President Obama made a strong call for action on climate change in his inaugural address. As in the past, he described the potential for economic growth in the transition to energy sources with a much smaller carbon footprint. He also framed the issue in moral terms.
“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.””That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God.”
Even the stodgy Washington Post noticed.Since human contributions to climate change is the moral crisis of our age, it is worth looking at the importance of moral framing of the issue.
Morality is best thought of as the values we live by. As Darwin noted in Descent of Man, morality is rooted in how we treat others and our willingness to work for the greater good. Self-centeredness impairs our ability to work together, solve complex problems, and respond to major existential threats. One of my favorite quotes from Darwin sums it up perfectly. “Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be effected.”
The we vs. me idea is the central theme to the president’s inaugural address. He states it eloquently in prefacing his remarks about climate change.
“We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity.”
As scientific evidence piles up for the adverse impacts of burning fossil fuels on our planet’s climate, the challenge becomes how to build public support for making the transition to cleaner sources of energy. The task has become even more difficult as the richest corporations in human history have sought to protect their profits by cleverly designed disinformation campaigns aimed at discrediting climate science and confusing the public.Several recently published studies have examined different approaches to increase support for environmental sustainability. Both conclude that values matter.
To the 180 Members of the House of Representatives Who Voted Against Sandy Disaster Relief:
Dear Founding Member of the Jackass Caucus,
I write following the House of Representatives’ passage of HR 152, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, which will fund relief and rebuilding for the tens of millions of victims of Hurricane Sandy. I suggest the formation of a caucus, comprised of the 180 members who opposed HR 152. These members will be united in their belief that for too long, Washington has been ruled by the tired convention that survivors of climatological and meteorological disasters should receive federal assistance. This caucus will boldly oppose the conventional wisdom of the American people, that we are elected to promote the general welfare of this nation, and commit to rejecting any federal support for the victims of floods, wildfires, storms, or drought.
Former Senator Al D’Amato of New York has called the opponents of Sandy relief a “bunch of jackasses.” It’s a term that these persecuted members should embrace proudly.
Each and every one of you should be proud of being a
Founding Member of the Jackass Caucus. [Read more →]
Comments Off on Jackass Caucus: coming soon to a House of Representatives near you …Tags:guest post
This guest post comes from DWG and covers something that the vast majority of Americans are unaware is happening. And, well, how many schools could be renovated, roads repaired, policemen hired, and other public services provided with the tax subsidies that the ever-so impoverished fossil fuel industries are pocketing?
NOTE: Let us be clear, however, that this post focuses on financial subsidies and does not go into the much larger real of “externalities”. The vast majority of subsidy for coal, oil, and natural gas comes from their ability to dump their pollution into our air, water, and soil without charge. No other business arena is allowed to simply dump their trash into others’ lives for free — whether paying water sewage fees or trash collection or tipping fees at dumps, every other business arena in the United States must pay for its waste disposal. The tax subsidies that DWG discusses below are only a fraction of the Social Cost of Carbon and the other costs that the extraction and burning of coal, oil, and natural gas imposed on all of us (all of the U.S.).
The Obama administration has proposed drastic cuts to federal subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuels corporations for the past four years. It is a policy that both climate and fiscal hawks should find common ground. Most energy-related incentives go to carbon polluters at a time when cutting greenhouse gas emissions is critical to avoid a climate catastrophe. Since these are also the richest corporations in human history, so-called fiscal hawks should be clamoring to end the unnecessary burden on taxpayers. Needless to say, those proposals have been rejected by Congress every year.
While federal subsidies for oil, gas, and coal are offensive and unnecessary, they are a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the generosity of states to the carbon polluters. This toxic stupidity at the state level has been ignored for too long.
I worry about the ongoing drought every day. I know I am starting seeds, and talking about gardening, but there is always a part of me that is worrying about the long terms effects of the last two years extreme heat, and of course, what the Spring and Summer have in store for us this Summer. Sometimes focusing on the gardens and the bees, and the like, help me maintain the illusion of control and normalcy. But I know that these are really just illusions.
Australia has been in the news lately due to the extreme droughts in their part of the world. When I read the Aussie stories, I couldn’t help but see the parallels between there and Oklahoma and Texas droughts. The last two summers here locally, it was so hot that baby birds, like those flying foxes were dropping out of the trees, some adult birds dropped out of the skies, because the heat was so intense that they were overheated and dehydrated and weakened. I rescued a Mississippi Kite last year, and some Jays as well.
Follow me through the orange portal for first hand accounts, comparisons, videos, and photos.
Our challenges, opportunities, and solution paths are complex and interrelated. Yet, all too often, we see them individually, not linked and interacting.
Fishgrease has an interesting discussion: Give Up Something You Love Or Go To Hell. In essence, Fishgrease is laying down that dealing with climate isn’t simply primarily a question of cleaning up energy sources — with somewhat a strawman that this is all Bill McKibben / 350.org focuses on — but that we must tackle consumption and reduce demand to achieve necessary change.
Fishgrease is absolutely right but, in a form of the strawman challenge of McKibben, also wrong because the truth is that we must tackle “and” rather than focus on specific ‘silver bullets’.
I don’t have low flow shower heads, but I rinse up, turn off the water, lather up, then rinse quickly. I think this works out well. …
My response, a recommendation to get a low-flow showerhead.
Do you really think that my method doesn’t save as much as a low flow head running the whole time?
Well, actually, it likely does “save as much” … and perhaps even more. But this is postulating an either / or situation when there is greater power in “and”.
Consumption: Needs / wants — what are seeking? Example: At the end of the day, I want (oops, many days, need) a cold beer … And, there are lots of ways to control ‘consumption’ impacts. Do I drink less beer? Is the beer local or from far away? Can or bottle? (And, well, recycling of that material …)
Efficiency: how do we get it? Example: Returning to that necessary beer: Is the beer cooled in an efficient refrigerator, out in the ice on a winter day, or is there a 50 mile drive (fast) to a liquor store carrying the specific micro-brewery beer from rural Tanzania and buy it from an open refrigeration unit …
What are the power sources involved? Example: For the electricity to cool the beer, are we talking nuclear or coal or …? For transport, even ‘store to home’, is this foot/bike power or a suburban assault vehicle (or grocery store delivery truck)? Etc …
Clearly, these three aren’t ‘the end of the game’ (as above, recycling and ‘cradle to cradle’, etc …) but thinking about and understanding the reality of these connections can help us achieve a better approach to our energy/environmental challenges and opportunities.
Follow me after the fold for a look at the three-legged stool in the shower … [Read more →]
President Obama’s inaugural address is being accounted for as one of his most progressive statements (certainly to a national audience) as President of the United States. Engaging in ‘climate spotting’, the paragraphs directly discussing Climate Change make it a true centerpiece of this (relatively) short inaugural address.
We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. (Applause.) Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.
The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition, we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries, we must claim its promise. That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure — our forests and waterways, our crop lands and snow-capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.
Sadly, as readers know, those who “still deny the overwhelming judgment of science” include the Republican Majority of the House of Representatives (along with, sigh, the Republicans on various science-related committees in the House and Senate). Recognizing this and the “political reality” that serious climate-change legislation is dead on arrival in the House, the question turns to:
What can President Obama do in the face of Republican obstructionism and science denialism?
The White House roof remains without solar electric panels despite Administration promises that this would have occurred well before now. While putting a few kilowatts (or even a few tens of kilowatts) of solar systems on the White House will have miniscule direct impact on the nation’s energy system, the symbolism remains important.
With this in mind, not surprising that one of the videos surrounding President Obama’s second inauguration relates to putting solar panels on the White House roof. While the rest of the family celebrates otherwise,
First Dog, Bo Obama, powers up his inauguration party with solar energy to celebrate another four years on the White House lawn! Good boy, Bo! Go to Solar White House to see what Bo is planning for his 2nd term.
While Bo’s celebration certainly looks more comfortable than the likely chilly weather Monday, it would nice to see Bo’s and his masters’ houses both sporting solar panels.
January 17th, 2013 · Comments Off on Capturing the nightmare of American politics: two exemplary graphs
Harvard University’s Theda Skocpol just put out a serious look at the fight for a cap and trade bill in 2009-10 with an effort to draw lessons for environmental organizations (and others) for future action. As with essentially everything that Skocpol has ever published, there is much to be learned and think about from “Naming the Problem: What It Will Take to Counter Extremism and Engage Americans in the Fight Against Global Warming.” (pdf) — no matter how much agreement one has with Skocpol’s conclusions. Skocpol’s work help crystallize, for me, something long ‘realized’ (by many) but not truly absorbed into our national political discussion: that the entire nature of American politics is being skewed by a radicalized ‘just say no’ minority of the Republican Party and that ‘institutional’ failures to recognize this are compounding the problem.
Two graphics illuminate the issue.
The first, to the right, contrasts Congressional perspectives (based on League of Conservation Voter ratings) with the public’s perspective (based on public opinion polling) on environmental issues. While a deep divide existed between Republican and Democratic Party members of Congress, this divide has become a chasm over the past 20 years. Notably, “GOP views” (as an entirety) tracked more closely with the Democratic Party than GOP politicians until Ronald Reagan and the era of ‘trees cause pollution’. Even so, “GOP views” remained closer to Democratic Party perspectives (both party members and members of Congress) than with the GOP members of Congress.
As Skocpol put it:
two realities are worth emphasis.
Partisan differences in public opinion remained very small compared to steadily growing partisan splits in Congressional voting about environmental policies; and
Public views evolved in closer relationship to the pro- environmental positions taken by Democrats in Congress than to the increasingly all-out oppositional voting of Congressional Republicans.
The GOP Congressional caucus has — for the past 30 years or so — become far more representative of a radical, fossil-foolish (funded) minority perspective than the overall viewpoint of those stating allegiance to the Republican Party. The wall of (in)difference between GOP Congressional perspectives and the general voter has been morphing into an ever more impressive Great Wall of Denial on climate science, pollution, and other environmental issues with each passing primary. Even as the Republican Party entered the 1980s with President Ronald Reagan showed the dominance of GOP’s polluter wing (‘polluting trees), a meaningful portion of the Party would count — today — as environmentalists with representation and voice in people like Senator Charles “Mac” Mathias, R-MD – and Mathias didn’t stand alone (Hatfield, Weicker, Javits, …). Mathias would almost seem a radical environmentalist today (noting that Mathias has an environmental medal named after him). In 2013, there is not a single Republican in Congress with even a shadow of Mathias (and his cohort’s) understanding and consideration of environmental issues. In Mathias’ day there would have been a good share of the GOP ‘caucus’ who would have been in line with the “Dem views” and “GOP views” somewhat balancing those Republicans (and, well, Democratic politicians as well) who were in bad with polluting industries. Those ‘balancers’ have been driven out of the GOP political elite by a radicalized minority whipped to a froth via Koch Brothers and other funded astroturfing.
Now, as to whipping to a froth’, let us take a moment to consider the impact of Faux News. As Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp machine (including, of course, the Wall Street Journal) propagates deceptive, partial, and outright false information on climate science and climate mitigation, there follow (at least a portion of the) GOP (primary) voters.
If we combine these two graphs, take the lesson that polluters take:
Investing in astroturf political movements whipped to a froth by deceptive (and false) reporting drives primary election results that provide veto power over Republican Party political action.
Professor Skocpol eloquently captures the basic Congressional Republican strategy and how it has been driven by the “Grassroots”:
Grassroots conservatives were not about to let their party’s Congressional leaders repeat old mistakes by cooperating with Obama’s initiatives in any area – and certainly not with his proposals for stimulus spending, the expansion of health insurance coverage, or regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Strategic considerations and popular pressures alike make it understandable that GOP Congressional leaders chose a “just say hell no” approach to the new Obama administration.
Now, putting the quite serious issue of how “grassroots” are often petroleum Koch-Brothers Astroturf, “just say hell no” has been the impolite Republican extension of Nancy Reagan’s approach to drugs (“Just Say No!“). (To be clear, Skocpol and Vanessa Williamson’s The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism provides a strong window on how real ‘grassroots’, impassioned Americans are being influenced (and deceived) by astroturf organizations and false reporting from Fox News and elsewhere.) And, as per the graphics above, what seems not to have been incorporated in Democratic Party leadership thinking and “The Village” conception is that this minority tail wagging the GOP dog(s) is so out-of-touch not just with “mainstream” American thinking but even mainstream Republicans.
And, the most important: this is not an environmental (climate change) issue that somehow sits in ‘pet issue’ for those softies cuddling polar bears and concerned amount the 10,000s of Americans killed by fossil-fuel pollution every year (year in, year out …) but is fundamental to the entire political dynamic.
Name any major issue of American politics today (fiscal, environmental, social, …) and the radical Republican Party elite is ‘out of touch’ with mainstream Americans.
Choice: The majority of Americans (including a good share of “GOP”) align with Bill Clinton’s concept of abortion: “Legal, safe, and as rare as possible.” The radical Republicans in Congress call for extreme anti-choice, even thinking that rape (even “forcible rape”) victims and women whose babies would suffer horrible pain en route a death shortly after birth should face criminal charges if they seek an abortion.
Government spending: While Americans might see concern about spending (frothed up by “Fiscal Cliff” mania and fed even by President Obama’s over-discussion of it), Americans want investment and expenditures to help create employment and foster a real end to the recession. The radical Republicans in Congress want to starve the government and many are gleeful at the prospects of a government shutdown over a debt ceiling fight.
Taxes: The vast majority of Americans support a more equitable tax code, seeing that the richest Americans can actually afford to pay somewhat more and ‘sacrifice’ just a bit to help pay for wars & the strengthening of society. The radical Republicans in Congress never met a billionaire tax-subsidy path that they didn’t love.
Health Care: Americans saw value to ‘single payer’ approaches, certainly favored having a ‘government option’, and see many values from ACA like being able to cover children through age 26 and the elimination of pre-existing condition constraints (although this support has been skewed by false reporting and mediocre Administration messaging). The radical Republicans in Congress want to wipe away the ACA and, in fact, reduce Americans’ access to affordable health care coverage to beneath the pitiful state it was before the health care legislation.
Gun Control: Americans — especially in face of the devastating Sandy Hook Elementary School attack — support reasoned gun control measures by significant majorities. As an example of funded machines on specific issues, the NRA has become devoted to Nancy Reagan with ‘just say no’ to any rational discussion of gun control.) The radical Republicans in Congress seem to want to emulate Somalia’s libertarian paradise (must see video) with a submachine gun under every pillow and a crew-served weapon in every (three-car) garage.
On issue after issue, there is a funded effort to distort reality.
On issue after issue, we have a impassioned GOP base which might best be described as delusional. Birthers, Sandy Hook conspirators, Obama as Socialist / Muslim / etc, Global Warming deniers .. Tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists being mis-informed, manipulated, and whipped to a froth to an end …
On issue after issue, not just in pet ‘green’ worlds, this is a mobilized (and frothed up) a reality-denying ‘base’ in the primaries.
On issue after issue, we face a maniacal base that creates an environment where a Republican politician willing to work toward ‘compromise’, keep their feet firmly in reality-based decision-making, and figure out real solutions to the nation’s real problems faces an incredible uphill battle (and is as close to impossible Sisyphean nightmare in most parts of the United States).
Climate Change denial (and, more broadly, Anti-Science Syndrome Hatred Of a Livable Economic System) is part and parcel of a generalized pattern of extreme radical right misrepresentation, truthiness, falsehoods, and outright delusion. This is not some ‘pet issue’ to be dragged out in an oh-by-the-way manner but is (a) key to every other issue and (b) is part-and-parcel of the effort to undermine American Democracy and undermine our future prospects via the leveraging of this extreme radicals to push American society away from reality-based policy making.
Unless (and until) the Democratic Party leadership truly incorporates this 21st century reality, policy issue after policy issue will crash against the jagged shores of radicalized Republican reality denial that specializes in “just saying no”.
And, incorporating this reality and making this a centerpiece of political discourse creates the potential cracking of the radical right’s control over the Republican Party while increasing the chances for reality-based politicians to win electoral contests.
And, embracing reality will heighten the chance for meaningful action forward on taxes, health care, education, social issues, gun control, … and climate change.
Recognizing that Republican anti-science is one of the core issues that will foster a Populist Wave in 2014 will heighten the chance for political change that will enable meaningful action forward on taxes, health care, education, social issues, gun control, … and climate change.
Sadly, the climate silence through the 2012 Presidential election campaign and stoic refusal to pound the table as to how climate disruption helped drive Sandy does not show an understanding of the necessity to confront — directly — the falsehoods being fostered on the American public that are driving the radical Republicans in Congress toward policies so damaging to the nation’s future. [Read more →]
Comments Off on Capturing the nightmare of American politics: two exemplary graphsTags:Obama Administration
January 15th, 2013 · Comments Off on “increasingly gloomy about the future of human civilization”
“Those of us who spend our days trawling – and contributing to – the scientific literature on climate change are becoming increasingly gloomy about the future of human civilisation,” said Liz Hanna, convener of the human health division at the Australian National University’s climate change Adaption Network. ‘We are well past the time of niceties, of avoiding the dire nature of what is unfolding, and politely trying not to scare the public. The unparalleled setting of new heat extremes is forcing the continual upwards trending of warming predictions for the future, and the time scale is contracting.”
As 2013 opens, it has been 27 years since the world experienced a month that was colder than average.
The US drought continues (on, for example, Texas and Oklahoma), with predictions for a damaged winter wheat crop, continued threats to navigation on the Mississippi River, water restrictions in more areas, …
This list is US dominated and isn’t even complete for just the United States — and yet this is not dominating the public discussion, “The Village” seems at best blase (with more concern over the Fiscal Cliff molehill than the Climate Cliff fissure), and the situation isn’t being addressed (essentially in no country — although some are better than others) with anything like the urgency required. Should anyone wonder why those with the most extensive knowledge about climate change science are “gloomy” at the global inaction?
So what I’m going to be doing over the next several weeks, next several months, is having a conversation, a wide-ranging conversation with scientists, engineers and elected officials to find out what can — what more can we do to make short-term progress in reducing carbons, and then working through an education process that I think is necessary, a discussion, the conversation across the country about, you know, what realistically can we do long term to make sure that this is not something we’re passing on to future generations that’s going to be very expensive and very painful to deal with.
Last night, amid consideration of Hurricane Sandy relief financing in the House, Republican after Republican trotted out global warming denier nonsense with scant regard for truth and disdain for truthful engagement in policy discussions.
While those most knowledgeable are becoming increasingly “scared” and”gloomy” (if not outright terrified) and climate chaos devastation mounts around the globe, Anti-Science Syndrome suffering Haters Of a Livable Economic System gloat in their power in the House of Representatives and we are treated to rumors about a “bipartisan summit”.
Action is required … we have long had an imperative for working to avert catastrophic impacts from climate change. We are, in fact, already suffering what any reasoned person would view as catastrophes (Sandy, anyone …?). We have the potential for reducing future impacts and for averting human civilization’s hurtling over the Catastrophic Climate Chaos Cliff if we begin to treat the situation with the urgency and seriousness required.
Rumors about bipartisan summits doesn’t meet this necessity nor do they pass any sanity check about seriousness for engaging in the fight to protect humanity from Climate Disruption.
Sparked by the White House’s thoughtful (and wonderfully hilarious and must read) rejection of the petition to build a Death Star (by 2016), actor Mark Ruffalo has posted a White House petition calling for a declaration of war on Climate Change.
I just started a petition. Let’s declare War On Climate Change. Figured if the Death star can get 35,000 sigs we could. wh.gov/EawO
The 1980s were hotter than the 1970s, the 1990s were hotter than the 1980s, 2000s hotter than 1990s, and it looks to be the 2010s will be hotter than the 2000s …
The hottest ten years in recorded temperature history have all occurred since 1998 …
Australia is burning up with #BigAussieHeat, Arctic Ice mass/extent is falling much faster than climate modeling predicted, climate change impacts are doing damage around the globe, species are going extinct, …
And, rather than specious calls for Death Stars and secession and …, We the People should be calling on the White House to address the most critical issue that humanity faces …
Declare War On Climate Change. We demand President Obama and Congress accept Climate Change as an enemy of the people.
We, the people, demand the President of the United States and it’s legislative body recognize Climate Change as great and Grave a threat to this nation as they would any other aggressive enemy. We demand that the President and Congress act against Climate Change as they have acted against Saddam Husein, Bin Laden, and Hitler for that matter. We demand a National Energy Policy that quickly begins to ween us off of Carbon Based fuels and expedites the inevitable and necessary transition to Clean Energy. We demand that our leaders act on the recommendations coming from an overwhelming majority of the scientific community to halt Climate Change and save the lives of untold millions.
Now, since Mruff221 only has some 358, 437 followers (at the moment of this writing), it should not be surprising that there were already 738 signatures (as of this writing) w/in hours.
While Ruffalo’s petition might not be what “should” be the petition (Is “War on Climate Change” to be a term to join “War on Poverty”, “The Drug War”, “War on Illiteracy” as a semi-meaningless term?), Ruffalo’s 358,437 followers and prominent place provide a tool to rocket this climate change / clean energy petition above 25,000 signatures and into the zone of promised WH response.
Self-centeredness impairs our ability to work together, solve complex problems, and respond to major existential threats. One of my favorite quotes from Darwin sums it up perfectly. “Selfish and contentious people will not cohere, and without coherence nothing can be effected.”
was the hottest year in US history
