Attitudes on Energy Policy Changing at Glacial Speeds
Last week, Charlie Rose presented this summary of a report which laid out how the melting of the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet is “beyond the point of no return,” reminding us of the grim consequences: the slow but significant rise in the earth’s sea levels.
I always wonder when I come across scientific findings like these: what does the common American think about stuff like this? In particular, how long will we go on, month after month, year after year, with reports like these piling up around us, before we tell our leadership to develop an energy policy that makes sense, given the realities of climate change (and the other issues associated with the burning of fossil fuels: ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity, increasing rates of cancer, etc.)?
I’m afraid the answer is that our attitudes towards climate change are shifting at the same pace that the glaciers themselves are melting: slowly. If we’re making progress here, at this rate, it’s happening over a period of decades.
Why? The answer may be summed up in another event in the mainstream American media this week: Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio’s confident assertion that “the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change is false. Rubio, highly regarded by almost half of U.S. voters, was unable to cite any sources for his skepticism, but the absence of any facts behind his belief doesn’t make him any less credible among his many tens of millions of supporters.
The bottom line: a frighteningly large percentage of us put more stock in the speeches of politicians who act at the behest of their huge campaign donors than we do in the peer-reviewed publications of many thousands of our top scientists. Until that changes, we may find ourselves “stuck in neutral” with respect to our energy policy — or perhaps, under the circumstances, a more apt term may be “treading water.”
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”
― Isaac Asimov
That’s all I got.
Profound stuff. Arthur C. Clarke was no lightweight in terms of philosophical observations either.
I think that the phrase ‘glacial speeds’ may no longer have the connotation you intend. 🙁
Point well taken.
It amazes me that the two most climate deniers with influence in the state Rubio who lives in Miami who city’s streets flood more often these days due to high tide the heavy rain one that tops the ball is our deniers gov rick Scott who mansion sits just one foot above sea level so I wonder how long he be a deniers when the seashore becomes behind his house
Given the proven power of subtleties in terms of neurolinguistics, it’s my firm belief that people need to replace the ambiguous phrases “climate change” and “global warming” with the far more accurate, evocative and impactful phrase “climate disruption.” Let me explain why I feel so strongly about this.
The word “change” leaves open the fraudulent interpretation that the disruption is natural, and the word “warming” ignores the severe consequences at both ends of the temperature scale, as well as with regard to volatile shifts in rainfall patterns (drought/flooding), and widespread lethal effects across the biosphere generally (crop failures, mass die-offs and extinctions of vital species, rapidly expanding oceanic dead-zones, etc.).
Within our historically normal climate patterns there was always a range of chaotic weather, producing occasional catastrophe, but now our disruption of that natural pattern is causing more severe and more frequent extremes.
As long as we keep taking prehistoric carbon out of the layers of the earth, and pouring 32 billion metric tons of it yearly into the modern sky, we’ll be seeing more and more weather extremes of all kinds, in both frequency and severity. The fact that we cause these effects needs to be firmly emphasized.
The way we talk about these issues makes a difference, and in our discourse we ought to be crystal clear and unwavering in our focus on the facts as they are best understood.
At the risk of being labeled a conspiracy theorist, allow me to point out (as was firmly recognized by Teddy Roosevelt, and a great many other powerful folks across the history of our species) that “capital organizes.”
Exxon-Mobil and its ilk are quite well organized, and not for altruistic public benefit. If we logical, critically thinking and imaginative humans want to see our national security and political sovereignty preserved, and if we want to defend ourselves and our posterity against the lethal ravages that fossil fuels inflict upon the biosphere and the economy, we had best get organized. Practicing clarity in our communications, and not allowing our opponents to frame the debate or to choose our words for us, are paramount to our success.
The wealthy interests at the “top” of our society – and who exert massive and undue influence in all areas of human endeavor – have no interest in a critically thinking and imaginative population over which to rule. Instead they encourage ignorance and demand obedience and conformity.
This is why the regular consumers of Fox News are shown not only to be more ignorant and misled on a whole range of issues, but actually grow more ignorant and misled over time with increased exposure. This well-researched and demonstrated fact puts me in mind of a quote by Samuel Foote, a British actor and dramatist of the mid 1700’s, “He is not only dull himself, but the cause of dullness in others.”
Rupert Murdoch and others like him are not interested in providing a public service to circulate crucial and valuable truths. They are instead intent on luring humanity into a snare of illusion and deceit for their own personal financial gain and the preservation and expansion of their own political power.
However beneficial renewables will be to our United States and health and well-being for ourselves and our progeny, there is a substantial transition cost for all those firms that continue to regard these resources as competition. Their formidable lobbying power ensures that the feeble attempts to subsidize renewables will continue to be sporadic, unpredictable and anemic. We may also expect the campaign of misinformation, concealment, and discredit to endure long past the tipping point.
Therefore a key aspect that must be thoroughly discussed and prioritized is the influence of capital in our capitols. All the elections in the nation in the 2012 cycle cost something like $2 billion, and just ExxonMobil by itself profits something like $48 billion that year. That means ExxonMobil could have bought all the elections in the country with about 4.5% of its PROFITS!
If ideas based on science, logic and sanity are going to have a chance in this game (the stakes of which could not be higher), we must stop the bribery.
If money to be regarded in law as Free Speech, then the elite few and their rampant corporate objects will scream through bullhorns while the voice of the People is reduced to a smothered and gasping whisper.
At the beginning of the last century, the people of Italy and Germany didn’t have the advantage of knowing what their own history would soon become – we who have the will to look backward as well as forward can’t claim that innocence.
As always, you make excellent points here. But when it comes to phraseology, I tend to be a follower, rather than a trendsetter. If Bill McKibben and James Hansen still call it “climate change” (which they do) I’m happy to follow their leads.
Yet, the US educational systems continue to reinforce the idea that it is more important to encourage contests between bodies than cooperation within the mind. Until we understand the illusion of specialness of form, true Christianity and awareness of the value of forgiveness will elude our ability to accept truth as it is, and the ego mind will be seen as leading the way..
I put absolutely no stock in anything any politician says, they are all paid liars. Scientists are professionally in pursuit of the truth, that is what a scientist does for a living. Politicians do not design the compounds that keep us alive and well, or the spaceships that go to Mars, or the GPS systems, etc. The great discoveries were all as a result of science, not politics.
In the UK, general elections take 3 weeks, there is almost no television ads, financial contributions are limited and there is a real sense of democracy. American politicians have been bought and paid for by giant corporations and billionaires and democracy is lost. It doesn’t matter, climate change is real whether you believe it or not, and there will come a time where the impacts are so profound as to be unavoidable. Until then, happy fiddlin’.
Wow, I’m afraid you’ve really nailed it, Chris.
Call it what it really is: “excess CO2” or simply “too much CO2” The first term is absolute as proven by observation, while the second will provoke backlash by those who think excess CO2 is acceptable.
The ice sheet at the Ross sea has melted and refroze exactly 35 times in the last 4 million years however, ppm CO2 has never been this high for at least 15 million years. Thus people can NOT say that excess CO2 is no big deal, especially since it is apparent that we are already paving the path of fossil fueled depletion into an over heated biosphere.
Solutions are (complete) sequestration, re-forestation and, of course, nuclear energy until we can cover the Earth with a few hundred thousand square miles of solar, wind and also, machine mass produced utility scale storage.
Is that happening? No!
The world needs about 15,000 square miles of PV to replace 100% of its energy demands (not that this is a piece of cake).
I do not recall where I first read this, or who said it, but it fits the millions of deniers in this proven debacle of what is left of the dreams of our fore fathers.
“Genius may not be an option, but, it is your choice to remain ignorant”.
Great comments. Here is a perspective that makes sense to me. Global warming or climate change? Not sure. Excess Co2 caused by mankind – agreed. Check this out.
Why Global Warming Failed (20yrs and Counting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c4XPVPJwBY#t=25
Thanks. For me, since I know a few climate scientists personally who have explained to me in detail why they support the theory of anthropogenic global warming, it’s hard for me to take this seriously. Also, Patrick Michaels is no longer a denier, according to CATOs’ spokesperson Jerry Taylor, who sat down with for a 90-minute interview on this subject.
Having said this, there are numerous other reasons to knock off our dependence on fossil fuels that have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. I urge deniers simply to pick one — or six….