Home > In the news > McKibben op-ed on threat to Arctic refuge in LA Times

McKibben op-ed on threat to Arctic refuge in LA Times

October 25, 2017

Post Carbon Fellow Bill McKibben’s op-ed on the Arctic wildlife refuge and the role of the Citizens Climate Lobby appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

From the article:

…we are in a season of wreckage right now in Washington, and so there is real risk that the budget now under consideration will allow oilmen into that refuge. In fact, the final decision may come down to a small group of House Republicans who have announced that they’re interested in “climate solutions.” With the heroic help of the Citizens Climate Lobby, which turns 10 this fall, 60 members of Congress — 30 from each party — have been persuaded to join a caucus that aims “to educate members on economically viable options to reduce climate risk and protect our nation’s economy.”

READ FULL ARTICLE  

  • NJ Hagens

    “With the heroic help …30 from each party — have been persuaded to join a caucus that aims “to educate members on economically viable options to reduce climate risk and protect our nation’s economy.”

    Until we have a REAL conversation based on physical and behavioral REALITY, we will just build a bigger heat engine. There is no strategy that will mitigate climate, and grow our economy. Period. (not to mention non-climat related mass extinction). In any case there is no climate friendly strategy that aggregate population will vote on because 95% of our economy (aka brain services) is based on energy and 85% of our energy is carbon based. Odds of us VOTING to keep carbon in the ground is less than going to Vegas with $5 expecting to break the bank. What might happen is we will respond to a crisis when our financial claims revert back to physical representations of whats left resource wise. The related drop in consumption and knock-on impacts MIGHT be enough to stave off the worst of climate – but what it will require is completely different physical and psychological changes to our economy and expectations – we’ll have to live with 1/3-1/2 less (on average). This won’t be chosen, it will be a necessity. Until we start having serious high level conversations on what this might look like, the current narrative reflected in the above quote is just an exercise in ‘what should happen’ because it feels good to the tribe instead of the far more relevant ‘what will’.