The Impacts Of Climate Change Are Here, And The Government Needs To Take Action 1

The Impacts Of Climate Change Are Here, And The Government Needs To Take Action

 

New York Times reporter Anne Barnard joins MSNBC's Yasmin Vossoughian to discuss how Americans across the country, particularly low-income families, are dealing with the effects of climate change and how the government needs to step up to the plate and make changes before it's too late."» Subscribe to MSNBC:

MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com:
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter:
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

#ClimateChange #Politics #USA

The Impacts Of Climate Change Are Here, And The Government Needs To Take Action

82 comments

  1. “Self interest is for the past; common interest is for the future.” D. Attenborough
    Lu’sè Changcheng (Great green wall) can be seen from space.
    A fire from a US gender reveal party was seen from space.
    Start using goats to clear forest brush and start dobbing in Fire Karens.

    1. DJ. Climate change focus might somehow deflect the absolute ineptitude of this administration. Let’s keep on virus and climate topics. All other topics , optically, are killing us. Stay strong , patriot

    2. Or we can supply our military with Orange rakes manufactured in China for DJT Forest Clearing Co.
      DJT “ We should do what they do in Norway. Rake the forest.” Create environmental jobs.

  2. Sorry folks, it’s too late. Greed, selfishness and science denial have combined to make an unsolvable problem. Unless a benevolent AI comes along and decides to save us, humans are screwed. And we deserve it.

    1. @Piotr Trebisz Thanks Pete. I did, indeed read it all. I copied and pasted it in an ascii document for my desktop as well so I’m sure to explore later.

      You have changed my perception of ‘hope’ and I will be looking deeply into these forsaken developments

    2. @Larry Jensen Thoughts and prayers didn’t contribute to global warming, but science did. Try to follow along

    3. @Typical MSM viewer whatchu tryna say? Science deniers caused the lag in addressing it. Are you saying artificial intelligence is not the answer? We could talk about that

    4. @Larry Jensen I’m trying to say that a vague belief in “science” is as useless as “thoughts and prayers” in addressing climate change. Oil companies employ scientists who are paid to spread misinformation, or if they’re honest their findings are suppressed in favor of business as usual. The unprecedented scientific consensus on climate change has not made a dent in rising CO2 levels in decades. When the majority of scientists are employed to preserve the status quo, the majority of R&D won’t go towards a paradigm shift. There’s no money in the solution, and sacrifice doesn’t sell. I agree with you that there is technology that could help, but unless big business+government can find a profit motive on it, nothing will change.

  3. I’ve been hearing about climate change since the early 1970’s when I was a kid…. it scared me then, and it scares me now !!!!

    1. @Piotr Trebisz Dupont is also responsible with regard to chloroflorocarbons. After promising to self regulate production when the science of ozone depletion became clear they ignored the multiple antarctic expeditions measuring the hole and even up to days before the Montreal protocol was ratified claimed that ozone levels above american cities was at full thickness there was no danger. They argued that we could just wear sunscreen and glasses and deal with it.

    2. @Das Pirat And what do we learn from the lesson with the chlorofluorocarbons? We learn that if there is political will then the industry can be forced to use better alternative methods. Unfortunatelly the fossil fuel industry is much bigger than the chlorofluorocarbon industry so that regulations were not put into practice. As you have probably read in my comment today there are new companies outside of the established fossil fuel industry which finally use the Kværner process and Methane pyrolysis. They will replace the dinosaurs who will be sued out of existence soon anyway. Here in Germany the first large scale law suits against the fossil fuel industry were already successful. I hope that this will inspire Americans to do the same, simply because there is a lot of money to get, trillions of dollars for reparations.

    3. @Piotr Trebisz Dupont fought tooth and nail over 2% of their yearly revenue CFC-12. In the end they made more money making replacements but the lack of fear is what’s terrifying. Yes the consequences are devastating but are we 1000% sure? What a sick and disgusting way to make life and death decisions. Incredibly irresponsible

    4. @David Hale There’s an old saying: Smart people try to learn everything and anything they can. People of average intelligence learn from experience. Stupid people already thing they know everything. You are the latter.

  4. The government needs to take action? Your talking about the US government who in my almost fifty years has refused to fix affordable health care, affordable housing, but has repeatedly made the richer wealthier and spent trillions on useless conflicts.

    1. I gonna tell you something that is unfortunatelly not covered in the media when it comes to climate change. And believe me, it’s worth to read this entire comment to the end, even if it takes a few minutes. Internal documents of fossil fuel companies prove that they were already concerned in the 1950s about possible consequences of CO2 emissions for the Earth’s climate. Furthermore internal documents of fossil fuel companies from the 1970s prove that at this time these concerns have already become a certainty for them. That means that already in the 1970s the fossil fuel industry KNEW that CO2 emissions will cause a dramatic climate change. And now let’s take a look on what could have been done against it in the 1950s until the 1980s:

      The Smith-Putnam wind turbine from 1941 was the first wind turbine with a power of 1.25 megawatt. Typical modern on-shore wind turbines in Germany have a power of 2 to 5 megawatts. As you can see it was possible to build really good wind turbines already in 1941. If development of wind turbines continued after 1941 then wind turbines as good as our modern on-shore wind turbines could have been available already in the 1960s or 1970s. Wind power back then could have been combined with technologies which I will describe in the following sections.

      The “Kværner process” is a technology originally developed in Norway in the 1980s to split hydrocarbons like gas & oil into clean CO2-free hydrogen and solid carbon which can be safely buried again as a waste product. It is a method which uses electricity and it takes 75 kilojoules of electric energy to convert 1 mole of methane into an amount of hydrogen with an energy content of 570 kilojoules. Currently it is in fact the most energy efficient way to produce hydrogen, 7.6 times more energy efficient than electrolysis of water and even more energy efficient than steam-reforming which today is the state-of-the-art method used in the industry. The start-up “Monolith Materials” and their partner Mitsubishi opened a commercial clean hydrogen plant this year in Nebraska which uses the “Kværner process” and they plan to open 30 more plants in the coming years. Hydrogen can be used as a clean CO2-free fuel for cars, trains, ships & airplanes, it is used in the production of ammonia for fertilizers, in Germany and Sweden it is already used to make steel without CO2 emissions and it can be used for heating.

      Another method called “Methane Pyrolysis” is known even earlier since the 1960s. “Methane Pyrolysis” does the same as the “Kværner process” but uses heat instead of electricity and has a similar energy efficiency. Although it contains “Methane” in its name it is as well perfectly suitable to process higher hydrocarbons like oil. In 2020 the german chemical company BASF has announced that they have developed “Methane Pyrolysis” to the point where it can be commercialized. In the future natural gas from Russia will be processed to clean CO2-free hydrogen which will be used in the german industry to produce CO2-free steel and for the heating of homes.

      Now these two technologies target hydrocarbons. However there also exists a technology called “Direct Carbon Fuel Cell”. A direct carbon fuel cell is a fuel cell which uses coal instead of hydrogen. The first patent for such a fuel cell was granted in 1896 to William W. Jacques, US Patent 555,511. Now a direct carbon fuel cell does produce CO2 because it oxidizes coal, however its efficiency is twice the efficiency of a conventional combustion based generator. This means that one can use only half as much coal for the same amount of power as in conventional coal power plants. Furthermore a direct carbon fuel cell produces a concentrated stream of 100% pure CO2 as exhaust. One can therefore capture the exhaust directly without any complicated & energy intensive additional steps. This CO2 can then be either pumped into empty oil & gas fields, so that it is not released to the atmosphere, or it can be used as an ingredient for carbon-negative concrete like “Carbicrete” from Canada.

      So what does all this means? Not only did the fossil fuel industry know about the disastrous consequences of their CO2 emissions, they also already had the technologies to fix this problem decades ago. The fossil fuel industry has spent billions and billions over the decades to influence politicians so that effective measures against climate change were not put into practice. They could have used the money for R&D instead so that the “Kværner process”, “Methane Pyrolysis” and “Direct Carbon Fuel Cells” could have been used already decades ago. This way they could have been able to continue their business, making money AND contribute to climate protection.

    2. The “Lockheed CL-400 Suntan” was a reconnaissance aircraft developed in the 1950s with liquid hydrogen propulsion. In the end the CIA opted against it because the “SR-71 Blackbird” with its conventional kerosine fuel was cheaper. But the airframe, the tanks & the engines of “Suntan” were fully developed and successfully tested. This was in the 1950s which means that with government support liquid hydrogen powered passenger jets for commercial airlines could have been available already in the 1970s or 1980s. At this time the liquid hydrogen fuel could have been produced in sufficient quantities from oil & gas – either with nuclear power or renewable energy – with methane pyrolysis and the kværner process which were already known at this time and which I have described in my previous post. Instead we still fly on Kerosine and civil aviation has become a major source of emissions.

    3. @Jerry Stephenson Yes, until even the last man-made climate change denier understands that he has been bamboozled by the fossil fuel industry.

  5. I remember that the US pulled out of the Kyoto protocol in 2012, and in 2017 the orange jerk President withdrew from Paris Agreement.

  6. Look at the reaction biden got when he just mentioned we need to stop using fossil fuels. USA doesn’t care enough yet

    1. @mk China will probably end up leading the way unfortunately… I’m an individual so I can only do so much… it takes a collective

    2. @Anna we have data on global deaths from all climate-related weather disasters such as floods, droughts, storms and fire from the international disaster database. In the 1920s, these disasters killed almost half a million people on average each year. The current climate narrative would suggest that natural disasters are ever deadlier, but that’s isn’t true. The past century climate-related deaths have dropped to fewer than 20,000 even thou the global population has quadrupled. We must be doing something right.

    3. @Skedaddle there’s about a century worth of innovation and technology that you’re neglecting from that dog bone statistic. Just the advances on medical alone was a game changer, let alone engineering and construction.

    4. You have to talk to people on the level they understand or are ready to believe. Otherwise you get met with disbelief and accusations that those rich guys are trying to trick us again. So if you want to build the infrastructure of tomorrow, I am sure people will go along with that. But if you want to hike up their gas and electric prices and sell them electric cars they cannot afford yet … expect some resistance. The problem being … no one knows what he is talking about when he says we have to deal with this weather change. In some circles that is just crazy talk.

    5. @Google User yes but really, how hard is it to WANT to institute more charging stations? Think about that. It costs more to build a fossil fuel gas station pump than it does to build a charging station. It has nothing to do with “Can’t”. The US and her corporations just don’t WANT to. The sun alone is all the nuclear reactor power we need to advance on the Kerdorshav scale and become a society wholly dependent on solar, and wind, for that matter. We just don’t want to. We’re like pouty children in a sandbox. “waaaaah, I don’t want the green army man, I want the G.I. Joe”. Yeah…that’s the US.

  7. Just now? The oil industry predicted this would happen in the 1970’s. Don’t make it seem like this is a “new” thing just being discovered.

    1. @Ash Roskell You actually compared 6 paragraphs to the “Library of Congress” LMAOOOOOO

      _”But, please, whatever you do, DON’T act like you, ‘care,’ about this stuff, if you think you can palm it off to the politicians who get PAID to keep the oil flowing? Spare me that?”_

      Nice straw man.

      Piotr Tresbisz actually bothered to do research and present valid information that presents viable ways to mitigate the high levels of chloroflorocarbons, and all you can say is ‘NOT GOOD ENOUGH’ and laughably suggest that all people everywhere can be magically convinced to stop being human and doing what they want, i.e. using electricity or driving cars.
      Your solution isn’t a solution at all, just wishful thinking.

    2. @Wisconsin Man Emissions only dropped because of tRump’s pandemic shutdowns. PCA had nothing to do with it. His withdrawal from it was irresponsible and set back those efforts by years.

    3. @The Hermit OMG. Then the EU’s should have dropped dramatically as well huh? Thought you had a good comeback didn’t you. The drop was shown BEFORE the Wuhan Flu farce.

    1. @Cape Fear Sure sure, the president who has permitted more oil drilling in 8 months than Trump did in 4 years
      & who told big-business leaders that “nothing will fundamentally change” can fix this

    2. @Jerry Stephenson I merely pointed out that you were being a hypocrite. Comprehension isn’t your strong suite is it?

    3. @Cape Fear planting trees all over the world would help climate change but it’s equlity changes the weather um climate the sane as it’s been here it’s august it’s hurricane season sept too if they have a hurricane in January then I’d worry

    4. @Jay Buck I agree. I’m convinced that, in the grand scheme of things, we as a civilization are literally a “blink and you’ll miss it” nano-era in the history of Earth.

    1. Because they do nothing or because they are so out of touch with the voters, they go opposite of what voters want?

    2. Why would they? 90% of all Dems and Republicans are in the pocket of their donors. And the fossil fuel industry are the biggest donors out their. Ted Cruz gets more money from Big Oil than any other politician. Are you really surprised that the Texas grid failed during a flash freeze?

    1. @The Globalist Channel hehe, hey you found one of the oldest conspiracy theorist on the internet here. I quit using other people’s conclusions soon after 911 and began to study the phenomenon.
      Interested?

    2. @The Hermit Well, your government does a lot of things that aound fake bur are more real than nothing like Child you know what. I personally seen human hunting by the royals in Britain. I dont think how low the bar is for this people.

    3. @The Globalist Channel You’re obviously not a US citizen, so you shouldn’t be interfering in our politics.
      “Child you know what” No I don’t know and neither do you.
      Nor do I believe that the Royal family of Britain were human hunting, unless they were playing hide and seek.
      Don’t spew your BS in my direction.

  8. I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no hope. Too many science-illiterate people with a grossly exagerated sense of entitlement will ensure we’re all doomed.

    1. @Censorship Is real : Who said ANYTHING about having a, “problem,” with, “gas and oil production,” madam? Why are you Trumpophiles always such Drama Queens? We’re talking about responsible practices, in our own backyard. And, these company’s behaviours will change globally, if they change at all, or did you not know they were INTERNATIONAL concerns? Get some perspective, kid?

    2. @Coldwynn Frost But the issue with explaining things to someone who “doesn’t speak [your] language” is that if you don’t plan your wording, you’ll sound like Charlie Brown’s schoolteacher. If you have one chance to explain, try to do so in 3 sentences or less.

  9. Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

    Charles Darwin

  10. As long as Republicans take an anti-science stance on, well, just about everything, it’s hard to imagine a time in the near future when we will ever be ready to tackle climate change as a country. The same people who refuse vaccines and masks in a worldwide pandemic will extend the same cluelessness toward any climate change mitigation efforts. Because of this I believe we are doomed as a country.

    1. If you believe that Republicans don’t believe in science why is it that we know for a fact that there’s only a thing called a boy and a girl?

    2. Reducing the gender identity of all humans into 2 absolute categories is an oversimplification worthy of 3rd-grade biology. Actual biology tells us that things are much more complicated, in humans and other animals.

    3. @MyndGod AndPsyche Yet you’ve completely forgotten your fourth grade lesson about germs and how they spread – and because of that, COVID 19 ravages our country. But yeah, you keep patting yourself on the back for knowing the difference between a boy and girl.

    4. @Poor Finian it did the same to almost every country. Look at Europe. They did just as bad. Some people act like this country was the worst for covid but it’s just the media narrative. The death rate was about the same anywhere that there are big cities. Not islands like New Zealand.

  11. “America is the greatest country on earth.” When we stop claiming that, then maybe we can start doing more about it. As long as we live in denial about our greatness, not much will change. America can’t fight climate change with the “world’s best military.” When America leads the fight against climate change with all its might, we will be “Great Again,” and perhaps become the “Greatest Country On Earth.”

  12. When you can come up with a solution to global warming that doesn’t read like a socialist manifesto, we can talk. Until then, I’m not buying it.

  13. Maybe “Dutch Boy” can “save” us from the same storms that come and go every year.
    Democrats “climate change” argument is legit gaslighting.

    1. Gaslighting it’s a description of a verbal transaction between two parties, where a person is told not to trust their own instincts.

    2. The “same” storms have grown in intensity until the tundra and permafrost are burning , and my hometown in oregon experiences 116 degree temps before summer this year and the ice caps are melting faster than in history we were recording PRIOR and during industial age. Read a fckng book you trailer park hobo

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.