What Now?
The headline says it all:
Democrats Abandon Sweeping Energy Plan
Let the recriminations begin. Reports the NYT:
At a news conference, the [Senate] majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, blamed Republicans for refusing to cooperate. “We don’t have a single Republican to work with us,” Mr. Reid said.
Which is true, but not the whole truth:
While Mr. Reid criticized Republicans, it is clear he did not have sufficient support in his own party for a broad energy bill. A number of Democratic lawmakers from manufacturing and coal-producing states were expected to oppose such a bill.
Joe Romm seems conflicted on whose hide to rip. In this post, he pretty much blames President Obama’s top advisers, but in the comments he falls back on his favorite whipping boys:
I’ve repeatedly made clear that most of the blame lies with anti-science, pro-pollution conservatives and the media.
Yep. Sounds about right to me, if you’re looking for some convenient scapegoats.
More interesting to me: where do we go from here? What’s the new playbook?
As usual, Andy Revkin beats everyone to the punch with this provocative idea, which is bound to infuriate progressives:
Could it be that the White House has concluded what some political analysts have quietly told me “” that only a Republican president could muster the Senate votes to pass a meaningful climate bill?
Hooo boy. That sounds like Nixon going to China. And pretty wishful thinking when one considers the conservative mold of the Republican party today.
Of course it’s too early to say, but I’m predicting some deep soul searching by climate advocates after the blame game runs its course. Then an all out power struggle over who gets to set the course correction. Anyone else care to make a prediction?
UPDATE: Roger Pielke Jr. on the Congressional climate bill collapse:
The bottom line is that the dominant approach to climate change promoted by those calling for action the loudest has failed — yet again. Really, how much more evidence is needed to convince those calling for action on climate change that a radically new approach is needed.
David Roberts at Grist might be ready to let his beard grow out and shuffle around with a sign that reads The End is Near:
It’s a sad, corrupt state of affairs this country finds itself in. I wish I had some hopeful words to offer. But at this point, American government appears to be broken. And our children and grandchildren will suffer for it.
Michael Levi, an energy expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, says “the United States is in for a rocky time in international climate diplomacy.”
Sure, I’ll be the fall guy. (Remember I predicted Pachauri would be gone by June 30.)
Obama proceeds with the incremental program he ran on. He funds R&D. He extends rebates and subsidies. He continues making government greener. He uses nudges to get states to help the cause. He jawbones on energy efficiency. He continues to push for more waste to energy and combined heat and power. He gives the EPA the go-ahead to start with their proposed regulations.
Longer range prediction: It works.
There’s a lot to agree with in Revkin’s piece (and I did in the comments there), but the “Nixon to China” meme is sounds more like narrative wish-fulfillment than plausible future.
Let’s recall- today’s Republicans and some Dems won’t even vote for George W. Bush’s campaign proposals. The 2008 GOP platform basically deleted all references to anthropogenic warming. Current Republican incumbents have been consistently challenged from the right, causing them to reverse to or double down on positions of anti-regulation across the board, let alone climate.
We’ll probably see clean and efficient energy investment in spades before a real climate bill. Those who believe that this was inevitable rather than a function of the economic collapse and health care taking priority will claim vindication.
I’d bet that the first bill signed into law with a cap will come when 1) the economy has recovered more (5 years maybe); 2) the Dems make up some of their midterm losses; 3) EPA regulation or threat of regulation is more threatening. Of course some warm weather-related event like another Katrina might change things, but not as much as others seem to believe.
Tom Fuller & TB:
What about on the world level? Remember, global climate talks are supposed to hinge on the U.S. making the first move. What happens in Mexico later this year?
RE: “UPDATE”
Right on cue.
Those who believe that this was inevitable rather than a function of the economic collapse and health care taking priority will claim vindication.
and
So the Lomborgs, Judith Currys, Roger Pielke Jrs., et al. receive plenty of attention and little pushback.
I think Mexico will be a bit of a dud–what little I’ve seen on it is trying to manage expectations downwards. The EU has already walked away from its raising the bar on emission reductions. The UK just dismantled one environmental oversight committee.
I do think a lot of work will continue on green solutions, with tacit support from governments. A lot of contracts have already been signed for large projects–There are a lot of dams being built in Asia, Africa and South America, and a lot of legacy wind power projects being built.
The canary in the coal mine for renewable energy is the huge Deseret project in North Africa. It’s either the saviour for green energy (at $600 billion, it basically supports green energy for a decade) or it becomes a half-completed white elephant, abandoned because of budgetary constraints.
I was about to write an article praising Obama for Rooseveltian caution, not going an inch farther on this issue than he was pushed–the guy is just, so, good–but I figured it would be called inciting to riot. He will end up being pushed into the position he always wanted to be in–incremental change and picking the low hanging fruit. Can I vote for him for a third term yet?
Tom,
There’s a lot of hand-wringing going on over at CP, but this one comment seems in line with your take.
Tom,
I agree with so much of what you write usually, but Obama wants “incremental change?” I guess if you ignore everything he has ever said or done…. Calling the health care legislation, drastic legislation governing financial institutions (except of course Fannie and Freddie), serial bailouts, nationalization of two auto companies, trillion dollar deficits and so much more “cautious,” strikes me as only marginally better than claiming these policies originated in Obama’s embrace of the Chicago School of economic theory (one of my favorite comments of all time on this blog).
His policies might prove to be right or wrong (I know where my money is), but cautious? What the hell does daring look like?
How can any 2000+ page bill, let alone the multiple bills passed recently by Obama and the Dems in Congress, that were passed without even the congressman themselves knowing what was in them, be called cautious?
Do you really, REALLY, think Obama doesn’t want to tax energy and regulate carbon emissions now? He wants to let cap and trade die? The guy who will stop the rising of the oceans and radically change the US economic political/system an incrementalist?
Oh, and don’t forget, the death of health care legislation was repeatedly declared dead, on both sides of the political spectrum, until a few weeks before it was suddenly passed. Don’t be so sure about the untimely demise of cap and trade.
I will now wipe the foam off my monitor…..
Actually, GaryM, I do think Obama doesn’t want to tax energy and regulate CO2 emissions now. Or at least not much. I don’t think he ever wanted cap and trade very much–that was pushed on him right after he was elected by my very own congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.
Obama distanced himself from the more ambitious proposals and let them go as far as the ubergreens could take them. He would have lived with them had they passed, but I bet he doesn’t lose one night’s sleep over their failure or delay.
As for healthcare and financial reform, he ran on that stuff. It isn’t that radical at all, IMO (I know, I know, but I lived in Europe for 13 years–this all seems pretty tame to me). The people voted for him after hearing about healthcare reform and financial reregulation. But what they heard about the environment, surprise, surprise, is pretty much what’s left on the table now.
Tom,
Maybe we are talking about different Barack Obamas.
“Let me sort of describe my overall policy.
San Francisco Chronicle, January 17, 2008.
Oh, and let’s not forget “…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
No, Tom, you need to read more than just that little bit. Taking something out of context to paint someone the way you want them to be seen — good journalism? Show us the way. Look it up.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/republicans-to.html
—-excerpt follows—-
“The quote comes from a January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle; the Obama campaign says the quote is being “wildly” taken out of context, that in the full interview Obama praises coal and says that the idea of eliminating coal is “an illusion.”
“The line they pulled out is in the context of cap and trade program,” says an Obama spokesperson. “The point Obama is making is that we need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies — and that is exactly the action that will be incentivized under a cap and trade program.”
Is it being taken unfairly out of context? You be the judge. Here’s the entirety of Obama’s remarks:
“I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote — despite the fact that I’m a coal state and that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical.
“But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. …”
Followed by the bit you quoted.
See Gary? You can actually say whatever you want–these guys will blame it on me anyways…
Heck, I’d support a modified cap and trade if it were 100% auction. I lost my taste for it after it went though the bloataucracy. I do support a small price on CO2–about $12 per ton.
Right, Obama said “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted” in the context of…well…um…uh…charging huge sums under his proposed cap and trade system? Yeah…that’s diff…..no wait, it still means exactly the same thing.
And the context that makes “under my cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” not mean electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket under his proposed cap and trade system is…?
Oh, and the first quote did not come from the article, it came from the video interview from which the article was written. The Chronicle somehow managed to leave that quote out of their written article.
Tom,
Maybe I should just post under your name, more people would read my posts and you would get all the ridicule…
GaryM, that’s a dastardly tactic and I hope you use it frequently…
Half-seriously, though, I know our President has used a lot of rhetoric in support of green policy, but has he ever moved off of dead center on this? I just don’t think he has any skin in this game.
“I don’t think he ever wanted cap and trade very much”“that was pushed on him right after he was elected….”
But the quote and the explanation are both from before he was elected, and the whole idea is not about taxing energy, but about taxing CO2 released to the atmosphere — and about not taxing coal plants that handle the CO2 instead of releasing it. It’s a tax on the waste product, not on the energy.
We have real problems: two (count ’em) wars, hi unemployment, a down economy, unprecedented competition from developing nations…
And we have real environmental issues: deforestation, over-fishing, loss of wetlands…
And we have the maybe, might be – or perhaps not – problem of global warming. We’ve been emitting CO2 for the better part of a century and nobody can, with certainty, measure any cost to humanity – it might well have been beneficial. Catstrophe exists only in the (imperfect) forecasts.
Unilateral decarbonization would be ineffective, if not reckless. Global cooperation is not likely right now. Abiding by and enforcing a global program is itself a risky proposition…
Decarbonization baby steps only destroy wealth required to advance technology,..
So cap and trade is dead. I say: hallelujah.
What now: AfterParty!
Re #8 Tom Fuller:
“Obama distanced himself from the more ambitious proposals and let them go as far as the ubergreens could take them. He would have lived with them had they passed, but I bet he doesn’t lose one night’s sleep over their failure or delay.”
Do you think Obama is hanging them out to dry, and then will come around in due time with his own plan? If so, what does that gain him?
And on a different topic I have to agree with GaryM–Obama is not an incrementalist. Well, he may be now, but he was not originally an incrementalist. Before being elected he was all for as much change as he could think of. That is not surprising, as you have to outline big ideas in order to prove that you have “vision” and distinguish yourself from the others. But I didn’t sense any realization in him at the time that he understood that he might have to downgrade or drop some of his goals in order to get others passed.
After he took office, well, I think the realities of the presidency impose incrementalism. Our system is not set up for massive change. Gitmo is a good example of imposed incrementalism, I think–he signed the order in his first month to have it closed within a year, but there is no sign that the detention facilities will be closed any time soon, and we don’t hear about continued pressure on the issue anymore.
Catstrophe exists only in the (imperfect) forecasts.
Hi Keith, If I said that at certain blogs, that shall not be mentioned 😉 I’d be called a sceptic, or worse…
So, welcome to the dark side;).
Uncertainty, with the evidence suggesting that catastrophy, is a bit of a delusion. possibly
> nobody can, with certainty
Science doesn’t do “certainty” — you want something impossible.
Science works with uncertainty and produces results nobody could get before science started being done — like semiconductors, lasers, computers, weather and climate models.
They work. Waiting for certainty means waiting until there’s no chance to change what’s happening. That’s refudiate thinking.
Tom,
There is a difference between what Obama wants and will have Rahm Emanuel work for behind the scenes, and what he will put his neck on the line for. In the first category I put cap and trade right along with health care, nationalization of GM and Chrysler, etc. Obama is a true believing leftist in the most radical sense.
But our president has learned well his “politics Chicago style.” You twist arms, bribe, cajole, beg, wheedle, blackmail, all behind the scenes. Never let them see you sweat, and only come out from under the rock when you have the deal.
He does not get out front on the details of ANY major legislation. He just gives rhorshach test speeches. But his radicalism is very much still there. He wouldn’t need the people he surrounds himself with if he wasn’t.
So yes, I do think he is way left of center on this issue, as his campaign speeches indicated, and as his initial legislation (as much as we saw of it) showed. Keeping his skin out of the game is political tactics, not ideological bent.
Oh, and as for my suggestion earlier that news of the demise of more radical cap and trade may have been exaggerated, there is this already: “Mike Allen of Politico.com reports one reason President Obama failed to mention climate change legislation during his recent, Oval Office speech on the Gulf oil spill was that he wants to pass a modest energy bill this summer, then add carbon taxes or regulations in a conference committee with the House, most likely during a lame-duck session. The result would be a climate bill vastly more ambitious, and costly for American consumers and taxpayers, than moderate “Blue Dogs” in the House would support on the campaign trail. “We have a lot of wiggle room in conference,” a House Democratic aide told the trade publication Environment & Energy Daily last month.”
Health care was pronounced dead numerous times until just before all 2000+ pages of it were Rahmmed through in a matter of days. For those of you who are climate catastrophe true believers, all is not yet lost. Watch for a repeat of the health care “deem it passed” style tactics, after the Dems (likely) get clobbered in November, when they will have nothing more to lose.
I’ve never understood why some people consider conservatives to be “anti-science”. Perhaps that’s just the easiest nickname to describe the end product that they see, but I don’t think it’s quite accurate. It’s not like conservatives have a list of “10 Things I Must Oppose Because I Am Conservative” with science at #1. To me, it’s more like science is just not one of the major things they base their life-choices on, and there are other things that they value more highly, like faith and family and security. I see liberals being more science-oriented, and it’s higher on their list.
GaryM, well, one of us is really wrong about Barack Obama. I personally think he is broadly centrist in nature, and to the slight extent he has progressive tendencies, reality has served to keep him in check, much like Bill Clinton.
KDK33 — here, said clearly:
“None of us are 100 percent, I hope, convinced of anything …. If there’s a 95 percent chance, the public needs to know that.”
— Stephen Schneider, video here:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/07/judy-judy-judy.html
tb: Of course some warm weather-related event like another Katrina might change things, but not as much as others seem to believe.
This is really disturbing. Hoping for a devastating natural disaster just for political gain? Katrina turned into unprecedented exploitation of a horrific human tragedy. When I saw a live broadcast (Fox News, none-the-less) detailing the appalling conditions inside the Superdome restrooms, I shut the TV off in total disgust.
Not once did the climate experts step up to educate the masses about the “difference between weather and climate.” Even now that robust research shows that hurricane activity has decreased despite increasing atmospheric CO2, IPCC scientists continue this misinformation in their boilerplate public statements. One scientist, Landsea, officially resigned with an open letter for precisely this reason.
This is an example of where CAGW activism mirrors the superstitious aspects of religion. If we continue our sinfulness, Mother Nature will punish mankind with Her wrath.
Is the victory of passing Cap & Trade worth more than the cost of human lives?
Why not get behind nuclear power? My uneducated guess is that Wall Street would respond well. Progress brings hope! Obama has actually mentioned nuclear as a possibility. But he’s the master of saying whatever he thinks people want to hear.
I find Pielke’s rhetoric irrational, but not surprising. The theme he’s trying to push is that any large-scale carbon pricing mechanism will never pass. He certainly wants that to be the case, and he’s using failure of the Senate bills as ammo, but it’s not an argument. Tobis debunks this concisely in #6.
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/07/roger-jrs-top-ten-opinions.html
Pielke’s spin is that of a zealous fan of a team that wins the final game by a few points. The losing team was clearly inferior and doomed to fail.
It’s always been a matter of political will, and the will is largely there. Climate legislation passed the House. Without the Senate rules requiring 60 votes rather than a simple majority, Pielke would have to push a radically different line of spin. The Senate is not much more than 5 votes away, but the midterms will very likely push them further away by a few votes. It’s best at this point for states and the federal government to continue to push initiatives that will help reduce emissions in the short-term until some of the non-fossil-fuel-based energy industries can gain more clout. For example, Colorado this year passed an aggressive renewable energy bill, despite Pielke’s best efforts to the contrary. I wonder if he wrote a “doomed to never pass” post before that.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14735606
States and the feds need to continue to address the issue from a variety of angles. CA has taken a lead, for example. They did this in the 80’s with appliance efficiency, and with sweeping effects throughout the country. The innovation that resulted wasn’t confined to California consumers, and eventually the nation adopted similar standards.
“In the first category I put cap and trade right along with health care, nationalization of GM and Chrysler, etc. Obama is a true believing leftist in the most radical sense.”
Generally, greater than 50% in the U.S. support cap and trade, despite years of intense lobbying against it. I guess most Americans are “radical leftists” (although polls would indicate otherwise).
http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm
So in one sense the Senate is working against the will of the people, although it goes back to that 60-vote thing again.
One might wonder why healthcare reform passed, despite a slight plurality of Americans against it, and why cap and trade stalled in the Senate, despite most Americans being for it. It has a lot to do with the unbalanced influence corporations have over politicians, which is being made worse by the recent SCOTUS ruling.
Healthcare reform got significant backing from much of the healthcare industry. Pharmas opposed mildly to additional fees, since such fees would be offset to a degree by increased business. Similar stance from the health insurers, who didn’t have to worry about a public option interfering with new customers. Few complaints from anyone seeking employment in the healthcare industry. In contrast, while cap and trade is supported by some utilities and industries, it’s overwhelmingly rejected by coal and oil, which currently dominate the energy markets and hold much clout in DC. Take Republicans and round up a small handful of Democratic Senators unduly influenced by them, and there’s your difference.
More fundamentally, healthcare reform wasn’t much of a challenge to the status quo, as existing industries remain intact, but soon expanded to accomodate 30 million more customers. Cap and trade isn’t a net expansion at all. It’s a genuine energy transformation that replaces (threatens) existing powerful industries with other industries, and also contracts the energy markets in general. Other than carbon sequestration of coal (uncertain proposition a decade or more away), there’s not much compromise with coal and oil. They eventually have to be phased out. Better sooner rather than later.
It was clearly predicted and forseen that the whole plan is to push a utilities cap, somewhat like what operates in Maryland (and other NE states?) and pass on the costs to the customer, isnt it?
Surely, this is ‘narrow’ by the initially proposed bogus legislative plans.
A dramatic overnight marshalling, backroom manuevers, phone calls, and West Wringing, can rally everyone around this ‘narrow’ focus no doubt?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tomtoles/2010/07/23/c_07252010.gif
Ya gotta love polls: Here is the poll result NewYorkJ cited above:
“From what you’ve read and hear/Just in general, do you favor or oppose setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, even if it may mean higher energy prices?”
Favor 52%; Oppose 35%; Unsure 13%
But the immediate preceding question was:
“How much, if anything, have you heard about a policy being considered by the president and Congress called ‘Cap-and-Trade’ that would set limits on carbon dioxide emissions? Have you heard a lot, a little, or nothing at all?”
A lot: 17%; A little 37%; Nothing 46%; Unsure 1%
So 83% of the people polled knew little or nothing about cap and trade, but 52% of them favor it. Well shoot, why have any more debate? There’s a consensus of the ignorant.
GaryM, it’s that way on every issue. Why should climate change or cap and trade be any exception?
As predicted, it’s getting ugly. Despairing greens might be in need of some Blues. I suggest this one from R.L. Burnside
Tom,
Can’t say I agree on the “every issue point.” I frankly doubt that the even level of knowledge of cap and trade is accurately reflected in the poll. My point was just that if you’re going to cite a poll, and link to it, you might want to read the whole thing first. I find polls interesting, but find they have more uncertainty than climate science.
Except this one, which I take to be gospel. Scroll down to the part labeled “More Republicans Know that Reid is Senate Leader.” I wonder if it’s that Republicans are smarter than Democrats, or just better informed?
GaryM, I’d like to see how many of those Republicans who know Harry Reid (aka the antichrist) quite well also know who the leading Republican senator is…
Well, to me this development is not surprising at all. What does continually amaze me is how the biggest advocates for this legislation continue to delude themselves about the political realities for its success.
Ezra Klein’s interview with Michael Shellenberger is a pretty good take in my opinion. A lot of effort was wasted on something that had little chance of success – effort that would have been better spent elsewhere in laying the groundwork for a future cap-n-trade (or whatever carbon reduction scheme) bill. It’s a classic case of overreach in my opinion.
There’s a leading Republican senator?
“There’s a leading Republican senator?”
James Inhofe.
😉
“Well, to me this development is not surprising at all. What does continually amaze me is how the biggest advocates for this legislation continue to delude themselves about the political realities for its success.”
Some of us would like to believe that, when faced with scientific certitude, politicians would react appropriately.
It’s not happening. I’m 56, have no kids, no pets, no proximate reason to care.
Over the last three or four years, I’ve increasingly taken the position that humanity should rot, if they’re going to take the word of people like Tom Fuller, Stephen “Piltdown Mann” Mosher, McIntyre, etc.
Bring it on. I’ll die in the next two or three decades anyway, but by then even the most dense conservatives will realize that change is significantly harmful.
Yet, they’ll argue against taking steps to lower CO2 emissions.
I just hope they all have grandkids.
dhogoza (40):
You are ghoulish. Following your logic, all of humanity “should rot” because of the actions of a few you believe are subverting the truth about climate change’s catastrophic potential.
Then, you hope that the “dense conservatives” who are also standing in the way of action have grandchildren, so the grandkids can suffer the sins of their grandfathers.
Do you have any idea how messed up that is?
Tom “Obama is a centrist” Fuller is a conservative? Funny, I didn’t see him on the black helicopter ride to Rush Limbaugh’s house last night.
Thank you dhog, In the next ten years, you’ll get even more bitter and older than your younger contemporaries. You’ll retire, but you will have the right to vote – that never goes away.
You always can vote and deprive your incoming generations the right to have the same standard of life you had, due to the arrogant short-sightedness of your forefathers, who, going by this type of logic, fixed a good life for you, which you fight so vehemently to deny others in the line.
Modern environmentalism inverts the chronologic progression of things. The ‘next generation’ is not something that will spring up in the distant rosy or dreary future, ahead of us. The next generation is here, now, and behind us, held up by us, and watching us.
#40 – dhogaza,
Some of us would like to believe that, when faced with scientific certitude, politicians would react appropriately.
To me that proves my point. Politics isn’t a simplistic linear problem where certitude generates the appropriate scientific policy response. Such solutions are only possible once there is sufficient political support to address a problem as well as support to implement a particular solution. The political support for climate change as a problem is still building. There is enough support, in my view, to implement some low-cost “low-hanging fruit” solutions and set the groundwork for bigger changes. As should now be obvious to everyone, there isn’t enough support for a more radical solution. In the US those kinds of solutions require wide-ranging consensus, which we don’t yet have.
So I think think the push for this was premature.
“Do you have any idea how messed up that is?”
Compared to those who lie in order to force inaction therefore making that grim future a certainty?
It’s not particularly messed up at all, to be honest …
What’s messed up is the cynical manipulation of the political system by those who lie about science. If you want to argue that a world view is messed up, you might start there.
My throwing in the towel in regard to the future is due to the fact that those who lie about science have won the political battle. We won’t see a meaningful climate bill pass house and senate for at least 8 years (look how long it took to pass meaningful health care legislation after Clinton failed in the early 90s).
It’s done. It’s over. Time to simply sit back and enjoy the fruits of right-wing victory.
“So I think think the push for this was premature.”
Politically the push might’ve been premature, but in reality it would’ve been much, much easier if we had begun action in 1989, after Hansen had warned Congress…
“The “˜next generation’ is not something that will spring up in the distant rosy or dreary future, ahead of us. The next generation is here, now, and behind us, held up by us, and watching us.”
And they will condemn our generation’s inaction on an issue which has been sufficiently understood to justify action for 20 years now.
dhogaza: ‘…even the most dense conservatives will realize that change is significantly harmful.’
Er, isn’t a recognition that change is significantly harmful the defining worldview of a conservative, dense or otherwise?
Just saying.
Carry on.
dhogaza, ‘After victory, hew wood, carry water. After defeat, hew wood, carry water.’
“Following your logic, all of humanity “should rot” because of the actions of a few you believe are subverting the truth about climate change’s catastrophic potential.”
It’s not a belief, Mr. Kloor. It is a fact.
Time for fresh ideas. Here’s one:
http://normanspinradatlarge.blogspot.com/2010/07/eat-canada-geese.html
#45-So you’re throwing in the towel, ay? Well, I suppose there’s not much use in you reading and commenting at all these blogs? Why would you continue, if you thought all future generations were now condemned?
What’s striking about your attitude is that reinforces this longstanding belief that some enviros don’t really care about people. To folks like you, it’s about this abstracted notion of saving the planet, or wilderness, or endangered species, or whatever. That you could so blithely write off the rest of humanity because of your belief that your opponents won this latest round is just the height of cynicism.
That you further wish that your opponents have grandchildren (who are innocent bystanders) so that they may suffer this anticipated apocalypse of yours is, as I said previously, just goulish.
And Hungarian ghoulish, at that.
The best quote from the article cited by Hank: “[A]m I the only one in this country who realizes that this is not only entirely insane but marks Americans as arrogant wasteful barbarians in every country in the world where there are people who don’t get enough to eat?”
As one proud to be among the arrogant wasteful barbaric Americans, I can only say that it is good to see that the hate America first crowd is so well represented in the climate debate. Please keep up the bile, vitriol, condescension and hatred. It makes for entertaining reading and pretty much dooms the side of the argument talking like that.
Only Norman Spinrad could say let them eat goose with a straight face.
The catastrophists are expressing a common theme since ancient times. Apparrently, several ancient cultures passed down legends very similar to Noah’s Arc.
But we know that was probably just a myth, right? What’s coming now is real! In retaliation for our mortal sins, civilization shall perish in a global flood. The prohet, Al Gore has delivered his message with Hollywood special effects, striking terror in the hearts of true-believers. We probably have passed the “tipping point”. Expert scientists have delivered him with special knowledge of a nearly ice-free arctic in less than 5 more years. Hurricane Katrina dramatically confirmed this prophecy of doom. Despite scientific uncertainty, 10 years of stable global temperatures, Climategate emails, recovering sea ice, or reasoned nuances in expert opinion, the faith of the true believers remains unshaken.
Looks like the only thing left to do is to build a huge arc. It is the will of Mother Nature to purge the Earth of the hopelessly wicked human race. But the innocent animals must be saved from extinction. While the demonic deniers and apathetic adapters are purged, the rightgeous few will work tirelessly to save as many species possible. These modern day Noahs don’t have much family to distract them, though. It will be easier, at least.
It all sounds so Biblical!
Marie Antoinette was taken out of context. She only said “let them eat cake” because she was seeking to minimize the carbon footprint of 18th century France that was rising dangerously due to excess avian flatulence that was the product of over consumption of pate’.
“#45-So you’re throwing in the towel, ay? Well, I suppose there’s not much use in you reading and commenting at all these blogs? Why would you continue, if you thought all future generations were now condemned?”
I’m sitting back, enjoying the ride.
Why do you blog? Perhaps we don’t want to go there, since it’s quite clear that you’re in the business of aiding and abetting the denialist meme, as demostrated by your personal hero Judith Curry over at RC.
<blockquote>What’s striking about your attitude is that reinforces this longstanding belief that some enviros don’t really care about people. To folks like you, it’s about this abstracted notion of saving the planet, or wilderness, or endangered species, or whatever.</blockquote>
You don’t know me, and you should quit putting words in my mouth. What gives you the right to pretend to know my motives?
Or Tom Fuller, who you coddle here?
No, I’m 56, no kids, not pets, nothing. I’ve fought the good fight for decades, I’m tired, exhausted, and I’m just going to kick back and watch the fun. I’ve done my bit as an activist (as a volunteer, Keith, not a half-assed writer-for-pay like you).
I’m done. I’m tired. I’ve given up. It’s no more than that.
<blockquote>That you could so blithely write off the rest of humanity because of your belief that your opponents won this latest round is just the height of cynicism.<blockquote>
No, the height of realism. I’m realistic. We’ve lost, and it’s not just the “latest round”, for all practical purposes it’s done.
We’re committed to decades of pain. That’s not “goulish”, it’s more like the French firing their national team.
And you aid the opponents. Don’t go moral on me, because you’re a small part, but a very real part, of the problem.
You’re the ghoul. You’re the promoter of anti-science such as Curry’s crap, and her huggy-buddies at CA and the like.
“What’s striking about your attitude is that reinforces this longstanding belief that some enviros don’t really care about people.”
In plain terms, since you’re too damned stupid to understand on your own …
I’M RETIRING.
Get it?
Going to kick back and watch the NFL, Arctic sea ice collapse, NBA, global record highs, MLB, tornados in Maine, March Madness, ClimateGate madness, etc …
All as spectator sports.
And take your labeling me with your misconceptions of typical moral beliefs held by environmentalists and shove it up your a**.
How DARE YOU accuse me of such things, when you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA OF WHO I AM.
Shame on you. Your crap accusations speak to your own personal morals and ethics.
And, I’m sure you don’t have the balls to publish your comments.
Much less apologize for your string of personal attacks on me.
I’m on moderation, here, because of your claim that I personally attack others.
Yet that doesn’t stop you from personally attacking me, does it?
Hypocrite much? Or just constantly …
“The catastrophists are expressing a common theme since ancient times. Apparrently, several ancient cultures passed down legends very similar to Noah’s Arc.
But we know that was probably just a myth, right? What’s coming now is real! In retaliation for our mortal sins, civilization shall perish in a global flood.”
This is total crap, for 20 years the scientifically literate people of this country have been calling for action, and if they’d been listened to 20 years ago, we’d have been collecting low-hanging fruit for two decades, and costs would’ve been low (actually, if it had been the US taking the lead, we’d still be the technological leader of the world, rather than chasing after lost dreams).
It is people like you who want our technological base to go the way of steel, and the automobile industry. The same crap arguments were made then when the Japanese and others started their rise.
Your strategy, in essence, is to export whatever hope we have to maintain our economic prominence (which I cherish, as a tech guy, despite the kind of crap comments about me made by Mr. Keith Kloor) to economies who are willing to listen to science and make decisions based on science (wise, when one bets on future tech advances).
The US seems bent on putting our technological future on Palin, Rush, Inhofe and the like.
#58-61:
There’s an awful lot of suffering in this world already, many millions who don’t have the luxury to shake their fist at bloggers and wax on about the end of the word.
Instead of sitting back and the “enjoying the ride” to doomsday which you are convinced of, why don’t you do something to help alleviate the real pain and want of people already living.
Who knows, it might even help dispel some of that hate and bitterness that seems to be swallowing you up whole.
Ghoulish though he be, DG raises an interesting point when he says: “if it had been the US taking the lead, we’d still be the technological leader of the world”
If economics is the study of how efficiently we as a society create wealth (wealth = things people want), and if the price of something reflects the resources that went to making that thing, then legistalting a move from low cost fossil fuel to high cost wind/solar/whatever fuel means: resources currently devoted to creating wealth are redirected to creating energy – energy that we already had. We as a society will be worse off (all other things equal).
The wealth in our fossil fuel infrastructure will be destroyed. Fewer resources will be available to create new wealth. Countries who don’t decarbonize will have a competitive advantage and we will lose opportunites to create wealth… And less wealth means technology advances more slowly.
Now, if we must decarbonizing to stave off THE END, then perhaps “green” energy is justified. On the other hand, it’s just silly to sell this as a jobs program or stimulus, or something cost free that’s good for us anyway.
Well, I wouldn’t miss dhogaza, but I’ll believe in his retirement when I see it.
As for American’s losing their lead, I massively disagree. Americans after World War II actively helped the rest of the world catch up. (Not always from the purest of motives, obviously, but sometimes…)
Fareed Zakaria told us the world was catching up to us, and that’s just fine with me. I’ve been writing for several years that the 21st Century will be even more strongly an ‘American’ century than the 20th, because of our lead in nanotechnology, biotechnology, strong second place in robotics and competitive position in genomics.
Green technology? Hydroelectric power is a century old. Geothermal is boiler tech. Solar power is playing with mirrors. Wind power is really, really old. It’s not green tech–it’s anti tech, so far at least.
And nobody wants to get involved with the really ‘tech’ part of green tech–solar power satellites get laughed at as science fiction kid toys (except by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries). Superconductors are an afterthought.
Other countries are moving ahead on green ‘technology,’ all right, but not because of the ‘tech’ part. We’re not moving ahead in the U.S. because people like Joe Romm have been insisting that we throw up current tech all over the countryside instead of doing the work to make it work. Which is the real reason why wind power only delivers 25% of nameplate capacity. And the same idiots have ridiculed any real technological exploration.
Good morning.
dhogaza
You ‘know’ none of here as well. Yet we do listen to you as you *always* assume the right to tell us what we ought to do, …
We are all surfing the apocalypse.,…or maybe it is just a rush, that helps us forget our real responsibilities – to ourselves first and foremost, and (then) to the real world around us.
A thought experiment. Suppose your GOAL is to use the government to see to it that “[t]he wealth in our fossil fuel infrastructure will be destroyed. [So] Fewer resources will be available to create new wealth. ” And assume you know that this is not something people in democratic countries will agree to voluntarily. Wouldn’t you then “sell this as a jobs program or stimulus, or something cost free that’s good for us anyway?”
Look at the hate America first comments that keep cropping up, and the pining for the statism of China. Sometimes you have to believe what people actually say (particularly in their unguarded moments). They might rationalize their beliefs as some agrarian utopianism, concern for Gaia, respect for other species, or most often – it’s “for the children.” But the common core reality is self loathing, projected against western, democratic, free market society.
That advice they used to give new reporters — “follow the money” — I guess now the politicians are followed by the money, so it’s still good advice. Who’s reported on the spending?
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/07/lobbying-by-obama-administration-fo.html
“U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with its subsidiaries, spent … $13.4 million on federal, state-level and grassroots lobbying during the second quarter …. on numerous high-profile issues: climate change legislation …. The Chamber also reported lobbying on … a two-year delay to the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to take enforcement actions under the Clean Air Act against stationary sources like coal-fired power plants.
….. Since January, the Chamber has reported nearly $44.3 million in lobbying expenses. During 2009, the Chamber spent more than $144 million on federal, state and grassroots lobbying ….”
> Only Norman Spinrad could say let them eat goose with
> a straight face.
Chuckle. Maybe wossname up there is right– it’s all part of the rabid anti-market conspiracy by Gaia to ruin the turkey farm industry by flooding the country with socialist freebirds.
With, perhaps, hidden extras: http://www.ducks.org/blogs/1/46/index.html (Warning, flayed duck corpse illustration).
“Instead of sitting back and the “enjoying the ride” to doomsday which you are convinced of, why don’t you do something to help alleviate the real pain and want of people already living.”
Oh, gosh, it appears that Keith Kloor isn’t aware that I stopped working fulltime in 1988, and in the years since then have spent the equivalent of 3-4 months a year volunteering my time for a variety of non-profits and various projects.
How about you climb down from your holy high horse and start using your bully pulpit to go after the anti-science forces in society who are devoted to inaction on climate change?
” legistalting a move from low cost fossil fuel to high cost wind/solar/whatever fuel means: resources currently devoted to creating wealth are redirected to creating energy ““ energy that we already had. We as a society will be worse off (all other things equal).”
This presumes an infinite supply of low-cost fossil fuel, most especially oil.
There’s another blog you might want to visit: The Oil Drum.
For any progress, I’m moving my money to bilateral agreements. They’re an increasingly attractive way for us to conduct ourselves in the world, and they always require building in good-news stories. When I talk to folks at the national labs, in academia, in the business world, etc. the majority of good news is stemming from bilateral collaboration. If only this route were a politically viable policy…
[…] on a ghoulish form when one environmentalist and prolific (but anonymous) blog commenter hoped in this thread that opponents of climate legislation had grandchildren, so these innocent progeny could suffer […]
clparthemore (71):
I think you’re right that this will be a significant part of the policy portfolio going forward. (Folks, Christine Parthemore blogs at Natural Security, an excellent site covering the nexus between national security and the environment, which I highly recommend.)
Additionally, Andy Revkin has a good post up today on some potential paths forward.
dhogaza, may just be upset, with the slow realisation, that catastrophy, is NOT going to happen, and has wasted 22 years, on a delusion…
When the REAL issues of the world could have benefited from his commitment.
http://www.frontiersinecology.org/special_issues.php
http://www.frontiersinecology.org/paleoecology/jackson.pdf
“Yes, history reveals that climate is always changing, ecosystems are always adjusting, and rapid climate change is nothing new. Rather than being a cause for complacency, though, this should sound alarms. Paleoecological and archeological studies indicate that rapid climate change is not a state in which an ecosys- tem ““ or a society ““ wants to find itself. Rapid climate change is bad news for many populations, species, and communities. Climate change will lead to ecological surprises that can cascade into agricultural, hydrologi- cal, and economic surprises. It is best avoided, not embraced. Climate change may sometimes be inevitable, but that is not a good reason to invite or accelerate it.
The papers in this Special Issue of Frontiers represent only a fraction of relevant historical studies. Ecological history will be indispensable in meeting the environmental challenges of the coming decades. We can’t know where we are, or where we’re going, without knowing where we’ve been….”
—-
In climate simulations for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change A2 and B1 emission scenarios, novel climates arise by 2100 AD, primarily in tropical and subtropical regions. These future novel climates are warmer than any present climates globally, with spatially variable shifts in precipitation, and increase the risk of species reshuffling into future no-analog communities and other ecological surprises….
Front Ecol Environ 2007; 5(9): 475″“482, doi:10.1890/070037
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL043888.shtml
“… we find that substantial intensification of hot extremes could occur within the next 3 decades, below the 2°C global warming target currently being considered by policy makers. We also find that the intensification of hot extremes is associated with a shift towards more anticyclonic atmospheric circulation during the warm season, along with warm-season drying over much of the U.S. The possibility that intensification of hot extremes could result from relatively small increases in greenhouse gas concentrations suggests that constraining global warming to 2°C may not be sufficient to avoid dangerous climate change.”