First there’s John Schwartz at the NY Times, which uses vast amounts of fossil fuels to gather, manufacture, and disseminate the news, especially in a form where trees have been killed to make paper. Though, in fairness, their carbon footprint has gone down since they so often never leave the NY Times building, instead relying upon reading tweets and placing phone calls to find ways to defend Democrats and assail Trump
We Went to the Moon. Why Can’t We Solve Climate Change?
Could a “moon shot†for climate change cool a warming planet?
Fifty years after humans first left bootprints in the lunar dust, it’s an enticing idea. The effort and the commitment of brainpower and money, and the glorious achievement itself, shine as an international example of what people can do when they set their minds to it. The spinoff technologies ended up affecting all of our lives.
So why not do it all over again — but instead of going to another astronomical body and planting a flag, why not save our own planet? Why not face it with the kind of inspiration that John F. Kennedy projected when he stood up at Rice University in 1962 and said “We choose to go to the moon,†and to do such things:
“ … not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win …â€
Yes, Schwartz really used that JFK quote to pimp Hotcoldwetdry idiocy. Did I mention that this was not in the opinion section?
But President Kennedy did not have to convince people that the moon existed. In our current political climate, the clear evidence that humans have generated greenhouse gases that are having a powerful effect on climate, and will have a greater effect into the future, has not moved the federal government to act with vigor. And a determined faction even argues that climate change is a hoax, as President Donald Trump has falsely stated at various times.
The evidence is so clear that Schwartz provides none of it.
In 1970, Dr. Logsdon wrote a book, “The Decision to Go to the Moon,†that laid out four conditions that made Apollo possible…..(snip)
What would be the “action-forcing stimulus†for a climate moon shot, he asked? He suggested it would have to be something deeply dramatic and immediate, like “Manhattan going under water.†What’s more, he noted, “Apollo did not require changing human behavior†as fighting climate change would, through the need for measures like carbon taxes or changes in consumption patterns.
Weren’t we told by ABC News that Manhattan would be under water by 2015? And Excitable Jim Hansen said in 1988 that Manhattan’s west side would be under water in 20-40 years, and it is not happening. Further, notice that to push ‘climate change’ would require that Government force change in people’s attitudes and lives. Weird that, right?
Business Green has it’s own article, most of which is behind a paywall
Why Apollo 11’s giant leap gives us hope for climate change today
And there’s
- Do we need an Apollo program for climate change?
- SPACE RESEARCH CAN SAVE THE PLANET—AGAIN – The solutions to climate change lie far, far away.
And then
Apollo 11 made us believe we could do anything – the truth is it could hasten our downfall
(It spends time telling us technology is bad because we rely on it too much, unlike the 1400’s which the Cult of Climastrology wants to bring us back to)
Part of the reason we don’t is the expectation that technology will save us. If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can develop new antibiotics, replenish the soil and restore the tropical forests. We can stop climate change by building machines to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. (And anyway, we can build walls to keep out the rising seas.) All we need is better politicians.
It’s always something with these people.
