Deniers are “full of passionate intensity”—and eating our lunch on climate bill 16

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.

I have heard from multiple sources that many U.S. senators are now getting 100 to 200 calls a day opposing a climate and clean energy bill — and bupkes in favor.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Why?  Well, the entire conservative messaging apparatus is full-throated in its opposition to this bill — and they have well-heeled funders, aka the dirty-energy bunch.  Our side is half-throated, at best.  Indeed, many progressive/enviro activists spend their time pointlessly trashing the bill and threatening Democrats (see here and here).

No, it’s not accurate to suggest they lack all conviction.  Yes, some of the pseudo-environmentalists who are devoting 100 percent of their time publicly and privately to killing this bill have no convictions and hypocritically support a far weaker bill (see “The Breakthrough Institute is lying about Obama, misstating what CBO concluded about Waxman-Markey, and publishing deeply flawed analyses”).

But most have a very strong conviction that we need a better bill, which we do, and a misguided conviction that failing to aggressively support passage or even opposing the bill outright “in its current form” or “if it is not substantially improved” will lead to better environmental outcomes.  It will not.

Suck it up, people.  This is the meat and potatoes of politicking, and the other side is extremely good at it because they know those calls matter.  They mattered in the House.

The opposition to Waxman-Markey did a good job with phone calls to House members.  They at least matched the calls that enviros and progressives delivered — though I’m told an analysis shows that most of their calls were out-of-state, while most of ours were in state.  Still, that’s one reason we didn’t get more votes.

The climate destroyers are keeping up their attack on vulnerable House members — even if it means eating their own (see “Honey, I shrunk the GOP, Part 1:  Conservatives vow to purge all members who support clean energy or science-based policy”).

The good news is that The Hill reports, “A coalition of labor, environmental and veterans groups is spending serious money to make sure Democrats who supported the cap-and-trade legislation have political cover.”  Very important stuff, for sure — after all, the House is going to have to vote again on some House-Senate conference version of this bill in early 2010 assuming the Senate acts.

But we should be equaling, if not beating, calls to key senators right now. Heck, I’m told that Senators who aren’t even really swing votes are getting more than 100 calls a day opposing climate action.  And those matter too, in terms of how even Senators on our side gauge public sentiment and how much they are willing to fight for the strongest possible bill.

Marches and civil disobedience have their place, but it is not what is needed in the next few months — unless you plan to march to D.C. with others in your state and talk to your senator about why we urgently need a climate and clean energy bill.

People and clean energy businesses should be organizing calls in most states — although you can figure out the most important states and members from this post — see “Epic Battle 3:  Who are the swing senators?”

If you think the bill should be a lot stronger — and who doesn’t? — make that the message.  I’ll do a post next week on what I think the core message of climate science activists should be, but, frankly, calls to senators are taken by 20-something staffers (if you’re lucky), and they ain’t gonna be repeating any of your nuanced points.

Reason enough for passage of a bill with emissions targets like Waxman-Markey (preferably stronger) is to give the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen (and beyond) a fighting chance — and not to strangle a global deal in the crib as the deniers and polluters hope to do with their immoral and ultimately self-destructive filibuster.

William Butler Yeats knew nothing of global warming — but he knew everything about his era’s own self-inflicted global catastrophe, The First World War.  His 1919 poem, “The Second Coming,” has “nothing in common with the typically envisioned Christian concept of the Second Coming of Christ,” as Wikipedia explains, but is “an approaching dark force with a ghastly and dangerous purpose.”  No doubt that is why the poem resonates so well today — and why, I fear, it will ring increasingly true in the coming decades if we don’t change course soon:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

 

Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Rmoen Posted 11:23 pm
    21 Jul 2009

    The premise of cap and trade--that CO2 drives global warming--is based on United Nations' climate reports that are tainted by politics and an agenda.  The reports don't pass the smell test -- see http://www.energyplanUSA.com. Plus, there's been many new climate discoveries since the UN's 1997 Kyoto Protocol that are largely omitted from the reports because, I think, they undercut Kyoto.

    America needs our own scientific assessment of global warming. I am a Democrat who for the past 20 years believed global warming was caused by CO2.  But now after reading the UN reports I suspect the fix was in.  The UN reports contain much good science, but in the end, the UN is a political organization where politics trumps science.  We in the United States need our own objective, transparent climate commission to think through global warming.  ...before we burden our economy with expensive energy.

    Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

    Permalink

    1. Tasermons Partner Posted 10:50 am
      22 Jul 2009

      Psst...Rmoen...the economy is ALREADY burdened with expensive energy.Expensive energy that also has the added cost of pollution along with it.

      Permalink

    2. stinkycheese Posted 11:32 am
      22 Jul 2009

      RMoen- That is very interesting!!! If only you had a website available where I could learn more of your personal views. You're right that the only potential solution is to form a committee... before we burden our planet
      with clean energy and the power of awesome. Maybe we can actually do something in 20 years or so.

      Permalink

  2. bastacosi Posted 9:50 am
    22 Jul 2009

    "But we should be equaling, if not beating, calls to key senators right now.""I am a Democrat......But now after reading"  It seems at times that these discussions run on a loop.  Someone posts that we need to do more to prod our elected officials into doing their part to save the planet from eventual catastrophe.  Inevitably someone adds a I Am A Democrat, but...we need MORE SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT comment.  Good lord, it is enough to make a person go home and get back in bed. If swing vote Senators are really sitting in their offices tallying up calls (many of which are from rampaging lunatics) before they decide if they can do the right thing then there is no hope.  No hope at all.Please people, let us remember that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had to make it out of a Judiciary Committee chaired by a Senator from Mississippi.  Think he was getting a lot of positive feedback regarding this bill from the folks back home?  And this was before the Southern Bloc filibuster.  On a degree of difficulty scale, which bill faced more profound problems?If Obama needs to start leaning on people, then that is precisely what he should do.         

    Permalink

    1. Rmoen Posted 12:09 pm
      22 Jul 2009

      Bastacosi-Please do yourself a favor and read the IPCC 2007 Climate Report.  You'll find that the scientists themselves express many doubts and uncertainties about both AGW and computer climate models.  If the Report concluded that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming along with natural causes, I'd be on-board.  But it doesn't.  It concluded that greenhouse gases DRIVE global warming.  That conclusion was written by IPCC employees without poling the climate scientists (according to the lead author with whom I correspond). The net result of the Democrats shoving the United Nations' agenda-driven opinion down the throat of America is that none of the Republicans believe in man-made global warming and I'd guess that much fewer than 50% of the Democrats do.  With only 25% or less of Americans on-board for cap-and-trade, why should the bill be passed? If one believes global warming is man-made then he/she should support my efforts for an American 'climate truth commission.' Only upon a positive finding by a objective, transparent America commission will cap-and-trade or carbon taxes get passed into law. -- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com   

      Permalink

      1. L25kin Posted 3:15 pm
        23 Jul 2009

        RMOEN and all others who refuse to help at a time when we need everyone to pitch in:Your clever scheme to say there needs to be an independent committee on global warming has been done already.See http://dels.nas.edu/climatechange/"At a time when responding to climate change is one of the nation's most important and complex endeavors, the National Academies provides helpful analysis and advice to policymakers and stakeholders through its expert, consensus reports and other activities. The reports are produced by committees of the nation's top scientists, engineers, and other experts who are convened to address key scientific and technical aspects of climate change and other topics.

        Science Academies Urge Faster Response to Climate Change
        June, 2009--In a joint statement, the science academies of the G8 countries, plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa, called on their leaders to "seize all opportunities" to address global climate change that "is happening even faster than previously estimated." The signers, which include U.S. National Academy of Sciences President Ralph J. Cicerone, urged nations at the upcoming Copenhagen climate talks to adopt goals aimed at reducing global emissions by 50 percent by 2050. The academies also urged the G8+5 governments, meeting in Italy next month, to "lead the transition to an energy efficient and low carbon economy, and foster innovation and research and development for both mitigation and adaptation technologies." View Statement "

        Permalink

  3. Adam Lazar Posted 12:28 pm
    22 Jul 2009

    Please read RMoen comments as they are are brilliant satire of a typical climate denier.  He gets the tone right and masters the conversion experience from a climate believer overwhelmed by evidence that gradually converts him to a skeptic.  Moen captures perfectly the "Non-precautionary principle:" if evidence points to a harmful conclusion, we should study the problem more instead of acting.  I give the PR company for Exxon or whoever is funding the site credit for excellent work.  I laughed at almost every sentence-- someone should make Moen's comments into a sketch on SNL.  

    Permalink

    1. Rmoen Posted 12:44 pm
      22 Jul 2009

      My website is 100% self-funded.  I spend a great deal of time researching energy issues and believe in what I say.  Thanks for the kind words -- I'll ignore the rest.-- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

      Permalink

  4. GlobalWarmingInc Posted 3:31 pm
    22 Jul 2009

    The notion that greenhouse gases drive Global Warming™ is laughable. Where is the real science these days? There are finally some additional studies coming out stating that the sun drives climate change -it's all cycles. We've already had our warm cycle, and are starting a nice cooling cycle. It's been a nice cool summer, hasn't it? It is predicted we won't set any more record highs until 2020 or so.Those who still believe that CO2 is the bad guy will all get Rick-Rolled when the real science gets past the media's agenda to make us fearful of the falling sky that is Global Warming™.  I'm so relieved the skeptics are so vocal and motivated. Think about the last time somebody lied about something you did or said. How passionate were you to setting the record straight?

    Permalink

  5. tweetingdonal Posted 11:14 pm
    22 Jul 2009

    Dear Bob,Democrat or Republican, doesn't matter. You live here, you're in the box with the rest of us. I am assuming (always a dangerous thing) that you have a grasp of what is at stake. I'm pretty sure your website indicates that you do.Who is this climate scientist that you correspond with? Which lead author of which component of the IPCC reports? The Synthesis report? Working Group 1? 2? 3? Name names, otherwise this reference is just a vague hand wave to attempt to build your credibility. Very few of the IPCC people are shy about sharing their views. Where has this person published his or her concerns? I've become weary of hearing references to "secret sources". Let's get it on the table.Also, as an aside, is your negative conclusion about the IPCC reports based upon the science? (That would be referee'd papers published in Nature, or Science, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science for example.) Or the ton of papers about climate at NOAA or NSIDC? If the review did not include the background material for the "readers digest" version that the IPCC has presented, then you still haven't seen what's happening.After some dredging through your website, I find that I agree with about 1/2 of what you're promoting. Your long term solution is to build an additional 508 new nuclear power stations. I personally believe that Nuclear power is a viable green technology, properly managed. However your comment above about expense is farcial.A May 2008 study by the Congressional Budget Office indicates that you would have to lay a carbon tax of $45 per metric ton just to make nuclear power cost competitive with coal. In what way is that cheaper?Then there's the investment. Constructing a nuclear plant (not counting
    transmission) is coming in between $6 to 9 billion dollars. Your
    proposal to double the number of plants (from 104 to 208) in the next
    10 years could easily be costing 3/4 of a trillion dollars, up front,
    for generation capacity that can't come online for 10 years, at the
    soonest (licensing and construction doncha know).  That ignores the
    fact that the last nuclear power plant to come online took almost 24
    years to finally be allowed full function. Nuclear plants require 20–83 percent more cooling water than other power stations depending on design.  When it gets too hot or during a drought you tend to have to shut them down or at least back them down. Coastal power stations usually don'th have this problem they just add more steam to the atmosphere (another GHG by the way).We do not have time to wait for something that will help us in 2030... we need it a lot sooner.Your answer to that? I quote from your website: "Drill, Drill, Drill". I fail to grasp how dumping out of Solar, tidal, and wind power and burning more fossil fuel (natural gas or otherwise) until the nuclear plants come online has addressed the problem.
    You're certainly welcome to your opinion, much as I am. I imagine we as individuals could come to terms with our differences, but your website and it's "friends" (Industrial Wind Watch, et al) seem to me to be too slanted as well. Much like your post here, your site's proposal looks good on the surface, but doesn't pass the "sniff" test.
    Larry Oliver

    Permalink

    1. Rmoen Posted 10:18 am
      23 Jul 2009

      Dear Larry-Thanks for all your comments.  This is why I enjoy the Grist so much:  people are smart and well spoken.  I'm a bit rushed today so can only respond to one of your comments. Because I don't have his permission I won't mention the name of the person who worked on the IPCC 2007 Climate Report, with whom I'm in contact.  I erred when I said (from memory) he was a lead author, he actually was a expert reviewer.  I bold faced his comment that supports my statement that IPCC employees, not scientists, concluded that CO2 drives global warming.His comments, "I  served as an expert  reviewer, by invitation rather than self-nomination, for what that’s worth. I found—admittedly to  my  surprise—that many  sections  of  the  IPCC  report  are  truly well-done. They  reflect  credible  expert  contributions  from knowledgeable  sources. However,  these  sections don’t grind axes or  tell  scary  stories:  they  report on  advances  in  scientific understanding, while making clear how  complex and difficult the study of climate remains. This is not the stuff on which the Summaries  and subsequent headlines get built." "The IPCC timeline for the 4th Assessment Report required that all review comments on the Second Order Draft had to be submitted in June 2006. That was the last time members of the scientific review group saw the text before publication, and the last time that contributors would have seen their material unless Lead Authors specifically consulted them. The report then went through 3 further re-writes prior to release in May 2007. The first was done in late summer 2006. This version was sent to government agencies in October 2006 for their comments. Another revision was then done and a new draft was sent to government agencies in December 2006. None of the government agency comments, or revisions in response to them, were subjected to review by the scientific reviewers. At the beginning of February 2007, the IPCC convened host governments in Paris, where the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) was negotiated by government delegates, with input by a small group of Lead Authors selected by the IPCC Bureau. The SPM was released in February 2007 with massive international publicity. However, that document was never subject to the usual review process. It was written and negotiated line-by-line by government agencies at the Paris meeting, 7 months after the final comments by expert reviewers. We did not see the SPM until it was in the newspapers, and at no time were reviewers or contributors asked whether they endorse specific conclusions or claims in the SPM. The full IPCC Report was not released at the time of the SPM. It went through a subsequent re-write in order to bring it into agreement with the negotiated text of the SPM as released at the February press conference (this bizarre procedure has always preceded release of IPCC reports, and has been the source of many disturbing changes to the text). The final version of the report was published online in May 2007, nearly a year after the close of scientific review. "

      Permalink

  6. vbstenswick Posted 6:30 pm
    25 Jul 2009

    I am an amateur and do not have time to read every report, including the IPCC.  However, overnight lows in January in Minneapolis are 9+ degrees warmer than 40 years ago (1960-1967 versus 2000-2007).  It is scientific fact that carbon dioxide absorbs the wavelength of radiation re-radiated by the earth.  Whether this has an effect on climate or not I will not argue.  It is also my understanding that the current buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traces back to the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Is it a coincidence that Mother Nature started to spew CO2 at the same time humans figured out how to use fossil fuels to make our lives easier?  I also have yet to hear anyone dispute Gore's slides showing the correlation between CO2 and temperature.  All this leads me to believe that the changes in weather we see are caused by man.  I also do not completely buy the arguments about expensive green energy, at this time.  Wind, along with coal and nuclear, is accepted as one of the least expensive ways to generate electricity.  I also heat my house with a geothermal heat pump and have heating bills lower than anyone with a comparable house and the best furnace on the market.  Also, waste heat is a vastly untapped resource.  It is going to vary considerably by site, but I think if we gave waste heat the same incentives as wind, which I think is $0.02/kwh for ten years, we would see an significant increase in investment in energy efficiency.  Much of it would remove load from the grid, saving on the need to make investments in the electrical transmission infrastructure.  Beyond that, it will get more difficult.  I think congress should authorize tariffs on any nation that does not cap their emissions at current levels, and set then we have to set goals for how to cut them.  I also think congress should authorize the President to use the navy to ration China and India's oil should they not cap their emissions.  I pick on them simply because of their size.  No matter what we do, it will not matter if they 'stay the course'.

    Permalink

  7. steroids Posted 10:41 am
    26 Jul 2009

    I appreciate the discussion, and I understand some folks have very
    strong feelings on this issue … but I’m going to make a warning here …
    NO NAME-CALLING ON STEROIDS.

    Permalink

  8. GlobalWarmingInc Posted 3:51 pm
    06 Aug 2009

    Quote: "... they just add more steam to the atmosphere (another GHG by the way)."I don't understand. Steam is water vapor. Once it cools, it will fall back down as rain. Hardly a AGW threat.

    Permalink

    1. Rmoen Posted 4:30 pm
      06 Aug 2009

      Globalwarminginc-

      You are discounting the importance of clouds (i.e. water vapor) on climate.  Here's what the IPCC says in their 2007 Climate Report, "Modelling assumptions controlling the cloud water phase (liquid, ice or mixed) are known to be critical for the prediction of climate sensitivity. However, the evaluation of these assumptions is just beginning (p638)."  Statements like this--of which the report contains many--makes one wonder if the IPCC had enough scientific basis to declare that CO2 drives global warming.-- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

      Permalink

  9. omnibet Posted 12:27 pm
    06 Oct 2009

    Good post and a fantastic read. You have raised some valid points. Great work, keep it up.
    Pariuri Sportive Online

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement