Will Young, Immature Voters Give Us 4 More Years Of Trump? A Sobering Take From The FT

Colorado College students yell 'Obamanos!' on their way to the polls in November, 2008.  Twelve years later too many 18-29 years old see no difference between Trump and Joe Biden -according to an FT article.

Ah well!  Just when one garnered some hope - from watching the Dem convention - we'd finally be on our way to ousting Trump, there appears a disturbing Financial Times piece by Patti Waldmeir ('Youngest American Voters Dislike The Choice In Front Of Them').  To which my initial response was: 'Huh? What choice? There is no choice!'    If you are given the choice of four more years of Hitler Jr. and a normal Democratic administration - what friggin' choice is there?  If you have to pick between a Nazi -loving, white nationalist loving swine and a decent human - albeit 78 years of age-   how hard can that be?

Evidently, pretty damned hard for the youngsters who think a national election is the same as a beauty contest or election for Prom King.   According to Ms. Waldmeir:

"America's youngest voters could hold the key to whether the U.S. elects its  oldest president in history in November. But, as Democrats convene online for a pandemic-plagued conventionthis week, they must face the fact that Generation Z (loosely defined as those born between 1995 and 2015)   are far from thrilled with the choices before them. 

That could translate into  fewer of the youngest Americans bothering to vote at all. A recent Pew Research Center showed that among 18 to 29-year-olds, strong support for their presidential   candidate was almost the same whether that person was the Republican president"

  WTF!?  Are you kidding me?  "Strong support"  for a petty, authoritarian racist wannabe Hitler?  What? Are these kids on an opiate and MJ high?   Any assclown with  an I.Q. over 10 can see there ought to be ZERO support among the young for Trump!  He is the one who will ensure their student debts keep piling up as his GOP enablers increase loan interest rates if he gets re-elected. Further, the ACA will be totally dismantled so they will have NO health care, period.  Plus, by the end of a 2nd Trump term we can fully expect 670,000 plus dead from Covid -19, the same number killed during the Civil War.  These imps really want to go there? Really? Or are they too fucking drugged and dumb to care? (Like the lowbrow college kid caught yelping "It's just a hoax!" on the NBC News last night- when challenged on his partying.)

 In the real world where normal brains and intelligence operates the young voter ought to be pro -Biden by 99-1. At least!  Oh, and they literally ought to be dragging their scrawny asses over "broken glass" to get Trump voted out. To use the metaphor from the 2018 midterms.

Ms. Waldmeir then cites a Pew Research poll of these young sprats, which at least found a 1-point advantage of Biden over Trump:  11%  to 10%.  Be still my heart!  I can scarcely believe it! A whopping 1 point margin..  Maybe these kids at least have a measurable I.Q. - even if not Mensa level.

She goes on (ibid.):

"And in the Pew survey, 67 per cent of 18 to 29-year-olds do indeed put  themselves in the Biden camp. But a surprisingly high 30 per cent said they would either surely or possibly vote for Mr Trump, defying the  conventional wisdom that most Trump voters are older."

Again, one expects the younger vote would have more sense than aged Trumpie dotards, but evidently not.  I can only conclude from this that these Gen Z and Millennial voters are too low information to grasp the full dimension of the horrors Trump has already unleashed - and what he will if given a 2nd term to wreak havoc. 

"Even worse news for the Democrats: a Harris Poll conducted days before the convention found that 59 per cent of 18 to 39-year-olds said they would rather live in a socialist country  than a capitalist one, up 9 percentage points since last year. That could mean  only tepid support for the centrist Mr Biden, who ousted Bernie Sanders, the  favoured Democratic candidate among youthful socialists, in the primaries.

Speaking to Gen Zs from both ends of the political spectrum to find out how keen they are to vote, I learnt that some supporters of Mr Trump and the Democratic Socialists of America  have serious doubts.  Olivia Litzenberg, a 23-year-old DSA member from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where the Democratic convention is nominally being held, said the presumptive nominee most definitely will demotivate young voters.  You're not going to see us knocking doors for Biden!"

Uh, okay.  But can you at least get off your butts and bestir yourselves to vote for him?  As a long time DSA member myself, I also would have loved to have seen Bernie in the running, but also know the commie card would have been played against him big time by the Trump rats.  So the moderate voters we need to win in the general election would likely have themselves been demotivated to vote for a socialist.   But now, with Joe Biden the nominee, there is no luxury to pick and choose.  We have got to get rid of the embryonic Hitler in the White House, e.g.

Waldmeir quoting Lutzenberg again:

"She added, I am transgender, and living another four years under Trump will be directly deleterious to my standard of living. "

Standard of living?  How about being forced into a gender re-education camp guarded by QAnon recruits?    Think this is a joke?  Look at the history of how Nazi Germany came to be when the Reich laws replaced the normal ones.  And hey, anyone with even a normal I.Q. will grasp if he wins re-election Trump will be totally unfettered with no more elections to face.    

Even more degraded by 'stupid' (ibid.):

"Biden is the back to normal, and the normal sucked!"

Sucked more than the concentration camps you will get with Trump?  The slop you will have to eat in those camps, and the horrific treatment the QAnon guards will mete out to "make this trans kid cry"?

And of course there's the usual purist bellyaching - again disclosing radical immaturity and only rudimentary frontal lobes:

"Ms Litzenberg's partner, Pamela Westphal, 21, says the fact that Mr Sanders did not become the candidate was a wake-up call for a lot of young people, who felt that the system is failing us. She thinks Democratic turnout will be  suppressed. adding, 'I haven't met too many young people who are too gung-ho for Biden."

Awwww....poor widdo, disappointed kiddies.  You didn't get your guy picked in the primaries (never mind more voted for Biden, especially African Americans) and now you want to throw your sippy cups on the floor.  Or have another four years of Trump's horrors and Covid deaths.

As I wrote  in my June 16 post;

 "Here's what few of these idealist voters (and not- yet voters) don't get:  Not voting, going only the protest route instead, leaves the door open for much WORSE actors and outcomes. Exhibit A: Donald J. Trump.  In the words of a recent TIME essay (June 15, p. 30):

"If the George Floyd video was the match and the coronavirus the kindling, Donald Trump provided the gasoline. Since the start of his term Trump has turned the Oval Office into an instrument of racial, ethnic and cultural division. A man who both -sided a white supremacist march, went to war with NFL players protesting police brutality, called African nations 'shithole countries' and told American congresswomen to 'go back' to where they came from, was never going to appeal to harmony now."

Adding:

"I return to my theme that voting isn't just about getting "the ideal" candidate into office or having him or her perform to a preternatural, ideal standard of righting all wrongs, or sealing a "green New Deal". No, it also means,  even more importantly  - preventing the bad guys remaining in office or grabbing more power - like Trump, William Barr, Lindsey Graham etc.  Hence, the uber objective is stopping these vermin from completing their destruction of this democratic experiment.  In other words, voting is as much or more about limiting damage and eliminating toxic leaders as it is putting in the best."

The best thing these young, picky, undecided youth voters can do right now is get hold of   Masha Gessen's 'Surviving Autocracy', which sheds light on the destabilizing demagogue, Trump. As she writes: 

"No powerful political actor had set out to destroy the American political system itself - until that is, Trump won the Republican nomination. He was probably the first major party nominee to run not for president but for autocrat. "

  The past three and a half years, of course, have revealed not only his penchant for authoritarianism  - and worshipping autocrats like Rodrigo Duterte - but also for side -action destruction of the state and its protections via dismantling of regulations, blowing off congressional subpoenas,  and attacking everything from health care to women's  procreative rights and the environment. Oh, and sending storm troopers to attack protesters as in Portland.  It doesn't take a Mensa level IQ to see that all the above are set to be magnified in another Trump term. 

The youths covered in the FT piece notably display the same dismay at the "system" and their "powerlessness" to change it they always have.  But they seem disconnected to the fact they could wield the necessary power if they just voted in the same proportions  (65-70%)  every year as seniors do.   Waldmeir again:

"Those who feel ignored should vote to change that but they often don't. America's youngest voters could hold the balance of power in this election, but  that power matters little unless they choose to wield it. "

So why don't they? Who knows? But my best bet is political immaturity, especially those who express any indecision, or lean to Trump by even a minuscule degree.  Put simply, they have their heads screwed on backwards, or "up their asses" to use Janice's parlance.

Hopefully, the Young Turks will come to their senses in this pivotal election and before it's too late.  The WWII Germans who grew up in the Hitler era regret they never took the chance to keep Hitler out of power when they had it. None of them took him seriously, or his pronouncements and warnings.  They've had over 80 years to rue that lack of wise choice and remain one of the most hated peoples in Europe.  Let us hope our people are smarter,  or at least smart enough this time around to deny Trump another 4 years  in which his excesses will rival Hitler's first two years.

See Also:

Donald Trump

‘They like Me Very Much’: Trump Gives a Horrifying Answer When Pressed on QAnon

And:

Trump’s backing of far-right conspiracy theorist frames the stakes for 2020

Excerpt:

"No one should refer to what Trump is doing as “culture war politics” or “stoking divisions” or even “crazy Trump being crazy Trump.” It’s extreme radicalization. And we need to get the language right this time."


And:

Mission Imperative: Come November, Trump Must Go

by Michael Winship | May 13, 2020 - 5:50am | permalink

Excerpt:

"There must be one mission above all, one goal supreme: Vote this monster out of the White House. And along with him, tow to the nearest dump the clown car of malefactors who gave him license to cripple our republic.

The Economic VIX Index, Stock Behavior and Kneecapping Trump's 'Edge' On The Economy

"Gimme four more years and I swear I'll crash it for good!"

A large number of investors are fortunately familiar with the VIX or volatility index.  Basically the Vix volatility index,  is Wall Street's  "fear gauge".  It is a barometer of how unstable stocks are in responding to current crises or shocks.  For example, the VIX shot to its highest level in  3 years on Feb. 5, 2018 following the Congressional Budget Office's reaction to the passage of the Trump-GOP tax cuts.   This was on the heels of projections of $1, 083 trillion in borrowing costs for 2019, and $1,128 trillion in 2020.   The street's reaction conveyed in the VIX then was traced to the enormous borrowing costs projected for successive years.

Unlike the VIX, there is another measure called the Economic VIX Index, created by Jim Paulsen, a chief investment strategist at Leuthold Group. This index reflects the volatility  in growth.   It's important now because its history over the decades since World War II shows two things:

1) Stocks do best when economic volatility in the U.S. is at its lowest.

2) Stocks do best when economic volatility in the U.S. is at its highest.

It is clear that the stock bubble currently is feeding off of (2) which in turn is being driven by the pandemic.  In other words, the pandemic - not Trump-  is responsible for the incipient volatility which in turn is a function of the uncertainty.  Hence, the pandemic is controlling the economy.  As Frank Trentmann writes in The New Republic (September, p. 33):

"What makes this virus so damaging is its synchronized effect on activities that depend on mobility and proximity.  Fewer tourists and business travelers translate into fewer hotel and restaurant guests and fewer visitors to shops, special exhibitions, concert halls, and musicals....The virus has effectively stopped several pistons of consumer economy at once. Tourism and mobility, restaurants and retail, live entertainment and sports.  Each of these is a big sector in its own right."

Which of course makes it even more imperative the virus be brought under control, something Trump and and his retinue of ass clowns have been unwilling to do. See also e.g.

The Virus Controls The Economy - Not The Reverse: ...'

This is critical to process, given one of  the confounding aspects of current polls is the seeming edge Trump has in the handling of the economy - which for many also includes stocks (given people are looking at their 401ks as well as unemployment numbers)  Indeed, the careful observer can surmise that Trump is getting credit for what the economy WAS, pre-pandemic, not how the looming recession,  job losses, immense suffering (especially for many about to be evicted) are directly his fault for his mishandling of the response to the pandemic.  This indeed is a connection Dems need to make in their convention because clearly too many voters are not making it - else Biden would be ahead of Trump in the economy category too.

Most savvy people who actually follow events, as well as serious economists, are quite aware Trump's oafish, belated, incoherent response to the pandemic in the U.S. - including calling it a "hoax" for 2 weeks, and not having a coordinated national policy (like mandating masks ) is why the U.S. is floundering compared to so many other nations that got their acts together.  That chaos in turn is why there has not been a coherent reopening and why people (including teachers) are still not able to return to work with confidence, or go out to eat or whatever with any confidence.  In many ways Trump then has wrecked the economy,  not done anything to help it and much more to crash it.

But this is what the Dems now need to drill into people's heads.  (Many of whom are likely 'low information' voters).  This is especially as Jim Paulsen was quoted last week (WSJ, Business & Investing) as warning:

"Over the next four quarters we'll have a level of economic volatility  never before seen in the postwar period.  It will blow away the volatility of the 2007-09 recession when the Economic VIX shot up to its previous postwar peak."

His comment implies the havoc caused by Covid 19 will continue apace, and also there is little chance the virus will be under control - certainly so long as Trump is heading the government.  That means stocks will likely dive as much as rise, even as homelessness spikes and job creation sputters in the absence of a coordinated national strategy - including testing and contact tracing.

But this also means stocks are likely to continue to do well, even as the Main Street economy craters and Biden - if elected- is likely to inherit a mess ten times worse than what the credit crisis left Obama back in 2009.  Why then would stocks continue to do well in such an atmosphere of upheaval, uncertainty, and volatility?  According to Paulsen:

"This is because the economy is in an unsustainable situation and everyone is working to improve it, both government and companies.  So policy officials are scared to death and they are bringing every conceivable tool they have to get us out of the situation."


But again, we need to clarify here this is based on an expectation. But that hopeful, optimistic expectation, i.e. that "everyone is working to improve the situation" cannot happen if Trump gets a 2nd term.   This is why Michelle Obama made the remark last night: "If you  think things cannot possibly get worse, trust me they can can and they will, if we don't make a change in this election.  This is why we have to vote like our lives depend on it."

This followed her description of Trump as a person out of his depth in filling the job of president, e.g.

“Donald Trump is the wrong president for our country.  He has had more than enough time to prove that he can do the job, but he is clearly in over his head. He cannot meet this moment. He simply cannot be who we need him to be for us.” 

Hence, any positive expectation rests on Trump's defeat and it needs to be a wipe out so he can't bitch, piss and moan about mail ballots "rigging" the election. 

One last perspective on the Economic VIX:  Over seven decades it ranged from 0.2 to 3.4.  (The numbers represent the standard deviations of quarterly annualized percentage changes in U.S. nominal GDP   over the previous 3 years  divided by the average annualized quarterly growth rate over those 3 years.)  Now, Paulsen projects the Economic VIX will hit 13 in coming months.

That may well be whether Trump is defeated and a competent administration takes over, or not.

See Also:

The uneven rally that took US stocks to a record high

And:

2020 Elections | Donald Trump

People Are Taking Trump's USPS Cheating Seriously — and We Have Impeachment to Thank

by Amanda Marcotte | August 18, 2020 - 8:09am | permalink

— from Salon

And:

Covid-19 | Healthcare Policy

Trump's Death Cult Is Crippling Local Public Health Agencies, Dooming Covid-19 Fight

Biden Should Skip Debates: Why Would Any Sane Candidate Debate A Deranged Toddler?

"Donald today is much as he was at three years old: incapable of growing, learning or evolving, unable to regulate his emotions, moderate his responses - or take in and synthesize information."  -  Mary L. Trump, in 'Too Much And Never Enough',   p. 197.

"the fact that we have to make truth-telling an explicit condition is an incredibly sad statement about our time; normally such things are unspoken and understood. But if the past teaches us anything, Trump might very well lie and mislead for the entire debate, forcing Biden to have to spend a majority of his time correcting Trump before making his own points."   - Thomas Friedman,  NY Times, 'Biden Should Not Debate Trump Unless..."

"It's still just unbelievable this man is president of the United States.  It's just incompetence  across the board. He's an idiot. Some people try to create this idea that well, 'it's fourth dimensional chess, it's fifth dimensional chess' but they still haven't come to grips with the fact he's just a blithering idiot.  You can't even carry on a conversation about current events, and god forbid he is at the center of those events.   I don't honestly see how, if you are an American, you can say this country is in good hands with this person as president of the United States."  -  Stuart Stevens, long time Republican political consultant and author of 'It Was All A Lie- How The Republican Party Became Donald Trump'. on 'All In' last night,  regarding the (Jonathan Swan) Axios interview with Trump

The question of the moment in serious political circles is whether it makes sense for Democratic candidate Joe Biden to debate a 74 -year old deranged toddler named Trump.   So far a first debate is tentatively scheduled for September 29th but there is no reason why - given Trump's evident unhinged behavior- that Biden can't cancel.  I am forthwith for this option though with the provisos noted by NY Times Thomas Friedman:

1-  Trump must fully release all his tax files now being willfully concealed (Mainly 2016-2019).

2-  Presence of a real time fact checking team to hold Trump's dozens of expected lies to account.

3-No more federal agents to be dispatched to 'blue' state cities to cause more violent reactions

4-  NO more assaults on mail voting or mail ballots, including vile tweets, and no attempted lawsuits or executive orders. Oh, and no more attacks on the DACA kids.

5-  Immediate resumption of the 2020 census! (Trump ordered it shut down with a full month to spare, which would deliver more representation to Repukes than actually earned.)

The last three are my own additions.  Extreme? Off the wall? Hell no, not when you consider the Dotard  display of pettiness, ignorance, lies and bombast in that trainwreck of an Axios interview!  E.g.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/04/politics/fact-check-jonathan-swan-axios-hbo-interview-trump-coronavirus/index.html

So given Trump's Axios interview, from asserting the Covid plague that's already killed 158,000 Americans "is what it is", to not recalling the significance of  Rep. John Lewis, to earlier  taking the WH podium to claim an "attack" on Beirut (with NO evidence, period), any moron can see this asswipe is beneath debating.   As Janice said, "it would be like a grown man trying to debate a mentally disturbed 5 year old."

 But we give Trump an outside chance of having a debate by meeting the conditions set forth above. But if the Dotard cannot meet these conditions, then no debates.  Joe Biden is totally justified in saying 'Hell no!'  This despite the WSJ editorial ('Will Joe Biden Duck The Debate?', p. A13, Aug. 4) today, squawking:

"Mr. Biden portrays Mr. Trump as a bumbling incompetent, a racist and a liar. If he believes that he should be willing to repeat his accusations face to face."

Why?  Just because you demand it?  The fact is there would be no upside for Joe in facing a deranged baboon.  He's ahead in the polls now, and so why would anyone with a decided advantage willingly risk having a nice lead torpedoed by facing what former Emily's List strategist Jess McIntosh once called "a mad monkey with a gun."

In an appearance on 'All In' in 2016, Ms. McIntosh analogized what Hillary would face in a debate with Trump:

"It would kind of be like facing a mad monkey with a gun. And you just don't know what that monkey might do so there's no way to really prepare."

I see no reason that assessment would change now.  Indeed, given Trump's mental condition has further deteriorated, i.e.  he can't even distinguish reality from fantasy (as in embracing the daft 'cures' of a demon believing pediatrician)  there is nothing at all to be gained by citizens from witnessing such an event.  We know all that Trump will deliver is lies, and those mixed with bombast and name -calling, so what's the point? There is no educational aspect whatsoever.  As journalist Elizabeth Drew - a panelist in one 1976 debate- put it:

"The debates have never made sense as a test for presidential leadership."

This is because most have been decided by "snappy one liners" (zingers).   But there is no assurance we will get even those now with the likes of Trump ready to try to toss verbal fecal matter any which way he can.   SO no, it isn't so much a case of Biden "ducking" a debate, but rather avoiding stepping into a huge,stinking pile of horse manure.

Besides, we've already seen Trump fail the essential test for presidential leadership in his woeful and incompetent response to the pandemic. We don't need any more staged, artificial tests.  This is now Joe's election to lose, and if  he were daft enough to face the 'mad monkey with a gun', he might. Without at least imposing the conditions noted earlier!

Again, if you must have more proof this asshole is unqualified as a president, far less to engage in debate, check out the Jonathan Swan Axios interview link above.  It tells you all you need to know regarding why Biden shouldn't dignify this "mad monkey with a gun" via formal debate. The "gun" being his feral piehole,  from which he "spitballs" anything that pops into his empty, derelict head.  Biden doesn't need this and neither do Americans!

See Also:

Cody Fenwick

Donald Trump

‘You Can’t Do That!’: The Worst Part of Trump’s Disastrous Axios Interview

And:

Donald Trump

Trump's Base Loved That He Was a Liar and a Cheat — but Now It's Coming Back to Bite Them

by Amanda Marcotte | August 5, 2020 - 7:10am | permalink

— from Salon

And:

• Confused Trump can't understand how many Americans are dying of coronavirus in shocking interview 

And:

Donald Trump

Trump Is Getting Truly Desperate — and That Means He's Increasingly Dangerous

by Amanda Marcotte | August 4, 2020 - 7:57am | permalink

— from Salon

And:

Donald Trump

President Chaos

by Ted Glick | August 3, 2020 - 6:26am | permalink

Alas, It May Be Too Late To Hit The "Snooze Button" On The Climate Alarm

As the coronavirus rages on and preys upon our collective stupidity, e.g.

• The latest ‘COVID party’ had 700 attendees and took New Jersey police 5 hours to break up 

We're informed by Walter Russell Mead (WSJ,  July 27, p. A13) that :

https://www.wsj.com/articles/snooze-the-climate-alarms-11595889568

 A new study on "global demographics" -   see:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30677-2/fulltext

Shows we can figuratively hit snooze on the climate alarm because future forecasts of population growth are being "scaled back."   This is because of declining fertility rates. As we know, unchecked population growth is the primary driver of global warming- climate change.  The more people, the more fossil fuels consumed and the greater the carbon emissions,  and the more intense global warming. 

But Mead commits other oversights as when he writes (ibid.):

"More literacy and better access to information about contraception are - along with urbanization- associated with declining fertility rates as women gain better control of their reproductive lives."

The problem is that women's control of their reproductive lives is not entirely in their hands anywhere.  Just look at the U.S. and how the Trump bunch has essentially  wrecked any chance for poor and minority women to get access to affordable  birth control via the ACA. Add on the incipient religious objections (i.e. from Roman Catholics who also control a large part of the African population)  and you see formidable barriers to contraception.

Mead argues that given "the impact of these forces" we can expect to see Earth's human population peak at 9.7 billion by 2064 and then "decrease to 8.8 billion by 2100."  This as opposed to previous forecasts (e.g. by the U.N.)  of up to 12.7 billion by 2100.

However, Mead  and the UWa researchers overlook several factors:

1) Humans have multiplied their impact on  CO2 emissions and climate forcing related to the greenhouse effect beyond simple fossil fuel use.  The burning of the Amazon rain forest alone - now reaching catastrophic proportions - is a prime example,  with monstrous fires spewing gigatons of carbon into the air, e.g.


This along with other massive fires may well offset  all the projected lowered population emissions up to at least 2060.  (Assuming Bolsonaro doesn't act soon to control the burning.)

2) CO2 accumulates because each molecule remains in the atmosphere for up to 100 years on average.  Thus, earlier depositions remain even as new burdens are added yearly. The CO2 -driven warming we’re now experiencing is not the result of just one year – but  100 years’ previous accumulation. The process may be described something like a series with terms being added, viz: to describe the CO2 content now in the atmosphere, we must initiate the series with n= 1 (for 1920), viz.

CO2( 2020) =   x  ₁  + x  ₂ +  x  ₃ +   x  ₄ +.............+  x  _{1 00} 

E.g. terminating at the last term 100 years later. Here each ‘x’ denotes the CO2 burden added for each year in succession.
Thus, the CO2 effect for a given year is not just for that year, but rather inclusive of the cumulative additions for all the years - starting up to 100 years before.

Bottom line: Even if humans suddenly decreased their CO2 emissions to zero via decreased populations in multiple nations  the effect on the future greenhouse effect will be minuscule.   That's because all those CO2 emissions from earlier years still have to  have 'their say'.   Is there a way to eliminate those earlier emissions from the atmosphere?  No one has a clue, but they sure don't factor that inability into their rosy projections based on lower fertility assumptions.

Meanwhile, Africans  continue to burn wood from their own forests at a rate, using the material for fuel.  People and more people everywhere, too many for sure, gobbling resources at a rate as if there were no tomorrow. How will ample contraception and ancillary education get to these Africans when conservative U.S.  policies already limit birth control access - and the RC Church holds sway over too many African women.

Mead also pins his lessened climate alarm hopes on "more efficient agriculture" continuing to spread across the world.  But that hinges on  available water - fresh water sources- and they are running low. Of course, this was predicted back in a 'State of the World' report from 2000, which estimated that 1.8 billion would face water scarcity by 2025.   The report even forecast "water wars" if the matter wasn't resolved or in some way addressed in an equitable manner.

More recently we learned , 

'We Can't Waste a Drop.' India Is Running Out of Water. - WSJ

https://www.wsj.com/articles/we-cant-waste-a-drop-india-is-running-out-of-water-11566224878

"Water crises are unfolding all across India, a product of population growth, modernization, climate change, mismanagement - and the breakdown of traditional systems of distributing resources."

More worrisome:

"Nearly all of India's biggest cities ...are rapidly depleting their groundwater reserves, and 40 percent of India's people could lack drinking water by the end of the next decade."

Mead's assumptions are also tempered by this graph appearing in the WSJ (July 10, p. B4):

Focus should be on current policies  which forecast a rise of 2.8- 3.2 C by 2100. But which the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists also regards as lowballed.  Consider the effect of the lockdowns.  When two thirds of the global population was under lockdown in early April "carbon emissions were down 17 % compared with average daily emissions last year."  (WSJ, ibid.)

Quite a drop, no?  But bear in mind that lockdown drop was only significant with respect to the previous year's emissions.  It doesn't say anything of the 99 years' emissions preceding and  btw, which are still in the atmosphere!  Meanwhile (ibid.):

"The United Nations Environment Program says global emissions need to fall 7.6 % a year until 2030 to be on track to meet the Paris goals"

The piece goes on to assert the target is set to be met this year "with the International Energy Agency forecasting carbon emissions to fall 8 % to 30.6 gigatons"

But let's be clear that's only one year's target met.  And that's with the "benefit" of a near global lockdown reducing the emissions.  But seriously, does anyone believe the equivalent of a pandemic-style lockdown would be accepted every year until 2030 to meet the Paris goal?    That is, not going beyond 2 C?   Newsflash: with current policies (see graph) we are already on track to hit at least 2.8 C by 2100.  And btw, please check the graph for current policies' projections in relation to the Paris 2C goal.

Also,  what about the 30- 33 gT from each of the previous 20 years?  And the 20-25 gT from each of the 40 odd years before that?  And the 20 gT from each year up to 100 - before that?   Did all those previously discharged  CO2 gigatons just magically disappear? No, they are still there in the atmosphere and wreaking havoc!

In a way, it's somewhat analogous to a homeowner who's been given a year's moratorium in paying his mortgage.  He would normally pay $1,500 a month, but because of a respite the mortgage debt has just been building up - so by the end of the 12 month grace period the homeowner will have to come up with $18,000.  A "jumbo" loan payment for sure. But using a similar reckoning to the IEA (in the case of gigatons of carbon emissions "saved") , he thinks he only  has to cough up one month's  payment of $1,500 at the end. 

More realistically in terms of CO2, we will need to cut global emissions by 50 % a year each year through 2080 to even have a chance to avoid the runaway greenhouse effect by 2100.  That is, factoring in all the cumulative emissions,  including the 30.6 gT still to be added for this year.  In addition to all the gigatons  that have been pent up in the atmosphere for the past 100 years.  And that is just to prevent the temperature going beyond 3.2 C by 2100.  Forget hitting the 2 C limit, that carbon limit 'horse' has already left the barn so to speak.

Bear in mind the CO2 concentration currently  in the atmosphere (415 ppm)  hasn't been seen in 12 million years. This condition  is rapidly pushing the climate back to its state in the Eocene Epoch, over 33 million years ago, when no ice existed on either pole.  Now, with no ice likely at all in 10 years or less (at least for the N. pole) we will be faced with further positive feedback driving us toward the runaway greenhouse scenario.  

This was well explicated by Carl Sagan in one of his essays, 'Ambush : The Warming of the World', in his book:  'Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Beginning of the Millennium':

"Melting of ice caps (already occurring) results in diminished albedo (reflection of solar radiation back into space), and a darker Earth surface - with more infrared radiation absorbed - reinforcing the tendency while enhancing the melting effect, leading to further darkening of the surface, reduced albedo and more melting."

The ugly truth?  NO amount of population decrease or fertility drop at this point is going to bring back that Arctic ice. Nor will it prevent sea levels from rising.  With that vast, reflecting ice surface gone, humans will have to figure out an alternative means of raising the albedo at the poles.  Basically, to avert such feedbacks would require perhaps the most monumental  engineering  effort  in the history of mankind -  dwarfing anything seen  hitherto. It would have to be mounted to reflect as much sunlight away from the Earth's poles as the melting ice sheets are dissipating now.

In the words of Harvard climate scientist James  Anderson:

 "Can we lose 75-80 percent of permanent ice and recover? The answer is no." 

But never mind.  The pie-eyed Pollyannas like Mead  (and others in the WSJ's op-ed stable) will keep churning out happy froth for the hoi polloi to embrace, so they don't have to think the more serious thoughts.   After all, who wants to get into the weeds on such a depressing topic when we already have a Covid 19 pandemic to confront?