“Better Late Than Never”—May Be Too Late! (Aug. 2026)
Response to “Better late than never for climate resilience” editorial —8/6/2026
To the editor,
Kudos to The Riverdale Press for its editorial concerning climate change — “Better late than never for climate resilience” — a worthy wake-up call and a call for action. A call to advocate for green energy; for healthy air, oceans, forests and soil; and to prepare for the threat of climate disruptions by adapting infrastructure on a local scale. A call to “mitigate and adapt in the longer term.” Unfortunately, while “climate resilience” is a necessity, “better late than never” may be too late, if we fail to reduce emissions in the near-term.
Paraphrasing NASA’s FAQ “Is it too late to prevent climate change?” The Press reported that “the impacts of human activity on the Earth’s climate cannot be reversed on the timescale of human beings alive today” — a shocking revelation. But NASA elaborated further: “every little bit of avoided future temperature increases results in less warming that would otherwise persist for essentially forever. The benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions occur on the same timescale as the political decisions that lead to those reductions.”’ In other words, in a timeframe effectively in real-time — something to note.
The Press proffered “how can we look out for ourselves and our neighbors in ways that might help us mitigate and adapt in the longer term?” and by “advocating for the solutions we’ve all likely heard of before. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by turning to green energy.” But we’ve been advocating for green energy — clean energy — for more than 50 years.
The first Earth Day, the Clean Air Act and the EPA were established in 1970. Yet, by 2024, clean energy comprised merely 20 percent of the world’s total energy supply; 80 percent of total primary consumption was generated from fossil fuels. The same minimal impact can be noted despite advocating for our planet’s oceans, forests and soil. But, while political decisions failed to produce year-over-year reductions in global carbon emissions, economic downtowns actually did so in real-time.
The Covid-19 economic slowdown cut global emissions by 1.8 billion metric tons in 2020, more than a five percent decrease. Emissions decreased more than two percent during the 2008/2009 recession while a cumulative decrease of more than six percent occurred during the 1980 three-year recession. Emissions decreased in the 1991 and 1974 recessions as well. The tie between consumer consumption and carbon emissions is undeniable — especially for the carbon footprint of purchases and activity. No, we need not activate a recession, but we must select products fabricated from lower embodied carbon materials, those processed and manufactured emitting fewer carbon emissions; purchased from local or regional manufacturing sources to avoid excess transportation emissions. We need to reduce our personal carbon footprints.
While resilience is imperative, our immediate focus must be on slowing the pace of global warming by reducing carbon emissions in real-time. As NASA implied, the benefits of reduced emissions occur in a near-term timescale.
August 13, 2026
