How to Save the Planet

  • submit to reddit
Whitelee Windfarm on the outskirts of Glasgow (Photo: Danny Lawson/PA Wire)

Report after report tells us our planet is in trouble. Most recently, two teams of researchers concluded that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet’s gradual collapse due to global warming has become unstoppable; as a result, sea levels will rise by feet, not inches, in the centuries to come. This is just one of the many frightening effects of climate change.

Yet Americans remain unfazed. Only 40 percent of us are concerned, a Gallup poll recently found. Twenty-five percent remain global warming skeptics. Legislative attempts at climate action are inevitably derailed, and political hopefuls increasingly play the science denial card to win support.

So what can we do?

We reached out to a handful of scientists, policy experts, writers and activists to ask: “If you could require America to do just one thing — any one thing — to combat climate change in 2014, what would it be?” Here’s what they said:

Remember the Space Race

David Suzuki
Scientist and broadcaster
Faced with the magnitude and seriousness of global warming, and the tremendous opportunities in addressing it, we need the kind of leadership America is known for. We need an all-out effort as great as or greater than the determination to pull ahead of the Soviet Union in the Space Race. The America that set me on my path would never deny the reality of a scientifically proven problem, or claim nothing can be done about it or that meeting the challenge will destroy the economy. By committing to seek solutions, we will reap benefits — expected and unexpected. It’s time to revive the American know-how and gung-ho enthusiasm that has long characterized this great nation.

Do What You Uniquely Can Do

William D. Nordhaus
Sterling professor of economics, Cowles Foundation, Yale University
People ask, what can I do? My answer is that people should address the threat of climate change in ways that best fit their personal interests and capabilities. Students can learn, and teachers can teach. Citizens can inform themselves. Engineers can develop low-carbon technologies. Politicians can confront the realities and speak the truth. Media can avoid meaningless balancing of good and bad arguments. As an economist, I can explain why carbon pricing (such as through carbon taxes) is the most effective mechanism to reduce emissions. There is much to do, for everyone.

Take Action in Your Communities

Annie Leonard
Executive director, Greenpeace USA; creator, The Story of Stuff
If I could require Americans to do one thing, it is to get active! Already millions know and are concerned about climate change, now we need to move that passive concern into action. That action could take many forms depending on each person’s skills and interests: shut down coal-fired power plants, get your university to divest from fossil fuels and invest in a clean energy economy, encourage companies and state and local governments to switch to renewable energy, demand leadership from our elected officials. It doesn’t matter so much which thing we do, as long as we all do something.

Pass a Carbon Tax to Fund Next-Gen Research

Kerry Emanuel
Professor of atmospheric science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
If I could be a czar for a day (or a few days!) I would direct substantial federal resources toward research and development in a) next generation passively safe, modular nuclear fission reactors, and b) carbon capture and sequestration technology. I would implement a carbon tax to fund these ventures and otherwise encourage migration away from fossil fuels. At the same, I would force all industries to pay for their externalities; for example, the coal industry would be required pay for the health problems and premature mortality that arise from dumping waste into the atmosphere and waterways. I would provide strong incentives for producing more energy-efficient vehicles and buildings and for developing more efficient and effective renewable energy sources. Finally, I would start a movement to amend the Constitution to make it illegal to influence (whether by voting or through money) elections outside one’s own district.

Follow in the Footsteps of Martin Luther King Jr.

Kumi Naidoo
Executive director, Greenpeace International
Throughout history, when people have faced the greatest injustices, from apartheid to slavery, positive social change has happened as the result of peaceful civil disobedience. We are at the point in the struggle to save the climate where we must put our lives on the line. I would encourage Americans to follow in the footsteps of Martin Luther King Jr. and take peaceful action to stop the burning of fossil fuels and the collusion of our governments with industry interests, joining in the great worldwide tradition of civil disobedience. When we stand up together we can make the greatest change.

Bill McKibben
Author, founder of

Treat It Like It’s World War III

I’d put a serious price on carbon, and send the proceeds back to every American every month; and I’d push for renewable energy as if it was the start of World War II and we needed tanks and fighter jets. But these obvious steps won’t happen until we break the power of the fossil fuel industry, so what I’d really do is ask everyone to come join us in the streets of New York on September 20.

Vandana Shiva
Physicist, philosopher and environmental activist

Stop Letting Corporations Rule

This is the one thing I would ask of the USA: Stop promoting corporate rule and corporate greed. Stop giving corporations personhood.



Ban Fracking

Sandra Steingraber
Author, biologist, distinguished scholar in residence, Ithaca College
Thanks to the heat-trapping gases already stashed in our atmosphere from two centuries of fossil fuel dependency, we are rapidly approaching the last-straw-breaks-the-camel’s-back moment in the story of climate change. To stabilize the situation, we need to control methane. The best science shows us that methane is more than 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at trapping heat over the short term — the only timeframe now left to us. Thus, to sidestep disaster, my single act would be to declare a ban on fracking and redirect toward renewable energy projects all the capital investment now invested in blowing up our nation’s bedrock to extract the vaporous, inherently leaky, climate-killing fossil fuel called natural gas — which is the leading source of methane emissions in the United States. Cement well casings leak, crack, age, shrink and crumble over time. Each gas well is a methane chimney that can never be completely turned off. Stop drilling, baby.

Clean up Polluting Power Plants

Nikki Silvestri
Executive director, Green For All
Climate change is already taking a toll on human health and safety. And the most vulnerable among us — poor folks, people of color and kids — are hit first and worst. We have a chance right now to make a huge dent in the pollution that causes climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency is considering safeguards that would, for the first time, set limits on how much carbon power companies can spew into our shared air. Outdated, dirty power plants would be required to use technology to cut their pollution — or switch to cleaner, more modern forms of energy. Oil and coal companies have gotten away with poisoning our air and water for too long. They’ve been raking in billions in profit, leaving the rest of us to shoulder the costs — from asthma treatments and hospital visits to disaster response. It’s time for them to take responsibility for the harm they’re causing our communities. It’s a simple choice: We can protect polluter profits, or the health and safety of our kids and grandkids.

  • submit to reddit encourages conversation and debate around issues, events and ideas related to content on Moyers & Company and the website.

  • The editorial staff reserves the right to take down comments it deems inappropriate.
  • Profanity, personal attacks, hate speech, off-topic posts, advertisements and spam will not be tolerated.
  • Do not intentionally make false or misleading statements, impersonate someone else, break the law, or condone or encourage unlawful activity.

If your comments consistently or intentionally make this community a less civil and enjoyable place to be, you and your comments will be excluded from it.

We need your help with this. If you feel a post is not in line with the comment policy, please flag it so that we can take a look. Comments and questions about our policy are welcome. Please send an email to

Find out more about's privacy policy and terms of service.

  • thinkerman

    How to save the planet? Create a framework for global co-operation by founding a Union of the Democracies. All the big things we need that could make a real difference — carbon taxes, corporate regulation, deep demilitarization — get defeated on the grounds of needing to compete with other jurisdictions in one way or another. A Union of the Democracies could stop the race to the bottom, providing a common floor for policies needed in the common interest. NATO would be reformed as the security branch of the Union to protect all member democracies from outside attack, allowing all members to drawn down their arms spending, thereby freeing trillions of dollars for ecological renewal. Without such a global approach, nothing can happen that is large enough to make enough of a difference soon enough.

  • Marge Wood

    Thinkerman, what a wonderful idea! Let us know how your plans are coming along.

  • Anonymous

    “our planet is in trouble”
    Really? Our planet is in trouble? What kind of trouble?
    This planet of ours, formed from the results of the big band, supernovas, etc, and having survived collisions by massive asteroid, multiple ice ages, the massive movement of the continents, sea level rises of dozens of feet, etc, is in trouble?
    Trouble of what? A pesty species that is generating a little bit too much plant food? Really?
    This planet is fine. It can easily rid itself of the pesky humans any time with a single massive volcanic eruption, for example.
    I get a kick everytime I hear that the planet is in trouble. Humans may be in trouble due to lack of demand for labor at above value rates, lack of money to pay for promised pensions or national debts. The planet? Doing just fine. Still orbiting around the sun and the Milky Way as it has been doing way before humans appeared and will, likely, continue to do long after humans are extinct.

  • Jane Peters

    More solar panels on more homes.

  • JohnH

    Convert our power source to nuclear breeder reactors. It’s technology that’s ready. It works. The unit cost is cheap. And, yes, it’s safe.

  • mistywindow

    All of the above need to be done, but the single most important action is to make the bad guys pay: a tax on carbon and at the same time kill the billions of dollars given now in oil and coal subsidies. Fee and dividend is probably the way to go. Some of the tax revenue could go to blue sky alternative energy research, but most should be shared equally amongst all adults.

    That way you’re encouraging alternative energy, making the fossil industry pay for externalities, and providing an incentive for consumers to seek alternatives to goods and services with high carbon footprints.

    I’m not holding my breath. The US political system is in thrall to the bad guys and there’s no sign of imminent change.

  • mistywindow

    I suggest that the reduction in carbon emissions for the EU and the US is because of the exporting of jobs and manufacturing to China and other low-wage economies.

    We have a very sick system.

  • mistywindow

    They called in the League of Nations. Then we totally stuffed it up.

  • Curtis

    I see no one checked with T. Boone Pickens. He seems like he would fit into the David Suzuki “opportunities and benefits” camp. Never let it be said that ol T. Boone ever missed a chance to cash a problem.

  • thinkerman

    You have strange enjoyments. But I think people generally understand the shorthand, Mr. Punctilious, that by the planet being in trouble we mean life on the planet, including notably us humans.

  • Anonymous

    Elect someone that would “Put a solar panel on every roof”

  • Anonymous

    It is humankind plus other animals and plants that are threatened by climate change not the planet. The planet will still be here long after we are gone.

  • JonThomas

    True, and at times the distinction is very important, but for thousands of years humans have also been using terms like ‘all the Earth,’ or simply ‘the Earth’ to refer to the people living on the planet. It’s an accepted and an extremely long-standing traditional use of phrasing. :-)

  • Anonymous

    Referencing Earth instead of Humankind obfuscates the danger.

  • Anonymous

    A key factor typically ignored in discussions of climate change is the limited supply of fossil fuels. “Peak Oil” in general parlance. The best author on this subject – resource limits, climate change, and the culture that denies both – is John Michael Greer.

    Climate Change is likely, but the harder fact is that the oil will run out anyway, even if we don’t do anything about AGW. The denial of resource limits is much like climate change denial.

    Collapse now, and avoid the rush. it’s going to happen, one way or another. I can’t explain why economists keep telling us the economy can grow forever. Probably as simple as greed. It’s like a bad religion.

    Backyard (and front yard) gardens, bikes, simple living without lots of stuff… people won’t do it, but it is objectively the best path toward the inevitable less industrial future. However, it requires consensus; but the power available to those who want it simply overwhelms the wisdom of contentment.

    Nevertheless, it is a matter of great wonder how the lessons learned in the 70s about the inevitable Limits to Growth, and the efforts at sustainability that rose up in the time of Peak US domestic oil, disappeared for a variety of reasons and we bumbled on for a few more decades, in increasing decadence (a subject for another discussion).

    The lesson that came out of the 70s, I think, is simply that our desire to grow will not be impeded even by our understanding, whether of natural systems or of the limit of resources – or even more simply that for a thing to live it must also die. At this point in civilization’s life cycle, our culture is adept at denial: “They’ll think of something” – some new miracle technology – or The Aliens will come rescue us, or there’s no use doing anything anyway because the world will end in a fiery crash.

  • JonThomas

    True enough not to create divisions among people who otherwise agree. :-)

  • JonThomas

    Good comment.

    In this week’s episode, David Suzuki shared an experience that shone light upon, and offered insight into, the dilemma you posed of many economist’s world view. It doesn’t excuse or preclude their shortsightedness, but it does help us understand and react to their perspective.

  • Russell Scott Day

    When we raced to the Moon we didn’t know how much good it would do for us to know how to do it and see the Earth the way it gave us the picture. Now we just really need to keep on keeping on at doing what taught us what we could do. There really is the near earth and Mars and Venus for us to colonize. It is time to see the Vatican throw its resources towards protect Earth, and colonize Mars and Venus. The overpopulating of the Earth due to Vatican population policies internationally powerful have put us in a terrible fearful situation that only Transcendia the nation of airports and spaceports can systematically move us through towards security and happiness of a pragmatic nature.

  • Jim Guy

    You know how you walk into a room, and someone has turned the furnace WAY up, and it’s hot as heck, and even though you turn the temp down the furnace keeps running because it’s programmed that way? Yeah.

  • Laura Reynolds

    I’m starting to think we need to accept that governments and industries are not going to do these things, because industry won’t allow us to limit their profits. What can we do outside the “system”? I mean, I already recycle, work from home, limit my consumption of energy (I hardly drive), etc. These things are good, but they won’t do what, say, prohibiting fracking or closing down coal-based power plants would accomplish. How can we get these big things done if the government is ruled by people whose main interest is their own short-term profits and power?

  • Anonymous

    If I were king of the world, I would order everyone in my world-kingdom to become vegetarian now. And I would appoint Chancellor Angela Merkel to guide all countries in switching to renewable sources of energy ASAP. (Germany now is using 74% renewables — mostly solar and wind — under her leadership.)

  • Anonymous

    :) Thanks. Corrected.

  • Anonymous

    Cool – let me know when I can buy a nuclear breeder powered car. Sounds like it will be very fast. Though probably a bit heavy dragging all that continent building concrete around.

  • Anonymous

    Cool. A new Füher.

  • Deb French

    You may want to check the new coal plants being built in Germany since they closed their nuclear too quickly to provide enough power for the nation… plus they buy extra power (nuclear etc.) from France. I still admire they green effort… certainly more aggressive than most countries…

  • Anonymous

    before I saw the paycheck four $4212 , I accept that
    my neighbours mother woz like they say really receiving money in there spare
    time from their computer. . there brothers friend has done this 4 only about
    seventeen months and at present paid for the loans on their place and got a
    great Mazda MX-5 . navigate to this website F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

  • Anonymous

    Al Gore did this. Those who have a big footprint pay those who don’t. The overall didn’t change, Al just got rich.

  • Anonymous

    Sounds silly at first but this would help.

  • Anonymous

    Stop Smoking! (Get it?) Tax smokers till they stop killing us with their
    second-hand smoke. Create true, all-encompassing policy, not just
    “encourage alternative energy” or “jobs” or “carbon tax” both nationally
    and internationally.

    Reward electric-based commerce transport — GE,
    Siemens, Cummins: where are electric truck engines? Battery
    “stations”/exchanges? (mass public charging doesn’t work). Research
    & develop deep geothermal everywhere for regional electricity
    production, not just “enhanced drilling”.

    If Norway can dig a 17km tunnel through solid granite for $100mm, why
    can’t we tunnel down 6 or 8 km to unlimited energy, forever …
    anywhere? Create an earth energy Apollo project!

  • pointofgrille

    Now the question is, where do we find a democracy?

  • Anonymous

    I say let the eco-nazis shiver in the cold.

  • Anonymous

    By the way… the planet stopped warming 17 years ago.

  • Gary Williams

    The latest desperate attempt to rekindle the fear is simply halarious.
    The Antarctic Ice will melt and drown all of our cities…
    Oh My God! Oh My God! Oh My God!… TAX me now!!!

    What they sort of glossed over is the time period.
    500 to 900 years if indeed it ever happens which is actually unlikely.
    When pushed to ring the alarm bell the Scientist responsible for this sillyness said in his OPINION it could even be in 200 years.

    LOL…. They are seeiing their grand scheme die bofore thier eyes and are panicking…

  • Orellian Tay

    To believe in catastrophic global warming, you do not need any global warming.

    The missing heat is in the arctic, in the oceans and under your bed. It will get us…oh yes it will.

  • Anonymous

    A carbon tax will do what? The United States has spent since 2006 $100 BILLION on global warming, climate change, climate disruption, whatever the name is now, and has gotten what?

  • Anonymous

    How do you explain Saudi Arabia pumping oil from the same hole for 50+ years. Peak Oil? Last November the USA produced more crude oil that the rest of the world. Peak oil? Oh and don’t forget the recent multi-billion barrel oil discovery in Austraila. Peak oil???

  • Anonymous

    Solar Freakin’ Roadways … Duh!

  • Anonymous

    Call, write, and repeat often the question to our elected officials. How can you risk the future of our children for your personal gain today?

  • Anonymous

    If you warmist trash weren’t aiding & abetting the liars and thieves proposing carbon markets and global wealth redistribution as ‘solutions’ to this imaginary climate change scam (neither of which would do anything about the climate even if the scam were true) – I might almost believe that you actually care about the environment and the future of our children and grandchildren. As it is however, you’re just criminals or idiots.

  • thinkerman

    Hipnosis, oh, but the way, you are mistaken on the facts. Heat is continuing to accumulate in the oceans. Read the science, not the propaganda.

  • JonThomas

    Among other benefits… including offsetting government subsidies given to the EXTREMELY profitable fossil fuel industry… a carbon tax (while not a panacea) would help to recover some of the hidden costs related to fossil fuel use.

    It is important to note that we, as a society, should not view a carbon tax as a substitute for sustainable choices and actions on an individual or grand scale. Nor should we view such a tax as an allowance to continue unsustainable practices.

  • John Wylie

    Check out fusionpowercorporation proposal. Your no. 2 has been done
    Yes, an Apollo program is necessary, but the basic science it seems was
    done in the 70′s and “certain” groups are playing serious games to keep it
    from being acted on.

  • John Wylie

    See well-reasearched and written study by National Geographic a few years back. You can argue whether peak is just past, now, or shortly in future, but that is waste of time. It is a finite comodity, and we need to work hard on alternatives. Cheap oil is already gone, and demand continues to climb in places like China, India, Japan, etc.

  • 2noame

    Add to this list an unconditional basic income.

    Providing everyone with the basics such that we no longer require jobs to live, will mean that entirely unnecessary jobs can be eliminated, and the work people do merely to provide income for their families despite its environmental consequences will become work people can begin to turn their backs on.

    The positive environmental repercussions of basic income need to be better understood and shared. Check out Alyssa Battistoni’s “Alive in the Sunshine” for a good start.

  • Anonymous

    Another good source for information is the following video:

    (ps, despite the title being “There is No Tomorrow”, it gives a realistic view of the forecast, and there is a tomorrow.)

    (pps would love to see the sources for the three contentions made above.)

  • Judy Cross

    “Global Warming” aka “Climate Change” is my litmus test. Those who pretend CO2, a beneficial trace gas present at only 4/100 of 1% is capable of changing climate are those whose opinion no one can count on for anything else because they are automatically Globalist Shills.

  • Mike435

    If we ban fracking we will just dig up more coal and import more oil. Fracking needs safety regulations and controls on methane leaking. But banning it would be a step backward. We need nuclear power, carbon sequestering and most of all a price on ghg emissions. Let’s cut income tax rates and tax ghg emissions instead. Rebates can be used to mitigate the regressive nature of consumption taxes. Putting a price on carbon needs to be goal number one.

  • Mike435

    I just finished reading Nordhaus’ book Climate Casino. I highly recommend it.

  • Vernon Huffman

    We’re learning to grow our own food, pedal our own bikes, and care for our neighbors. Through radical localization we’re building a resilient community that will be able to meet local needs through sustainable use of local resources. We’re asserting our community rights over those of corporations and demanding that elected leaders get behind the people.

  • Anonymous

    Ernest responded I am amazed that people able to profit $9067 in 4 weeks on the
    internet . try here F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

  • Guest

    We really CANNOT wait for a government intervention here. Too late now, anyway. I hope you’re grandchildren and great-grandchildren are ready for the coming days. YOU have left this for them. This is FACT – not some FUTURE that the ignorant, right-wing deniers might think is going on. I won’t live to see the end of the world as we know it – I sure hope the rest of you are OK with your grandchildren & great-grandchildren are OK with seeing it.

  • Scott DeBerg

    We really CANNOT wait for a government intervention here. Too late now, anyway. I hope your grandchildren and great-grandchildren are ready for the coming days. YOU have left this for them. This is FACT – not some FUTURE that the ignorant, right-wing deniers might think is going on. I won’t live to see the end of the world as we know it – I sure hope the rest of you are OK with your grandchildren & great-grandchildren are OK with seeing it.

  • Hawkroad

    Hear, Hear! Well spoken!

  • Anonymous

    It’s disturbing and sad that you don’t care about drowning our coastlines within a few hundred years, which is a blink of the eye in a geological timeframe. Think for a moment of all the infrastructure, property, great historical resources, and so on that line our coastlines. This antarctic ice melt is unstoppable. I look around America, and I see and enjoy so much that was bequeathed to us by our ancestors: public libraries, museums, institutions, national parks, and on and on. We’re leaving a legacy, too, of a toxic world sliding fast into an ecological nightmare. It really is tragic.

  • Kathy

    Those giant industrial turbines you feature are destroying intact ecosystems vital to our future…and causing humans and other creatures from their homes. Local distributed energy solutions keep communities whole. Radical simplicity is too “hard” for our soft populace to warm to but it will do the most. We need to face the music–less is more.

  • David Selwyn

    Hipnosis, I snapped my fingers! Wake from your trance! Now!

  • Anonymous

    I believe that there are those in rich places that seek to take advantage of anything they can, including global warming, but, if you have done any work involving chemistry, you would be aware that very small things can have very big effects. The potential of carbon dioxide to make the Earth warmer was discovered in the late 1800′s, long before any of this controversy, which would not even be controversial if it were not for oil companies to muck up the discourse with lies, just as the tobacco companies lied about smoking and cancer. Methane, the main component of natural gas, is much worse. My take on the matter is, even if there were not such effects, the use of fossil fuels for billions of humans makes the air difficult to breathe, destroys communities, ruins forests and mountains and water supplies, and there is no excuse not to try to find better ways of living. Also, if there is one thing owned by extremely rich and powerful people used to start wars or stop any action against fossil fuels, it is oil and the oil industry.

  • Anonymous

    These are one time costs that will eventually be provided by green energy, once the transition is made. The alternative is to do nothing, continue to burn fossil fuels, and eventually just roll up and die.

  • Dano2

    o CO2/GHGs such a small amount can’t matter (50 extra points if you ask if the person should increase their dosage by a similar amount and it gets them mad) [10 points]

    o Climate change, global warming, which is it? ( lol ) [15 points]

    o AGW believers want a world government/socialist/whatever [15 points]




  • Anonymous

    As long as corporations, especially the dirty energy ones are in charge of making energy policies for the nation, we will not have much change. We must diversify into wind, solar, hydrogen, geo-thermal, hydro, alcohol, while investing in Tesla model of energy. Civilization is impossible without energy. We need massive amounts for the future. In the future, it would be possible to harvest energy from outer space….The current needs point to moving from local sources of energy to planetary source of almost limitless energy. Tesla’s model of energy is the only viable alternative for harvesting planetary energy. Corporations need to find a way to profit from it. Then the shift is likely to be rapid.

  • Gary Williams

    Art… You miss the point. Antarctic ice mass is breaking records these days, Melting is normal and natural in an interglacial and NOTHING you do will ever have any effect on it. The area mentioned in this rant is 8% of Antarctica and will not change the normal rate of sea level rise which BTW has slowed in the last 20 years.
    You might feel better if you just stop listening to extremist activists and do a little research into the actual Facts>
    Did you know that it will take 169000 years to melt all of that ice?
    Did you know that if all the ARCTIC ice melted, it would not raise sea level?
    Are you at all aware that we are at the end of our current interglacial period and the climate is due to get bloody cold soon? As in before the ice at the poles could possibly melt…

    That is what I ridicule… blind acceptance of complete nonsense from the enviro Waco crowd.

  • Anonymous

    How about dumping toxic sludge, waste oil and any manner of other things onto their private property.

  • Anonymous

    Actual facts…hmm, care to share some links, places where you have done some of your extensive research?

  • Nj Anderson

    It is so clear. We have the sun, the moon and the wind. One person could save the entire world by inventing an insanely great battery. Invent the perfect medium and membrane, or even some thing entirely new and be king of the world.

  • Anonymous

    Gotta love Chaney and his secret energy conference 20 years ago.

  • Nathaniel Mulcahy

    a wonderful article, and while it is true that reducing emission by switching to renewables is a part of the solution, the reality is, even if all man made CO2 emissions were to stop we have already assured that CO2 levels will continue to rise for 100-1000 years. If we are to combat climate change the single most important thing to do is sequester CO2 from the atmosphere. CCS is costly and proven to not work, geo-engineering too risky, this leaves biochar and small scale agriculture as the only economic, and environmentally safe option.

  • thinkerman

    Yeah bio-char. Also massive reforestation, perhaps across desserts using desalinated water made by renewable power during periods of surplus. Much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to deforestation. Finally, the oceans cleanse carbon dioxide from the air, with corals and such sequestering it to the seafloor, if we haven’t already imperilled the cycle.

  • Judy Cross

    CO2 at 400 PPM or 4/100ths of ONE PERCENT would have tyo be magic to change climate. There is no mechanism for CO2 to store heat and re-radiate it as the climate crazies have suppoed.

    There is almost 1000x CO2 as there is methane…methane isn’t magical either.

    You’ve been lied to for fun and profit.

    The Banksters own the oil companies and the oil companies like Shell and British Petroleum are in on the scam. Both companies endowed the Climategate the Climactic Research the University of East Anglia who conveniently lost the original climate data.

    Wise up! It’s the biggest scam since the Banksters got to create money from nothing on which they charge us interest!

    Same people!

  • tljshare is a great if you have a great idea and timber to make see it through. There are some successes in funding with Indiegogo. All good for those seeking a way forward.

  • Mychele Hillary

    We may have slowed the increase in atmospheric CO2 by some small amt. thus pushing the tipping point back a year or two or a decade? Who knows? Are we simply not to try to change what we’re doing? and that $100 billion you cite includes spending on post-weather-related disasters that may have been influenced by climate imbalance i’m certain.

    What I DO know is that: The United States, indeed the world, has spent untold BILLIONS of dollars, pounds, Euro, drachmas, etc. on cancer research and has gotten what? Cancer still kills millions each year? Why bother trying to change this either by your logic.

  • Mike Thorne

    What we really have to do, if we wan’t the deniers, the right wing, center, left wing and ill informed (undecided) to all take this crises seriously, is to prove that this is a global issue. If we can not work together to develop some possible solutions, our world will no longer support humans.
    Think of the movie “4th of July”. or, better yet “Invasion From Mars”. All citizens of Earth were compelled to work together in order to find a solution.
    OK. that is also silly…
    Bottom line, I believe that our environment is very much worth improving. Last I heard, 65% of the US population backs me up on this.
    It’s very disturbing that big money directs the conversation!

  • Mike Thorne

    What we really have to do, if we wan’t the deniers, the right wing, center, left wing and ill informed (undecided) to all take this crises seriously, is to prove that this is a global issue. If we can not work together to develop some possible solutions, our world will no longer support humans.
    Think of the movie “4th of July”. or, better yet “Invasion From Mars”. All citizens of Earth were compelled to work together in order to find a solution.
    OK. that is also silly…
    Bottom line, I believe that our environment is very much worth improving. Last I heard, 65% of the US population backs me up on this.
    It’s very disturbing that big money directs the conversation!

  • Anonymous

    ugh….Judy. Science 101…the correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperatures in not controversial….at all. Climates do change all the time…slowly…over long periods of time…and it is correlated to CO2 concentrations as PPM not percentages. So my “litmus test” for climate deniers such as yourself is do they even have a basic understanding of science…you, ma’am…do not.

  • Anonymous

    oh…wow. Now I read this one…you really don’t understand “the greenhouse effect” at all…do you? Absent from the climate change discussion…you should at least start to understand the relationship between CO2 and temperature. You’re really limited in your basic handle on science…no, it’s not “magical”…it science.

  • Petri

    I love this idea! And it will take large companies to implement it

  • Kevin Talmadge

    You’re cherry picking the statistics, and if you go back further than 17 years you see an unbroken and upward trend. climate deniers love to start at 1998, because we had an el nino which caused a temperature spike…

  • 4TimesAYear

    “We’re leaving a legacy, too, of a toxic world sliding fast into an ecological nightmare”
    Not here in the U.S. We cleaned up our air, etc. a long time ago. You obviously weren’t around in the 50′s and 60′s. No amount of regulation here is going to make one whit of difference overseas. 82% of pollution in our air we get 10 days later.

  • CB

    The US does have much cleaner air and water than it did in the 50′s and 60′s, partially because of regulation and partially because we’ve offshored our manufacturing to China.

    The atmospheric carbon imbalance is fundamentally different from local pollution, and far more dangerous.

    You may stop pretending you don’t understand that now.

  • 4TimesAYear

    Let. me. repeat. CO2. is. not. pollution.