The National Defense Industrial Association has identified five critical national security threats for the coming debts.
Biological weapons;
Nukes;
Cyber-Attacks;
Climate Change; and
Trans-national Crime
Please explain your perspective on these, highlighting arenas for the American public where your precepts and approaches differ from your opponent.
Clearly, this question could lead to a serious discussion for days on end, rather than a few minutes, but it would put on the table five quite serious arenas of “foreign policy” and allow the candidates to draw out differences. (This path, of course, would risk that the candidates would continue the climate silence through addressing issues other than climate change.) Thus, an even better approach would be to devote a reasonable period of the debate — perhaps 30 minutes — to go through this list, allowing the two candidates to address each in turn.
Kudoes to National Defense for an interesting article (which merits reading, discussion and debate) that provides the basis for a meaningful Presidential debate item.
The cost of climate disruption to the global community — in monetary, quality of life, and lives — is mounting. Consider, alone, the $10s of billions of economic cost to the United States through drought and heat damage-driven crop losses.
Scientific forecasts of ever mounting risks from unchecked climate change becoming truly catastrophic climate chaos.
Consider … the near silence amid the election campaign on climate change. Our present — and our future — is at serious risk; this is an all-pervading issue that relates to every element of society; and it is an arena of stark political difference that plays to Democratic Party advantage. And, yet … crickets of climate silence.
Amid the silence, some politicians are actually doing what leaders should do: leading. They are speaking out on climate issues and crashing through the climate silence. Laying out climate challenges and highlighting the opportunities created by confronting these challenges. These politicians merit a simple title:
And, today, there is a chance to bring to the fore that we want — we need — to see more Climate Heroes in our political class. We want — we need — more leadership in our political elite and in political offices when it comes to climate disruption.
The scientific consensus about climate change (it’s happening, people are causing it, if we don’t fix it a lot more people are going to get hurt) is pretty straightforward, and there is no reason accepting that much should be a partisan issue. Nevertheless, finding a high-profile Republican, currently holding elected office, who will publicly agree with the consensus is basically impossible.
It’s frustrating, to put it mildly, though it’s not at all surprising, given the huge amounts of money in direct campaign funds, lobbying, and proxy political ads the fossil fuel industry and its wealthiest magnates have provided over the years, mostly (though not all) to Republican candidates.
Of course, climate change matters, and what happens in this election matters a great deal as far as climate change is concerned, even if there’s been near-silence on the issue throughout the campaign season. Some good news – after the summer we just had, more Americans seem to have woken up a bit. Agreement that climate change is real was up to a whopping 70% in July, with majorities in both political parties.
Against the backdrop of our record-breaking summer, Mitt Romney responded to a ScienceDebate question in September, saying, in a nutshell, that he believes climate change to be real and humans to be a factor, but that we shouldn’t put limits on carbon pollution, and should continue expanding our use of fossil fuels…
… which is, as we point out in our latest video (transcript below the fold), like telling the fire department to go back to the station rather than extinguish the fire in your house.
If you’re new to the series, Don’t Just Sit There – Do Something! is a funny take on the serious business of climate change, with news, science, and actions that everyone can take to make a difference at an individual level, and a larger level, every episode.
Speaks strongly to and sways ‘independents’ who resemble Democratic voters, much more than Republicans, when it comes to climate-change issues.
Is irrelevant for the climate-deniers, who are already impassioned to vote for fossil-foolish politicians.
The Obama-Biden tweet, at this moment, has been retweeted over 1500 times and has over 300 favorites. Unclear how this matches up to other campaign tweets, but I do suspect that this is on the higher end for the campaign. A question: Is it possible that the campaign will use this as (yet another) signal of the political power of speaking on climate issues?
Now, while cheering (the “yeah” in the post’s title) on the campaign to talk about climate issues, let us be clear: this was a dangerous line for framing reasons and thus is it really the message that should be retweeted (the “sigh” in the title). Use of “hoax”, in the speech, was President Obama reacting to Mitt Romney’s joking anti-science dismissal of climate change in his RNC speech (and, well, lots of places elsewhere before and since). Take a look at the “Debunking Handbook”, which makes clear that starting off with the ‘myth’ to be ‘debunked’ sadly reinforces the false messaging. And, taking a look at this specific situation, there is real danger in using powerful words like “hoax”. As Joe Romm put it shortly after the speech,
The social science literature is quite clear that repeating a myth is not the best way to debunk it. Indeed, there is evidence that it can actually end up promoting that myth.
It’s why linguist George Lakoff titled his best-selling book, Don’t think of an elephant. If I say that to you, you will think of an elephant. Negatives carry very little rhetorical weight. In this case, the word “hoax” is very strong and memorable and is not one that should be repeated by those who understand the realities of climate science.
Thus, a conundrum: retweet to encourage the campaign to discuss climate issues or not to retweet to avoid reinforcing the negative?
My choice was to retweet but also to respond/engage to encourage better speechwriting along with continued discussion of climate issues.
Ending climate silence is not just right, but winning politics.
Yesterday, Climate Desk held a forum in Washington, DC, entitled: Is Climate Change the Sleeper Political Issue of 2012? The polling and focus group work, done by multiple institutions, shows quite clearly that — nationally — climate change is a winning political issue. The moderator, Chris Mooney, did a quite directed question challenging whether the ‘political pros’, who are focus on very micro-targeting in swing states, might know details that aren’t explored in the national polls. In a quite interesting discussion that followed, the three panelists highlighted — with different angles and details — that key swing states are actually more open for engagement on climate issues.
New Mexico and Colarado have had massive impact from drought and wildfires.
Florida is ‘on the front line’ for climate impacts, from extreme weather damage to rising seas.
Virginia — along with a good part of the East Coast — was in the bulls-eye for the Derecho earlier this year.
Yesterday’s panel, sadly not (yet?) available to watch on the Climate Desk site, had many useful points about how to do successful engagement on and framing of climate change to make it a winning political issue. We can only hope that the Obama-Biden campaign team (along with climate reality politicians at all levels) pay attention to and act on these lessons.
October 10th, 2012 · Comments Off on “We broke the Arctic …” McKibben on Bill Maher ..
We all have too many things to do in the day … and there are only so many hours (or minutes) that can be given over to watching others rather than doing ourselves.
However, here is 12 minutes that is truly worth watching (okay, truly worth listening to).
Bill McKibben is incredibly articulate and informed. Bill speaks with a language that should connect and inform any with an actual open mind.
Comments Off on “We broke the Arctic …” McKibben on Bill Maher ..Tags:climate change
Despite his significant backing of (that unicorn like notion of) “clean coal” and opening of huge areas of Federal land for increased coal production, the coal industry is bankrolling an aggressive campaign against President Obama — embraced with passion by the Republican Party — arguing that there is a “War on Coal”. These coal barons want no regulations between them and increased profitability — not protections for workers, not protections of local communities from mountain-top removal debris, not protections of fetuses from mercury poisoning from coal emissions, and certainly not any protections of our society’s future prosperity and viability through control of greenhouse gas emissions. The coal barons are putting massive amounts of money into efforts to drive Democrats out of office and seeking to froth up coal-country anger.
In the face of these shrill “war on coal” claims, it is worth noting that some of the most thoughtful paragraphs ever to appear in an American newspaper about coal came recently from a coal-country paper, the Roanoke Times, in an editorial entitled “Enemies of Coal“. [Read more →]
October 9th, 2012 · Comments Off on “More Fair, More Simple” George Allen’s Grammatical and Philosophical Failures …
Virginia Republican Senate candidate George Allen evidently is enamoured with word “more”. Listening to his debate with Governor Tim Kaine, George used the words “more fair” and “more simple” to describe his philosophical concepts behind tax codes that would lower the wealthiest income tax cuts. While many use the “do I want to drink a beer with the candidate” question as influential for deciding what to do in the voting booth, one of my preferred short hand questions: “Would I want the person to teach my children?” Simply put, my elementary school children would not get away with saying “more fair” and “more simple”. In fact, while brushing her hair during the debate (as she wanted me to change the channel), my eight-year old daughter said “No. Doesn’t he know that it is “fairer” and “simpler”?” Cutting to the core: George Allen, not smarter than a third grader.
While George Allen’s grammar might grate, his policy concepts and ideological are the real issues of concern.
When it comes to energy, George Allen’s rhetorical flourishes during the debate might have captured the attention of the poorly informed and ingratiated him with his fossil fuel financial backers, but his truthiness-laden misdirections, misrepresentations and half-truths were in support of policies that — if enacted — would impoverish the Commonwealth of Virginia and endanger the Union’s future.
This guest post comes from Professor Scott Mandia. Professor Mandia addresses the significant discussion of climate change issues driven by moderator Jim Lehrer’s probing questions during the first 2012 Presidential debate.
“The first role of the federal government is to keep the American people safe.” President Barack Obama
“We have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people, and that means a military second to none,” he said. “I do not believe in cutting our military. I believe in maintaining the strength of America’s military.” Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney
Based on these two comments from the debate last night, one would conclude that President Obama would never avoid talking about a serious national security issue and that Mitt Romney respects the opinion of our military leaders. And, being a Republican, one might also assume Romney respects the opinions of our financial experts.
WRONG, and WRONG, and WRONG.
Dr. Georges Benjamin, Executive Director of the American Public Health Association, made this point quite clearly inhis recent statement:
Climate change is one of the most serious health threats facing our nation. Yet few Americans are aware of the very real consequences of climate change on the health of our communities, our families and our children.
We need to… convince the world that humanity really is the most important species endangered by climate change.
In a2010 statement, 33 of the top generals and admirals in the United States stated:
Climate change is making the world a more dangerous place. It’s threatening America’s security. The Pentagon and security leaders of both parties consider climate disruption to be a “threat multiplier” – it exacerbates existing problems by decreasing stability, increasing conflict, and incubating the socioeconomic conditions that foster terrorist recruitment. The State Department, the National Intelligence Council and the CIA all agree, and all are planning for future climate-based threats. America’s billion-dollar-a-day dependence on oil makes us vulnerable to unstable and unfriendly regimes.
A2010 statement from 268 investors representing assets of more than US$15 trillion:
Several leading studies indicate that the systemic shocks to regional and global economies from climate change will be substantial and will worsen the longer world governments wait to take sufficient policy action.
So clearly our health, military, and financial experts agree that human-caused climate change poses a very real threat to our health, safety, and financial security.
But here is what each candidate said about climate change:
Mitt Romney has a love in his heart — yet he wants to defund all the things he loves except the one killing us.
“I love Big Bird.” And he “likes PBS” but he wants to defund it.
“I love great schools” although he doesn’t see a Federal role for it (even as he likes what the Secretary of Education is doing in it).
“Now, I like green energy as well” but his energy policy concept doesn’t include energy efficiency (that “invisible energy” which is the most powerful of ‘green’ energies) and attacks wind and solar energy
All of these things that Mitt “loves” and “likes” will be defunded and destroyed if his policy concepts are enacted.
On the other hand, what does Mitt “like” that will get support?
I like coal. I’m going to make sure we continue to burn clean coal. People in the coal industry feel like it’s getting crushed by your policies.
What a load of …! Here are a few examples why …
It is interesting that Mitt wants to discuss what “people in the coal industry feel like” rather than confronting market reality: the booming natural gas industry (with extremely low natural gas prices) means that existing coal plants simply aren’t competitive in the market place. And, with technological and business developments, “new” coal plants are simply uncompetitive against not just natural gas but, in ever-more market areas with each day, coal isn’t competitive with new wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, hydropower, and other emergent electricity options.
“Make sure we continue to burn clean coal.” Where is the intrepid reporter who is going to ask the Romney campaign some simple questions: Where are we “burn[ing] clean coal” today that we will “continue” into the future? What does Mitt Romney mean by “Clean Coal”?
Yes, when it comes to Mitt’s likes and loves, the only ones that would get support in a Romney Administration are those that are bad for America and Americans.
Considering Mitt’s “I like coal”, perhaps a better “Denver debate in short” would be:
In the vein of Network and “I’m mad as hell and not going to take it anymore”, “Weathergirl” is audacious enough to explain, with the passion it merits, the seriousness of our climate situation. Enjoy the humor of and weep with the truth of Weathergirl Goes Rogue 2: Still Hot, Still Crazy.
This summer’s droughts in the American Midwest have pushed corn and wheat prices above their previous highs in 2011 and out of the reach of the world’s poorest, threatening to trigger a new wave of global unrest — perhaps even a second Arab Spring.
NECSI has shown that surges in unrest coincided with food price peaks in 2007-01 and 2010-11 [7]. During much of August and September, the price of wheat exceeded the high of $8.94 of February 2011, by which time the events of Arab Spring were underway.
Climate disruption is a very serious player in 2012’s high food prices (think drought in the United States, to start with). And, with mounting climate chaos, we can only expect sort of climate change-driven disruption to the global agricultural system to occur more frequently and with more devastating impacts.
