When you know there's a big upcoming threat, how do you get big institutions to commit and follow through? And in particular, how useful is it to frighten whole populaces? Someone in a MetaTalk discussion of doom-saying and climate change made a claim that led me to ask: how did institutions get convinced to take the Year 2000 problem seriously and mitigate it? Was widespread consumer panic a necessary precondition? Would similar preconditions need to hold in order for institutions to take climate change seriously? I investigated the research literature and wrote up my findings in a blog post.
I have organized a campaign to get thousands of young people to sign on to an Amicus (Friend of the Court) brief that they will file with the 9th Circuit in support of the Juliana Plaintiffs in the Children’s Climate Lawsuit. This is an amazing lawsuit filed by 21 kids, demanding their right to life and liberty which is threatened by government policies abetting climate change. We’ve gathered a team of constitutional scholars to write our brief, and just went live with a powerful video we shot with the kids. The brief will be filed on behalf of Zero Hour, a worldwide youth-led climate action movement. This case could be the Obergefell (marriage equality) of climate. Will almost definitely reach the Supreme Court. Any help I could get with publicizing this, especially to young people who can sign our brief, would be greatly appreciated. Website is above, which contains a link to our video (Twitter), also here (Facebook) and buttons for sharing. Thanks!
A little sci-fi horror short story to enjoy poolside. TW: Death camps, climate change, video games. [more inside]
Hi everybody - we just launched Decarboni.se - a site that is collecting and organizing the world's solutions to climate change. We have over 17,000 resources online already and we're growing quickly. Thanks for your support Metafilter.
A lot of people think Larry Summers was forced to resign from Harvard for saying women can't do math. That is BS. When the Teresa Sullivan was abruptly fired from the presidency of the University of Virginia earlier this summer, the explanations offered up by the media were no less ridiculous: it was because Sullivan lacked "strategic dynamism" which was possibly code for "she's too fat to run a school Newsweek had named hottest college for fitness, or maybe the Board was still sore over that Lady Gaga class. But when students and professors returned from summer sabbaticals to protest the ouster on a campus more generally associated with Abercrombie & Fitch catalogs and killer lacrosse players, I knew something bigger and more existential was at stake. Specifically, I wondered if the ouster had anything to do with climate science and the state attorney general Kevin Cuccinelli's two year jihad against former UVA climate scientist Michael Mann of "hockey stick" fame. Well, it sure looks like the Board had a bigger beef with climate science than Lady Gaga studies! But now that I've amassed a pretty damning amount of evidence suggesting my instincts were correct, I can only assume the traditional media is persisting with its ridiculous 'Mean Girls' narrative of the clash because it has been intimidated by the over-the-top tantrums and libel lawsuit promises of the coup's conspirators. But while the papers speculate that Sullivan was the victim of "plus sized bullying" from the Board's svelte Rector Helen Dragas, the evidence suggests that UVA has mostly been bullied by its former extension campus—and hotbed of climate science denial—George Mason University. I have no personal stake in UVA's reputation—I rejected it at 17 on grounds it was "too fratty" and was immediately hoisted on my own petard by my first choice University of Pennsylvania—but I do believe it would be a profound loss to my home state if Thomas Jefferson's University went the way of its highly corporatized cousins, so I've been reporting on the saga pro bono at my personal site Das Krapital, dedicated loosely to the mission of unmasking (and mocking) corporate propaganda wherever I can still muster the outrage to do so.
This has been up here before, but (by popular demand) I've now extended it to cover sea level rise scenarios up to +60m. So now you can work out where the best seafront property will be when Antarctica melts...