<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Republican incoherence on climate change]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Christopher S. Johnson http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/ Wed, 06 May 2009 11:55:09 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/1 Its interesting to watch my own emotional reaction to this.  At first I want to ridicule and name-call.  But I also know this has to be a non-partisan issue.  This is about all of us working together. 

Unfortunately, its like trying to work with your alcoholic brother on an important family issue.

]]> Its interesting to watch my own emotional reaction to this.  At first I want to ridicule and name-call.  But I also know this has to be a non-partisan issue.  This is about all of us working together. 

Unfortunately, its like trying to work with your alcoholic brother on an important family issue.

]]> Comment #2 by MN_man http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/ Wed, 06 May 2009 14:10:18 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/2 There is so, so much that I find troubling in the remarks made by these two members of Congress.  Among the most troubling, though, is there undying insistence of a skepticism among scientists about climate change.  They cling to a few (and perhaps shrinking number of) scientists who claim that climate change is not taking place or not due to human activity.  Forget that every major scientific society is urgently calling on all governments to takes steps to reverse it.

And then, of course, they have to trot out the notion that we can't possibly determine the amount of change wrought by human activity, so therefore we should hold back on even taking steps to determine our role.

I LOVE the whole "Carbon dioxide is a part of nature and the life cycle," as if there is a 1:1 positive correlation between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmospher and the quality of life on Earth.  Perhaps they should sit in a tent of C02 sometime to contemplate their wisdom.

And lastly, of course, they trot out that they are the party of Theodore Roosevelt.  They never fail to mention, of course, that TR actually was paying close attention to the nascent science of conservation that was emerging at the time.  He was taking the advise of his scientific advisers such as Gifford Pinchot at face value, not public casting doubt on their validity

This is a stalling game for the Republicans.  They are praying that if they just cast enough doubt that constituents will grow actually doubt the science and grow weary of the debate over climate debate.  Fortunately, the Republican Party represents a shrinking perspective typified by baby boomers and their predecessors that the Earth is an endless store, a commons with no limit, that will always yield another field of abundance for us to tap at our leisure, and a sink that can absorb whatever by-products we produce.  These are the people who can't admit that humanity, or the American Dream more specifically, has an upper boundary.  They fear admitting that capitalism and the American way of life that emerged after WWII have flaws.  They would sooner advocate clubbing baby seals than reflect on the validity of our society's activities.

To me, that is intellectually lazy and a complete abrogation of resposibility.

]]> There is so, so much that I find troubling in the remarks made by these two members of Congress.  Among the most troubling, though, is there undying insistence of a skepticism among scientists about climate change.  They cling to a few (and perhaps shrinking number of) scientists who claim that climate change is not taking place or not due to human activity.  Forget that every major scientific society is urgently calling on all governments to takes steps to reverse it.

And then, of course, they have to trot out the notion that we can't possibly determine the amount of change wrought by human activity, so therefore we should hold back on even taking steps to determine our role.

I LOVE the whole "Carbon dioxide is a part of nature and the life cycle," as if there is a 1:1 positive correlation between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmospher and the quality of life on Earth.  Perhaps they should sit in a tent of C02 sometime to contemplate their wisdom.

And lastly, of course, they trot out that they are the party of Theodore Roosevelt.  They never fail to mention, of course, that TR actually was paying close attention to the nascent science of conservation that was emerging at the time.  He was taking the advise of his scientific advisers such as Gifford Pinchot at face value, not public casting doubt on their validity

This is a stalling game for the Republicans.  They are praying that if they just cast enough doubt that constituents will grow actually doubt the science and grow weary of the debate over climate debate.  Fortunately, the Republican Party represents a shrinking perspective typified by baby boomers and their predecessors that the Earth is an endless store, a commons with no limit, that will always yield another field of abundance for us to tap at our leisure, and a sink that can absorb whatever by-products we produce.  These are the people who can't admit that humanity, or the American Dream more specifically, has an upper boundary.  They fear admitting that capitalism and the American way of life that emerged after WWII have flaws.  They would sooner advocate clubbing baby seals than reflect on the validity of our society's activities.

To me, that is intellectually lazy and a complete abrogation of resposibility.

]]> Comment #3 by davescott http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/ Wed, 06 May 2009 14:28:46 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/3 The National Academy of Sciences is the most respected scientific body in the world.  It joined an urgent call for governmental action to reduce greenhouse gases in order to address global warming.  A political party leadership that can't acknowledge the actual state of the science -- that won't act when the NAS says we must act -- a political party leadership that makes James Inhofe a spokesman on climate change -- can no longer maintain any pretense that it is fit to govern.  Republican leaders have to choose whether they want to be part of a responsible conversation about America's future.  So far they have given no indication that they do.

]]> The National Academy of Sciences is the most respected scientific body in the world.  It joined an urgent call for governmental action to reduce greenhouse gases in order to address global warming.  A political party leadership that can't acknowledge the actual state of the science -- that won't act when the NAS says we must act -- a political party leadership that makes James Inhofe a spokesman on climate change -- can no longer maintain any pretense that it is fit to govern.  Republican leaders have to choose whether they want to be part of a responsible conversation about America's future.  So far they have given no indication that they do.

]]> Comment #4 by splashy http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/ Wed, 06 May 2009 18:06:44 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/4 I take offense at this statement "Fortunately, the Republican Party represents a shrinking perspective typified by baby boomers and their predecessors that the Earth is an endless store,..."

Don't you realize that the Boomers in the Republican party are not all the Boomers, and that much of the environmental and alternative energy movement was pushed by Boomers who saw all this coming back in the 70's? Who do you think has been toiling in the wilderness on alteranative energy sources and environmental issues all these decades? It's been the Boomers - the ones that dropped out of the mainstream in disgust and went into trying to develop ways to be separated from the corporatists. They are the ones offering all this technology and ideas now, after decades of research and experimentation.

I'm so tired of this idea that Boomers are all like the Republicans in this article. It just isn't so. Look around a bit more and you will find all kinds of liberal Boomers that get it. They just aren't as loud as these are. They were arrested, jailed and otherwise abused back in the day so learned to fly under the radar as much as possible.

]]> I take offense at this statement "Fortunately, the Republican Party represents a shrinking perspective typified by baby boomers and their predecessors that the Earth is an endless store,..."

Don't you realize that the Boomers in the Republican party are not all the Boomers, and that much of the environmental and alternative energy movement was pushed by Boomers who saw all this coming back in the 70's? Who do you think has been toiling in the wilderness on alteranative energy sources and environmental issues all these decades? It's been the Boomers - the ones that dropped out of the mainstream in disgust and went into trying to develop ways to be separated from the corporatists. They are the ones offering all this technology and ideas now, after decades of research and experimentation.

I'm so tired of this idea that Boomers are all like the Republicans in this article. It just isn't so. Look around a bit more and you will find all kinds of liberal Boomers that get it. They just aren't as loud as these are. They were arrested, jailed and otherwise abused back in the day so learned to fly under the radar as much as possible.

]]> Comment #5 by enviroperk http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/ Wed, 06 May 2009 23:40:49 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/5 If only trashing some opposition, Republicans in this case, reduced global warming, it would be a wonderful thing. In reality, it only adds to our personal CO2 emissions with no redeeming aspect. If we could be true to ourselves, we would see that it is an avoidance strategy. We can complain about "them", get in our cars, or turn on the A/C  or electric clothes dryer and forget that we are the problem. Otherwise, our now superior-self-view allows us to carry on with adding to the problem. This is but a distraction from the problem at hand.

You can't change "them", you can only change yourself. Focus on the activities that can make a difference. Attempts at educating, or criticizing, the proverbial Archie Bunker ( for those old enough to remember )  is not one of those activities.

 

 

 

 

 

]]> If only trashing some opposition, Republicans in this case, reduced global warming, it would be a wonderful thing. In reality, it only adds to our personal CO2 emissions with no redeeming aspect. If we could be true to ourselves, we would see that it is an avoidance strategy. We can complain about "them", get in our cars, or turn on the A/C  or electric clothes dryer and forget that we are the problem. Otherwise, our now superior-self-view allows us to carry on with adding to the problem. This is but a distraction from the problem at hand.

You can't change "them", you can only change yourself. Focus on the activities that can make a difference. Attempts at educating, or criticizing, the proverbial Archie Bunker ( for those old enough to remember )  is not one of those activities.

 

 

 

 

 

]]> Comment #6 by Christopher S. Johnson http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/ Thu, 07 May 2009 00:54:32 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/6 Enviroperk, You're right about too much saber rattling, and David Roberts also recently did a post about wasted time fighting.

But unfortunately your "everyone just needs to do personal behavior modification" isn't nearly enough. I've seen numerous reports, and even a BBC documentary about a family doing everything they could to reduce their footprint, where it doesnt measure up because of the large scale institutional carbon producing in the background. The personal behaviors were noble but quaint next to what needs to be done at the large legal level. So, putting pressure on these congressmen and women in the summer of 2009, just before Copenhagen, is VERY relevant.

]]> Enviroperk, You're right about too much saber rattling, and David Roberts also recently did a post about wasted time fighting.

But unfortunately your "everyone just needs to do personal behavior modification" isn't nearly enough. I've seen numerous reports, and even a BBC documentary about a family doing everything they could to reduce their footprint, where it doesnt measure up because of the large scale institutional carbon producing in the background. The personal behaviors were noble but quaint next to what needs to be done at the large legal level. So, putting pressure on these congressmen and women in the summer of 2009, just before Copenhagen, is VERY relevant.

]]> Comment #7 by enviroperk http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/ Thu, 07 May 2009 07:27:28 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/7 Hi Chris, I may be speaking from a misconception but doesn't virtually all of the energy used (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/images/charts/con_source_sector_large.jpg) for US industrial output , with the exception of goods for export and military use, flow to the US consumer? 

Example of my thinking here:
Power companies produce power, a large indusrial consumer of same being the Aluminum smelters who produce Aluminum largely for: the beverage industry, the automotive industry and the aircraft industry. All of which produce products primarily for the "consumer".  Note that my assumption that the aircraft industry sells to airlines who sell seats to "consumers". Business travelers are typically traveling to support the efforts of making things that eventually end up in the hands and trashcans of the US consumer. Acedotal evidence of this lies in the recent reccession. Consumers slowed buying and industrial output plumeted by as much as 25% in one quarter.

To use  a Vietnam war era quote in a cartoon from the 70's "We have met the enemy and he is us".

And with us comes the action that will result in change.

 

 

 

 

 

 


]]> Hi Chris, I may be speaking from a misconception but doesn't virtually all of the energy used (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/images/charts/con_source_sector_large.jpg) for US industrial output , with the exception of goods for export and military use, flow to the US consumer? 

Example of my thinking here:
Power companies produce power, a large indusrial consumer of same being the Aluminum smelters who produce Aluminum largely for: the beverage industry, the automotive industry and the aircraft industry. All of which produce products primarily for the "consumer".  Note that my assumption that the aircraft industry sells to airlines who sell seats to "consumers". Business travelers are typically traveling to support the efforts of making things that eventually end up in the hands and trashcans of the US consumer. Acedotal evidence of this lies in the recent reccession. Consumers slowed buying and industrial output plumeted by as much as 25% in one quarter.

To use  a Vietnam war era quote in a cartoon from the 70's "We have met the enemy and he is us".

And with us comes the action that will result in change.

 

 

 

 

 

 


]]> Comment #8 by dtrom4 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/ Thu, 07 May 2009 08:00:38 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/8 Enviroperk,

Yes, everyone needs to do their part to reduce consumption (reduce, reuse, recycle).  (There are plenty on the left fringe who would be happy to live in a post-consumer, anti-capitalist world, but I don't think that's what you're really advocating.) 

Anyway, given that we as individuals need to do a better job of reducing their GHGs, what can they do about those aluminum smelters?  Buy fewer pop cans? Sure.  But there's no incentive for the consumer to to buy a more efficiently made can.  He's buying Coke or Pepsi because that's what he wants. 

Even more, there's no reasonable way an individual can put pressure on an airline to buy planes made with components assembled with more efficiently made materials.  The fact is that consumers only see about 20% of manufacturing.  The rest is in the supply chain.  Manufacturers selling to manufacturers.  If you have a way to get those those manufacturers at the far end of the chain to respond to a consumer preference for less energy-intensive products, I'd like to see it.  Currently, energy costs are too low to really drive those manufacturers that directly sell to customers to produce more efficiently (at least not on a large scale, significant level to impact global GHG levels).

Until then, regulation like this is the most effective means to send the proper market signals to power producers, manufacturers, and building operators to take proper account of fossil energy use and reduce GHGs.

 

]]> Enviroperk,

Yes, everyone needs to do their part to reduce consumption (reduce, reuse, recycle).  (There are plenty on the left fringe who would be happy to live in a post-consumer, anti-capitalist world, but I don't think that's what you're really advocating.) 

Anyway, given that we as individuals need to do a better job of reducing their GHGs, what can they do about those aluminum smelters?  Buy fewer pop cans? Sure.  But there's no incentive for the consumer to to buy a more efficiently made can.  He's buying Coke or Pepsi because that's what he wants. 

Even more, there's no reasonable way an individual can put pressure on an airline to buy planes made with components assembled with more efficiently made materials.  The fact is that consumers only see about 20% of manufacturing.  The rest is in the supply chain.  Manufacturers selling to manufacturers.  If you have a way to get those those manufacturers at the far end of the chain to respond to a consumer preference for less energy-intensive products, I'd like to see it.  Currently, energy costs are too low to really drive those manufacturers that directly sell to customers to produce more efficiently (at least not on a large scale, significant level to impact global GHG levels).

Until then, regulation like this is the most effective means to send the proper market signals to power producers, manufacturers, and building operators to take proper account of fossil energy use and reduce GHGs.

 

]]> Comment #9 by enviroperk http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/ Thu, 07 May 2009 08:21:46 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/9 Though I do see your point, my business school called the supply chain part of the product. The supply chain exists to support the product. So, isn't the consumer actually "seeing" 100% of the manufacturing? 

Look at it this way, if the consumers no longer purchased product A in the aluminimum can ( forgetting the replacement container for a moment), would this result in 20% or 100% reduction of the environmental effect of the Aluminum can  supply chain?

OPTION 1: Consumer behaviour change through education of true impact.
OPTION 2: Force consumer behaviour change by regulation of industry, i.e. Aluminum cans are illegal to produce.

The problem with option 1 is that most people don't want to hear uncomfortable truth.
The problem with option 2 is that government makes poor choices in regulation due to influences outside of science. (Ethanol!)

Hence: We have to learn and teach and change at the consumer level. We really do need to quit buying lots of "stuff". I believe the primary mission of the environmental movement should be  to impact the consumer-side through factual education. The industrial and government side will then have no choice but to follow.

 

 











]]> Though I do see your point, my business school called the supply chain part of the product. The supply chain exists to support the product. So, isn't the consumer actually "seeing" 100% of the manufacturing? 

Look at it this way, if the consumers no longer purchased product A in the aluminimum can ( forgetting the replacement container for a moment), would this result in 20% or 100% reduction of the environmental effect of the Aluminum can  supply chain?

OPTION 1: Consumer behaviour change through education of true impact.
OPTION 2: Force consumer behaviour change by regulation of industry, i.e. Aluminum cans are illegal to produce.

The problem with option 1 is that most people don't want to hear uncomfortable truth.
The problem with option 2 is that government makes poor choices in regulation due to influences outside of science. (Ethanol!)

Hence: We have to learn and teach and change at the consumer level. We really do need to quit buying lots of "stuff". I believe the primary mission of the environmental movement should be  to impact the consumer-side through factual education. The industrial and government side will then have no choice but to follow.

 

 











]]> Comment #10 by dtrom4 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/ Thu, 07 May 2009 08:45:30 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-06-republicans-climate-change/10 I agree that any time you avoid buying something it has a greater impact on energy use than energy efficiency does.  However, you're missing two points:  (1) While a noble goal (and one that I support), there's really only so much one can do to encourage people to just not consume things.  I'm with you, but politically it's not going to happen; and (2) you left off Option 3: find other ways to lower the embedded energy in a product.  There are huge opportunities for increased energy efficiency in primary metal manufacturing, or even redesigning a can to use less energy intensive materials.  There are hundreds of decisions and actions made along that supply chain; it's not just "Buy" or "Not Buy" at the conusmer level.  That is why it is useful to realize that indivials don't have much influence when you go further up the supply chain.

The consumer side is a vital aspect, but more has to be done.  Which is why a national EERS or GHG Cap is important.  It's the other half of the puzzle.  I'll help you push consumer education about the energy impacts of over consumption if you'll agree that national (or international) regulations are necessary to meet the goal of GHG reductions.

]]> I agree that any time you avoid buying something it has a greater impact on energy use than energy efficiency does.  However, you're missing two points:  (1) While a noble goal (and one that I support), there's really only so much one can do to encourage people to just not consume things.  I'm with you, but politically it's not going to happen; and (2) you left off Option 3: find other ways to lower the embedded energy in a product.  There are huge opportunities for increased energy efficiency in primary metal manufacturing, or even redesigning a can to use less energy intensive materials.  There are hundreds of decisions and actions made along that supply chain; it's not just "Buy" or "Not Buy" at the conusmer level.  That is why it is useful to realize that indivials don't have much influence when you go further up the supply chain.

The consumer side is a vital aspect, but more has to be done.  Which is why a national EERS or GHG Cap is important.  It's the other half of the puzzle.  I'll help you push consumer education about the energy impacts of over consumption if you'll agree that national (or international) regulations are necessary to meet the goal of GHG reductions.

]]>