Independence Day may be the best day to ask ourselves -- what is the greatest preventable threat to Americans' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (LLPH). The answer is simple: human-caused global warming. Certainly there are other major threats to LLPH, the gravest of which is probably terrorists using weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapon, in this country.
Between Homeland Security and the Pentagon, we spend billions of dollars every month to try to prevent terrorism. Indeed, President Bush and John McCain say Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. If so, the government spends more than $20 billion a month just to fight terrorism -- of which more than half is new money we weren't spending before 9/11 (and we spend more than $50 billion a month total on military and homeland security). Those who oppose such spending are routinely labeled unpatriotic or even appeasers.
But unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions are by far the greatest preventable threat to Americans' LLPH. Yet the government spends virtually nothing to fight global warming -- certainly no significant amount of new money has been allocated for this major threat (the Clinton administration tried, but the Gingrich Congress reversed that effort, reducing or zeroing out every program aimed at climate mitigation or even adaptation).
Indeed, most conservatives, including John McCain, oppose even continuing existing incentives for carbon-mitigating strategies like solar and wind power. Conservatives in Congress seem likely to strongly oppose any major effort at a legislative solution (see "Anti-science conservatives must be stopped").
Hmm. What should we call people who actively oppose efforts to save America from the horrors posed by the greatest threat to Americans' LLPH? Deniers? Delayers? Worse?
The main reason I bring this up today is that conservative columnist Tony Blankley, Newt Gingrich's former press secretary, questioned the patriotism of environmentalists on the Diane Rehm show yesterday:
I'd like to put forward a proposition for this discussion. I've thought about this over time. I think patriotism is a form of love -- love of country. And like other loves, they can be more intense, they can be faithful, they can be intermittent, they can be weak.
By the way which means that the opposite of patriotism isn't necessarily treason; it may simply mean indifference or divided sentiments. And I think in that way, there can be a person who is more patriotic and it doesn't mean the person who is less patriotic is a traitor ….
I would take it [to] another area where I think patriotism is slipping … people who have views on the environment may feel that they're more loyal to the environmental principle than they do to American advancement. We see this very specifically on the question of the Kyoto treaty where people who believe in environmentalism to that degree say we should give up our economic expansion while other parts of the world don't have to for the general good interests of the world.
Pathetic. Why does Diane Rehm or anyone else listen to him?
Very clever of Blankely not to define "the environmental principle" -- a nonexistent term (try googling it). Also very clever of him to define action on Kyoto as giving up our economic expansion -- even though, of course, it meant no such thing.
Personally, I'm not an environmentalist, and I don't believe in "environmentalism" though like everyone else, I have "views on the environment." I do firmly believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for Americans (and everyone else). Unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions could destroy all three.
A couple of decades ago, the nations of the world decided the rich countries should take action to reduce emissions first because 1) we caused the problem and 2) we got rich doing so. President Bush's father agreed, and the U.S. Senate signed off on that unanimously. [People seem unaware of this fact so I will blog on it later.]
The nations of the world asked the top scientists of the world to summarize the state of scientific understanding every few years and make conclusions that had to be signed off on by every country word for word. That led to Kyoto and now it has lead to very, very dire scientists who are begging us for action, which they make clear will not prevent continued economic development.
It also led to an active effort by fossil fuel companies and conservative think tanks to spread disinformation aimed at blocking action. Our top climate scientist thinks the people who fund such efforts might face trial for crimes against humanity. I seriously doubt that -- mainly because the most serious consequences of this disinformation campaign will not be evident until after the funders (and the disinformers) are dead.
But anyone who understands science realizes that ignoring what the IPCC says is self-destructive for any nation -- especially since the IPCC almost certainly underestimates how harsh the consequences are and how quickly they will be upon us and how even more quickly they will be all but unstoppable.
If we fail to heed the warning of our top scientists, if we fail to adopt the low-cost strategies need to avert the incalculably high-cost consequences (widespread desertification, large and rapid sea level rise, loss of the inland glaciers, extinction of most species, fatal acidification of the ocean, and on and on), nobody is going to be writing books labeling us "the greatest generation." We will at best be "the greediest generation" and perhaps even "the first unpatriotic generation" since we were the first who would not bear any burden or pay any price to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the next generation.
But that is how future generations will label us. We haven't failed yet. Should we question the patriotism of deniers? That is a tough call, made even tougher since they question our patriotism even as we fight to save their children and their children's children from their own ignorance and indifference.
I suppose the answer is "no," we shouldn't stoop to their tactics -- readers can weigh in with other views -- but I will say that if we are going to save this great nation, progressives are going to have to fight back much harder against the despicable actions of the deniers who practice polluter appeasement. Whatever we are currently doing, it ain't enough.
The time to act is yesterday.
Ask Umbra on her hotness, corporate gift baskets, and more
Jon Stewart praises ‘SuperFreak’ author
Comments
View as Threaded
amazingdrx Posted 5:25 pm
04 Jul 2008
Or are they appeasers and enablers? Let the voters decide. Then and only then use extra special rendition to the Arctic, let native arctainians feed them to the polar bears.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:52 pm
04 Jul 2008
Here...this guy can be your role model:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcffD41vu2s
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:02 am
05 Jul 2008
For example: Hitler states that people who don't report on the whereabouts of Jews in hidin' aren't patriotic.
And we wanna be patriotic, now don't we? ^rolls eyes^
Catch-22. History assignes negative conotation to the word "traitor", when, at the same time, history applies negative conotations to the actions of most people who use "patriotic" scare tactics.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 3:51 am
05 Jul 2008
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:48 am
05 Jul 2008
So reject patriotism as "propaganda" if you like, but understand that you are thereby going to alienate the vast bulk of the American populace and render yourself and your movement (even more) impotent. Is that worth it for the thrill of intellectual superiority?
grist.org
Permalink
Angelsnecropolis Posted 5:59 am
05 Jul 2008
One could argue that most republicans or deniers aren't patriotic but that really isn't the point. Whether they are patriotic or not has no legitimate bearing on reality except to invoke unjustifiable emotion. In truth, the repubs and deniers are hurting all of humanity, not just America, by putting profit before people.
I think the accusation of crimes against humanity is a fairer one since their efforts to obstruct and destroy are enabling the possibility of mass death and displacement by Climate Change. But our corrupt government wouldn't be capable of making that claim while the corrupt corporations still keep them fat and happy. What needs to happen is the retraction that corporations can be considered a legal "person."
It's unfortunate, but unless the American people can rally together, in mass, to initiate a full out revolution, I feel our corrupt government will always have one hand in the corporate cookie jar and the other in their own dirty pockets.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:32 am
05 Jul 2008
Permalink
justlou Posted 7:00 am
05 Jul 2008
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:03 am
05 Jul 2008
If we want to be effective, we've got to quit ceding patriotism and economics to the other side. Like it or not, that's the battleground that makes sense to the American public. And the other side is wrong on the merits, on both counts. It's crazy not to say so.
grist.org
Permalink
Zephaniah Posted 8:21 am
05 Jul 2008
Have you noticed that in the last few weeks the fossil fuel worshipers have been hammering away at a single message, saying that the reason why gas prices are so high is because the Congress (read Democratic members) refuse to allow drilling on certain environmentally protected areas in the US. Against all reason, this message is taking on a life of its own, with repetition from many sources. Explanations about how this is just ridiculous fall on deaf ears. Their message is simple, and repeatable.
It takes less time to say `Drill!' than to explain why it's a bad idea.
So what is our simple, repeatable, undeniably true message?
NEW POWER for the 21st Century. We need a federal program to GET SOLAR, WIND OR GEOTHERMAL POWER FOR EVERY HOUSEHOLD!.
With modest support, less than we are borrowing for the war to protect US oil industry in Iraq, alternatives will provide all our electricity including more than enough to run electric vehicles WITHIN A COUPLE YEARS.
BURNING FOSSIL FUEL IS so OLD SCHOOL, SO LAST CENTURY!
We will need to use oil for making plastics, for lubrication, for a gazillion things vital to our civilization. It's UNBELIEVABLY WASTEFUL to burn it.
The countries that realize this, and invest in NEW POWER will become the economic leaders. They will have free sunlight, free wind, free earth heat. They will not have to buy fuel from anyone. Maybe that's what makes the fossilites so irritated; they won't be able to sell what their product, and other people will make more money.
With American ingenuity and industry at the forefront, making the switch to alternatives, we will gain tons of great new jobs, stimulate the economy, improve our international security, and, of course, we will be doing what we have to do to stop the extreme weather from trashing our coastlines, riverbanks, forests, and oceans. So it's not a matter of moneyists versus environmentalists. Whether you worship the dollar or nature, we need the same thing, NEW POWER.
The fact that alternative energy is growing at leaps and bounds with tiny amounts of government support is testimony to their HUGE POTENTIAL and American intelligence. The strength of the fossil fuel industry's obstructionism is criminal, but so is the passivity of the informed American public.
Thanks for reading this.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:03 am
05 Jul 2008
So, short-term, or actually medium-term, I guess you scream "plug-ins!", and try "transit!", which is probably the long-term solution. The problem is that it isn't particularly short-term.
However, speaking of patriotism, you could argue that, no matter what we do, oil will keep going up (thus countering the "drill" cheer), so if we want an economy that keeps growing, and competes in the world, we need, "plug-ins!" and "transit!"
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 9:11 am
05 Jul 2008
There are many definitions of "patriot" or "compatriot" but I think we really mean nationalism. That means taking care of things in your country, being proud of it, wanting to defend it, et cetera and as Sam Clemens made so much fun.
My take is that global warming is, well, global. I do however have an intense desire that action start here in the USA, since we're such a consumer of world goods and energy.
But even nationalism is another religion ... I do think it is contrary to the future security of our country if we don't take immediate measures. Even Big Oil and all kinds of industry leaders will tell you that.
The difference is whether we can wait ten years, as some of these same experts might agree, or take more draconian measures now. Pay no mind to the "deniers," as even large energy concerns know that something has to be done. But to the business world, which is composed of many conservative and want a smooth transition to the economy - and plus, they've poured a trillion dollars into existing oil, coal, and all kinds of "dirty" projects that take time and may not even be online until ten years.
I hope this makes sense. If we started today drilling the ANWR, it would be ten years before appreciable amounts of oil flows to the Lower 48 States. We all know ANWR isn't the answer but same logic for investments in the Gulf of Mexico, Iraq, Brazil, and elsewhere. When the resources play out, time for clean power. Plus, ten years would allow a modest ramp-up to new clean energy economy.
Seen that way, the "10 year delayer boys" versus the "doing it right now folks," makes a little sense. Neither has a hooey do to with patriotism. The conservatives are just guarding their pockets for a a ten-year horizon. -sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:32 am
06 Jul 2008
Whatever the American mind may be doing in reaction to such a concept, the American heart most certainly turns in anger against such an effort to co-opt and manipulate us.
Are we to believe that when the flag was raised on Iwo Jima, that was a victory for American business? When the increasingly feckless Barack Obama (predictably so, some might add) is bullied into wearing a flag pin in his lapel, is this too a victory for American business?
God forbid!
To be clear: May God NOT damn America, or American business. But there are (at least) two different strains in how Americans interpret what this republic is about, and according to which "American economic expansion" has decidedly different functions:
America is different from every other place, and separate, and in competition with everyone else; and the true patriot gleefully chants, "USA! USA! USA! USA!," while the competitors fall behind in the dust.
America is not at all separate; it is a full participatory member of the community of nations; it is the moral leader, and the ideal, of the whole world; injustice, poverty, woes of all kinds afflict the hearts of all truly patriotic Americans, wherever those woes occur; the true American patriot desires happiness for fellow Americans and for others beyond our borders ALIKE.
And it is a source of depression that American politicians must pretend that only the first of these definitions of patriotism matters, no matter what they may feel in their (perhaps) more enlightened hearts.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 6:46 am
06 Jul 2008
Yeah, some freaking leaders we are ...
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 11:39 am
06 Jul 2008
I never advocated that the public position of enviros, or anyone else trying to change things for the better, should be rejection of patriotism. But when I read a column in Grist that advocates questioning someone's patriotism, albeit turning the idiotic concept on its head, my reaction is the same as if someone calling for the elimination of pesticides because they're harming Nazi Germany. This might sound like a good tactic, but it is clearly accepting that the ends justify the means, which, in this case at least, they don't.
When I rented sailboats on an island for a year, my partner was a psycho right wing Vietnam vet. He once asked me if I was patriotic, to which I gave him an honest yet very nuanced answer, so that he didn't get upset. (We both recognized that our politics were pretty much opposite.) I basically said that I'm patriotic to the Earth and to places where I live, but that I have major disagreements with not only U.S. policies, but with the founding principles of killing the natives, slavery, etc. We agreed to disagree, but my answer didn't make him angry. The point is that one can still recognize patriotism for the B.S. that it is while not alienating those who are attracted to the concept when trying to get them to support a cause.
This has nothing to do with intellectual superiority. It has to do with recognizing B.S. and acting on that recognition, regardless of what one's tactics might be regarding public statements or policies.
Permalink
Larry9247 Posted 11:30 pm
06 Jul 2008
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 7:32 am
07 Jul 2008
True Believers are not interested in expanding the comforts we enjoy.
Advancement means "live simply" to the True Believer.
True Believers don't want growth and loathe "consumption".
No credibility.
Often misunderestimated
Permalink