While far from the ‘breaking news’ MTV created with a “boxers vs briefs” question to Bill Clinton, MTV interviewer Sway Calloway did what journalist moderators at the three presidential and one vice-presidential debates were unable (unwilling) to do: ask a quite serious question about climate change.
Until this year global climate change has been discussed in every presidential debate since 1988. It was a big part of your previous campaign but pushed back on the back burner. Given the urgency of the threat, do you feel that we’re moving quickly enough on this issue, number one, and Samantha from New Jersey wants to know what will you do to make it a priority?
And, from President Barack Obama, Calloway received a serious answer from the get-go:
The answer is number one, we’re not moving as fast as we need to
Absolutely true …
And there is a huge contrast in this campaign between myself and Governor Romney
Absolutely true …
I am surprised it didn’t come up in one of the debates.
Terrifyingly true … although President Obama and Vice President Biden literally had hours of opportunities to raise the issue since, after all, it is related to domestic and foreign policy, to budget issues and security, and to energy issues where we had President Obama and Mitt Romney arguing over who was the better friend to fossil fuels. (Hint … Romney did win this but the President made him work for the title.)
There are a lot of things we have done a lot of things in the last four years. We have already doubled the fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. … We have doubled clean energy production — wind, solar, biofuels — … The next step is to deal with buildings and really ramp up our efficiency in buildings.
True, true, and true … these are important achievements and plans.
Speculating about an “October Surprise” has long been part-and-parcel of presidential elections. International crises, domestic economic troubles, and unearthed scandalous events/behavior have all had their moments in the month before election day. In 2012, we have a serious potential that the October Surprise will come from an unusual direction and a seemingly non-partisan actor: Mother Nature.
Along the East Coast, residents from Florida to Maine are dealing with the storm’s impacts or watching Hurricane Sandy with an increasingly concerned eye. Predications, at the moment, have a Northeast United States Sandy landfall for Halloween — anywhere between the North Carolina coast to the Boston, MA, area. And, there are mounting concerns that this could be a true Perfect Storm. Uncertainty as to whether, where, and how serious an impact …
However, what we know is that 2012 has been a devastating year in terms of climate disruption damage — floods, droughts, severe weather events, and otherwise around the globe. In the United States, heat waves with massive breaking of high temperature records, likely the hottest year on record, huge portions of the nation with drought, many floods, the shocking Derecho in the east, significant crop damage, and … While some wish to keep their heads in the sand in denial, we are seeing (sadly in real time) humanity’s thumb on the scale and nature of otherwise “natural” events. Even without human-driven climate change, we would have rain and snow, droughts and floods, balmy days and hurricanes, and uncertainty in agricultural production. What scientists are increasingly agreed on is that the amount of and extent of such extremes increase with mounting climate change, thus the term: climate disruption.
Sandy’s low-pressure system is “highly unusual” (according to The Weather Channel) in terms of such low-pressure in the Northeast at this time of year. “Unusual” is an increasingly heard term, it seems, from meteorologists amid mounting climate disruption.
In a quick review, the equation is simple: more climate heat = bigger storms. Some indications of climate disruption links to Sandy:
There are several climate connections for Sandy:
– hotter than normal ocean temps means heavier rainfall and possibly strong storm:
How’s this for some election-year timing: The East Coast faces the real possibility of taking a battering next week from a “perfect storm” roaring in from the Atlantic — right at the tail end of a campaign in which President Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and their debate moderators have all drawn criticism for avoiding discussion of climate change.
The brewing, blustery mess could affect the same region that was already knocked around by this summer’s derecho and soaked in 2011 by Hurricane Irene. And it could come just two months after Hurricane Isaac forced the GOP to cancel the first day of its convention in Tampa.
“Sandy is yet another reminder that the candidates should stop competing over who can poison the weather faster with increased oil, gas and coal production. If they fear that honesty about global warming could cost them votes, they should instead be more concerned that climate silence costs lives.”
Let us all hope that Sandy will divert from off the coast and, if there is landfall, that Sandy does not cause significant damage or add additional loss of life to climate chaos’ toll. No matter Sandy’s physical path, however, we need to wonder whether the storm will impact the path of the 2012 Presidential election by (finally) crashing through the climate silence barrier.
100 … 100 percent. Such a ’round’ and definitive figure provides the basis for a very clear, simple target to think about.
With all the delays toward action related to climate mitigation and the mounting impacts of climate disruption around the globe, the concept of 80 by 50 (80 percent reduction carbon emissions by 2050 — from 1990 levels) is increasingly absurd as a standard for planning to foster a prosperous and secure climate-friendly future. While seemingly absurd in a situation where ‘business as usual’ shows increased emissions in 2050 (and driving car into the wall at 60 miles per hour (or 100 kilometers per hour) by the end of the century), compared to today, targeting a carbon-neutral future economic system seems a sensible objective (to get our speed ‘down’ to 20 miles per hour). 100 …
Ikea: This Swedish global powerhouse announced a doubling of its renewable energy investments, “to resist the ongoing volatility of conventional fuel prices.” Ikea targets meeting 70 percent of its electricity needs with renewable energy by 2015 and 100 percent by 2020. And, in other 100%, Ikea plans to that 100% of the light bulbs it sells will be long-lasting, efficient LEDs; 100% of the oils used in candles and foods will come from sustainable sources, and that 100% of its cotton supplies from sources certified by the Better Cotton Initiative.
Saudia Arabia: Prince Turki Al Faisal Al Saud,l announced that Saudi Arabia has determined to move the country to 100% low carbon (renewable energy plus nuclear power) electricity sources. Right now, Saudi Arabia’s electricity market is dominated by oil generation facilities. An important point: the Saudi decision certainly cannot be seen outside the context of climate change but it is truly driven by hard-headed economic reasons. For (not just) Saudi Arabia, the rich complexity of hydrocarbon molecules just have too much value to see them go up in smoke. The Saudis intend to capture that value:
use its vast oil reserves for other goods, such as plastics and polymers. “Oil is more precious for us underground than as a fuel source,” [Prince Turki] said. “If we can get to the point where we can replace fossil fuels and use oil to produce other products that are useful, that would be very good for the world.”
These are not isolated developments.
Month after month, the U.S. electrical system is heading toward a lower-carbon output system. This is being driven due to very low natural gas prices, increased nuclear power efficiencies, and ever-increasing capacity of renewable electricity generation (hydropower, biomass, wind, and solar). In the first nine months of 2012, the capacity of commercialscale solar systems jumped by more than one-third (with the addition of 936 megawatts to give a total operating capacity of 3.37 gigawatts). The United States is far from alone in seeing such changes in its electrical grid.
Ikea is not the only company accelerating renewable energy investments with near-term targets of 100 percent renewable energy. Zotos International has installed wind turbines that meet 50 percent of its electricity needs, buys ‘clean energy’ for the other 50 percent, and is working on plans for self-generating 100 percent of their requirements. Even some utilities have such targets. For example, the Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) is rapidly adding renewable energy systems with a goal of 100 percent renewable energy (to exceed the state’s target of 70 percent renewable electricity by 2030). (Of relevance, the EPA’s list of 100% Green Power users.)
Saudi Arabia is not alone. Oil-producingDenmark plans to eliminate fossil fuels from its domestic energy use (electricity, heating, and transportation) by 2050, with significant near-term targets for reducing fossil fuels in its electricity and heating markets.
100 …
100 percent clean energy and 100 percent reduction in the economy’s carbon footprint might seem like tall leaps but these are necessary, achievable, and even profitable paths to take for individuals, companies, communities, nations, and the global economy. This ‘hot renewable energy news’ comes as we learn that September 2012 was tied for the hottest global September ever. It is well past time, as a society, to take serious measures to reduce climate disruption risks. As part of that path forward, we should celebrate these recent “100” announcement and redouble our efforts to add more to the list.
Obama for America (OFA), the Obama-Biden reelection effort, asked for feedback in an email likely sent to millions. I expect that many provided substantive feedback. Below the fold is mine.
Earlier this evening, a rather troubling piece came to my attention. Keeping Climate Change Out of the Presidential Campaign wrong-headedly celebrates that the Presidential political campaign has not included discussion of climate change issues.
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 in 2012 … alone.
The tail end of risk curves, according to scientific analysis, from unchecked climate change lay out truly catastrophic climate chaos scenarios that should terrify any rational individual.
Climate activists are aghast that climate change did not make it into either of the first two presidential debates. Prior to the first debate, environmental organizations reportedly delivered a petition to moderator Jim Lehrer to bring climate change up for discussion. They were ignored. For supporters, being ignored was probably the best thing that could have happened in support of the politics of climate change.
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
domestic economic troubles, and unearthed scandalous events/behavior have all had their moments in the month before election day. In 2012, we have a serious potential that the October Surprise will come from an unusual direction and a seemingly non-partisan actor: Mother Nature.
100 … 100 percent. Such a ’round’ and definitive figure provides the basis for a very clear, simple target to think about.
audi Arabia, the rich complexity of hydrocarbon molecules just have too much value to see them go up in smoke. The 
