The "Death of Environmentalism" boys are at it again. In an op-ed piece in the April 1, 2006 New York Times, Nordhaus and Shellenberger argue that we should stop arguing about the causes of global warming and start talking about adaptation.Environmentalists and their opponents have spent far too much time debating whether global warming is caused by humans, and whether the transition to cleaner energy sources will be good or bad for the economy. Whatever the causes, warming is a genuine risk.
If the earth's temperatures continue to rise, we can expect to face melting glaciers and rising sea levels, warmer ocean temperatures and more intense hurricanes, more frequent droughts and other extreme weather. Is the government ready?
No. Which is why we need a Global Warming Preparedness Act.
My first reaction? It reads remarkably like White House talking points circa 2002, when the U.S. Kyoto delegation tried to shift the conversation from prevention to adaption. You remember how it went: Why squabble over who's to blame? What we should really be doing is looking at how to adapt.
But perhaps -- and this is just supposition here -- the real purpose was a kind of media judo. You know, co-opt your opponent's momentum and use it against them. Under this theory, once people have to go through the scenarios of how to deal with global warming's effects, they'll take it more seriously. If that's the reasoning behind this framing I think it falls down on several points:
- Once you start talking about adaption, you implicitly concede the battle of prevention. It's very hard to go back.
- Who's to say the adaptation scenarios will scare? I guarantee you that should their "Global Warming Preparedness Act" be enacted, we'll see a raft of reports about the benefits of increased temperatures to American agriculture, the boon to the economy from the uptick in the flip-flop and airconditioner industries, etc.
For people still interested in working on prevention, this is an unproductive way to take the conversation.
Comments
View as Threaded
condor Posted 5:34 am
01 Apr 2006
Having said that, we must also do an "all hands on deck" effort to mitigate this change in climate. This means 1) energy conservation to reduce the demand and 2) alternative energy sources to address the supply.
I don't know if Nordhaus and Shellenberger had this in mind, but their article on the death of environmentalism was instructive to refocus the discussion into one that had a prayer of success. Perhaps, their intent is the same here. Clearly both attacks on this problem are appropriate.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 11:09 am
01 Apr 2006
The appearance of this piece is ironic now that the science is looking more and more solid, and the situation seems to be much worse than imagined, due to possible feedback loops, etc.
Time magazine and respected mainstream journalists are coming out of the closet about global warming:
Eugene Linden
Ross Gelbspan
Bill Blakemore (ABC)
Scientifically, the article is weak. Tactically, this article has the flaws that Adam described.
In sum: thumbs down.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:48 pm
01 Apr 2006
Nordhaus/Shellenberger elicit shouts of mockery, flung shoes, tomatoes, when they bring up the name of FEMA. Well, they are surely right to point to the Gulf Coast and to the South West as especially challenged. But really, so much more needs to be done right now, already, not just in anticipation of a disaster. As it is, the entire region from just south of Tijuana to just north of Las Vegas, and from just west of LA to just east of Phoenix, ought to be declared a "Maximum Capacity Quadrangle." Nobody should be allowed to move in; people who move out should be given an incentive. Probably the region should be more extensively defined, in both the US and Mexico, than what I suggested.
Unreasonable? No more unreasonable than No/Sho's proposal that LA and San Diego and Phoenix and Las Vegas must account to a DC agency where they intend to get their water from. That is madness. There is no water for them, unless they steal it, from people who like to drink water.
As for the Gulf Coast, No/Sho do not begin to suggest the countless issues. Are we really supposed to expect FEMA to deal with hurricane relief, when there has been no appreciation of the endangered state of the lower Mississippi River system, and of the pollution of the Gulf of Mexico? There are so many different problems here, having to do with from sociology to marine biology to agricultural chemistry to riverine hydrology to tropical meteorology to the economy of the port of New Orleans, etc., etc. Oh, and might I mention, jazzology? Bluesology? Herpetology? (Don't get bit!) Cajunology?
Sorry, I cannot claim to be up on post-Kyoto wisdom. But I am not sure that is what this is really about. I love Condor's recommendation, "All hands on deck!" But I fear some hands are thinking they are better than others. Some hands are thinking, they will do what they can, to get the most luxurious bedrooms and bathrooms, in the few years left before all life on earth perishes. And to hell with all the others.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:18 am
03 Apr 2006
We were sinking fast, everything failed. The crew of 24 locked themselves into their cabins and prepared to die, including the owner who was in way over his head. Three sailors were alone on deck of a huge ship. We prepared for failure, wore life jackets and made ready the life rafts, then did everything possible to save our ship and her crew. The odds against survival were significant. The situation was grim but not hopeless. The First Mate took over and we turned the big old ship around, all most rolled over. After a long heroic struggle we survived. The three of us were sailors. Our fear prevented motion sickness. Our fear saved us from disaster.
This experience has taught me not to expect "all hands on deck" when things go terribly wrong. Do we have a First Mate that will relieve captain GWB (now locked in his cabin) and turn our ship of state around?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:06 am
03 Apr 2006
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:42 am
03 Apr 2006
Permalink
condor Posted 9:01 am
03 Apr 2006
This cannot be done by hoping for a First Mate that can remove the captain. It will take all hands to conserve to make a dent in demand, and will take all hands to put enough pressure on our elected officials for them to take action.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:27 am
03 Apr 2006
At the same time, however, I continue to believe there's plenty we can do to make a difference in how severe it becomes. I could be in deep denial here, but for my own emotional and spiritual sanity I need to believe this. Just that it's possible, not that it's a given. And on the off chance that we can greatly mitigate, despite everything that's already happening, then we must work to prevent, prevent, prevent however we can.
Whether the federal acts described in the op ed piece are good or not, I don't know. I do know that in places like the Gulf Coast where hurricanes are going to be more severe, obviously something has to give. It's just common sense. But red tape was one of the problems after Katrina. The powers that be actually preventing people from coming in to help. Unbelievable! It seemed like government often got in the way, rather than facilitating solutions. I'd hate to make it worse than it already is.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 10:23 am
03 Apr 2006
Metaphors aside, leadership is the issue. We must not "stay the course" with mitigation. I'm not suggesting mutiny. GWB has retired to his bubble, is not available to set a new course, not responding to climate change, censors science.
I have traveled the world and we, in the USA, are the leaders of science, technology, and economy. Science shows that carbon-free energy can be less expensive than the cost of coal. Science and technology must be employed and deployed around the world. Leading science does not happen on a local level. Locally, we are stuck using off-the-shelf products. I own a Prius, a solar home, and do not fly. Even if all my neighbors do the same thing, very unlikely, global warming will still destroy our lives, prepared or not.
Technically, the Earth is a solar collector operating at a stagnant temperature. Melting ice increases absorptivity plus CO2 ~ CH4 lowers emissivity of this collector. Both work together to raise the stagnant temperature of the Earth. It is a black body radiation formula to the fourth power of temperature. The graph leaps off the page. It will get too hot for familiar life (and civilization) on our planet.
This goes beyond money, and who is right. We are heading directly into global destruction.
We need leadership here and NOW. We are all in serious trouble. The USA must turn around before its too late. I say screw mitigation. (OK, I'm getting a little angry here. I'm not sleeping very well anymore.)
Permalink
LindsayDSRCA Posted 11:58 am
03 Apr 2006
I am very interested in whatever it will take to build an environmentally sustainble future. But one of the things I am sure it will not require is a Global Warming Preparedness Act with corporations like Halliburton standing by to build levees...
This is clearly a case of PR spin to get those ignorant of the real issues to look to the government to do it for them.
Permalink
Ernie Indigo Posted 4:19 am
12 Apr 2007
Yeah, we must cut GHGs, more rapidly than most propose so far. We have a stock of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere and ticking away for decades.
and we have the impacts of the greenhouse gas effect all around us, with some islands already disappearing, shifts in seasons and migration of habitats and wacky weather in our warmest winter.
It is no "distraction" to adapt to and prepare for these impacts. Especially since the new IPCC report indicates the poor nations will generally be hit by the results of our history of emissions. Our wealth, along with that of the other industrialized countries, must support the adaptation process in the nations that did little to create the problem.
Under President Clinton and Veep Gore we produced valuable preparing for CC impacts, buried by the Shrub. see http://www.indigodev.com/prepcc.html
for these and some excellent plans for other countries.
Let's respond at the level of the crisis!
Permalink