Many Voters Don't Have The Mental Capacity To Understand An Abstract Term Like "Uninhabitable"

Today, Bernie's 5-song EP, We Shall Overcome was released. (Note: I refer to him as "Bernie" instead of Senator Bernie Sanders, not out of disrespect but for the same reason Madonna is known as Madonna and Cher is known as Cher... not to mention Beyonce, Elvis, Eminem, Prince, Björk, Pink, Bono, Seal, Morrissey, Divine, Moby, Banksy, Rihanna, Enya, Oprah, Liberace and Hillary.) Yesterday when Bernie sent out the graphic tweet above, it reminded me that his focus has always been very much on the economic justice issues that impact the day to day lives of ordinary working families. That's what Bernie is all about and that's what I expect his presidential campaign to be all about. It doesn't mean he's not a crucial voice on other matters-- he always has been-- it just means he's clear on his priorities. His environmental voting record-- and specifically his record on global warming-- have been excellent. I expect that were he to become president there would be a lot more movement on global warming issues than if Hillary or, God forbid, some Republican wins.

In yesterday's NY Times sounded like a wake-up call to conservatives still denying climate change and, possibly, dooming man to extinction, or maybe a lot of existential discomfort. Government, primarily because of aggressive self-interest from Big Oil and the politicians they own-- in the U.S. this election cycle the 10 biggest recipients of bribes from Oil and Gas were John Cornyn (R-TX- $904,031), John Boehner (R-OH- $645,289), Mary Landrieu (D-LA- $512,336), Mitch McConnell (R-KY- $461,558), Cory Gardner (R-CO- $380,000), Bill Cassidy (R-LA- $377,370), Mike Pompeo (R-Koch- $364,550), James Lankford (R-CO- $312,850), Steven Daines (R-MT- $301,062) and Tom Cotton (R-AR- $300,135)-- has utterly failed to taken the needed steps to prevent a global catastrophe. Conservative politicians revel in telling voters they aren't scientists-- while ignoring actual scientists' warnings-- but most are saying that even if the UN manages to get a pact signed "it probably will not be enough to stave off the increasingly significant, near-term impact of global warming... [T]hey warn that it now may be impossible to prevent the temperature of the planet’s atmosphere from rising by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit."

According to a large body of scientific research, that is the tipping point at which the world will be locked into a near-term future of drought, food and water shortages, melting ice sheets, shrinking glaciers, rising sea levels and widespread flooding-- events that could harm the world’s population and economy.

Recent reports show that there may be no way to prevent the planet’s temperature from rising, given the current level of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere and the projected rate of emissions expected to continue before any new deal is carried out.

While a breach of the 3.6 degree threshold appears inevitable, scientists say that United Nations negotiators should not give up on their efforts to cut emissions. At stake now, they say, is the difference between a newly unpleasant world and an uninhabitable one.

“I was encouraged by the U.S.-China agreement,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University and a member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global body of scientists that produces regular reports on the state of climate science. But he expressed doubts that the threshold rise in global temperature could be prevented.

“What’s already baked in are substantial changes to ecosystems, large-scale transformations,” Mr. Oppenheimer said. He cited losses of coral reef systems and ice sheets, and lowering crop yields.

Still, absent a deal, “things could get a lot worse,” Mr. Oppenheimer added. Beyond the 3.6 degree threshold, he said, “the aggregate costs to the global economy-- rich countries as well as poor countries-- rises rapidly.”

The objective now, negotiators say, is to stave off atmospheric temperature increases of 4 to 10 degrees; at that point, they say, the planet could become increasingly uninhabitable.

...This spring, a report by 13 federal agencies concluded that climate change would harm the American economy by increasing food prices, insurance rates and financial volatility. In China, the central government has sought to quell citizen protests related to coal pollution.

In June, Mr. Obama announced a new Environmental Protection Agency rule forcing major emissions cuts from coal-fired power plants. State Department negotiators took the decision to China, hoping to broker a deal for a similar offer of domestic action. That led to November’s joint announcement in Beijing: the United States will cut its emissions up to 28 percent by 2025, while China will decrease its emissions by or before 2030.

“Our sense is that this will resonate in the broader climate community, give momentum to the negotiations and spur countries to come forward with their own targets,” said Todd Stern, Mr. Obama’s lead climate change negotiator. “The two historic antagonists, the biggest players, announcing they’ll work together.”

The response from Republicans: destroy the EPA. That should solve everything. And voters just gave them a massive electoral win across the country, including the Senate anti-environment fanatics Mitch McConnell, Joni Ernst, Tom Cotton, Cory Gardner, Shelley Moore Capito, James Lankford, Thom Tillis, Steve Daines and Pat Roberts. That's what confused voters think they want. As for the other party... do they have what it takes to fight an election campaign based on real issues instead of partisan strategies and simplistic media efforts to generate sales? Hey... be happy.