The New York Times editorial board:
the world’s most authoritative voice on climate change asserts that significant progress toward stabilizing and reducing global warming emissions can be achieved at a relatively low cost using known technologies.
The Los Angeles Times front-page story:
A United Nations panel on Friday released its most comprehensive strategy to avoid the catastrophic effects of global warming, but experts said political and economic realities likely doom it to failure.
Hope vs. Experience? Propaganda vs. Fact?
I must say, the idea that reducing the very real and escalating risks of climate change will be easy seems to me to be fatuous. Is it wrong to say so? (That’s not what the NYTimes editorial actually says, to be fair, and the risks of the do-nothing policy the U.S. is following at present are huge, but the implication remains.)
For those of us who believe in facing facts, this conflict (between the low chances for real action and the apparent need to claim real action won’t be difficult) will not go away.
Kit Stolz 