... about who supports clean energy more, Calif. governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is pulling together a summit of community and local leaders from Europe, Australia, India, China, and all 50 states to discuss how best to battle climate change. This is part of the great undercovered story of the climate battle: national governments are largely impotent, while action races forward on the ground.
While McCain and Obama squabble ... 13
-
Posted 10:08 PM on 26 Sep 2008
by David Roberts -
Posted in
-
Read More About
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/david_h_roberts.
Related Stories
Gear up for Bike to Work Week
Stimulating coffee lectures in Seattle focus on sustainability
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.
Comments View as Flat
LGT Posted 8:21 pm
26 Sep 2008
Is he actually
Inviting all those people to Calif, or establishing video links?
It seems like hundreds of thousands of professional globetrotters are flying 365/1 to just about every destination under the sun discussing how best to "battle" [nuke it?] climate change ...
http://rtsf.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/stop-flying-in-the-f ...
Permalink
Steven T Posted 1:11 am
27 Sep 2008
Has the U.S. become too big to be governable?
This is a serious question, particularly as it relates to climate change. Sure, there are great advantages to gaining adoption of national policies, but might it be more cost-effective to attempt to first do so at the state and regional levels?
I hope that no one is living under the mistaken impression that merely electing a Democratic president and Congress will result in the paradigm shift needed. By and large the most visionary changes will need to percolate up to the federal government.
Regarding Arnold, I'm wary of his commitment to climate change. He has a tendency to reinvent himself based upon what the polls are showing. At any rate, it is important to not assume that big, showy conferences can substitute for actual, on-the-ground action. This is an area where the climate change "industry" deserves some criticism.
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 3:06 am
27 Sep 2008
Astroturf Arnold
While Arnold is talking about his conference, and he was doing this at the Commonwealth Club of California last night. You can listen to a rebroadcast Sun, Sep 28, 2008 -- 4:00 am on KQED from San Francisco. Available on the web at http://www.kqed.org/
Let me quote Dan Bacher, Editor of the Fishsniffer magazine on Schwarzenegger's greenness. "Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose horrendous environmental policies have resulted in ecological catastrophe for the California Delta and the collapse of Central Valley salmon runs, today again attempted to delude the media and the public about his environmental record by mouthing off about his "committment to building a green economy."
Schwarzenegger is like that other superhero, the Hulk, who was only green when he had to be.
Wes Rolley CoChair - EcoAction Committee Green Party US
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:13 am
27 Sep 2008
It ain't all or none....
You became aware of global warming early. Good for you.
Now what makes more sense - kicking people who are slower to come around in the teeth as they make some progress or welcoming any changes in the right direction?
Arnold, didn't vote for him, seems to be making some moves in the right direction so what do we gain from punishing him for his baby steps?
Driving him back into the traditional Republican folds make sense to you?
I'd rather recognize that the great ship of state is slowly beginning to turn. Happening at the state level right now. Get a good President and the rest of the nation can come along.
I'm encouraged by stuff like this....
--
Seven Western states and four Canadian provinces proposed a sweeping regional crackdown on global warming emissions Tuesday in the face of continuing reluctance by the Bush administration and Congress to pass comprehensive climate legislation.
The Western Climate Initiative, endorsed by the 11 governors and provincial premiers, aims to slash regional greenhouse gas pollutants by about 15% below 2005 levels in the next 12 years.
"We're sending a strong message to our federal governments that states and provinces are moving forward in the absence of federal action," said California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, adding that the effort would spur renewable energy development and create "green jobs."
http://stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read.asp?id=321149252008 ...
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 4:34 am
27 Sep 2008
Home town hot spot
Let me leave a link to my personal blog, California Greening, where I note that things are changing, but not because of Arnold. I even take a little credit for myself. It is happening in the community. Maybe Astroturf Arnold does use the media to sell the idea, but his actions have not supplied anything new except words.
The one thing that I did not emphasize enough in that post is the fact that the local green jobs, the impetus to deliver new products, is coming from a Singapore based company, not one from the US. Maybe they don't have the money, maybe they don't have the moxie.
Wes Rolley CoChair - EcoAction Committee Green Party US
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 5:39 am
27 Sep 2008
Ya know something?
People are going to pay a lot more attention to what Arnold says than what the Green Party says.
You guys blew it with Nadar for President.
No, Nadar probably didn't cause the Bush selection, but the fact that Greens took that chance really damaged your ability to influence.
We all should be hoping that Arnold and T.Boone keep morphing. That is a lot more important than some unknowns trying to get the public's attention.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 6:25 am
27 Sep 2008
It isn't size that counts.
It is complexity and rate of change. It is also a matter of information flow and good decision models to use with that information.
We have raced to produce an incredibly complex, energy intensive, but mindless civilization that has but one real decision model and that is growth. As long as the GDP, that holiest of holy measures of wellbeing is rising everybody is happy. Of course as GDP rises so rises CO2.
We have very poor information about ground truth and things are accelerating toward disruption (note the news about methane emissions up north!)
And nobody understands the whole. They are so busy paying attention to some details here and there without ever connecting the dots.
So yes our nation is not governable, but neither is California, nor even my own state (Washington). It's because no one in charge actually knows what needs to be done. They don't even know what is really wrong.
Question Everything
George
George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 8:40 am
27 Sep 2008
I'm having a little trouble George...
Wondering how we ever get along, being so ungovernable. Should we appoint you dictator for life to straighten us out? Or should we just stick our heads in the sand and wait for the world to kick us in the butts?
Let's get serious for a moment.
It's very hard to govern a group of people. Different ideas, different levels of involvement, different information levels, hard to get everyone on the same page at the same time.
Unfortunately not all that many of us are willing to work hard to avoid something that may or may not happen in the future. We're a lot more likely to wait until it really is happening and then get busy. We generally foul our nests before we learn to crap outside of it.
We were warned about global warming. And few of us paid any attention. A few even went out of their way to deny it. But now we're starting to smell the poop that we laid. And we're starting to go to work.
Will we work hard enough to avoid global climate change? Obviously we won't. But we'll probably work hard enough to avoid the worst and we may even figure out some sort of geo-engineering to turn things around. (Reflective roofs anyone?)
And funny thing is, we'll probably continue to grow our economies. We'll just adjust the ways we obtain and use energy so that living standards around the world keep improving.
(And, yes, some people will suffer.)
Permalink
gmobus Posted 2:16 am
28 Sep 2008
Actually Bob, looks like you have big trouble...
grasping the trends in this world.
Governance is a bigger problem than you apparently perceive. Besides, the evidence is in my favor, or hadn't you noticed the accelerating degradation of infrastructure, economics, environment, etc.
And please don't take my word for it. Read Gus Speth's new book. Hear Al Gore, of all people, talk about maybe it's time for civil disobedience.
But I think the biggest problem you have is understanding momentum and time lags. By the time the empirical evidence is strong, you have probably already passed the point of no return. In the real world we're not talking about smelling poop, blushing, and then starting to clean it up. We're talking about radical reductions in CO2 emissions and radical reduction of energy from fossil fuels. And if you believe that 'alls we have to do is ramp up alternative energies' then you are incredibly naive.
Your last paragraph says it all about your belief system. Ignorance ("...ways we obtain and use energy...") and faith in growth as the remedy are the sure signs of someone who is in denial!
George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:36 am
28 Sep 2008
No George...
I really do understand trends and how long it takes to get stuff done.
We are going to have to play a significant game of catch-up when it comes to global climate change. We may fail.
Will we move to a world where people don't strive to improve their lives? Most likely not.
You want to fail at dealing with global climate change? Simple, just sell it to people as a world in which they will have less. Most people will go for the short term payoff and let the future take care of itself.
You want to take the best possible shot at minimizing the hurt? Find ways that people can have the same or more while doing little to no damage to the environment.
You're in academia. You're exposed to a select subgroup of the population that is somewhat chosen for its ability to think. Just consider how many non-long-range-thinkers there are even in that subset.
Let's go back to the original post. Having Arnold start moving in the direction of green is a good thing. He'll bring some non-thinking fans with him.
Better than having him attempt to terminate Al.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 11:44 am
28 Sep 2008
Bob,
The original thing that I was responding to had to do with governance and difficulties with modern society being so complex, etc.
First, I wasn't always in academia. I managed a mfg. and engineering company in Calif. years ago. Left it to do a start up based on my own invention. The 1987 stock crash sucked all of my venture capital away. So I went back to school and got my PhD. But I had many years in business prior to that, so my experiences are not confined to the halls of academia.
I have blogged long about the issues I raise here. Since I do not care to repeat my explanations I suggest you go there to read the background and arguments. You are invited to note your counter arguments there if you like.
And it is probably best not to assume you know how someone thinks by their current credentials.
George
George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:15 pm
28 Sep 2008
OK George...
I got my Ph.D. and did the university prof thing prior to starting my own business. Sold it and retired at an early age.
Just stuck that in because I couldn't figure out what your credentials had to do with the discussion, but I guessed that sort of thing was important to you....
Permalink
ForceChange Posted 5:42 am
01 Oct 2008
Steven T,
I think you make an insightful observation. I borrowed it over at ForceChange today.
Permalink