Tweet
Livestreaming provided by We Act Radio
This Fall, Bill McKibben and 350.org are going on tour across America to build the movement we need to face the crisis of climate change.
On Nov. 18th, Bill will be in Washington DC to present the terrifying new math of climate change and unveil a plan for how we can rise to this planetary challenge.
Bill will be joined by friends from across the climate movement and beyond to explain how together we can confront the fossil fuel industry, using lessons from the most successful movements of the past century and the past year of dramatic new actions against the industry across the country.
Doors open at noon. Program starts at 1pm.
Livestream Schedule
→ Do The Math 1-3pm ET
→ March around the White House 3:15-4pm
→ Rally at the Ellipse 4-5pm
Visit math.350.org for more information about the tour and 350.org.
In partnership with Chesapeake Climate Action Network.
9 Comments
be here or be square
@billmckibben‘ s twitter feed
thank you sooo much for this.
It’s interesting that Bill and friends always wait for their Tarsands Pipeline President to leave town before they arrive at the White House for their Civil Obedience shows.
I hear this tour is going to hit many cities but not the one place where the pipeline is being blockaded, east Texas.
Thanks for broadcasting this, guys. We appreciate it.
Book Salon up with Sheila Bair’s Bull by the Horns: Fighting to Save Main Street From Wall Street and Wall Street From Itself hosted by James K Galbraith
Speaking of math, I hope Bill McKibben can read a graph. See, e.g., the graphs in Trends in global CO2 emissions; 2012 Report. The Chinese increased their CO2 production by 9% just last year. That’s, what, 1/4 of the earth’s population? Their per capita CO2 production is now on par with the European Union’s.
You would think that a guy who tells us the CO2 in the atmosphere needs to be reduced to 350 ppm, when it’s already at 394 ppm, might be just a tidge more concerned about that than he appears to be.
Does anybody know what McKibben’s plan is to put the brakes on Chinese CO2 production? AFAICT, it’s “set a good example in the West”, which ain’t too realistic. Not for somebody who desperately believes in imminent tipping points.
I find the CO2 climate catastrophists unwillingness to deal realistically with the implications of 3rd world CO2 production, in light of their professed CO2 pessimism, to be appalling. (Their tendency to smear honest scientists who don’t hew to their political agenda is also appalling. In McKibben’s case, he also denies the extent of the dissidence from his preferred doomsday scenarios. Given that he’s a ‘full-timer’, he has no excuse for any such apparent ignorance. He is just telling a Big Lie.) While their pet theory may be vacuous (e.g., no statistically significant global warming in the last 16 years), there’s certainly a need to develop clean energy sources, sufficiently dense to power a modern civilization, that doesn’t involve drilling in the bottom of oceans, piping tar sands goo across the continental United States, and fracking up our water tables.
Here in NJ there’s a fusion scientist who has beat the big hot fusion projects, and who has to waste time and money trying to get funding. Meanwhile, Australia has a carbon tax, which socks an Australian family of 4 to the tune of $2,500 per year * – whereas even eliminating all of Australia’s emissions might prevent planetary warming of 0.01 deg. C by 2100. That carbon tax is generating $13.8 billion per year.
What could possibly be wrong with this picture? Anybody care to take a guess?
More to the point of this comment: What could possibly be wrong with Bill McKibben not making these points, himself?
Here’s something else that Bill McKibben could look into, and champion the rapid development and deployment of, but surely won’t. So-called “cold fusion”. After all, why seriously entertain technological seduction scenarios for Asia, when China has already shown itself to be so eager to curtail CO2 emissions? Just because Eric Lerner’s small hot fusion will produce no CO2, and just because a so-called cold fusion LENR device will produce no CO2, history shows we can greatly rely on China’s good Boy Scout behavior.
Right?
*Assuming a tax rate of $25/tonne of CO2, and Australia’s emissions being 550 million tonnes, indicates a total cost of $13.8 billion. Spread across a population of 22 million persons, that equates with $627/person/year. ”
Oy, Meta Cold Fusion again? How do you expect anyone to take you seriously here when your fall back is LOL COLD FUSION.
Yet another scientific ignoramus, who won’t even bother reading the simplified language of a popularized article.
Or perhaps
is too abstruse for you to process, eh?
Not that I trust NASA, after their {cough} {cough} research into superconducting rotating discs, for gravity shielding effects. However, even if the purpose of them spending 200K is to kill interest, it would still show an interest in covering up something - to the tune of 200K.
You don’t spend $200K to either cover up, or honestly explore, an impossible fairy tale.