He points out that «it is in their best interests to collaborate on climate restoration, since they would suffer the catastrophic
consequences of unchecked climate change just as much as everyone else.
What I think he pinpoints is that a sense of fairness and human dignity is a more powerful political motivator than the promise of an infinitely expanding supply of material goods (a promise that anyway looks increasingly hollow in the light of what scientists tell us of the likely
impacts of unchecked climate change).
My article cites a morning speech delivered to the gathering by Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain in which he stressed that the atmosphere does not negotiate: «We can not compromise with the
catastrophe of unchecked climate change, so we must compromise with one another,» he said.
And instead of «almost legitimizing denialists,» by failing to confront them aggressively and by the way he has ducked serious discussion of the
threat of unchecked climate change, Hansen says: «The president should unequivocally support the climate science community, which is under politically orchestrated assault on the legitimacy of its scientific assessments.
In an interview with BBC, Office of Science and Technology Policy director John Marburger made some welcome straightforward statements, for a change, based on scientific assessment of the
danger of unchecked climate change.
The new study, published in the peer - reviewed journal Nature Climate Change, used economic modelling to estimate the impact
of unchecked climate change.
Those who have steered Obama in the tactical direction of talking about the need for a clean energy transformation as if this challenge could be addressed without recognizing that it is intertwined with climate science and the consequences
of unchecked climate change have put things on the wrong track.
The consequences
of unchecked climate change will be dire.