According to data from NASA, last month was again the hottest month since records have, according to the same data, and is ten months (fourteen according to NOAA has not yet published the details of last month).
We are located just 0.2 degrees of another of the red lines of climate change and without anything that we can do. Therefore, there are voices that are beginning to ask whether we should declare war on climate change. Literally. Because, whether we recognize it or not, you may already be at war.
A historic streak that never seems to end
As usual, NASA temperatures combine the temperature of the sea surface and air temperatures. The results place July 2016 0.84 degrees above average joules between 1951 and 1980 and 0.11 degrees above July 2015.
This not only confirms the forecasts already take for granted that 2016 will be the warmest year since the nineteenth century. And even discounting the effect increasingly soft (0.2 by David Karol and the University of Melbourne) data are very high. Too. And everything suggests that the measures we have in place will not be able to meet its objectives.
We are in war?
In late June, a historic storm killed more than 26 people in West Virginia. The video that is on these lines gives a picture of the scale of the tragedy. Unfortunately we are accustomed to scenes how are you . A few months ago, the New York Times published a brutal report on Kiribati, a small island in the Pacific republic struggling to survive climate change tooth and nail. There are breathtaking photos.
If I remember the floods of Virginia is not because they are the most dramatic, but a statement from police spokesman: “It looked like a war zone”. “Because it is,” responded Bill McKibben.
McKibben is an American environmentalist known best known for his work on the impact of climate change. A few days ago he published a lengthy defense of the need to declare war on climate change as the only realistic solution. From their point of view, “the Third World War is already underway and we are losing.”
We must recognize that the approach is risky. And the parallels drawn with World War II at times is too forced. But more and more voices fear that without a real and determined mobilization cannot stop the warming.
You may also like to read another article on Tiffany-Hines: Climate change and us: Visual chronicle of a disaster foretold
“We want you …”
In fact, the claim of the ‘War on climate change’, far from being a martial approach would point out that much greater efforts that are needed are doing. As McKibben says, “the defeat of the Nazis required more than brave soldiers. An entire industrial restructuring was necessary.” A social conversion, dare I say. And it is here where the war against climate change acquires its full meaning.
In recent decades, we have declared war on things like drugs, poverty and terrorism. All these enemies, despite their gravity and urgency, had a potentially less than that of climate change destructive power. Yet these “wars” entailed legislative changes, the creation of new government agencies and the persistent search for new ways to solve the problem.
They entailed, or carry, deep social retrofits to achieve their goals. Does it make sense, given the urgency to warn all the experts, such a step against climate change? We cannot know what will happen, but it seems that the day when we are forced to declare that war is getting closer.