This was a big development in climate circles about 10 days ago. Luckily, we have Midlander Peter Sinclair to explain it to us and explain its significance. The reality that I don't think he hits on nearly enough is that not only is it quite likely that we're watching climate change take place before our eyes, that it's all been happening much faster than the models predicted. Those models, by the way, conservatives claimed were always wrong. Conservatives were right, but that's only because things have been worse than anyone imagined.
By the way, shoehorning this into "What can I do about it?" we come to this year's election. One of the ballot proposals is intended to put the state into a semi-permanent effort to wean ourselves from the primary cause of climate change.
Some opposition to that ballot proposal says that the constitution is not the right place to do it. I concur with that. The constitution isn't the place for it. But, we don't get that choice. We either get better energy or energy that is damaging the assumptions upon which our civilization rests. That's the question. Voting no because it's not neat and tidy like it ought to be is like turning down a rabies treatment because the pill -- which you'd take happily -- won't work and the alternative is the shots to the stomach.
Other opponents talk about the costs. Conveniently, they leave off the costs of voting no, which are higher. Please, see above video.
