If U.S. carbon pollution plays a central role in rendering large parts of Mexico and Central America virtually uninhabitable, what will that mean for Homeland Security? And will we have some moral obligation to change our immigration policy?
The two greatest myths about global warming communications are 1) constant repetition of doomsday messages has been a major, ongoing strategy and 2) that strategy doesn't work and indeed is actually counterproductive.
The strategy Bill Gates lays out for his $42 billion Foundation -- largely ignore the climate problem while suggesting action isn't urgent -- is the one most likely to undo his goal of ensuring the long-term health and economic well-being of the world's poorest nations.
Two pessimistic National Academy reports on "geoengineering" reject the term because “we felt ‘engineering’ implied a level of control that is illusory.” They find "There is no substitute for dramatic reductions in the emissions of CO2 ... to mitigate the negative consequences of climate change."
If you feel a moral obligation to embrace science-based strategies to protect “unsuspecting infants” from serious dangers, should you be more concerned about those who oppose mandatory vaccinations for childhood diseases or those who oppose mandatory action against climate change?