Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBetraying the Planet
So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.
But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.
And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason - treason against the planet.
To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.
The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe - a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable - can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.
Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there's growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing - that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves - the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation - may become annual or biannual events.
In other words, we're facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?
Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking - if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided - they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.
But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn't see people who've thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don't like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they've decided not to believe in it - and they'll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.
Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday's debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a "hoax" that has been "perpetrated out of the scientific community." I'd call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists - a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.
Yet Mr. Broun's declaration was met with applause.
Given this contempt for hard science, I'm almost reluctant to mention the deniers' dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill's economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.
Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn't it politics as usual?
Yes, it is - and that's why it's unforgivable.
Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an "existential threat" to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole - but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.
Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it's in their political interest to pretend that there's nothing to worry about. If that's not betrayal, I don't know what is.
77 Comments so far
Show AllAnd these deniers are the ones that are going to be screaming for help the loudest when things really start going bad. How can anyone be so blind, so stupid. And what is most frightening: these people are the government - supposedly standing up for the public's interests.
V E R A,
I wonder if you're any relation to truth ( veracity ), with your implicit Ad Hominem attacks and weighty pity piled upon "deniers" ?
The now asymptotically bounded profits behind Global "Terror" is almost exactly what is beneath Global "Warming", which promises to be even more productive to the elitist and fascist rich.
Perhaps someday you too will awaken to reality, having been swept up exactly in the tide of their choosing, and carefully framed PSYOPS.
As a scientist, I can assure you that the apparent "global warming" consensus is a ( corporate ) governmentally sanctioned and contrived situation along with equally vile duplicity in the energy ( and Gollum Sacks bankster ) corporations acting like they _m.u.s.t_ pay shills to fight against it ( they openly fight it with counter PSYOPS media propaganda -- to make it appear to be propaganda = lies ) -- even though they don't believe it for a second.
There are millions of qualified scientists and open minded thinkers ( completely _n.o.t_ in the pay of eXXon … ) who you would apparently label and call as "deniers" -- as is if that were "proven" by what you hear about in the $ewer Main $tream Media ?
Krugman is either deluded, or enough aware -- that his continued existence within the machinery of capitalism requires such unmitigated beliefs.
Why you might better ask,
___ do the corporations & banksters _l.i.k.e_ this ? ? ? ?
N.
Global warming is scientifically proven to be a hoax because the loud shrill voice and money influence of the denial industry is rising faster than the average global temperature and sea levels. I prefer the theory that many people in denial industry are sufficiently incompetent, biased and venal in judgement to be unable to see change in nature and estimate real risk and judge their own incompetence.
So those who hope for a diminution of humankinds disruption of climate are hoping that the very incompetence of human management will allow the economy to become so warped as to collapse the previously high rates of materials and energy consumption that use to be the norm in rich western nations. We can only hope that the economic fortunes of China and India too are squandered in similar fashion, for greed to overcome sense. National poverty for all but the ruling classes is what the deniers are voting for. Self interest and greed lies in every shrill denial pronouncement, so not one dollar can be spent on social or green investment that might help spread wealth amoungst the masses of humanity, even if climate change was by some miracle to be halted. Denialists know in their bones that time, money and resources are limited, and must only be used for the deserving few, and denied to the thronging desperate world that is to suffer and decline.
If you want to get a taste of what life will be like when Global Warming really gets moving, watch the movie "Gangs of New York." Corruption, disease, war, murder, child abuse, tribal warfare-all the wonderfully insane things humans do when forced into an unnatural and over crowded environment.
A friend of mine, with a nice home, in a mid size Southwestern city disavows any evidence of Global Warming,or any impact from it, while the city envelopes him and his property. He brags about not having read a book "in years,"while believing only the good stuff he hears about the environment.
Humans have a knack for deluding themselves about things that are threatening to their position, wealth and lifestyle. I hold out very little hope for the future of the human race, considering our track record. Any survivors will be the ones, or the decendents of the ones that followed Henry David Thoreau's admonition to: "Simplify, simplify . . . ." right now.
great comment, cruxpuppy. you're absolutely right, there is nothing to argue about. the value of intuition is that answers come quickly and accurately, whether to one's liking or not. my intuition, or "gut reaction", is that the future looks very bleak indeed for human beings and the biosphere at large - unless, of course, we change course very quickly. what kind of course change? it will have to involve a dramatic and speedy transformation in mindset about our relationship to the earth, something akin to the ecocentrist view possessed by hunter gatherers. and i'm not convinced it wouldn't take a hunter gatherer lifestyle as well. it worked for 99 percent of our existence and was the only lifestyle that has been shown to be truly sustainable, meaning that our children's children's children would have a decent world to live in.
Not one person, nor Krugman, mentions Jarred Diamond's, "Collapse".
Read it.
Estimates for the death toll of the 1918-21 flu pandemic are as high as 100 million. H1N1 is the same strain of virus and just as mutable. Today that number would be in the billions. James Lovelock is convinced that such a great die-off is imminent.
We have left the road and are thrashing around in a trackless wilderness with no compass. No human culture has ever been here before that we know of. There are no precedents that we know of. We are extremely vulnerable: nature's children who are clueless about nature. We don't know what it means to be "creatures", just like any other creature with which we share the planet. Therefore, we will learn lessons that aboriginal cultures we have decimated accepted as the commonest of common sense.
We think science is a substitute for common sense. Science is fairly useless in our situation because it cannot speak unambiguously. The future is always indeterminate. Science is no more than an evanescent consensus. Science doesn't actually exist at all. It is a fantasy construct, like a Yahweh that hedges every bet. Only scientists actually exist and no one of them has all the evidence, the "facts" to which they are slavishly devoted.
James Lovelock and James Hansen are scientists. Neither has all the evidence, and they are not sounding the alarm because science has given them absolute proof positive of what the future holds. They know what they know chiefly as an intuition. It is an educated intuition, not merely an illiterate preference, such as one hears from the mouths of so-called "conservatives". They are our latter day shamans, overly specialized and focused, but essentially voices that speak for the deep intuitive knowing we all have.
We know in our bones that the world is all out of balance and headed for chaos, that our current trajectory is unsustainable. Many posters here are like me and have had troubled sleep all their lives. It's the knowledge of the "end times" that haunts us.
Human beings have been here before, actually, in other "end times", but the collective memory is so huge, so terrifying, so distant, and yet so close, like a neurosis, a nightmare one just can't recall.
But it's real. Lovelock knows it. Hansen knows it. There's nothing to argue about.
C R U X P U P P Y,
You state "Estimates for the death toll of the 1918-21 flu pandemic are as high as 100 million," but fail us completely and miserably in grasping the equivalent problem as "Today that number would be in the billions."
The facts are actually clearly much different than you infer, as the "Spanish Flu" didn't directly kill people as a virus infection.
The 30 - 100 million dead were almost certainly deaths due pneumonia, as the flu caused extreme build-ups of dangerous and ultimately for ~ 30% deadly levels of fluids -- in a positive feedback cycle of viral byproduct irritant causing allergic reaction which then caused further irritants to be created.
What was not available then, that is significantly different today -- is the widespread availability of antibiotic treatments for pneumonia, which would likely prevent the huge loss of life that was seen in 1918.
In addition, there is another alternative treatment that was used in the past, that is equally as valid now as then.
See :
" Important for Swine Flu Epidemic: Homeopathy Successfully Treated Flu Epidemic of 1918 "
( http://www.naturalnews.com/026148.html )
The fact is that less than 1% of those in Homeopathic care in 1918 died, which increased one's survival by a factor of approximately 30 times -- over the majority who had no treatment at all.
.
Considering the modern efficacy of our medicines, and the ability to respond systematically and with massive resources globally ( consider the case of Smallpox ) -- I believe that your estimate is off by a factor of 1000 or more.
Of course the anti-viral flu treatments are already proven to be usually much worse fatality than the diseases themselves, so as long as one avoids massive "preventative" inoculations ( like provided by Rumsfeld's Co ), the world wide deaths would likely to be less significant than those that occurred in 1918.
Why is it necessary for you to propagate fearful, disruptive, and alarmist assertions, that have little basis in fact ?
See also :
"Bioweapons: Biological threats to Canadians and World Citizens"
( http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14136 )
N.
Science cannot always give answers with 100% certainty but it is a set of useful tools for trying to understand what is and what is not true. Intuition plays a part at times but is only one of the tools used. Science is no more a "fantasy construct" than a hammer is a fantasy construct. Further it is often quite useful to have information of what the possibilities are and estimates of their relative probablities. Plus, scientists leave records of how they reach their conclusions and of their debates and doubts. I may intuitively know that the world is flat and that the stars are smaller than the moon but science gives me different information. Sometimes science reaches wrong conclusions but over the long haul science will be more accurate than intuition as long as politics and religion do not compromise the process.
Excellent article and as usual he hits the nail on the head. But why does he fall into the trap that so many American commentators stumble into, of referring (in the last paragraph) to "future generations of AMERICANS in grave danger..." Does he really mean just 'Americans'? The subject matter of the article - climate change - like it or not, is going to affect all of Humanity, and the USA with 6% of the planet's population is among the heaviest contributors to the change.
It would be a good idea to send to the moon a device that would reflect sunlite to the earth during the time the three are in alignment.
We have no evidence of the existance of the humans that were present in fairly great numbers at the peak of the last inter-glacial warm period 110ky ago.
We should put something up there to show that we were here.
I have posted an idea that the shift in location of water mass will trigger tectonic/volcanic activity that will initiate the defeat and reversal of the temp/CO2 spike we presently find ourselves on. Resulting in the onset of a scenario similar to "Day After Tommorow", but w/o all the BS.
The pollution and heat we add to the bio-sphere only hastens and exacerbates the onset. Humans have lived through at least 4 ice ages, if we don't super-charge this one, we may be able to make it, too.
Data, if more is needed, could be gleaned from a study of the record of magnetic striping along the mid-Atlantic Ridge. Perhaps the Navy has some records.
Looks like civilization and our ability to act in an organized way will be severely tested certainly w/in the next few decades, if not sooner. A way to figure the timing would be to gather and plot scientific estimates of years left v. year in which the estimate was made, then extrapolate into the future. Math heads could do it.
There are too many idiots in high places for us to count on them to do the right thing. We'll have to do it from the ground up. I'd like to think that we might see gov't help out, and this bill is at least a bandaid, but it is so shot through with business influence that there is not much hope of that.
Here are some things to look for:
-reports of super-cooled water droplets in storms and at high altitudes,
-tectonic activity along plate boundaries(USGS),
-reports of undersea volcanism,
-methane concentrations/releases,
-rising sea level at equatorial latitudes,
-NOAA/NWS/satellite weather developing in organized systems,
-the frontal systems around Antarctica in organized spiral formations,
-more of those new 'angry, green' cloud formations recently (but belatedly) reported,
-corporations abandoning plans to drill off shore or in the Arctic, or to build new nuclear power plants,
-the gov't dismantling empire to redeploy troops to the states.
I see the onset of a couple of the above w/in 2 years, and undeniable climatic effects within 10.
Let the festivities begin.
What do you think?
I hope you are right about rapid cooling. Then geothermal power would be "it" for everybody. The earth's people could survive the thousand years or so needed to establish space faring biospheres that could travel liesurly in search of habitable and/or terraformable planets. The bigger question is what the other non-human space faring cultures will do about it. I think we are the primitive war minded planet killers to them. They may just want to keep us here until we poison ourselves. They probably don't even think we are edible.
Krugman: "Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it's in their political interest to pretend that there's nothing to worry about. If that's not betrayal, I don't know what is."
As I see it there are at least three choices.
1)Take global warming as a serious risk and move to take the steps needed to deal with the problem.
2)Decide that there is nothing to worry about, deny the issue and carry on as usual.
3)Decide that there is most probably nothing to worry about but hedge your bets because of the potential consequences of being wrong and take some steps to deal with the problem while making high priority accellerating the research needed to be certain on the issue and better decide on future actions.
In short, option two is betrayal, option three is prudent. There is no need for the deniers to conceed that global warming is true and a serious risk before they agree to take some action, while at the same time encouraging and financing more of the billions of minds available in this world to seriously address the issue so that it can be settled beyond doubt.
These are the National Academies of Sciences Globally that endorse your option 1:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil), Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Academié des Sciences (France), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany), Indian National Science Academy, Accademia dei Lincei (Italy), Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society (United Kingdom), National Academy of Sciences (United States of America), Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
There is no serious disagreement in the scientific community about this issue. It is time to take it seriously and deal with it, or pay the consequences. As Krugman implies, what IS well known is that AGW is real, what ISN'T well known is the extent to which Earth may react in ways that could make the problem much, much worse. But recent findings (about methane clasts and arctic permafrost) aren't encouraging.
Not to worry about me as I am solidly in favour of option 1. I was agreeing with Krugman about the inaction of the elected AGW deniers being a betrayal of their responsibility to us, primarily because they could take some prudent steps in case they are wrong while they put resources into studying more closely what is happening. If there is one thing that we have a surplus of it is intellegent people who can solve problems if they are not marginalized or obliged to concentrate on other matters that the system deems more important.
I share Professor Krugman's sorrow. And dismay.
Speak of lemmings!
What if the climate change bill is wrong? That's possible, you know? But look at the reasons for the opposition? That tells a story in itself. That is what is heart breaking.
For if there are faults in the bill the opposition has not seized upon them, but has only revealed its own shortcomings, shortcomings which are all too human. Which have nothing to do with politics or science. Which demonstrate why we are in the mess in the first place.
Coal-fired power plants are the biggest producers of CO2, the cause of global heating (and I say heating because that's what it is). Phase out these plants over the next 20 years, if not sooner, and we'd see amazing results.
----
It will be forty years next month that Apollo 11 touched down on the moon. We Americans were excited and overcome with pride that our country had done it first. Back then we didn't eschew science to curry favor with any faction. We reveled in scientific progress and we were eager for more. The Mercury and Apollo missions were part of strong national will thanks in no small part to John F. Kennedy.
Today's deniers and obfuscators of global heating in Washington are whores for Big Oil, Big Coal and the Nuke bunch. Their nay-saying does more damage globally than any major issue in history.
If alternatives to fossil fuels did not exist, the problem would be insurmountable. But we have options in solar, wind and geothermal energy, all of which are reliable sources and free. Think about it: Almost every serviceable roof in the world is a potential site for a solar electric or solar hot water system, or both. The technology is here and it's good. What's lacking is a national will. What's painfully plentiful is duplicity and ignorance.
http://freesolaradvice.blogspot.com
Like the woman said last week when asked by The News Hour if she was worried about the effects of global warming:
"No, no - I'm sure they'll figure something out, and everything will be just fine."
Now then, will the climate refugee camps be anywhere near the rebel camps?
If things get bad enough, they certainly WILL figure something out. She just won't be invited.
The term Climate Change is ridiculous. Our climate is changing all of the time, from hour-to-hour, minute-to-minute. Trying to control changes in our climate, from temperature to the frequency of hurricanes is a God's job and a "little above our pay grade" to quote some famous politician. The correct term that should be used is the original, unpopular term - Global Warming. Of course, this term was abandoned because the Earth is now cooling, much to the disappointment of the far, far left.. It turns out that carbon has as little to do with the earth cooling as it does with the earth warming.
Protecting our environment from pollution, etc., and our country from energy dependence are worthy causes. Reducing those noble causes to something as impossible as regulating our climate is shameful.
Name calling aside, lack of scientific evidence has 'betrayed' Global Warming, not government...or a change in terminology
"Our climate is changing all of the time, from hour-to-hour, minute-to-minute"
Ahem, we call that weather. It has a relationship, though tenuous, to climate. This weak relationship is what has enabled many of the climate deniers.
These are the National Academies of Sciences Globally that explicitly endorse the science behind AGW, and urge governments to take action against its effects:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil), Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Academié des Sciences (France), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany), Indian National Science Academy, Accademia dei Lincei (Italy), Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society (United Kingdom), National Academy of Sciences (United States of America), Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
There is no serious disagreement in the scientific community about this issue. Of course, its possible that these organizations haven't seen the temperature trend data you refer to (/sarcasm).
Good grief, another right winger who doesn't do his homework, but merely listens to the disingenuous crap some ideologues are barfing about. As I just posted on this issue, if you throw out the aberrationally hot years of 1997 and 1998, then the last 6 years were hotter than ANY other years in the last 125 years for which we have good temperature records. Ugh!
"Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there's growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing - that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."
Some people are more interested in making their point known, rather than reading the entire article. Aside from that, yes, global warming should be changed to global polluting. But, that would mean humans admitting and accepting fault and as of yet they're not quite prepared to do that because it would mean having to change their habits, and having to change from convenience and comfort, and having to pay more for correcting their trespasses, which to many is not only painful but unacceptable. So, humans will eventually solve the mystery of what killed off the dinosaurs. "It's the CO2, stupid!"
OntheRIGHTside
There ia absolutely no doubt that our climate is changing. Should we be concerned about it? Of course. Our climate could change drastically and if thats the case, if can determine it is, if we don't prepare we could be in big trouble.
I assume you are addressing the theory that climate change is man made?
"It turns out that carbon has as little to do with the earth cooling as it does with the earth warming."
With the best research I can find....I have to say thats yet to be determined. How can you be so sure?
"Protecting our environment from pollution, etc., and our country from energy dependence are worthy causes. Reducing those noble causes to something as impossible as regulating our climate is shameful."
The first two are givens, but the last......it has not been determined that climate change is not man made, no more than it's been determined that it is. So its a bit early to call the game.
Climate change means that it will be hotter in some places and colder in others. Global Warming means that on average, the entire planet will be hotter. Conservative hot air makes things worse.
ezeflyer
"Conservative hot air makes things worse."
You are getting pretty good with these. Poor old conservatives....you ought to cut them some slack. Look at the hole they are in!
Read some books on prophesy and are things coming to a head?2012,Pelee,a volcano,in the Caribbean that when it goes an indnation in southern California, places in the south under water,New York City destroyed,Nebraska as coastline and that is just here in the states.It will be all over the world.Is this going to be a self fullfilling prophesy because of what we are doing to the planet?Just consider the jungles and other forests and the oceans as the lungs for all living things on this miniscule orb in the outer reaches of the Milky Way and no where else to go and I dont care how much money you have.This is more important then any other life decision that we will ever make and we cant wait another generation but we will and will pay.Tony
Probably not a popular observation, but: I find all this talk about 'saving the planet' somewhat misdirected. Whatever people do, the planet will be just fine, thank you.
It may not be the same planet in a thousand years (or even one hundred years) as it is today or was a thousand years ago. It may not have the same species of flora and fauna, but it will still be here though people, and countless other species may not.
The planet is a dynamic system that is always changing. There is no 'baseline' biota that must be maintained, but an ever-changing mix of flora and fauna that are better survivors of the current conditions. Species come and go for more reasons than those pertaining to climatic changes alone and species have come and gone whether mankind has had any influence on them or not.
What I think most people really worry about, rather than the fate of the planet, is the fate of their way of life, of mankind in general, and other cute or favored species - in that order. Nobody promised that homo sapiens would be here forever. We're just another species passing through. Perhaps we should be more honest about it and rather than say 'save the planet' say 'save our lifestyles', perhaps even 'save our lives'. Most people can't care about anything as abstract as the planet, but may care about their 'lifestyle'.
Actions have consequences and it's hard to deny that our actions as a species in the last two or three hundred years have precipitated consequences over which we probably have no influence to mitigate. So I think we're screwed. Like yeast, who nobody blames for their lifestyle, we have consumed or will consume all there is and live in our waste until it finallly poisons us.
I agree that most people are more worried about saving their lifestyle than preserving life in all its diversity for its own sake. See how Gov Swarchzenegger thinks its ok to drive a Hummer because he fuels it with biodiesel. See how we are approaching the issue: "green" "eco-friendly" "natural" "carbon neutral"; all fuzzy, indefinable terms that assuage consumer guilt, but do little to challenge certain "needs", like living in car-dependent cities/suburbs in the first place.
Not every human being is a nature lover, and if you are a materialist, sympathy towards various life forms and ecosystems seems to dip in direct opposition to the rising tab on the credit card. Or at least can be bought when buying 'green' confers status, envy, etc.
What most saddens me, is that people are not thinking beyond their own skin. We want to see the climate crisis solved within our lifetime and buying offsets while flying from one end of the country to the other will help get us there damn it.
The moneyed economy is screwing us over. There is so much work to be done, but if people expect to get monetarily compensated for it, then we are screwed.
sorry if i diverged, it's late and i'm tired.
Yeah. What's a few billion killed here and there? The planet will go on and the survivors will still have their trucks.
Nature is cruel. It has killed 98% of all the species that have ever lived - without our help. I merely post what I think is a reality about the failings of our species. I don't think we are immune from nature (despite what the bible-thumpers say) and I think that sooner or later we will die out and be replaced by something else. Don't like it? Tell it to the other dinosaurs - if you can find one.
"It may not be the same planet in a thousand years (or even one hundred years) as it is today or was a thousand years ago. It may not have the same species of flora and fauna, but it will still be here though people, and countless other species may not.
The planet is a dynamic system that is always changing. There is no 'baseline' biota that must be maintained, but an ever-changing mix of flora and fauna that are better survivors of the current conditions. Species come and go for more reasons than those pertaining to climatic changes alone and species have come and gone whether mankind has had any influence on them or not."
I have tried to take comfort in this position in the past...however, one need only look to the moon, or the other planets sharing our local star to see that life, as a planetary feature, is not a given...while I, personally, believe life exists elsewhere in the universe, if not in this solar system, it is quite possible that we could drive this planet's ecology to the point where no life, as we know it, remains...that is what I mean by saving the planet...maintaining a balance of temperatures and chemicals, surrounded by a protective atmosphere, that allows for the continuation of what we consider animal and vegetable life to be...
this would be an utter failure of our species, as the dominant one here, to exhibit any semblance of forward thinking, self-control, or altruistic tendencies...we have been entrusted, and are proving impotent...
"this would be an utter failure of our species, as the dominant one here, to exhibit any semblance of forward thinking, self-control, or altruistic tendencies...we have been entrusted, and are proving impotent..."
Though I have no evidence, I suspect that 'life' - whatever that is - is not reserved to our planet - if for statistical reasons alone. And I think what you suggest is true: that because of our failure to live within the constraints of the biosphere, we may render the biosphere toxic to our species.
We have been the dominant species for only a few ten thousands of years - a relative handful in the scope of things. Reptiles were the dominant species for tens of millions of years, uni-cellular species for millions more. Were they 'entrusted' to maintain the planet? I don't think so.
Neither do I think we have been 'entrusted' by anyone or anything to maintain the planet but are just another species doing the best they can with what they've got. Your suggestion presumes first that dominant species have that authority and responsibility, and second that we have been 'selected' as a species for that authority and responsibility; and I find both presumptions unconvincing.
"Neither do I think we have been 'entrusted' by anyone or anything to maintain the planet but are just another species doing the best they can with what they've got. Your suggestion presumes first that dominant species have that authority and responsibility, and second that we have been 'selected' as a species for that authority and responsibility; and I find both presumptions unconvincing."
What do you see occurring here in the next couple of generations, if we, the dominant species, have no responsibility to alter destructive behavior? When does denial of responsibility become causal? Negligent homocide?
What do I see occurring? I don't know, my magic 8-ball has leaked all its fluid, but I can guess. My guess is that if things go on as they have for hundreds of years - since the industrial revolution - that we will further degrade the biosphere.
I do not suggest that we have no responsibility to alter our 'destructive behavior'. I think it would be a good idea to alter our destructive behavior, but I don't think we as a species are capable of doing so.
dubet, life is far more resilient than your remarks indicate and interesting ecologies have been recently found in the most remarkable of places such as deep sea volcanic vents as well as hot dry rocks deep in the earth's crust. The Earth is literally infested with life, and while the current extinction is significant it is unlikely to be as severe as previous extinctions that life has overcome.
Statistically intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy but one component of the Drake equation for detection of intelligent civilizations is the length of time they transmit signals beyond their home planet. Drake guessed an average of 10,000 years for this figure but we have been transmitting signals less than a century and are already facing a possible collapse of civilization.
We might not even get to explore the solar system to determine whether life exists on Europa (a moon of Jupiter), Titan or Enceladus (moons of Saturn).
which is it? To save our lives, the (US-suburban) "lifestyle" has got to go.
'Which is it?'
Who knows?
I submit that the US-suburban lifestyle is not the cause, but the consequence of the lives most of us want to live (or have been convinced we want to live).
And lives and lifestyles will probably have to be sacrificed, but so far that has been other's - mostly brown people's - lives and lifestyles. My guess that sooner or later sacrifice will have to be made by the rest of us - whether we like it or not.
and when that time comes, hold on for the ride folks....
panic stricken, utterly dependent, no survival skills +
distrustful, don't know my own neighbor, selfish american culture =
hell on earth
Probably so. But as I almost get tired of saying: actions have consequences - whether we accept it or not. We can't, like children, try to wish them away.
Most of the human-created institutions foster the myth that we as a society can escape the consequences of our actions - including churches (god is responsible), government (congress or whatever is responsible), society (my neighbors or my parents or my education or my philosophy or General Motors are responsible).
The 'cult of the individual' and the myth of 'individual liberty' in the US are particularly pernicious. Not only are they fallacious, they encourage us to look out for ourselves and the hell with others. Better for us and our society if we had less personal freedom and more societal cooperation - like other 'civilized' societies.
Life is far more pleasant when one can live 'free' and shed his feelings of responsibility and blame others for the consequences of one's own bad or ignorant choices.
I'm not sure how to convince people like Mr. Broun that climate change is happening, but perhaps the millions of refugees from drought and starvation in the lower latitudes that will flood his state (until it too becomes uninhabitable), will be able to do so.
Unfortunately, it remains to be seen whether the Bill that WAS passed will actually achieve anything in the way reducing the emissions that are source of global warming. That is, whether in practical terms there was any real difference between voting "yes", and voting "no" in terms of the issue of global warming, leaving aside the various earmarks and subsidies handed out to the last campaign's major contributors, or partisan high-jinks.
Certainly, at the very least, the notion that this Bill will lead to U.S. "energy independence" any time in the forseeable future is total hogwash. And I don't see how buying forest land in Eastern Europe at recessionary discounts represents a legitmate offset to very real industrial pollution in this country.
As an economist Mr, Krugman should address the particulars of this bill, not dish out another off-the-wall,inaccurate and over-generalizing polemic about the so-called "scientific certainty" of the global warming hypothesis.
The requirement of "absolute certainty" renders the possibility of serious, systematic, pragmatically incremental long-term amelioration a virtual impossibility. It is far, far too noxious and polarizing in a country that is virtually welded to a politically inert "status quo".
At the end of the day (civilization) America, with its form of government and capitalism, will be the betrayer of humanity. Along with whatever animal life is left, our planet will dust itself off and move on.
We used to be hunters and gatherers and then somehow lost our way. Oh, yeah, someone came up with the idea of economics.
"We shall never understand the natural environment until we see it as a living organism. Land can be healthy or sick, fertile or barren, rich or poor, lovingly nurtured or bled white. Our present attitudes and laws governing the ownership and use of land represent an abuse of the concept of private property.... Today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see and nobody calls the cops." - Paul Brooks, The Pursuit of Wilderness (1971)
Mother Earth, in finding one of her own creative species is destroying her, will do anything to rid herself of this pestilence by letting them(us) do it to themselves (ourselves). Too many humans, who are not thinking, make for a dangerous, deadly, unsustainable, 'flash in the pan' in the eons of time, and will not be tolerated for long. We have abused our soul opportunities in the name of profit and greed, and will, soon enough, count ourselves amongst the stardust.
We are stardust, so why is it such a big deal that we are ready willing and able to do our mothers work and rid the planet of this existential threat??
We are stardust and light and possibly the greatest missed opportunity in the cosmos... how fun!
What can you expect from politicians in a country where the majority of citizens do not believe in evolution and where twenty percent of the citizens believe the sun revolves around the earth?
The United States citizenry is beyond pathetic, and easy prey for power hungry, money hungry, and flat out stupid politicians.
Hear, hear.
just when I had written Krugman off! one never knows, does one? nice to be pleasantly surprised...still not much on economy's role in environment's murder, but, improving...
"As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today,"
Proof: I live in Coastal So. New Jersey. I now am able to grow several species of Palms in my gardens yr round and have since 2000! Species are moving north , the ones that can anyway. Things are changing rapidly now and the climate deniers are the same nitwits that think the earth is ^K old and Dinos lived along side mean. Paul is right they're traitors to the Planet alright. They're fools and is what they really are and Nature doesn't suffer fools very long.
Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it's in their political interest to pretend that there's nothing to worry about. If that's not betrayal, I don't know what is.
----------------
It's betrayal, but so much more.
These politicians are SEVERELY and DANGEROUSLY Mentally Ill.
Anyone so self-interested, smug and certain that their beliefs and interests trump those of reason and science that they're more than willing to risk the survival of the next 10,000 generations of human beings needs to be removed from office and placed in a facility. Immediately.
The fact that the whole of our society doesn't recognize this and act instantly tells you how widespread this mental illness is.
Krugman sez: "Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat ... simply because it's in their political interest to pretend that there's nothing to worry about."
***
It's actually more about their ECONOMIC interest. Their political offices are merely the vehicles -- big, honkin' Hummers fueled by greed -- which deliver the goods.
They are hardly insane - merely sociopathic. The voters, now, are another matter entirely.
They are hardly insane - merely sociopathic.
--------------------
I think a sociopath is considered insane.
I label people mentally ill when they're so removed from their humanity that nothing else matters except their own self interests.
Too bad that Krugman continues to support an economic system that is directly responsible for the devastation of our planet - capitalism.
You and the other half dozen non-capitalists in the world need to keep tilting at those windmills. One of these centuries things might just change.
Make that seven other non-capitalists Greg. Mind you what we have today is about as much capitalism as it is democracy and it might be interesting to try designing a version of capitalism (&democracy) that is advantageous to the vast majority. As for tilting at those windmills it seems to me that occasionally things change because some people are too stupid to know that the change is impossible.
Oh, yes, I think most all CDers want a better "version of capitalism." Struggle has, I believe, totally given up on capitalism, but it ain't goin' away any time soon. By the way, I noticed someone made a nasty comment to me on this same post and now the censors have made it disappear. Truly nothing lost with it gone, but I kinda dislike censorship anyway.
Krugman didn't mention that some, like Kucinich, voted aganist the bill becuuse it is a complete sham that will allow carbon emissions to increse indefinitely through the use of these completely bogus and unverifiable "offsets".
Please read Monbiot's article her in CD last Friday.
Krugman's point is that if 'Global Warming is a hoax' continues to be the level of understanding of half of America, then lame bills like the one just passed are going to be all we will get, possibly until its too late. I understand why people voted against the bill for being lame, but politics is the art of the possible. Krugman is specifically targeting people who, at the current juncture, could well be thought of as traitors. When the science is as solid as GW, when the agreement is as large, then it no longer should be politically acceptable to say its a hoax. At this point, prove its a hoax or get off the stage. Seriously.
Its already too late. Politicians have at most a 5 year forward looking time frame. Action on climate change should have been started about 25 years ago. Now is the time to start planning how to cope with the inevitable. If I was a young man looking for a place of refuge for my family and descendants I would go for New Zealand. The climate is currently temperate so it should withstand the warming, while its isolation will keep it safe from marauding gangs of humans desperately looking for food when the global economy collapses completely.
I know a lovely couple from Auckland. They invited us to visit. I wonder if they'd mind long term guests?
Exactly, Man! I can't believe I had to scroll down this far to find somebody who actually understands what this Bill was all about!
actually, he did but without elaborating - "A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak"
Thanks, must have skimmed past it.
EXACTLY!!
One of the most obvious, continous, ridiculous problems on this site is the incredibly high incidence of posts from people who have BARELY SKIMMED the f....g article and really have no idea what it's all about.
People of your ilk have your mind made up and you can't be bothered to READ the f....g article.
You all sound like cocooned, confused idealists who throw a hissy fit at anything that is not perfect. On this planet, perfection is the deadly ennemy of good enough. We are so lucky to have somebody like Krugman who is a realist, does his homework, and...... in the past, has proven to be dead on....like with the housing bubble and the derivatives. He warned for several years about the fundamental problems that could lead to very serious problems... AND HE WAS RIGHT.
ouch, a bit harsh, but I agree. And yes, Krugman is awesome.
As long as the creators of wealth are running the show, half if not all the people on this planet are going to die. It is a great deception in revelations, when John speaks of angels blowing trumpets. We are the musicians and will have to dance to the music we create; blaming God is just a cop out. There is one saving grace; the wealth creator’s accumulations will not save them in the future. They will not be the predators in the Paleolithic world we create, they will be the pray.
solrev, please don't be misled and get carried by the term "creators of wealth". They are NOT creating wealth - they are basically usurping and hoarding nature's wealth - using up everything that nature made - both above ground and underground. Then they put a dollar value on it and claim they "created" it. Maybe I should write in more detail what I mean, but basically those you call "creators of wealth" use up far too much resources to produce far too little of real value. A peasant in some poor country may not produce much in terms of dollar value - but he and his family take little from nature - and live a sustainable life. And he's a better human being than the "civilized" people who can never get enough of anything.
Hummmm. Bankster on the barbie! Imagine that.
I'm glad to hear Krugman take this stand, and he does so in his normal well-constructed manner. We need to take action. As Krugman indicates, not ALL of the poorly understood feedback mechanisms to human-caused GW are negative. Quite a few of them are positive.
I think a lot of deniers are 'betting' that Earths climate is stable, that we can't possibly push it too far, but that it'll return to normal. But return to normal could take a thousand years. We shouldn't anthropomorphize the climate. Earth itself doesn't care if the climate is balmy, freezing, or hellishly hot. A glance at temperatures on Venus and Mars should convince you of that.
I am curious what "normal" is. For you see, the earth has been warmer than present or even future predictions, and it has been colder.
And the debate intensifies as the AGW models error bars are broken, but not to the hot side.
Climate is centuries, not a few years. The warming of the late 1900's was actually less than the warming of the early 1900's. And it will be awhile, if ever being we are on the downward slope towards another ice age, that we get close to the MWP temps.
Man does much better with warmth than with cold. That is historical fact.
With the above being said, conservation is the answer, period. Resources are finite, and there is no sense indiscimently wasting them for no good purpose.
The mid 20th century was warmer than the late 19th. The late 20th was warmer than the mid 20th. The early 21st is warmer than the late 20th. Over the last 40 years the warming has increased a great deal, directly corresponding to the greatly increasing co2 levels in the atmosphere. As the co2 continues to rise and releases the trapped methane in the frozen tundra, expect trouble.
Actually, the 21st is cooler than the late 20th century. And the co2 rise that you are referring to is in response to the MWP's warm temps. This is a fact that all climatologists agree with........co2 lags temp increase by 800 years. Every ice core has shown this to be true.
The earth has been cooling since 1998.
The earth has been cooling since 1998. True, sort of. But the earth has been warmer EVERY year for the last 6 years than at any time in the last 125 years (and possibly way longer since I'm unaware of good records prior to 1880) if we leave out 1997 and 1998. Cherry picking the odd aberration and pretending it marks a trend is beyond silly. I hope you are merely ignorant of the facts and simply picked up on the disingenuous crap right wingers (and sadly much msm) throw out there.
No he's not ignorant, simply a troll using the discredited talking points such as carbon dioxide levels following rather than producing temperature increases.
Too bad none of this will stop Mountaintop Removal which will have a horrendous environmental impact for decades to come. I hope Mother Earth washes Washington DC and moves these environmental criminals to where the Mountaintop removal is taking place ! Let's see Obama and his family try growing a veggie garden there where they approved of MTR !