Roberts writes: "The first conservative line of defense against climate action is outright denial that climate change exists. The second is that the climate is changing, but it's not our fault and won't be so bad and isn't worth worrying about. Both those are getting tougher."
Stephen Colbert attacks the climate change deniers. (photo: Comedy Central)
Stephen Colbert Skewers the Climate Fatalism Caucus
01 February 13
he Colbert Report had a wicked segment on climate change last night:
The first conservative line of defense against climate action is outright denial that climate change exists. The second is that the climate is changing, but it's not our fault and won't be so bad and isn't worth worrying about. Both those are getting tougher, what with all the crazy weather and increasingly shrill warnings from scientists, so it looks like cons are now falling back to their third line of defense: there's nothing we can do about it. This can take the shape of the "sophisticated objection" I wrote about earlier. Or it can take the shape of the rather-less-sophisticated "China! China!" stuff Colbert so artfully skewers.
Some of this, perhaps, has to do with the ascension of Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) to ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee. He just introduced a bill that would prohibit the U.S. from cutting its emissions until China, India, and Russia have "proposed, implemented, and enforced measures requiring carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emission reductions." (It's from a paywalled E&E story so I'm not even linking.)
The inclusion of Russia is a clever move on Vitter's part. Its emissions are already way lower than they were 20 years ago, and it's wallowing in natural gas, so that chances that it will take concerted action on climate any time soon are all but nil.
Meanwhile, China already is acting. It has established a carbon trading system. It is leading the world in investments in clean energy. It's building lots of coal plants too, of course, but they are supercritical plants; meanwhile, it's knocking down the oldest, dirtiest coal plants.
Of course China is also bringing millions of people out of poverty and into the middle class, so its emissions are growing faster than ours. But if the U.S. did as much as China is doing, the world would be a much better place. Somehow that news seems to have done nothing to alter the kneejerk protests of conservatives.
But, eh, I'm talking substance. And this isn't about substance. It's just about finding what objection to climate action works in the moment. Protecting fossil fuel interests is primary; the rhetoric is just something for journalists and nerds to chew on.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 15 May 2013
|
 15 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 15 May 2013
|
 17 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
 17 May 2013
|
 16 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
So because Communist China is building lots of nuclear power plants, that means we should too?
As for Al Gore and climate change, contrary to your claims natural factors are taken into account in climate mdels. When Mount Pinatubo blew years ago, the resulting temporary global cooling was exactly what climate-change theorists said would happen. And "variations in the sun's activity" are also taken into consideration, though the scuientific consensus is that they are outweighed at present by the efects of human activity.
"Tis better to be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt" - G.B. Shaw.
Great sentiment above, but I think you will find that the quote itself is actually attributable to Abraham Lincoln rather than to G.B. Shaw.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.-- Abraham Lincoln (also attr. Confucius)
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.-- Mark Twain (1835-1910)
Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding. -- Bible, 'Proverbs' 17:28.
Simply stated: The big danger is that economic and social justice concerns will get pushed into the background as rich "liberals" try to, "Save the Earth."
The gentry want to raise energy prices in order to reduce fossil fuel consumption. That's like raising food prices in order to reduce obesity. Higher prices will be a nuisance for the rich and a hardship for the poor.
Today, I went to another dreary conference about "sustainable economics."
The usual crowd of wealthy "liberals" - all of them white - did all of the talking.
I said, "Why not create a sustainable society with economic justice for all?"
Why aren't we talking about human rights?
The Taliban have created a sustainable society in Afghanistan. They consume very little and their people aren't responsible for climate change. Still, there's something wrong with this kind of "sustainable lifestyle."
Justice first! If you're not talking about economic and social justice, what kind of environmental agenda do you have in mind? Who benefits and who pays?
It is demonstrably true that a great deal of money can and will be made from green, alternative energy resources, and that when these energy-producin g means are ramped up, they will, over time, replace the oil and nuclear power as sources of energy. Not immediately, but over time, and even then, products from oil will still be necessary to build the components of alternative energy generation. So the entrenched powers that make a lot of money out of the present means of producing energy - particularly gasoline and electricity - have their heels dug in to keep their profits as high as they can for as long as they can. And part of that is to deny the existence of, and their responsibility for, changes in the climate that affect us now, and will be even worse for our - and their - children.
That's the money game. It appeals to greed and avoiding any responsibility for the consequences.
You may have heard the IEA and the EIA stated the US will exceed Saudi Arabia in oil production. What you may have failed to notice the disclaimer it would only last about 3 to 5 years. Then global oil production, both conventional and unconventional, will begin the irreversible plunge over the energy cliff caused by the hitting of the EROEI ratio of 1 to 1. The chart the IEA produced shows the plunge starting in 2022/2023 time frame. No, this is not some Mayan calendar thing from 700+ years ago. This was last month from the latest data from global oil production.
If we don't start building solar power generators even faster than the Chinese and Germans, the US will suffer a major die-off of at least 50% by 2030. This is what the fossil fuel industry is hiding from you. The nuclear industry is hiding the fact they have already hit peak production of uranium during the Cold War. They are limping along with the conversion of nuclear weapons into reactor grade fuel.
We have to begin building about 1 GWh of solar power per week for the next 10 years to avoid the die-off in the US. For most of the rest of the world, it is already too late. China is still hoping they can reach the tipping point before it is too late for them.
Keep America Moving
Well DONE, Sir. The statement of the problem does not COME anymore clear and concise than that which you offer above.
"I didn't do it Nobody saw me do it You can't prove anything!!"
What are the big conservation groups doing to prepare for the summer of 2013? Apparently, not much.
Simply stated: The big conservation groups aren't much help when the problems of climate change hit home. Some of these groups may understand the problem. However, they don't have any effective strategies for dealing with the problem.... Just a lot of hazy talk about "changing lightbulbs" and raising energy prices and that sort of thing.... One international conference follows another and life gets worse.
We need better leadership in the climate change movement. The big conservation groups are running around in circles. Obama knows that they're easy to ignore.
Every internet debate, comment page, etc. of sufficient length, on the subject of climate change, will contain a post stating: "Nobody is disputing that the planet is warming, but is it caused by humans?", which will be followed immediately by another post stating "It has been proved that the Earth is NOT warming!!".
RSS feed for comments to this post