I like and respect Andy Revkin a great deal. He is one of the best reporters on climate and certainly the most prolific climate journalist now that he has his Dot Earth blog. But I must take exception to his recent posting, "Climate Debate: Democracy In Action?"
You would never know from his post that one side in the debate was desperately trying to save future generations from catastrophic warming and the other side was simply doing shameless political posturing. Here is how it opens:
David M. Herszenhorn has a piece today examining this week's Senate action (or inaction, more accurately) as the debate over the Warner-Lieberman-Boxer bill aimed at curbing emissions of greenhouse gases stalled amid partisan parrying using age-old rules of order.
As I read the article, I was reminded of a conversation I had with Senator John McCain about climate and American politics in 2005, while we were taping an interview for the Discovery-Times documentary "Arctic Rush." Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said flatly that democracies don't do well with this kind of long-term, looming threat.
David's story may hold some evidence that this is true.
You must be kidding, Andy. McCain's comment is utterly absurd. It is McCain's own Republican colleagues who don't "do well with this kind of long-term, looming threat."
Boxer-Lieberman-Warner are trying to deal with this threat. The majority of Republican senators don't acknowledge the serious nature the threat -- and many continue to reject the scientific understanding that there is any threat at all.
Does Andy feel that so-called journalistic balance does not allow him to bluntly state the real lede, which is that conservatives have chosen to score political points at the expense of taking any action against the gravest threat to the security of Americans?
Let me go further. McCain's comment is laughable. Where is the evidence that non-democracies "do well with this kind of long-term, looming threat"? I have one word for McCain and Revkin: China. Inaction on climate has nothing to do with some flaw inherent in democracies -- indeed, the governments of all the other major industrialized democracies in the world have taken action.
This has everything to do with the fact that a large segment of the political power structure in this country (and elsewhere) benefits from the status quo in energy because the incumbent, polluting industries are making tens of billions of dollars a year that they can and do use to maintain their power.
Ironically, democracies should be better than non-democracies at this because they/we (theoretically) have an uncensored media that can tell the public the truth about the threat. But that would seem to be mostly a theoretical advantage in this country, as long as the media in this country is self-censored and leaves the public the impression that inaction on climate is just "politics as usual" partisan parrying in Washington, with both sides equally to blame. Then the public says, a pox on both your houses, and becomes as disempowered as the public in a non-democracy.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Seven reasons for optimism about the Senate climate bill
Comments
View as Flat
greentiger Posted 3:37 am
06 Jun 2008
You use the example of China as a non-democratic example. I don't believe that's a fair comparison given the comparison in growth phase between China and those nation committed to Kyoto. China has its own selfish goals, and I believe its leaders (who can more/less make law at will) feel that taking action now to reduce emissions at the hieght of their growth is not in their best interest.... Don't say I agree with it, but in general China has done quite well in long term decisions/planning such as climate change necessitates (trampling on human rights aside...)
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 4:45 am
06 Jun 2008
The epilogue for many of those states (including NY) was that they passed constitutional amendments preventing a huge bond issue (borrowing money) without an increase in taxes. The idea was that they realized politicians -and the citizens that vote for them- can't be trusted to make sound long term financial decisions when tempted with short term financial considerations. So if something's truly worth spending all this money on, raise taxes and actually pay for it.
Needless to say we have no such regulation on the federal level. And I think climate change is a reasonable example of our democracy's trouble with this. Everyone wants clean energy, but despite a very vocal minority (and I'm afraid it is a minority) most of the population isn't nearly so enthusiastic when faced with the prospect of increased energy costs. The Republicans know it because they brandish that 52 cent gas increase as their shield against electoral comeuppance - they know that it will satisfy enough of their constituency to keep them in office. And what's more disheartening, the democrats clearly know it too, because they consistently underplay the legitimate costs of the Lieberman Warner bill.
Permalink
Andy Revkin Posted 5:06 am
06 Jun 2008
- Andy Revkin
nytimes.com/revkin
Permalink
birdboy Posted 5:26 am
06 Jun 2008
The GOP deserves credit for stalling action on climate change; their blind support for the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the American people and the future of this world should be shouted from every rooftop, not hidden by 'fair and balanced' reporting.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:40 pm
06 Jun 2008
Corporations and "Big Oil" (how come no one ever talks about "small oil"?) are LEGITIMATE parts of our society. It's not as if business is evil.... no business....no work....no work, no modern society. No one here seems to think that through. It's as if everyone wants to turn the clock back to 1650 - oh what a lovely time on the planet that was. You could sit and watch half of your children not make it to adulthood. You could watch close friends and relatives die in agony from a whole host of medical conditions that are now easily treatable.
We can not go back to being an agrarian society - well we certainly don't want to.
The Republicans are not "enemies of the people". Their viewpoints are different, but every bit as legitimate as the ones posted here.
Respect is critical in a functioning democracy. I got to spend two years in a country where that ceased happening, where government dissolved in a "revolution". It was incredibly ugly. The scope of human suffering was beyond description. So before any morons get the bright idea that a revolution would be a good thing, I suggest you go some place like Somalia and see one up close. Most revolutions do enormous damage to the societies in which they occur before some sort of normalcy returns. And then they often end in dictatorship.
So how about it we discuss good people like John McCain with the respect they deserve. Most of our politicians are of such low moral character they would throw their own grandmothers under the bus to get ahead. McCain and Obama are not of that ilk and we should appreciate it.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 7:57 am
10 Jun 2008
First, there are usually more than two legitimate points of view on every major issue. Just giving the two wings of the pro-corporate points of view (i.e., the Democrats and Republicans) a voice does not even come close to airing all points of view that should be heard.
Second, not every point of view is legitimate. Like those who advocate for a flat Earth, those who advocate against believing that humans are causing catastrophic global climate change have no legitimate point of view and should not be given equal time. This is not to say they should be censored, but they instead should be given a voice in proportion to their percentage in the scientific community, which is about 5-10%.
Permalink
birdboy Posted 9:41 am
10 Jun 2008
"You have to learn to respect people with different opinions."
However, certain things are not matters of opinion- things like human-caused climate change, limits to growth, and evolution of species are facts, and any group that publicly disputes facts is begging for disrespect.
"It's not as if business is evil.... "
Just good ol' boys trying to feed their families, right? But how about a little less emphasis on short-term profits and more on protecting our planet and our global future? Is that so much to ask?
"The Republicans are not "enemies of the people". "
They're just 'good friends' to the rich and powerful. Not at all the same thing.
" ...before any morons get the bright idea that a revolution would be a good thing,..."
We 'morons' seek a revolution of the mind- of perspective- forget about violence and think enlightenment and involvement.
"Respect is critical in a functioning democracy."
But respect is earned, and the respect America once had in the world view has been squandered by an administration tied to Big Oil and supported by the GOP. If we want to earn back respect, we need to renounce their views. That is my opinion, and I still have the right to express it. (Unless George decides I'm a terrorist threat).
a liberal in redsville
Permalink