Meyer looks up from his drink, “No man, you got it all wrong.  It’s the damn republicans and oil companies that are to blame!”

At this point Emily Atkin speaks up as she shifts nervously in her seat, “Actually, you both are right. Yes the republicans and oil companies are at fault. But so are we, everyone is.  I agree with Rich that we all have our daily problems and that it is extremely difficult to fathom something that won’t happen for forty plus years.”

“It’s happening now Emily! And the republicans and oil companies knew about and did nothing.” Meyer yelled.

At this point I start to feel somewhat uncomfortable and walk back to the bar.  It is apparent to me that Rich spent hundreds of hours interviewing countless people for his article in The New York Times Magazine.  I could tell that he was trying to be impartial.  But obviously Meyer was having none of it.  In his mind the republicans and the oil companies were the ones who dropped the ball.  Call it corporate greed or fear of not getting reelected, but Meyer did have a point. But then again so did Atkin.  I myself do believe in the science of climate change, but to actually think about the ultimate destruction that climate change will do is almost unbearable.  

While reading “Losing Earth” there are a quite few turning points in the article. One of the biggest turning points I think is when William Nierenberg goes against his own dating while talking to the press. In his article “Changing Climate” Nierenberg says ” That actions had to be taken immediately before all the details could be know or else it would be too late.” But during the press interview he mention “caution, not panic.” He also stated basically how he believed how though the climate would get worse, that American technology would find a way to solve the problem. This is just one example of how I was appalled by how scientist and politicians both had several oppurtunities to take sensible actions but instead did nothing. I can only conclude that they did this out of fear or for economic growth.

I do not know about a Disney movie, but this could be an incredible political thriller. It could be shot in the same way that a movie called the “The Big Short” was made to explain the 2009 economic collapse. The overall ending in the article as a whole was framed as a tragedy. As with many tragedies, there were several points in the story where action could have been taking to stop the catastrophe but people decided not to. Unfortunately this is just the classic story of “kicking the can” down the road, hoping that a future generation will take care of the problem.

Reading the first part to “Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change” by Nathaniel Rich; the question we all ask is why didn’t we stop the climate change. Well reading the article I can see how much effort MacDonald,Hansen and Pomerance spent time reschearching the topic of climate change and the outcome that was going to happen by around the 2030. They spent 10 years doing all that work for really no big change. The one thing they did make happen is to prove that climate change is real, and all their predictions are coming true. It’s not the problem in this day of age to prove to people anymore that climate change is real because the fact is all scientists know that climate range is real and that it is a fact. The problem is that now we can all see what global warming is causing on the earth and how it is impacting it but still to this day no one big is trying to make the change to change it. People back in the 50s new that climate change was starting and that was the time to take action. As I can tell the more you wait on matter less people are going to act on it in the future and we are running out of time.

Hello all! My name is Jess Chilcote and my experience with research is very basic. The only “research” I do own my own time is searching up actors/actresses who I want to know more about in movies or tv shows. I haven’t had to do a lot of major in-depth research for previously classes I have taken. I was just taught by previous teachers in high school/professors to just research what I need to for that paper or project. I never thought of asking other questions from the information of the research I have discovered.

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

• Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
• Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

• Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
• What topics do you think you’ll write about?
• Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
• If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.