The video below is the optimistic Andrew Jones of the Sustainability Institute. He uses a simulation he and others created to tell a story of hope and possibility for addressing climate change, using an approach developed at MIT.
The interactive simulator, C-ROADS, has been scientifically reviewed, is being used by the U.S. State Department, and is available on the web at http://climateinteractive.org“. Jones is definitely a non-doom and gloomer, so if you are sinking into despair that the world is not doing enough on climate change, watch this. He thinks the Waxman-Markey bill is going to actually cut greenhouse emissions by 73% and cap emissions by 2020 or 2025. (That won’t happen unless a major earthshaking change in our politics happens). He also thinks it’s great that President Obama might go to Copenhagen in December. Well, I suppose that’s possible. We do know President Obama is going to Copenhagen to plead with the Olympics Committee to host the Olympics in Chicago in 2016. I wish he cared that much about climate change!
Mr. Jones is very optimistic that action on climate change will be adequate. I don’t think Americans, or the world, are going to do enough, in time. Let’s hope he’s right: “We are going to do this!” – and I’m wrong.
Actually, I find this type of optimism kind of sad. It’s not yet time to give up, but it’s also likely time to think about adaptation and survival skills. Our leader doesn’t seem to have the will to get this done.
Then again, every now and then you hope your quarterback can pull of the perfect throw in the last 2 seconds of the game and he actually does it. (I didn’t expect much from Brett Favre this year and I was wrong to be pessimistic!)
For more of Drew Jones’s work, click here. Video originally posted on Climate Progress.
I’m with you, kid. Adapt and survive are indeed the new order our children and grandchildren will have to endure.
Yeah, I don’t think a simulation takes into account the lack of conviction and understanding of our politicians and how skittish they are on spending money on a scientific issue that their constituents don’t understand . . .