|
- In lead story on climate debate, WashPost pushes a dubious narrative at odds with their own polling
- The Bjorn Irrelevancy: Duke dean disses Danish delayer
- Are conservatives capable of producing their own Ted Kennedy? What can progressives learn from him?
- Japanese opposition easily wins elections — running on a much stronger climate target
In lead story on climate debate, WashPost pushes a dubious narrative at odds with their own polling Posted: 31 Aug 2009 08:16 AM PDT I was quoted on the front page of the Washington Post today in a very questionable story, "Environmentalists Slow to Adjust in Climate Debate: Opponents Seize Initiative as Senate Bill Nears," by staff writer, "David A. Fahrenthold":
Now, my poor choice of words "slacked off" aside — many of my friends have never worked harder in their lives — this story and Fahrenthold's use of my quote is seriously flawed:
Let me elaborate on the second point before coming back to the larger question of how the climate action advocates are doing. Fahrenthold himself is forced to concede:
Well, that's lame. After all, the thrust of his article is that industry groups are winning. The Friday article includes this line "Support for the plan among independents has increased slightly, with a narrow majority now in favor." How about that. A much more accurate piece with a more defensible narrative can be found in the Sunday L.A. Times, "Both sides in energy debate watching healthcare battle: Obama's broad plan for new technology, efficiency and a 'cap and trade' system to curb emissions may spark another nasty fight — so participants are learning from the tactics being used on healthcare":
Exactly. Unlike the health care debate, we actually have a simple, positive, accurate message that has taken hold. That should change the dynamics of the debate — if we're smart (and by we, I mainly mean team Obama). Some enviros were unhappy with my choice of words. Certainly many of my friends have never worked harder in their lives, so I'm sorry for having used the phrase "slacked off." I probably should have said we failed to press our advantage. It always pays to remember from a rhetorical perpsective that the negating words shouldn't be the verbs or adjectives or nouns — they become too memorable and too easily quoted out of context. That said, the basic thrust of my comments are what I've been saying for a while (see Memo to enviros, progressives: The deniers and dirty energy bunch are "full of passionate intensity" — and eating our lunch on the climate bill). But, like I said, I do think that enviros and progressives have gone back into high gear, especially in advertising, which seems clear from the polling. I do still worry that we are being outhustled. I wrote back in mid-July: "I have heard from multiple sources that many U.S. Senators are now getting 100 to 200 calls a day opposing a climate and clean energy bill — and bupkes in favor." Now Fahrenthold claims:
If this is true, it's not good news. Lugar is a potentially gettable GOP vote. If staffers and others have different information, I'd love to hear it. But for now, it appears we simply aren't doing enough, which I suppose it isn't a total surprise given the other side has access to billions of dollars and a total lack of scruples (see "The latest polluter front group trying to kill the clean energy bill is overseen by a proud former shill for a man convicted on fraud and conspiracy charges"). Only one person can really counter the level of effort the fossil-fuel-funded deniers can. And that's why my far bigger concern is that the progressives who matter the most — team Obama — definitely slacked off after the House vote. And while the Administration appears to be holding some meetings to push the bill, fundamentally:
The rest of the progressive community, clean energy advocates, and environmentalists can create the conditions to get us close to 60 votes in the Senate. But fundamentally only Obama can get those last few votes. He needs to finish his now 2-month vacation from the issue ASAP. And one more thing — where is the scientific community? It's time for them to speak out on this issue. |
The Bjorn Irrelevancy: Duke dean disses Danish delayer Posted: 31 Aug 2009 05:43 AM PDT I don't have time to debunk Bjorn Lomborg every time he writes a disinformation-filled WSJ op-ed [and yes, that is redundant]. I've debunked him enough [see "Lomborg skewers the facts, again" and "Debunking Lomborg — Part III and "Voodoo Economists 4: The idiocy of crowds or, rather, the idiocy of (crowded) debates"]. But I'm happy to feature the work of guest debunkers (see "Lomborg's main argument has collapsed)." Today's guest debunker is the uber-accomplished Dr. Bill Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, in a post first published on his Green Grok blog. Bjorn Lomborg is at it again on the pages of the Wall Street Journal. (See previous Lomborg posts here and here.) No action on climate change, he argues, because it's too hard *and* too easy. Cool argument. I woke up this morning to find one of my favorite columnists in the journal's op-ed pages. In "Technology Can Fight Global Warming" (Wall Street Journal, August 28, 2009) Lomborg outdoes himself in his sleight-of-hand pseudo-logic arguing against imposing emission reduction targets through a global climate agreement. In Lomborg's worldview, the whole climate problem will go away if we just throw a few dollars at the problem and stand back. Actually, I thought that's exactly what we've been doing over the last two decades or so, and look where that's gotten us. MisinformationA Lomborg piece would not be a Lomborg piece without a healthy supply of misinformation, and his latest does not disappoint:
Geo-engineeringLomborg argues that geo-engineering can be a substitute for cutting greenhouse gas emissions: for example by seeding clouds over the ocean to cool the planet and offset the warming. He fails to mention the logistical challenge of deploying ships all over the world's oceans to continuously spray seawater into the atmosphere. Lomborg also doesn't mention that such "solutions" leave the problem of ocean acidification from enhanced carbon dioxide unsolved. And he does not acknowledge the host of unanticipated consequences of our geo-engineering. If you're thinking geo-engineering is a panacea, read this by Gabriele Hegerl of Grant Institute in Edinburgh and Susan Solomon of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But hey, why sweat the details? Sleight of HandTechnology plays an interesting role in Lomborg's piece. Note how he telegraphs it in his title "Technology Can Fight Global Warming," as if using technology runs counter to the intention of a global treaty to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, technology is the answer to getting us out of our climate change pickle. The question is how to get the new technologies we need developed and implemented. Many economists say the most effective and least expensive way to make this happen is through market forces. Internalize the cost of greenhouse gas pollution by putting a "price on carbon" (e.g., mandating lower emissions) and allow the marketplace to wind down our dependence on carbon-intensive energy sources and industries. But Lomborg doesn't want to go down that path — it is simply too expensive and too difficult to even try. But don't despair. Lomborg claims to have a better way. The Technology-Led EffortLomborg's alternative to requiring emission reductions is a "technology-led effort." He claims that a paltry $100 billion investment per year "in noncarbon based energy research could result in essentially stopping global warming within a century or so." Wow, I had not realized it could be that easy. Instead of requiring emission reductions, just invest a small sum in energy research and presto chango, emissions will fall of their own accord. I like it. Sign me up. But wait a minute. According to the Wall Street Journal, in 2008 "total clean-energy investment last year grew … to $155 billion." So, by Lomborg's metrics, we are already there! We don't need to spend anything additional. Like Marx's rise of Communism, in Lomborg's climate manifesto stopping global warming is an historical inevitability — all we have to do is leave everything alone. There is however this little nagging problem. It's a consistency thing. You see, according to Lomborg, a global treaty mandating emission reductions through the development of new technologies will cost us 12.9 percent of world G.D.P. — that's equivalent to about $7 trillion per year. At the same time Lomborg claims we can solve the global warming problem with an investment of $100 billion per year. It seems that the key to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to not require any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Like I said, cool argument. |
Are conservatives capable of producing their own Ted Kennedy? What can progressives learn from him? Posted: 30 Aug 2009 12:26 PM PDT Q: Would any GOP Senator today get the kind of funeral and remembrance that Edward Kennedy has? A: That is increasingly unlikely. Certainly all GOP Senators who vote against the upcoming climate and clean energy bill will be consigning themselves to be dustbin of history. Given how rapidly climate impacts are accelerating, by the 2020s the entire country — even most Republicans — will realize how tragically mistaken were those who blocked serious action and who demagogued against those trying to avert catastrophe. Those conservatives who want to be fondly eulogized by the status quo media and centrist opinionmakers have maybe a decade left. Dick Cheney himself may live long enough to be seen by even his last 3 or 4 remaining admirers as a leading agent of humanity's self-destruction (see "Has anyone in U.S. history made more Americans less safe than Dick Cheney?"). And I can't even imagine the kind of funeral President George W. Bush will get if he lives to, say, the 2030s, when the consequences of his all-out effort to stop domestic and international action on climate change have initiated the grim time in American history I've labeled "Planetary Purgatory." But there are also important lessons for Democrats here, too. Although an indisputable liberal lion, Kennedy repeatedly reached across the aisle to achieve what was achievable. As the Post reported this weekend in, many Democrats say
Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster and strategist has brief but must-read op-ed, "Where's the GOP's Ted Kennedy?":
What Garin says about the lack of boldly GOP leadership goes double for the climate change bill, a far more consequential piece of legislation. We had one such senator last Congress, John Warner (R-VA), stalwart conservative understood the dire nature of the problem, particularly from a national security perspective. The only conservative Senator who comes close now is John McCain. Until very recently he had been strongly dissing the House climate bill, but recently he appears to be remembering that the science has become more dire. I have difficulty seeing how we get beat a filibuster if McCain isn't one of the 60 votes. Unfortunately, I'm not sure who else he would bring with him — perhaps Lindsey Graham. Still, those two coupled with the two Maine Senators would be pretty darn close to what is needed. Can we find enough conservative senators to make a deal? Will progressives be able to take a Kennedy-esque compromise? In September, I'll take a closer look at where the swing Senators stand and what the deal might look like. |
Japanese opposition easily wins elections — running on a much stronger climate target Posted: 30 Aug 2009 10:42 AM PDT
The big news for climate science realists is that the Democratic Party of Japan has a much stronger target than the one the ruling conservative center-right LDP had. The DPJ "aims to lower the country's greenhouse-gas emissions 25 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels," whereas the LDP only proposed an 8% cut. [I can't imagine the climate target played much of a role in the election, given how badly the economy was doing, but I'd welcome any comments from people who know Japanese politics.] Bloomberg News has the backstory, from a late July story, "DPJ to Raise Target for Japan's Greenhouse-Gas Cuts" on party leader Katsuya Okada (pictured above):
Let's hope Okada and the DPJ follow through on their promise. Certainly that target is more in line with the science (see "Is 450 ppm politically possible? Part 8: The U.S. needs a tougher 2020 GHG emissions target"). Since we don't have a parliamentary form of government — and since we have the filibuster "rule" in the Senate, which may ultimately prove our nation's (and the world's) undoing — we don't get the automatic adoption of the policies advanced by the winning party in an election. Of course, Obama only campaigned on returning to 1990 levels by 2020 — though there is no apples-to-apples comparison between Obama's target for 2020 and the 4% target in the House bill, as I explain here. We also didn't sign on to Kyoto, which should have brought Japanese emissions below 1990 levels by this time (making a tougher 2020 target in theory easier for them to adopt). That said, as of 2007, Japan's emisisons are up 8% since 1990, so achieving a 25% reduction by 2020 won't be easy, especially given how relatively efficient and low-carbon their economy already is. But the bottom line is that we have a government in Japan that believes in stronger climate action. And that should be quite helpful in the months leading up to the big international negotiations in Copenhagen — and in the months that follow where the real deal will be hammered out. UPDATE: Matt Dernoga, Campaign Director of UMD for Clean Energy, has more thoughts here. |
You are subscribed to email updates from Climate Progress To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 |