Geriatric candidates on the run!

 More NYT commentary, this time on the handwringing over Biden's age, which for some reason is never handwringing about Trump's already obvious mental decline.

Jhh Lowengard | Kingston, NY
In the past, former presidents and legislators stayed on the scene after leaving office, either by running for a different office or just being one of the smoky voices in the smoke filled room. You can actually see this in the non-governing power of Trump. Part of that power is that the GOP literally has no platform except what Trump says. What he seeks, on the record, is more time to grift, and possibly pardon himself and people who still are loyal to him, and to vengefully persecute his opponents.

Comparing Trump's mental acuity to Biden's is the real comparison, and in the race to get to the end of a sentence, Trump is clearly the loser.

But there's a non-zero possibility that neither of these oldsters will make it to election day 2024. This is what both parties should prepare for. The primaries are set up to emphasize differences between candidates, but the process of running should also clarify how there is continuity of political purpose between leaders and their possible successors.

There's even a possibility that climate disaster issues could finally step in to move aside issues driving politics today to issues like "how can we rebuild", "Where can we move", "How can we help others who have to relocate". Remember: 2023, the hottest year in recorded history, will likely be one of the coolest of the foreseeable future .

Start by stopping carbon mining and consumption.

 My latest NYT comment, on using iron in the ocean as a geo engineering carbon capture solutions:

The idea here is that "We (tech fixers) alone can fix the Climate catastrophe" . Well, we can! Stop producing and using carbon emissions now, worldwide. We can do this in an orderly way, starting with stopping drilling, then stopping mining. Industries reliant on this will be shut down in a similarly orderly fashion, and paid off with money, which is a fiction, so we can make as much as necessary.

You can't geo-engineer out of an ever increasing supply of carbon, especially when the geo-engineering itself would necessarily itself be a huge source of carbon emissions. 

Shutting down fuels would be a tremendous hit to the economy and culture. But guess what? It would be cheaper than a 2+ degree C future, which is what we bought with all that fuel.
Do you have the budget to put the methane back in the permafrost and somehow regrow the glaciers and polar ice?

We're now at the state where small cities are wiped out in single weather events. When the frequency and scope of these events exceeds the means to recover from them, the time for any action will be taken up in emigration, fanciful and ineffective prepping, and faith-based solutions of dubious efficacy.

Forests aren't Our Friends...

[Reply to an article in the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/06/opinion/columnists/forest-fires-climate-change.html ]

 What forests aren't are a source of permission to continue spewing carbon in the atmosphere. For one thing, the amount to capture is still increasing every year. For another thing, the climate change itself is impeding the capacity for forests to do that sequestration, due to how that process responds to heat. For another thing, we're also either intentionally removing these natural carbons sinks en masse, or sitting by as they die of thirst, are eaten by bugs that aren't killed in winter anymore, burn, releasing even more sunk carbon into the air and water. 

Here's a depressing article to fill you in on some of this:

https://knowablemagazine.org/article/food-environment/2023/dead-trees-shocking-scientists

The right way to act is to do everything possible, and the most effective is to stop with oil/gas extraction, stop with subsidizing those extractions, and get off carbon addiction. If there's less to remove, removing it will be easier. 

We can do this work in an orderly way, shutting down carbon sources while compensating those who lose out on their carbon fueled lives, and relocating them as best we can, or we can let the climate decide for us, and take out ecosystems and civilizations without any human direction. 

"But this will be more expensive than any other previous world project!"  To this I say: we and 8 generations before us have incurred that debt, and we not only have to pay the interest in terms of positive feedback loops, but the massive principle.