Urgency
Recall
that in 2018, the UN tried to warn the world leaders that we have only 11 years
left to cut GHG emissions by 50% worldwide to prevent what they call disastrous
consequences (in other words, to cut GHG emissions by 50% worldwide by
2029).
Realistically, that means the US needs to cut GHG emissions 5 years sooner (ie. by around 2024) in order to lead the rest of the world on that path.
The reason that I think the US needs to be a world leader in my opinion is that it is a fact that the US has numerous military bases in over 135 countries around the world and seems relentless in attempting to exert its influence in almost every other country around the world. No other country that I am aware of has that many military bases and is exerting as much influence on a global scale.
The usual story we hear from the global elites is that it is impossible to achieve this goal (cut GHG emissions in the US by 50% by 2024, let alone achieve net zero emissions by 2025, which is one of the goals of Extinction Rebellion). We started hearing this narrative in the UK during April 2019 during the press releases after the UK declared a climate emergency as a direct response to the actions of Extinction Rebellion. In the article link above, the following pull quote demonstrates this:
"Some in the UK government have already dismissed the XR demand, claiming that net zero by 2025 is politically impossible. 'Yes, you could decarbonize Britain by 2025 but the cost of implementing such vast changes at that speed would be massive and hugely unpopular,' Turner told the Observer."
The fact of the matter is, visionaries such as Roger Hallam of Extinction Rebellion and many others get little to no coverage by the media and popular conversation and those visionaries who actually see a way that we could completely decarbonize by 2025 are consistently and constantly discredited and muzzled and their ideas never reach mainstream media.
Plans such as my overall action plan and my idea of what to implement in the first 100 hours for an elected president to implement using executive orders (like the way Trump did) are actually quite realistic, realizable, and necessary (based on the UN's warning (see above)), although the amount of upheaval and change is something that the current global elites find untasteful as it challenges their rigor mortis grip on power.
This is not an impossible dream. In 1942, the USA went from producing 100% cars to 100% tanks within 3 years. This proves that it would take no more than 3 years, if mandated by executive decision by the president of the USA, to transition from 100% free form cars to 100% electric vehicles. The necessity to prevent further catastrophic damage from global warming means this effort should be carried out immediately, in order to meet the goal of reducing GHG emissions by 50% by 2025, to give the world a chance to meet its goal of reducing GHG emissions by 50% by 2029, to prevent catastrophic consequences, as warned by the UN in 2018. After the USA meets its goal in 2025, it can turn and help other less able countries meet their goals by 2029.
We need problem-solvers to guide this path, not power-hungry aristocrats who want nothing more than to live out the rest of their years in the comfort they are used to, regardless of consequences.
Another article that I commonly point to is this one: world has six months to avert climate crisis climate expert says, which states: "The stimulus packages created this year will determine the shape of the global economy for the next three years, according to Birol, and within that time emissions must start to fall sharply and permanently or climate targets will be out of reach. "
In case that didn't sink in, please review again the bold portion above, which states that if within a year's time we do not cause emissions to fall sharply and permanently, then the climate targets will be out of reach, meaning very likely catastrophe and passed tipping points, which could make the surface of the planet inhospitable to life.
It is also important to review this article from the Union of Concerned Scientists: In this article, "it says the message of the science is that we have consistently underestimated the magnitude and speed of ecological impacts in the past, and that new and alarming feedbacks, tipping points and thresholds continue to be revealed as we learn more."
The plan that I and Sunflower Seed worked on for all of 2020 for Chicago and Elgin (the Direct Mailer initiative that we worked on for all of 2020 directly out of the Climate Emergency declaration as a necessary pre-requisite for all other actions) got no support from Chicago or Elgin leadership or activist communities yet even though I and many others that I am in contact with still believe it is the only way to really achieve a truly sustainable and civilized civilization (no other plan seeks to include more competent and sensible and less ambitious and ruthless people into the discussion and decision-making process).
Here is an E-mail that I sent to around 97 recipients in the Chicagoland area on February 26, 2021 with some further discussion of this first proposed step, which is still largely rejected so far by the Chicagoland community.
In the words
of Greta Thunberg:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The bigger your platform
- the bigger your responsibility. Adults keep saying: 'We
owe it to the young people to give them hope'. But I don't want your
hope. I don't want you to be
hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the
fear I feel every day. And then I want you to
act. I want you to act as you
would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our
house is on fire. Because it is." This page last updated on 8/3/2021 | |