America At a Crossroads
Most Americans are unaware that the U.S. is the only country on Earth in which there exists a debate among its political elites as to the validity of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Elsewhere, climate change is simply accepted as an objective fact that needs to be understood and taken into consideration.
The Chinese, for example, recently published a white paper that forms the underpinning of an important part of its plans to meet its internal and external economic challenges, which includes strategic use of the Arctic. The paper begins: ‘Global warming in recent years has accelerated the melting of ice and snow in the Arctic region.’ The ‘development of shipping routes in the Arctic’ as the ice retreats is therefore a goal because those routes will ‘become important transport routes for international trade’.
Obviously, countries that accept science have a huge advantage over those that deny it, and this is one of the major reasons for pessimism when it comes to U.S. competitiveness in the global economy. What industry sectors will come to dominate the 21st Century, a time in which humankind is forced to deal with an existential threat? Well, here’s a solid guess: it will be the industry that is most germane to dealing with the threat, i.e., cleantech.
Absent geoengineering, the only tools we have to deal with climate change are those that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that means:
Low-carbon energy (renewables and nuclear)
Efficiency solutions
Smart grid
Energy storage
Electric transportation and synthetic fuels
Sustainable ag, including plant-based meats
We can talk about ending the war on coal and removing the environmental protections that have been put in place over the last half century. We can make the oil companies happy by lowering vehicle CAFE standards. We can isolate ourselves with trade wars, while we recklessly threaten to engage in nuclear wars. The problem: the rest of the world is making real progress in the only industry that really matters.
By pretending that the problem doesn’t exist, not only are we dimming the hopes that our civilization will make it through this crisis, we are also making ourselves increasing irrelevant in world commerce.
We can run with this, or we can run away from it; the choice is entirely ours.
Craig,
One thing puzzles me, the Trump administration is currently advertising for Climate Scientists.
The Department of Interior has advertised five positions “supervisory physical scientist/biologists ” for regional climate adaptation centers housed at research universities from Hawaii to Massachusetts.
These are attractive federal civil service positions with a top-tier GS-15 rank and salary of $127,000 to $164,000 annually.
Andrew Rosenberg, director of the “Center for Science and Democracy” at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said: “It’s telling the administration has so many vacancies. It means that senior officials with integrity have left the program.”
Rosenberg went on to threaten any applicants for these position as being regarded as “pariahs” and “collaborators” among “Climate Scientists” with tarnished reputations and a loss of credentials.
I don’t believe such bitter and entrenched political posturing is productive. In fact, it only hardens attitudes about issues which should be matters of scientific inquiry, not tainted by any political agenda.
Needless to say, science shouldn’t have anything to do with politics. As you know, there has been a mass exodus of scientists from the federal government, especially the EPA. Some have been fired, as I’ve reported, but many more have resigned, refusing to be a part of the disassociation between science and public policy making.
I have no idea what the substance of the DoI’s needing five new scientists actually means.
Needless to say, science shouldn’t have anything to do with politics. As you know, there has been a mass exodus of scientists from the federal government, especially the EPA. Some have been fired, as I’ve reported, but many more have resigned, refusing to be a part of the disassociation between science and public policy making.
I have no idea what the substance of the DoI’s needing five new scientists actually means.