I wish that every human life might be pure transparent freedom - Simone de Beauvoir

Note: If this page opens on my post, A Vision of Hope, please click on the blog title, Loving The Wolf, for the latest updates.

I don't have time to update my blog very often, so please check my Twitter Feed below.

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Monday, August 25, 2008

    Even The Founding Fathers Used Negative Campaigning


    Nice to know (I guess) that negative campaigning isn't just a modern phenomenon, although the article below from CNN's website omits to mention one of the most inglorious - and lethal - political clashes of American history: the fatal duel between Vice President Aaron Burr ( the subject of a wonderfully sharp and ironic novel, Burr, by his descendent, Gore Vidal) and Alexander Hamilton after an unsuccessful campaign for election as Governor of New York in 1804:

    "During an unsuccessful campaign for election to Governor of New York in 1804, Burr was often referred to in published articles written by Alexander Hamilton, a long-time political rival and son-in-law of Philip Schuyler, the first U.S. Senator from New York whom Burr defeated in his bid for re-election in 1791. Taking umbrage at remarks made by Hamilton at a dinner party and Hamilton's subsequent failure to account for the remarks, Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel on 11 July 1804, at theHeights of Weehawken in New Jersey at which he mortally wounded Hamilton. Arguably the most famous duel in U.S. history, it had immense political ramifications. Burr, who survived the duel, was indicted for murder in both New York and New Jersey (though these charges were either later dismissed or resulted in acquittal), and the harsh criticism and animosity directed towards him brought about an end to his political career in the East, though he remained a popular figure in the West and South. Further, Hamilton's untimely death would fatally weaken the remnants of the Federalist Party."  [Source: Wikipedia]

    .

    updated 10:05 a.m. EDT, Fri August 22, 2008
    • Share
    • E-mail
    • Save
    • Print

    Founding Fathers' dirty campaign

    • STORY HIGHLIGHTS
    • John Adams and Thomas Jefferson ran negative presidential campaigns
    • Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant,
    • Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward
    • Many historians say John Quincy Adams/Andrew Jackson contest the nastiest
    • Next Article in Living »

    By Kerwin Swint
    Decrease font
    Enlarge font
    Mental Floss

    (Mental Floss ) -- Negative campaigning in America was sired by two lifelong friends, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Back in 1776, the dynamic duo combined powers to help claim America's independence, and they had nothing but love and respect for one another. But by 1800, party politics had so distanced the pair that, for the first and last time in U.S. history, a president found himself running against his vice president.

    Despite their bruising campaign, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams became friends again.

    Despite their bruising campaign, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams became friends again.

    Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

    In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

    As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward.  See 8 great campaign slogans »

    Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind." Mental Floss: Jefferson: The sensitive writer type

    Jefferson hires a hatchet man

    Back then, presidential candidates didn't actively campaign. In fact, Adams and Jefferson spent much of the election season at their respective homes in Massachusetts and Virginia.

    But the key difference between the two politicians was that Jefferson hired a hatchet man named James Callendar to do his smearing for him. Adams, on the other hand, considered himself above such tactics. To Jefferson's credit, Callendar proved incredibly effective, convincing many Americans that Adams desperately wanted to attack France. Although the claim was completely untrue, voters bought it, and Jefferson stole the election.

    Jefferson paid a price for his dirty campaign tactics, though. Callendar served jail time for the slander he wrote about Adams, and when he emerged from prison in 1801, he felt Jefferson still owed him.

    After Jefferson did little to appease him, Callendar broke a story in 1802 that had only been a rumor until then -- that the President was having an affair with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. In a series of articles, Callendar claimed that Jefferson had lived with Hemings in France and that she had given birth to five of his children.

    The story plagued Jefferson for the rest of his career. And although generations of historians shrugged off the story as part of Callendar's propaganda, DNA testing in 1998 showed a link between Hemings' descendents and the Jefferson family.

    Just as truth persists, however, so does friendship. Twelve years after the vicious election of 1800, Adams and Jefferson began writing letters to each other and became friends again. They remained pen pals for the rest of their lives and passed away on the same day, July 4, 1826. It was the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Mental Floss: The post-White House lives of presidents

    John Quincy Adams gets slapped with elitism

    John Adams lived long enough to see his son become president in 1825, but he died before John Quincy Adams lost the presidency to Andrew Jackson in 1828. Fortunately, that meant he didn't have to witness what many historians consider the nastiest contest in American history.

    The slurs flew back and forth, with John Quincy Adams being labeled a pimp, and Andrew Jackson's wife getting called a slut.

    As the election progressed, editorials in the American newspapers read more like bathroom graffiti than political commentary. One paper reported that "General Jackson's mother was a common prostitute, brought to this country by the British soldiers! She afterward married a mulatto man, with whom she had several children, of which number General Jackson is one!"

    What got Americans so fired up? For one thing, many voters felt John Quincy Adams should never have been president in the first place. During the election of 1824, Jackson had won the popular vote but not the electoral vote, so the election was decided by the House of Representatives. Henry Clay, one of the other candidates running for president, threw his support behind Adams. To return the favor, Adams promptly made him secretary of state. Jackson's supporters labeled it "The Corrupt Bargain" and spent the next four years calling Adams a usurper. Mental Floss: 5 secrets left off the White House tour

    Beyond getting the short end of the electoral stick, Andrew Jackson managed to connect with voters via his background -- which couldn't have been more different than Adams'.

    By the time John Quincy was 15, he'd traveled extensively in Europe, mastered several languages, and worked as a translator in the court of Catherine the Great.

    Meanwhile, Andrew Jackson had none of those privileges. By 15, he'd been kidnapped and beaten by British soldiers, orphaned, and left to fend for himself on the streets of South Carolina.

    Adams was a Harvard-educated diplomat from a prominent New England family. Jackson was a humble war hero from the rural South who'd never learned to spell. He was the first presidential candidate in American history to really sell himself as a man of the people, and the people loved him for it.

    Having been denied their candidate in 1824, the masses were up in arms for Jackson four years later. And though his lack of education and political experience terrified many Adams supporters, that argument didn't hold water for the throngs who lined up to cast their votes for "Old Hickory." Ever since Jackson's decisive victory, no presidential candidate has dared take a step toward the White House without first holding hands with the common man.

    But losing the 1828 election may have been the best thing to happen to John Quincy Adams. After sulking home to Massachusetts, Adams pulled himself together and ran for Congress, launching an epic phase of his career.

    During his 17 years in the House of Representatives, Adams became an abolitionist hero, championing legislation to open the debate on slavery. And in 1841, he famously put his money where his mouth was, when he defended the 39 African captives aboard the slave ship Amistad before the U.S. Supreme Court. At a time when all but two of the justices were pro-slavery, Adams won his human rights plea. 


    Thursday, August 21, 2008

    John McCain Doesn't Know How Many Homes He Owns


    I just love this story - VOTE OBAMA!

    US election: 'How many homes do I own? ... I'll get back to you'

    John McCain, who only days ago said it took an annual income of $5m (£2.5m)to be counted as truly rich, yesterday came under attack for admitting he had lost track of how many homes he owned.

    In a godsend to the Democrats, the Republican was caught out when asked in an interview how many homes he owned. "I think ... I'll have my staff get to you," McCain told Politico, a Washington insider news website, and then muttered something about condominiums.

    McCain's wife, Cindy, inherited one of America's biggest beer distribution firms and has an estimated fortune of $200m. The couple reportedly own seven homes in Arizona, California and Virginia, worth a combined total of about $13m. But Politico was told by his campaign they had four.

    The Obama camp has been trying to draw attention to the McCains's wealth, in part to defend the Democrat against Republican charges that he is elitist.

    The Democrats reacted yesterday on several fronts. In Chester, Virginia, Obama said his rival was out of touch.

    "Somebody asked John McCain, 'How many houses do you have?' And he said, 'I'm not sure. I'll have to check with my staff.' True quote: I'm not sure, I'll have to check with my staff," said Obama, whose campaign went on to release a new television advert. Entitled Seven, after the number of McCain properties, it attacks the Republican record on the economy.

    The Obama campaign also lined up events around the US to keep the controversy over McCain's comments alive.

    The potential damage to McCain is great as there have been previous controversies over his wife's refusal to make a full disclosure about her finances, as well as his past comments. Earlier in the campaign, McCain said he believed the US economy remained strong, while an adviser had dismissed concern about the housing crisis and petrol prices as whining.

    Houses In Motion #3 #4

    My continuing story currently "under construction" for Facebook; with apologies for the problems I am having formatting this for this blog: hence the weird spacing.

    Alexander Chow-Stuart: Wednesday August 20 2008

    Houses In Motion #3

    Monroe often worked late at night while his wife and children were sleeping.

    They followed a pattern:

    The children went to bed around the time it got dark.

    And Monroe and his wife, Salimah, went to bed, too.

    They no longer watched TV, although sometimes they read.

     

    Then Monroe would wake, usually around two am.

    He would get up, make Moroccan tea with fresh mint and sugar, and start writing.

    Mostly he worked on a novel about a journey through the southwestern United States.

    But he also had a screenplay for a Japanese director that was due very soon.

    It concerned children who could just disappear.

    They vanished, and their families were left distraught.

    But the children all found their way to an island of brightly colored trash inhabited by equally vivid small creatures that were at once very loving and very violent.


    Houses In Motion #4

    Monroe felt excited and awakened by his novel despite the fact that he doubted anyone read fiction anymore.

    Certainly he and Salimah read mostly world news, political musings and personal email on the tiny screens of their cell phones in the evenings; never books.


    The Japanese screenplay frightened him.

    It seemed to write itself; he was simply a vessel.

    But he needed the money it provided:

    money that was frequent and fairly generous;

    payments that seemed in direct proportion to the discomfort his writing provoked within him.

     

    Tuesday, August 19, 2008

    Houses In Motion #1 #2 (an experiment in creating a story for Facebook)

    This experiment in composing a story in brief Facebook entries is limited each time by the 1,000 character limit of Facebook's Wall, but I thought it might be an interesting discipline for creating something different.

    Alexander Chow-Stuart: Monday August 18 2008

    Houses In Motion #1

    In one world he was eternal.  In one world he was not.
    Monroe moved constantly between the two worlds.
    But sometimes the pull of one was stronger than the pull of the other.
    And sometimes the two worlds seemed to merge.

    In the touch world, the non-eternal one he thought of as a body around himself or as a seed pod in which he was no more than a baby pea waiting with the other baby peas for the pod to open, he had a happy life, if happiness can be considered a constant.

    Houses In Motion #2

    He had a beautiful house. He had a beautiful wife. He had beautiful children. But he had also known dark times and he knew that happiness is to be relished because it is only a tiny part of the prism of life. And that beauty lies in perception, in love, in compassion. Beauty is one of the points at which those two worlds find each other and ignite.

    Monroe thought about the Talking Heads song he had not listened to in a very long time but that had worked its way into his thoughts about two weeks ago.

    He had bought it and had played it and he heard the line:

    "Two different houses surround you, 'round you."

    And that was how he felt right now.

    Sunday, August 10, 2008

    UFO Over Los Angeles






    This is just going to add to the general perception that I am crazy, I know, but my wife, young child and I were swimming in our pool in Topanga Canyon, Los Angeles, on Saturday, July 26 2008, around 4:30-4:45pm when we noticed a very shiny silver object hovering in one position in the sky to the east/southeast of us, possibly over Santa Monica.

    We are very familiar with helicopters flying directly overhead and planes from LAX, but this was neither.  I am not assuming little green men (we are not so far in flight miles from Edwards Airforce Base), but it definitely wasn't a conventional plane or a hot air balloon or blimp (we have seen the Goodyear blimp and others many times in various places; I have also been "behind the scenes" in the Space Shuttle hangar at NASA's Cape Canaveral Kennedy Space Center).

    It appeared at first to be a rotating X-shape in the sky, but then when we viewed it through binoculars (8x25W; not very powerful) and with our video camera zoom, it looked more like three brilliantly shiny sliver spheres, reflecting the sun's light very brightly (or possibly with its own light source), and all rotating on a single axis - as if the three spheres formed a line that could rotate in mid-air in one spot.

    We could see it clearly with the naked eye, although it appeared to move in and out of haze, and was definitely larger and farther away than we thought at first.

    It changed position very slightly over the 30-45 minutes that we watched it, then finally moved away at about the speed of a jet plane to the south/southeast. We watched it for so long that we actually got bored videotaping it and missed shooting it flying away.

    My brother-in-law, when told of it, suggested that it might have been a research balloon, but it rotated in a way that I have never seen any balloon rotate, and there was no evidence of any kind of anchor line.  Also that would not explain its ability to move off under its own propulsion at the speed of a jet.

    We have tried to learn more of this sighting online, and our video is posted on a UFO blog, called NAM ET IPSA SCIENTIA POTESTAS EST: Knowledge Is Power, at: http://frankwarren.blogspot.com/2008/07/video-exclusive-my-ufo-experience-ufo.html

    There is also video of what appears to be the same craft, shot by a couple in East Hollywood or Los Feliz slightly earlier on the same afternoon, which is posted on a blog called Disclose.tv at: http://www.disclose.tv/viewvideo/6377/Sperm_UFO__Los_Angeles_July_2

    They nicknamed the unidentified flying object "Sperm UFO" because of its unusual shape.  Their video is worth watching until the end, because they used Final Cut to blow the image up to 1000x magnification.

    Whatever it was, it has certainly caused us to ask some questions over the past couple of weeks.  We are also surprised that something so large, hovering over Los Angeles on a very sunny and clear Saturday afternoon, did not attract more attention.  Clearly, we could have contact with aliens but everyone would be so bored or unaware that they would just move on somewhere else.

    Note: These links have been added later:

    There is now video of a silver craft very similar to ours that was shot over Oregon on Sunday, August 3 2008, also in broad daylight, and which is also posted on the NAM ET IPSA SCIENTIA POTESTAS EST blog, titled: Has the 'Topanga Canyon - Los Angeles UFO' Been Sighted Over Oregon at:


    Plus there is a large illuminated craft in an online video on iReport, shot a few days before ours over south Los Angeles, which is very different but intriguing.  It looks as if it would be hard to fake the video, given the apparent distance of the craft and its movement, plus the fact that the observer zooms in and out to place it in context:


    Saturday, August 9, 2008

    Space


    The spacious mind has room for everything. It is like the space in a room, which is never harmed by what goes in and out of it. In fact, we say "the space in this room," but actually, the room is in the space, the whole building is in the space. When the building has gone, the space will still be there. The space surrounds the building, and right now we are containing space in a room. With this view we can develop a new perspective. We can see that there are walls creating the shape of the room and there is the space. Looking at it one way, the walls limit the space in the room. But looking at it another way, we see that space is limitless.

    - Ajahn Sumedho from 
    Tricycle: The Buddhist Review, Fall 1995

    Loving The Wolf


    While thinking about the state of the world generally - inspired at least to some degree by both the stunning beauty of last night's 2008 Olympic Opening Ceremony in Beijing (masterfully created by legendary one-time "dissident" Chinese filmmaker,
    Zhang Yimou),  and the moral and political complexities that accompany it - I was moved this morning to retitle this blog, Loving The Wolf, rather than A Wolf At The Door.

    I have also been reading Tsultrim Allione's wonderful book, Feeding Your Demons, a work greatly influenced by Chod (pronounced Ch'uh or Cho) Buddhism, a Mahayana Buddhist practice that involves not so much confronting your demons as embracing them and absorbing their power (a fascinating extract from the book is available on the website of Tricycle, a wonderful magazine that provides an "independent voice of Buddhism"), and this, too, fed into my desire to make the title of this blog more positive, in the hope that ultimately it will offer a positive, no matter how tiny, voice in the world.

    A third influence is that I have spent much of the past year adapting as a screenplay Toby Barlow's remarkable book, Sharp Teeth (a contemporary epic poem set in Los Angeles, no less), which involves dogs of all kinds and the men and women who can turn into them.  It provides a view of canines as a king of pre-moral primal force, and as both a dog-lover and a wolf-lover myself, I felt that the original title of this blog perhaps gave wolves a bad rep.

    Anyway, here it is: Loving The Wolf.  I hope to post to it a little more frequently than I have managed so far this year.  And for those of you who used to read Single Word, that blog is now private, since it contains so many family photographs.  There were a few general readers who seemed to love that blog and if they care to contact me at singleword@alexanderstuart.com, I will invite them to view it.

    Prepare For Global Temperature Rise of 4C


    This article, by James Randerson, the science correspondent of Britain's
    Guardian newspaper, published August 7, 2008, is particularly alarming
    regarding global warming.

    It is underscored by the article posted directly beneath, by Mark Lynas,
    giving additional background to Professor Watson's climate warning.
    The Mark Lynas piece was also published in The Guardian of August 7,
    2008.

    Climate change: Prepare for global temperature rise of 4C, warns top scientist

    Defra's chief adviser says we need strategy to adapt to potential catastrophic increase

    Aloe plants

    Drought-resistant plants such as these in the Majorelle gardens in Marrakech, Morocco, would become more common in British gardens. Photograph: Clay Perry/Corbis

    The UK should take active steps to prepare for dangerous climate change of perhaps 4C according to one of the government's chief scientific advisers.

    In policy areas such as flood protection, agriculture and coastal erosion Professor Bob Watson said the country should plan for the effects of a 4C global average rise on pre-industrial levels. The EU is committed to limiting emissions globally so that temperatures do not rise more than 2C.

    "There is no doubt that we should aim to limit changes in the global mean surface temperature to 2C above pre-industrial," Watson, the chief scientific adviser to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, told the Guardian. "But given this is an ambitious target, and we don't know in detail how to limit greenhouse gas emissions to realise a 2 degree target, we should be prepared to adapt to 4C."

    Globally, a 4C temperature rise would have a catastrophic impact.

    According to the government's 2006 Stern review on the economics of climate change, between 7 million and 300 million more people would be affected by coastal flooding each year, there would be a 30-50% reduction in water availability in Southern Africa and the Mediterranean, agricultural yields would decline 15 to 35% in Africa and 20 to 50% of animal and plant species would face extinction.

    In the UK, the most significant impact would be rising sea levels and inland flooding. Climate modellers also predict there would be an increase in heavy rainfall events in winter and drier summers.

    Watson's plea to prepare for the worst was backed up by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King. He said that even with a comprehensive global deal to keep carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere at below 450 parts per million there is a 50% probability that temperatures would exceed 2C and a 20% probability they would exceed 3.5C.

    "So even if we get the best possible global agreement to reduce greenhouse gasses on any rational basis you should be preparing for a 20% risk so I think Bob Watson is quite right to put up the figure of 4 degrees," he said.

    One big unknown is the stage at which dangerous tipping points would be reached that lead to further warming - for example the release of methane hydrate deposits in the Arctic. "My own feeling is that if we get to a 4 degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase," said King.

    He said a two-and-half-year analysis by the government's Foresight programme on the implications for coastal defences had more impact in the corridors of power than any other research on the effects of climate change that he presented.

    "No other single factor focussed the minds of the cabinet more than the analysis that I produced through that ... We begin to have to talk about ordered retreat from some areas of Britain because it becomes impossible to defend," he said. "There's no choice here between adaptation and mitigation, we have to do both."

    Other experts were concerned that Watson's comments might be seen as defeatist and an admission that emissions reductions were impossible to achieve.

    "At 4 degrees we are basically into a different climate regime," said Prof Neil Adger, an expert on adaptation to climate change at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich.

    "I think that is a dangerous mindset to be in. Thinking through the implications of 4 degrees of warming shows that the impacts are so significant that the only real adaptation strategy is to avoid that at all cost because of the pain and suffering that is going to cost.

    "There is no science on how we are going to adapt to 4 degrees warming. It is actually pretty alarming," he added.

    Speaking to the Guardian, Watson, who is a former science adviser to President Clinton and ex-chief scientist at the World Bank, said the UK should take a lead in research on carbon capture and storage (CCS).

    Alluding to the US effort in the 1960s to put a man on the moon he advocated an "Apollo-type programme" to introduce 10 to 20 CCS pilot projects - which work by burying carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels underground - among OECD countries to develop the technology.

    "This would allow coal-fired power plants that are currently being built to be modular and capable of having carbon capture retrofitted, and would show the world that we take the issue of climate change seriously, thus demonstrating real leadership. Without this technology we have a real problem."

    He also said as coal burning is cleaned up to remove harmful sulphur pollution climate change would actually get worse. The sulphur aerosols are actually preventing some warming from taking place currently.

    "This offsetting effect, which is equivalent to about 100 parts per million of carbon dioxide, will largely disappear if China and India follow the lead of the US and Europe in limiting sulphur emissions, the cause of acid deposition," he said.

    Climate change catastrophe by degrees

    Bob Watson rightly warns us to prepare for 4C global warming. To avoid that, we must make drastic CO2 cuts now

    Melting ice caps in Greenland

    Melting ice caps in Greenland. Photograph: Uriel Sinai/Getty Images

    Unfortunately, Professor Bob Watson is not speaking out of turn in telling the world to prepare for four degrees of global warming. "Mitigate for two degrees; adapt for four" has long been the catchphrase among climate negotiators and campaigners. Translated, that means: try to reduce emissions to stay below two degrees of warming, but also prepare for the worst.

    And Bob Watson should know – he is the former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but was kicked out at the behest of the Bush administration for being too vocal about the threat presented by global warming. (Any sceptic reading who thinks that the IPCC is a conspiracy of environmentalists take note: it is a creature of government as well as of science.) He has long made clear his own personal passion and commitment to tackling the issue – often without mincing his words. He is also someone with a very wide-ranging perspective: after leaving the IPCC, Watson chaired the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a landmark UN study published in 2005 looking at the totality of human impact on the planet's natural systems. (The news wasn't good.)

    The problem with the "mitigate for two degrees; adapt for four" strategy is that it is doomed to fail. Yes, we should certainly prepare for the worst as far as possible – with flood defences, drought-resistant crops and strategies to ameliorate the loss of wildlife, at the very least – but a look at the likely impact of a four-degrees temperature rise suggests that such a dramatic change would probably stretch society's capacity for adaptation to the limit, not to mention having a disastrous effect on the natural ecosystems that support humanity as a whole.

    By the time global temperatures reach four degrees, much of humanity will be short of water for drinking and irrigation: glaciers in the Andes and Himalayas, which feed river systems on which tens of millions depend, will have melted, and their rivers will be seasonally running dry. Whole weather systems like the Asian monsoon (which supports 2 billion people) may alter irrevocably. Deserts will have spread into Mediterranean Europe, across most of southern Africa and the western half of the United States. Higher northern latitudes will be plagued with regular flooding. Heatwaves of unimaginable ferocity will sear continental landscapes: the UK would face the kind of summer temperatures found in northern Morocco today. The planet would be in the throes of a mass extinction of natural life approaching in magnitude that at the end of the Cretaceous period, 65m years ago, when more than half of global biodiversity was wiped out.

    Four degrees of warming would also cross many of the "tipping points" which so concern climate scientists: the Amazon rainforest would likely collapse and burn, as part of a massive further release of carbon from terrestrial ecosystems – the reverse of the current situation, where trees and soils absorb and store a good portion of our annual emissions. Most of the Arctic permafrost will lie in the melt zone, and will be steadily releasing methane, accelerating warming still further. The northern polar ice cap will be a distant memory, and Greenland will be melting so rapidly that sea level rise by the end of the century will be measured in metres rather than centimetres. 

    Hence the current effort – led by scientists, in the main – to drop the two degrees target and talk instead about getting carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere back down to less dangerous levels. This year's CO2 concentration is 385 parts per million (ppm) – now a campaign is forming to get them back down to 350ppm, about the level they were at in the mid 1980s. This isn't just about reducing emissions, it is about getting emissions quickly down to zero (by 2050 or earlier), and then removing some of the excess carbon that humanity has already dumped into the atmosphere. The planet will still get warmer, but on nothing like the scale currently predicted.

    The harsh truth is that the latest science shows that even two degrees is not good enough, never mind four. And since four degrees would be a catastrophe that many of us, or our children, would not survive, it is surely our absolute duty to do everything in our power to avoid it.