In the States, the movement's actually gotten much much much stronger. There really was no climate movement so to speak before that - I think because everybody assumed that reasonable heads would prevail and do the right thing - and why would you need to have a huge movement in order to cause our leaders to deal with the most serious problem that they face. In a rational world you wouldn't. They would deal with it.

The latest computer modeling I've seen indicates that at mid-century, there might be 150 million people classified as "environmental refugees."

We, all of us in the First World, have participated in something of a binge, a half century of unbelievable prosperity and ease. We may have had some intuition that it was a binge and the earth couldn't support it, but aside from the easy things (biodegradable detergent, slightly smaller cars) we didn't do much. We didn't turn our lives around to prevent it. Our sadness is almost an aesthetic response - appropriate because we have marred a great, mad, profligate work of art, taken a hammer to the most perfectly proportioned of sculptures.

It was huge mistake to avoid working with the rest of the world because (a) we're the largest source of the problem: 4% of us who are in the U.S. produce 25% of the world's carbon dioxide.

We can either save the planet from catastrophic warming, or protect fossil fuel CEOs. Not both. Do the math(s)

We can no longer imagine that we are part of something larger than ourselves - that is what all this boils down to.

Certainly, packets of sea ice, in say the Arctic, which have failed to fully reform in the last couple of years.