..The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is nothing more than bureaucratic red tape that does nothing to improve air quality,” said EPA Administrator Zeldin…
Must be so frustrating to have joined an organization dedicated to monitoring the environment, only to watch some jerks tear it down from the inside.
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/03/politics/video/administrator-...
There is no indication that we will, no matter the administration, as a society/civilization/species will do a single thing to avert the worst case climate scenarios.
And, at this point, to do so would cause, at least in the short term, just as much harm as the impact of climate change, no matter how severe, will in our lifetimes.
The previous administration had plenty of "green" rhetoric, but nothing about the situation we're in improved and there is zero evidence it will. I personally don't see a lot of difference between "pretending things are good" and "ignoring that things are bad".
Besides, there's very little chance that climate change will do tremendous damage to our civilization, as the build up to those impacts will likely be preceded by increasingly aggressively and destructive global conflict. We're already seeing this happen before our eyes. The humans that climate change will drive to extinction will be the small number of "survivors" of whatever happens on the way there.
I don't think that's fair. Other countries have made considerable progress at getting to their climate goals, although there's an argument that those goals weren't set high enough or near enough. As much as China is still an environmental trainwreck they've made impressive progress on air pollution.
Because the US is such a huge polluter, I think a US administration that was seriously interested in dealing with climate change and willing to say no to billionaires would make a meaningful difference. We've seen investment in "green" do well for other countries, and even here to a lesser extent.
I suspect that climate change will do tremendous damage to our civilization, and that any global conflict which takes place as that damage progresses will only exacerbate things. The damage caused by climate change will certainly bring about new conflicts as well. Billions of climate refugees will be forced from their homes and need to go somewhere, and even the places they try to flee to will be hit with natural disasters and feel increasing pressure as once heavily populated areas will become less habitable due to heat, desertification, fire, flooding, storms, a lack of drinking water, etc.
I think that however dark the times ahead are, our actions right now will matter, and that's especially true if we just admit defeat and accept powerful people making the situation much worse by plundering and hording as much as they possibly can.
I think your position is based on very cynical premises. There is no reason to assume with high confidence that humans will obliterate each other in that next 50 years (especially if we do something about one of the major stressors causing conflict)
There is also no reason to believe that reducing greenhouse gas emissions over 15-20 years will cause "more" damage than the worst impacts of climate change? Can you cite sources on this claim?
It is still possible to mitigate the worst effects of anthropogenic climate change.
How I wish people could believe in America, in liberty and the project of civilization and democracy. It just feels like that has slipped so much, that people want (have been incited into wanting) something narrow and different.
mitchbob•1h ago