Let me reproduce for you, without permission but I'm sure they won't mind, the last paragraph of the editorial (they call it a "comment" for historical reasons) in this week's New Yorker (cover by David Heatley, by the way, well done that boy), written by Elizabeth Kolbert, whose work on climate change over the last two years has sent me into alternating waves of proselytising and abject despondency:
"Carbon dioxide is a by-product of just about every aspect of contemporary life—from driving and flying to farming and manufacturing and watching videos on YouTube. To reduce emissions by sixty per cent—or eighty per cent, as Senator Boxer advocates, or by two-thirds, as the McCain-Lieberman-Obama bill calls for—will thus require significant, and doubtless also disruptive, changes at every level of society. This may not seem an attractive prospect, but, as the latest I.P.C.C. report makes clear, change is not something that anyone at this point has a choice about. All that is at issue—and it is critically at issue—is how disastrous the change will be. Already enough CO2 has been pumped into the air to alter life on earth for thousands of years to come. To continue on our current path because the alternative seems like too much effort is not just shortsighted. It’s suicidal."
