On Tuesday, NYT environment reporter Andy Revkin published a piece called "Challenges to Both Left and Right on Global Warming." The following day, I wrote a highly critical response: "Centrist dog food." With typical graciousness, Revkin offered to discuss the piece, so I took him up on it and we fired up a Skype chat. Here is the transcript:
David Roberts: Thanks for doing this.
Andy Revkin: So I'm always more eager to search for points of agreement than difference. Seems best way to progress. So what do we agree on related to the range of voices out there in the debate over how to respond to the reality of human-forced climate change?
DR: The way I see it, there's a wide range, that's growing wider all the time, with a whole crazy mix of tones, positions, perspectives, etc. I think we agree that it's a good thing that more voices are entering the discussion. And particularly that the Republican Titanic is attempting to dodge the Denial Iceberg. (If you will.)
AR: You're right. Some of the climate experts I've talked to over the years predicted that more clarity on the science actually could widen the range of policy views. We may as well cut to the chase on the hottest button, the mention of the word "Lomborg."
DR: The way I see it, Lomborg is a unique case. He doesn't represent a school of thought -- or rather, he represents a school of thought of one. He acknowledges some of the science, ignores some of it, and generally -- in my view -- misunderstands the big picture. But precisely because he's unique, it seems bizarre to me to characterize him as in the "center."
AR: I indicated in my blog post that this "center" is not necessarily right, for one thing. And you're right, it IS shorthand to describe a midrange view (climate is a serious risk worth a carbon tax and big boost in R&D) as centrist, perhaps. But I think it's legitimate shorthand, particularly given that he only got about 250 words out of a 1,000-word piece. The real reason I feel it necessary to write about him (and a lot of my Dot Earth commentators and a heap of angry scientists thought I shouldn't have) is that he's been kind of an intellectual lifeboat for a lot of doubtful, disengaged, or disinformed people out there. When this comfort-zone character says we need a carbon tax and a big technology push, that takes away the comfort zone for folks.
DR: But you're assuming that those people will stop using him when they find out his other positions. Surely the denial/delay community has demonstrated, if nothing else, it's opportunism. They'll use Lomborg for FUD, and if/when he's no longer useful, they'll use somebody else.
AR: Sure, but as a journalist tracking the evolving game board here, I've got to report on when prominent pieces move, no matter what the overall state of the game is.
DR: The way I see it, you're taking people on the right who are clearing a very, very low bar -- acknowledging that there's a problem and proposing to do something (albeit not much) about it -- and showering them with attention and praise. But there's a large, robust community of people that have accepted the science for a long time, and have interesting debates over the best way to proceed. Why not give them the attention? Why no locate the "center" among the actual debates taking place?
You've got to understand, there's a totemic quality to the terms "moderate" and "centrist," especially when applied by a national journalist. The entire Beltway punditry worships those qualities. So to apply them to these guys ... it's factually inaccurate, for one thing, but it also distorts people's view of the real debates going on.
AR: Not being an inhabitant of the Beltway, maybe I miss the subtext definitions of words like moderate and center. Did you see my post a week ago on the youth movement? I think it was the only mainstream coverage of the huge pulse of young people who headed to DC to pester their elected officials. I'm not here to offer praise (that's the turf of our opinion writers). But I am here -- absolutely -- to chronicle who is acting meaningfully on this issue. Same goes for the newspaper columnists I blogged on in Kansas who did the spoof ad complaining about Big Coal's ad attacks against the governor there. I'm all for reporting on what is, and is not, meaningful.
DR: I happily acknowledge that it's worth writing about when a famous Republican like Gingrich acknowledges climate change, or when a useful tool of the right like Lomborg proposes a carbon tax. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't write about it. But the frame you put around it, lumping those guys together with S&N and calling the resulting stew the "pragmatic center," is just inaccurate, and as a news reporter offering an accurate view of the state of play should be the top requirement. Those guys don't share anything in common. If I was new to the debate, and considered myself a reasonable centrist type, and wanted to know what to believe, what would I learn by reading these three? I'd get all kinds of contradictory signals. There's no there there.
It seems to me what you really want to get at is this issue of tone, and framing, and whether to talk about climate change as an oncoming catastrophe. And that's an interesting subject. But to presume, at the outset, that taking the milder view is "reasonable" is just to prejudge the case. I read the IPCC and it sounds to me a hell of a lot like a pressing, urgent problem.
AR: The pressing urgent problem is figuring out a way to engage people on a multi-generational energy quest to move away from a here-and-now fuel (mainly coal) that is cheap and abundant for the sake of a less risky climate future. As you know, the largely-underplayed message of the IPCC report, which I wrote about but didn't get much coverage elsewhere, is that the atmosphere and climate won't notice the difference between a Gore-style immediate emissions freeze or a pedal-to-the-metal fossil-fuel party for more than 20 years. There will be no discernible diversion in climate trends for two decades.
The urgency is all about finding a tone that captivates instead of paralyzes. As you know, I wrote about the "Be Worried" message last year and talked to a lot of sociologists who said anyone who hopes that message will galvanize sustained behavior changes should be very worried. I also blogged on that last week in a piece on UK liberal studies showing concerns about overheated press coverage there, which they labeled "climate porn."
DR: I am aware that a pure message of fear paralyzes -- as, I think, virtually everyone involved in this issue is aware. The environmental message around global warming is not nearly as monochromatic as you make out. Every time he opens his mouth, Gore says both: it's a climate emergency, but we can beat it, and we will be enriched by doing so. I see stuff about green jobs, new industries, better health, greater national cohesion, etc. etc. all over the place. The positive message is out there. If you ask me, it's not the campaigners but the media that's addicted to "porn" of all sorts.
AR: You're right, and I've written two book chapters on hurdles preventing effective media coverage of climate and related complex environmental issues -- and one of the big ones is the importance of not overplaying the 'hot' material and forgetting the real complexities, e.g., polar bears are not going extinct. No one (not even the scientists doing the review for Endangered Species Act) says they are. They are hardy, resilient and will have refuges of ice in parts of the Arctic well into the next century, according to the latest studies. But you would never know that from the ad campaigns of environmental groups, or the coverage in many media.
[Here's a link to one chapter.]
DR: We need more campaigners talking about opportunities rather than danger; same with the media. We need more campaigners talking about adaptation for the global poor rather than all mitigation; same with the media. We need to talk more about the many regulatory and tax barriers to RE & EE; same with the media. I would be pleased if you wrote about all those things.
The only thing I ask is that you not try to pick, out of this wide array of different debates and perspectives, a "center" -- that only serves to artificially narrow the debate and marginalize some voices that are bringing us important, and poorly heeded, messages.
We can walk and chew gum -- recognize that it's a big problem that needs urgent action, and also feel exhilarated by the opportunities ahead of us. That's what S&N are after, I think. But Gingrich and Lomborg, it seems to me, are out to anesthetize, which is a very different thing.
AR: Read "The Climate Divide" and all of the stories my colleagues and I have been writing for two years and counting on the Energy Challenge that underlies the climate challenge.
DR: Finally bringing to mainstream attention the very stuff dirty hippies have been yelling and screaming about for over a decade! And good for you. But don't go dismissing those very same dirty hippies as "extremists" in the next breath. They deserve credit for being ahead on this issue. And Gingrich deserves, at best, a pat on the head. "Thanks for catching up, Newt."
AR: I cover it all, and don't mind some yelling about one or two stories out of 500-plus pieces I've written on this since 2000, not including all the stories I've done going back to 1988 ... I've been writing on climate almost (almost!) since before there were dirty hippies. Indeed, since before there was an IPCC.
Thanks for having this chat with me ... Way more fun than dog (food) fights.
Climate-news poem: Breath-catching edition
Comments View as Flat
WWAGD?! Posted 2:48 am
15 Nov 2007
Not Much Needed
Mr. Revkin seems a tad bit out of date.
Yesterday's report on CO2 emissions from specific coal burning plants makes it clear.
In Washington State a single plant in Centralia is responsible for 60% of all Co2!
Replacing it would immediately put us under Kyoto.
So, to run around like Revkin and make up a lot of intellectual framework and hoo-hay to resolve something with a single action -- replacing one coal plant -- seems excessive.
My Log
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 3:02 am
15 Nov 2007
Thanks again to Andy R. and Dave R.
Does here and now look like a good occasion for leaders to lead by proposing and adopting changes in their and our behavior, according to the practical, scientifically verified requirements of biophysical reality?
Please consider NINE TENTATIVE PROPOSALS as a Summary for a Plan of Action:
- Free, immediate and universal access to contraception;
- Open and readily available access to family and health planning education for everyone; and
- Economic, political and social empowerment of women.
- As a means of accelerating the present downward movement in birth rates in some countries, a VOLUNTARY policy of one child per family would be initiated worldwide.
- The many millions of people who are suffering the unhealthy effects of obesity will share their overly-abundant resources with many too many billions of people who are hungry.
- Every good idea to conserve energy and scarce material resources will be implemented.
- Substantial economic incentives are necessary for the development of safe and adequate energy resources as alternatives to fossil fuels.
- Overhaul national tax systems so that conspicuous per human over-consumption of resources is eschewed and seemingly endless, soon to become unsustainable production/pollution activities of big business are transformed into Earth-friendly, patently sustainable enterprises.
- Humanity needs a modified global economic system, one that is sufficiently subordinated to democratic principles and practices, one that more adequately meets the basic needs of a majority of people who could choose to live better, simpler lives with less resources than the rich, powerful and famous among us so conspicuously consume now.
Overall, what is to be accomplished is fair, less complicated, more equitable, and sustainable production/distribution of the world's tangible (e.g., food) and intangible (e.g., education) resources.Thanks for your consideration. Comments are welcome.
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on the Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 3:28 am
15 Nov 2007
Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri & IPCC science
Support the good works of Nobel Prize Winners Al Gore, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri and 2000 scientists of the IPCC by embracing the carefully and skillfully developed scientific consensus on climate change. By so doing, we favor a good enough future for our children, for life as we know it, the environment and the integrity of Earth.
At least to me, the "powers that be" understand Al Gore and the science of climate change better than they are expressing, perhaps because an admittedly ominous human predicament looms before humanity in the offing. Too many politicians, economists and business people continue to adamantly and relentlessly support what could soon become an unsustainable global enterprise of endlessly expanding big-businesses worldwide. They appear to have pledged their primary allegiance and reverent devotion to unbridled economic globalization, regardless of the potential for eventual catastrophe that such a recklessly unrestrained and unrealistic pursuit could portend.
With thanks to Andy, Dave and All,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on the Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
danielbell Posted 4:37 am
15 Nov 2007
medi(ate) my homework
David and Andrew, thank you for this discussion.
The impact of the media on this movement is monumental. The media literally has the power to decide what level of impact grassroots activists (read: democratic participants) will have on our political consciousness. (I'm a Step It Up organizer.)
There is the stark reality of our world that the science is uncovering, and the activists are talking about. Accepting the science is the conservative, radical, and centrist position. From Bill McKibben "The problem lies in how one defines reality. Physics and chemistry demand swift and deep cuts in carbon emissions; political realism says to move slowly. In that fight, there's really only one choice. The tax code can be amended, but the laws of nature can't."
The choices of the media today will shape the direction of our collective future. I hope this level of engagement between independent and mainstream journalists continues.
wiserearth.org/user/danielbell
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 5:44 am
15 Nov 2007
Getting help from the mass media, finally
Dear Daniel Bell,
The media is going to do much better from now on than it has in the past. Surely, we are going to see the elevation of political consciousness in the membership of the human community. Without any doubt, responsible people in media will necessarily help us raise awareness of politicians, economist and business managers of the global human economy to the "stark reality of our world that science is uncovering," as you have so neatly put it.
If empirical evidence regarding climate change from Dr. Rajendra Pachauri and the thousands of IPCC scientists is not junk science, and not the hoax many talking heads in the mass media have been assuring us it is, then ramifications for economic globalization and the integrity of Earth that result directly from "staying the course," from choosing to continue relentlessly doing what we are doing now -- and getting unexpectedly what we are getting now -- could result in our children having to confront colossal problems.
We see and hear in the news day after day about national security and economic security. I can understand that attention is focused upon these things. They are vital. What is difficult for me to grasp is the recent history of failure by people in the mass media to openly and adequately discuss environmental security. That is vital, too, I suppose.
With thanks to you,
Steve Salmony
Permalink
apsmith Posted 6:00 am
15 Nov 2007
On the media
I think this discussion is important when it heads into the role of the media in framing perceptions. One of the things Nordhaus and Shellenberger talk about is the fact that the vast majority of Americans don't list the environment or global warming as a priority, except in surveys where they are in some way prompted. And clearly there are still many Americans - particularly those listening to Fox News or listening to Rush Limbaugh - who have completely false perceptions about the science on climate.
I still get anti-global warming messages from some very educated people; some people who have taught in universities for years are very confused, and echo "contrarian" points that make little logical sense and are fully accounted for already in the IPCC reports.
There's clearly something wrong with the process of science reporting or media coverage here. A large group of scientists gets together and works out exactly what they can agree on with respect to climate, and where there are still areas of lack of consensus. The overall consensus is very alarming, and documented in reports thousands of pages long.
This vast and impressive report gets quick and usually pretty positive coverage from a broad array of media outlets for a few days, and then sinks beneath the waves because "it's no longer news". The other 360 days of the following year are populated with potshots taken by "contrarians" who have come up with this or that complaint about the consensus - if these are real they are quickly acknowledged and fit into the consensus by knowledgeable experts, but nevertheless we get a steady barrage of this sort of negativity that generally damps down, to the average person, the alarming nature of the consensus, which itself has not changed.
Meanwhile real action is being considered to address the problems the report has identified. The actions are naturally opposed by conservative free-market fundamentalists and in some cases by industry and large corporations as well, and media coverage comes with the usual "balanced" slant. The vast general consensus that should be the context of all these discussions is completely lost.
How do we fix this? Despite talking a lot about the issues in their book, I don't see a solution in anything Nordhaus and Shellenberger propose.
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 9:58 am
15 Nov 2007
Another "primrose path" proposal....
Dear A.P. Smith,
There are plenty of things to do. Having said this, I do not believe the "primrose path" proposed by Dr. Shellenberg and Dr. Nordhaus will get us where we want to go.
What concerns me is that the preoccupation and relentless pursuit of magical techno-fixes to global challenges will lead to horrendous problems: a disastrous future for our children.
Just for starters, for solutions to the formidable challenges looming ominously before humanity on the not-so-far horizon, let me suggest that we follow the many ideas for behavior change that our 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Al Gore, is giving us.
Sincerely,
Steve Salmony
Permalink
Michael Shellenberger Posted 1:32 pm
15 Nov 2007
Time to Pay Attention to the Social Sciences
Dear Arthur,
Major public investment in clean energy is overwhelmingly popular. It is the public's preferred way to deal with high energy costs, oil dependency, and global warming. By contrast, the public is very leery of any regulation that would raise energy costs.
Much of the environmental community -- not just the big groups in Washington, but also grassroots environmentalists -- think they can persuade the public that pollution limits won't raise the cost of energy. This will work about as well as efforts by environmentalists to convince California voters last November that a tax on oil production wouldn't raise gas prices. The initiative - proposition 87 - lost. And that was five months after the supposed "tipping point of public opinion" on global warming had occurred.
At an economic and technological level, massive public investments to bring down the price of clean energy are imperative. Regulations alone will maybe get us 20 - 30 percent emissions reductions by 2050 -- in the U.S.
We make a more detailed argument in "Fast Clean Cheap," which we released along with our book in September, and is on our web site. You might consider reading it.
In the meantime, here's a summary:
Regulation creates a Gordian Knot
A regulation-centered framework creates a Gordian Knot: if government prices carbon high enough -- either through emissions limits or an outright tax -- to make currently expensive clean energy solutions like solar and carbon capture cost competitive, then energy prices will rise dramatically and will elicit a voter backlash (in addition to the inevitable industry opposition).
But if government prices carbon too low, private sector investments will flow almost exclusively to inexpensive emissions reductions, such as efficiency, rather than to more expensive but needed technologies such as solar and carbon capture and storage.
Raising Energy Prices is Incredibly Unpopular
The political reason that the regulation-centered approach cannot result in large-scale emissions reductions is because its success depends on doing something highly unpopular with the public, industry, and elites alike: raising the price of energy. New energy regulations will increase the cost of gasoline and electricity and everything else that requires energy for its production, from food to homes to consumer products. Many industries -- from building to transportation to retail to manufacturing -- not just energy industries, may have genuine reason to fear and oppose price increases.
Developed nations will set a low price for carbon dioxide for several reasons. The first is that national governments, under pressure from domestic industries, will fear a competitive disadvantage relative to firms that operate in countries that do not restrict greenhouse gas emissions. This concern about a competitive disadvantage was in part what motivated the U.S. Senate to preemptively reject, 95-0, the Kyoto treaty on global warming in 1997.
The second reason governments will set low prices for carbon dioxide is that voters are far more concerned about the immediate threat of higher energy prices than they are about what they perceive to be the distant threat of global warming.
Voters are today more anxious about high energy prices than have been in 30 years. When USA Today/Gallup asked how important gas prices are to someone's vote for Congress in October of 2006, 90 percent of voters said it was at least moderately important, and 34 percent of respondents called gas prices "extremely important."
Americans specifically say they do not want to pay more for electricity as well as gasoline. When asked if the federal government should increase taxes on electricity or gasoline to encourage conservation, Americans overwhelmingly reject the approach. A March 2006 ABC News/Washington Post Poll showed that 81 percent of voters oppose increasing taxes on electricity, and 68 percent oppose increasing taxes on gasoline, to encourage conservation. Those numbers actually went down, despite expensive national and local media attention about global warming (the numbers were 79 and 67 percent respectively).
Global Warming Remains a Low Priority
Advocates of a higher price for carbon dioxide are largely making their case based on the urgency of global warming. But efforts to increase the public's concern with global warming as an issue have largely not succeeded. In 1989, Gallup asked Americans how concerned they were with global warming. Sixty-three percent said they worried "a great deal" or a "fair amount" about it -- by 2007, that number was virtually unchanged at 65 percent.
Public awareness reached a new high in the summer of 2006 with the publicity around Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth." The Pew Center for People and the Press conducted a telephone survey of 1,501 adults between June 14 and June 19, 2006, a period timed to coincide with the high point of the media's interest in Gore's movie. By far the biggest finding was that the movie had done virtually nothing to increase the saliency of global warming among voters. Pew researchers noted that "out of a list of 19 issues, Republicans rank global warming 19th and Democrats and Independents rank it 13th." By January 2007, global warming's relative importance actually declined to 21st out of 21 issues for Republicans, 17th out of 21 issues for Democrats, and 19th out of 21 issues for independents.
Congress Will Set a Low Price for Carbon
Recognizing that voters care more about the cost of energy than global warming, most policies under consideration in Congress would price carbon dioxide at around $7 - 12/ton, either directly through a safety valve or indirectly through the allocation of pollution allowances. As noted above, at that low price, private investment will flow toward the least expensive emissions reductions, as described above, and not, for the most part, toward technologies like solar energy and carbon capture and storage, which are currently more expensive but which need to receive major investment for costs to come down. It may also direct investments toward wind, though wind faces expansion obstacles from lack of transmission lines from windy rural areas (which are less subject to "not in my back yard" (NIMBY) opposition) to cities.
This is consistent with past experience in Europe. Europe's Emissions Trading System has not achieved its goal of significantly reducing the EU's emissions because European governments issued too many permits to polluters. The price of carbon dioxide peaked at €30 per ton in April 2006, but once it became evident that that countries had over-allocated permits -- and that firms did not need to reduce their emissions -- the price fell to €0.10 in September 2007. European officials are expected to give away fewer permits for the 2008 - 2010 period, but governments will remain under pressure from industry to establish a low price for carbon dioxide.
Clean Energy Investments are Hugely Popular
A March 2007 Gallup poll found that when asked a battery of questions about what the government should do to address global warming, 65 percent of Americans said the government should be "starting a major research effort costing up to $30 billion per year to develop new sources of energy," the highest scoring item in the battery.
An August 2006 Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll asked Americans to identify the "best way for the US to reduce reliance on foreign oil." A majority, 52 percent, cited "having the government invest in alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar power," the top choice by a two-to-one margin.
The highest levels of support in a March 2007 Gallup poll were for spending government money on the new energy sources. Proposals for "spending more government money on developing solar and wind power" were supported by 81 percent in 2007, up from 77 percent in 2006. Gallup found that "starting a major research effort costing up to $30 billion per year to develop new sources of energy" was supported by 65 percent of respondents, the largest level of support of the items tested.
Why Does the Environmental Lobby Push Regulation But Not Investment?
Given public opinion, and the urgent need for public investment to drive down the price of clean energy, why do environmentalists and their allies in Congress continue to put regulation rather than muscular investments at the center of their agendas?
There are three reasons. The first is that bold, innovative, and aspirational proposals to dramatically transform the economic and political landscape are seen as distractions from their attempts to advance their small, incremental policies.
Proposals like the New Apollo Project, in their very conception, reject the single-issue, incremental mindset that is virtually hard-wired into the liberal special-interest group approach to politics and institution building. And while a passel of unions, environmentalists, and businesses have officially endorsed Apollo, none have championed it. A few have even worked behind the scenes to insure that it never comes up for a vote. "We've been positive publicly about Apollo," the NRDC's David Hawkins told us, "but not positive policy-wise because it doesn't have binding limits, either on CAFE or carbon."
The second reason for the dominant liberal politics of timidity and the aversion to investment is that Democrats and environmental lobbyists are scared of being called "tax and spend liberals." Our point is that this is precisely the fight we should want to have. We will be called that no matter what -- witness President Bush's press conference on Tuesday. Our response should be, "We need to invest whatever it takes to free ourselves from oil and make America the clean energy leader of the world. We can't afford not to make these investments."
The third reason for continuing opposition to an investment-centered agenda is the dead weight of the pollution paradigm and the politics of limits. One can scarcely imagine a CEO who looks only at costs and debts and not at revenues and investments, and yet this is the mental model that several hundred members of Congress take to work every day.
Market fundamentalists say that it is not the role of government to pick winners and losers in the economy. But through everything from tax policy to social policy, the government is always picking winners and losers in the economy. Nowhere is that more true than in the energy sector, where the government has for years been subsidizing coal, oil, and gas companies and virtually ignoring clean-energy companies. The problem is not that the essential market is being distorted by old energy subsidies and improper accounting, but rather that a market created to serve the old energy economy can no longer serve our present energy and ecological needs.
While "internalizing externalities" through carbon taxes and pollution limits is a part of the solution, without major new investments, it alone amounts to tearing down the old energy economy before building the new one.
On the Sciences - All of Them
Arthur, you claim to take science seriously but then proceed to assiduously ignore all of the social science on public attitudes around climate, energy regulation, and investment.
You write:
You're not seeing it because you haven't looked.
Elsewhere you say:
As I've laid out here, investment is more popular than regulation. Regulation + investment will be more popular than regulation alone.
And how exactly is investment in clean energy politically "harder on the fossil-fuel industry"? In fact, investment in clean energy is a pathway to divide the fossil fuel industry along the lines of those companies that want to make the transition to clean energy and those that don't.
Throughout Break Through we criticize those who focus monomanically on the natural sciences and completely ignore the social sciences. Now that legislation is being debated in Washington, ignoring public attitudes around energy has become will be as dangerous as denying the seriousness of climate change.
Michael
Permalink
trock Posted 5:19 pm
15 Nov 2007
can't Gingrich get traction?
Thanks for the discussion.
This is what somebody needs to do. Tell Gingrich that was a great book he did. But we have something else in mind. You need you to write another book, this one a little stronger on the `global warming is true and potentially dangerous.' Fill it with all the myth busters about global warming that it can handle. Get it out to the right and those listening to the right.
I see many people who are so bad and wrong about the science. Because of their politics that's how they want to be. Gingrich needs to tell his people that global warming is a problem. Gingrich is the flake on the right, but he needs to bust through that to reach the base on the right.
Yah, it's not very likely. Gingrich is all about another reason for a tax cut and a denier, not about anything real like a planet and the people living on it. But can't anybody get the right non-deniers together to at least push the deniers into delayers?
Permalink
trock Posted 5:32 pm
15 Nov 2007
correction
The last paragraph should have said 'Gingrich is all about another excuse for a tax cut and a denier' should be 'and a delayer.'
What needs to be done sometime is push deniers to delayers and delayers to doers.
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 9:19 pm
15 Nov 2007
Staying the course on a primrose path
Dear Friends,
Perhaps I am at least a bit older than you. Then, again, maybe not.
In either case, I am concerned that my generation of elders could have sold a bill of goods to our young people today; but we have no intention of making good our promises and will fail to deliver the goods. In part, this unfortunate outcome results from my generation's unbridled over-consumption of Earth's limited resources as well as from our reckless and unrestrained dissipation of resources bound up in the huge scale and growth rate of economic globalization.
From this feeble perspective, my not-so-great generation of old folks appears to be mortgaging and threatening the future of its children by remaining religiously focused upon the endless accumulation of material wealth, the unrestrained increase in per capita consumption of scarce resources, and the continuous consolidation of political power used to conquer Earth. Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, we need not look far to see that money, power and privilege for ourselves, for our bought-and-paid-for politicians, and for our newly-made rich minions in the mass media are the primary object of our desire. Regardless of the human-driven calamities that might befall coming generations, the leadership in my generation advises us to live long, and live LARGE, in a patently unsustainable world of idle comforts, effortless ease, conspicuous consumption, secret handshakes, exclusive clubs, exotic hideaways and thousands of private jets, having abandoned our regard for the less fortunate among us, for the maintenance of life as we know it, and for the preservation of the integrity of Earth. Recognize the single-minded pursuit of dollars, political power and privileges to profligately consume, and to magnificently ignore both the requirements of practical reality and the needs of coming generations, as our raison d'etre.
When my not-so-great generation completes its 'mission' on Earth, I fear young people will look back in anger and utter disbelief at the things we have done and failed to do.
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:06 pm
15 Nov 2007
Slick and slippery
Great stuff DR.
This really exposes the nature of mass delusional media. What really makes it tick. Sophists that claim objectivity in one sentence...
"I'm not here to offer praise (that's the turf of our opinion writers)."
...then becomeadvocates for what must be done politically in the next.
"The pressing urgent problem is figuring out a way to engage people on a multi-generational energy quest to move away from a here-and-now fuel (mainly coal) that is cheap and abundant for the sake of a less risky climate future."
Andy sneaks in the notion that Polar bears are not really threatened by extinction, because "scientists" agree, there will be a few spots of Arctic ice left for them. But Andy, the whole point about Polar bears was to highlight the climate disaster and all its effects. Using Polar bears as a prime example.
Sure there might be a zoo population living on fossil fuel power frozen ice. That would mean extinction is averted. That isn't the point at all. Polar bears are a hansdy recognizable symbol for the extinction danger from GHG.
"...the atmosphere and climate won't notice the difference between a Gore-style immediate emissions freeze or a pedal-to-the-metal fossil-fuel party for more than 20 years. There will be no discernible diversion in climate trends for two decades."
So? Even if that were true, should it figure into policy decisions on GHG. Only if you don't really care what happens during the next 20 years after that 20 year period. And you merely wish to "pay the mortgage" until then, by going along with the corporate friendly game that mass delusional media plays.
And clearly that is what you care about most Andy. Maintaining your successful jetset serious journalist lifestyle at the expense of the truth. The classic sophist. Personal status over all other considerations.
So you make sure to remain fair and balanced, throwing bones to the worst of the nut wing. Like polar bears are not really threatened and no matter what we do the climate trend will not change from the present disastrous course for 20 years. 23% of the arctic ice melted in the last two years. Remember your scientific training Andy (have you had any?), how long will it take at that exponentially accelerating rate for all the ice to melt?
You have a powerful intellect Andy, but it is focused on status seeking rather than fact. And that will never be objective journalism. Taking it on yourself to define the political center in the climate debate, that is definitly not scientific journalism. the way you do it panders to mass delusion.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
rh Posted 4:59 am
16 Nov 2007
Revkin's bio
Dr. X,
Quite a swipe you took at Mr. Revkin there. But before you implied that he hasn't had any scientific training, perhaps you should have gone to Google and typed in "bibliography Andrew Revkin" like I just did.
Had you shown him at least a little respect and taken the time to do so, you would have seen that "(h)e has a biology degree from Brown University and a masters in journalism from Columbia."
You're certainly welcome to agree or disagree with him, and that's what Gristmill's all about, but no need make incorrect implications about the guy.
cheers,
rh
Permalink
apsmith Posted 8:19 am
16 Nov 2007
Response to Shellenberger
I'm flattered that this excellent discussion includes a long post addressed to me that seems to respond to my comments on "Break Through" in several other venues, but not really what I said here! Anyway, I think I'll leave the substantive answers to elsewhere. Michael Shellenberger and I have been having an interesting email conversation offline, which may lead to a more nuanced view, I hope from both of us.
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 10:46 pm
16 Nov 2007
Thanks for so vital a discussion
If empirical evidence from the great men, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri and Dr. Mohan Munasinghe, and their 2000 colleagues in the International Panel on Climate Change, regarding global warming, is somehow on the correct track and not junk science, and not the hoax many people have assured us it is, then the political, economic and ecological ramifications of "staying the course" could be profound.
If humankind chooses to continue doing what we are relentlessly doing now by overconsuming, overpopulating, and endlessly expanding production capabilities of the artificially designed human economy, our children could unexpectedly come face to face with colossal problems, ones involving the perilous breakdown of the global political economy or the dangerous degradation of Earth's frangible ecosystem services and limited resources, or both economic and ecologic collapse.
We see and hear in the news day after day about national security and economic security. I can understand that attention is focused upon these things. They are vital. What is difficult for me to grasp is the failure of people to openly and adequately discuss environmental security. That is vital, too, I suppose.
Let me add, in closing, that it will be pleasing to see expressions of concern for Earth's ECOLOGY be presented in the mass media as often as words of concern for the manmade ECONOMY. I am also expecting that such parity will eventually lead to ECONOMIC wealth being directed to ECOLOGIC maintenance, dollar for dollar. That is to say, every dollar from sustainable economic development would be matched with a dollar directed to ecologic protection.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:40 am
17 Nov 2007
Don't worry
"polar bears are not going extinct. No one (not even the scientists doing the review for Endangered Species Act) says they are. They are hardy, resilient and will have refuges of ice in parts of the Arctic well into the next century, according to the latest studies."
Polar bears will adapt, there will be a few areas with ice left.
"...the atmosphere and climate won't notice the difference between a Gore-style immediate emissions freeze or a pedal-to-the-metal fossil-fuel party for more than 20 years. There will be no discernible diversion in climate trends for two decades."
Nothing we do now will change the climate problem for 20 years anyway?
Revkin says this with Arctic ice melting at an exponential rate amounting to 23% in the past two years.
A main principle in biology is that because cells divide as they grow, growth proceeds at an exponential rate. 1 into 2, 2 into 4, 4 into 8.. and so forth.
To expect Revkin, with his biology degree, to remember and understand this concept and how it applies to the GHG climate problem is not unreasonable is it? Evidently it is unreasonable, since he appears to have no idea of the urgency of this emergency.
Revkin's real attitude is exposed in the two quotes. "Truthiness" is good enough for the NYT, facts don't matter. Truthy goodness makes corporate advertisers happier. Either contribute to the truthiness or pay your mortgage some other way than working for the NYT. That is the nature of mass delusional media.
It's fair and balanced, even if one side of the scale has lies balanced against scientific facts on the other side.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 5:26 am
17 Nov 2007
willfully "poisoning the well"
Are too many of our leaders hiding the truth?
Perhaps too many of our politicians, economists, big-business execs and the talking heads in the mass media are all "whistling the same tune." What is even worse is the way they entice appointees and surrogates to whistle that same tune, too. After all, who can resist offerings of great wealth, power and privileges that accrue to those who go along with what is political convenient, economically expedient, religiously tolerated and socially agreeable.
Not only are many too many leaders knowingly hiding the truth, they are also actively poisoning the well of public discourse in the process. And for what? Evermore power, wealth and privileges for themselves and their minions so they can carefreely play out the "conspicuous consumption fantasies" of their "Me Generation" by living long, living large and living unsustainably, come what may, having forgotten about the future of their children and about how human life depends upon Earth's limited resources and frangible ecosystem services for its very existence.
With thanks for your consideration,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink