Some people disliked yesterday's post.
"How could you possibly give those climate-change skeptics a voice by describing their positions? They are simply wrong. The science is settled."
It isn't settled. Not in the minds of about half of American voters.
According to Pew polling this month, a majority of Republicans and a strong majority of White Christian evangelicals, not only don't think climate science is settled, they don't believe it. And other voters half-believe it, but they don't think it is important enough to do anything about. |
| Pew: November 2022 |
A more credible poll in my opinion is the 2022 election. Republican candidates who treated rising carbon levels in the atmosphere as a negligible problem, or not a problem at all, got re-elected in all the places where Republicans do well, about half of America.
Democratic officeholders affirm that climate change is real and important. A majority of voters agree. Polls confirm it, as do my anecdotal observations. But that majority becomes less robust if a consumer is asked to pay a price in money or convenience. Only about 150,000 of Oregon's 790,000 customers--19%--pay extra for "Blue Sky" electricity, which is the electricity generated from renewable sources. Oregon Democrats in the legislature offered a step toward reducing CO2: A gasoline tax. The money raised would have been rebated per capita to consumers. The law would have given a market-based nudge toward driving less and driving fuel-efficient vehicles. It failed. The proposal generated a revolt by every Republican legislator.
My Democratic friends use phrases like "existential threat" to describe the rise in CO2. It is commonplace, even among rural Trump supporters, to presume that local farms' longer frost-free periods, the lower rainfall, and the new era of prolonged forest fires are caused by "climate change." A majority of people seem to think that "something is happening." That battle is won. However, there is no clear consensus that there is anything we can or should do about it. There is widespread denialism.
I think Democrats need to understand and confront denialism, not dismiss it. Some of the ideas claim CO2 is a positive good; warmer is better. More of the ideas are expressions of doubt. Maybe we aren't really warming and maybe a little CO2 is harmless. Who really knows? Most common are ideas reflecting powerlessness: It is all Mother Nature and there is no fixing her. Besides, why bother, since China and India are adding coal plants.
My critics dismiss these arguments as thoroughly debunked. Maybe they are, to them, but not to everyone. The ideas are still out there and they provide the fact-basis to justify what is easiest to do. Most people like the freedom to do the easiest, cheapest, most convenient thing, which is to maintain the status quo. Maybe someone will invent something. Maybe this climate thing will all go away.
I will cite an analogy with health. A physician friend tells me that the science is clear from multiple studies like this one among many others that a vegan diet will reduce my risk of death from heart disease. The data are clear. It is settled. But there is a price to pay to adopt a vegan diet. I have habits and inertia. Still, I am tempted to go vegan. I would answer a poll question "Yes" if it asked if I thought a vegan diet would lengthen my life.
Doctor: But, Peter, clogged arteries are an existential threat to you. You die from this!
Me: Yeah, well, let me think about it.
And I do think about it. I think maybe the data are wrong. There are other researchers with different data. Maybe my life expectancy is controlled by Mother Nature and my DNA, not my diet. I temporize. Maybe if I ate fish, but never red meat. But there is a ham in the freezer and it would be a shame to waste it.
The purpose of my post yesterday was to alert Democrats. I think they over-estimate the consensus on climate change. They think the battle of the science of carbon and CO2 is won. It isn't. If it were, voters would act like CO2 is an existential threat. They don't.
I have invited some of my critics to offer Guest Posts.
[Note: To get daily home delivery of this blog go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
15 comments:
The fact that voters are in denial of reality doesn’t make it any less real. That goes as much for climate change as it does for the 2020 election. Climate change and the national debt are albatrosses we’re hanging around our offspring’s necks. Failing to address these issues practically guarantees them a life of misery.
"How could you possibly give those climate-change skeptics a voice by describing their positions? They are simply wrong. The science is settled."
These are the same people who want to bankrupt Twitter now that Elon Musk owns it, and has allowed free speech on it again. These people are tyrants who oppose free speech. They are no different than the Communists controlling China.
The fact is that if someone's position is so strong, and it's beyond reproach, then that person should welcome opposing opinions (debate) because their opinion will ultimately prevail. The left is afraid of dissent, just like China is. It's because they are wrong.
Censorship seems to be a favorite tactic nowadays, since I've been censored by the Mail Tribune, all the local TV stations, and now KMED radio, who won't even sell me political advertising. When the opposition can't beat you on the issues, then they censor you instead. That's how the Medford good old boys operate. So do the Democrats.
And, for the record, "Climate Change" is not a "settled science". Settled by whom??? Perhaps only in the minds of those who have been bought-off, or are easily influenced.
Thank you, Peter, for the discussion.
Is there climate change? Yes, of course, for example there is much, much less fog in the valley than there was in the 80s. But the affirming or denying of climate change misdirects the discussion because it makes “climate change” into a type of dogma.
Is climate change mankind caused or a natural process? is a better question, but it is an either/or choice. The questioning, I believe, should be about where on the scale between the two are we.
This brings the discussion to where you are bringing it. How effective can mankind’s efforts in the present to affect climate be? And this becomes: How cost effective are mankind’s efforts? and this becomes: what are people willing to pay? Deciding this will not easy but it needs to be discussed at this level, not at the level of future doomsday projection.
I wonder if your paralleling resistance to a vegan diet with resistance to action on climate change is helpful. Longevity has a plethora of variables, a vegan diet being just one of them, and it's difficult to assess each impact. The U.S. responded very well to the very obvious health threat of smoking cigarettes. A large percentage of smokers quit, partly induced by public and private policies (e.g., high taxes on cigarettes, no smoking in public and workplaces). Many of us have reduced our cholesterol intake w/o going vegan. My guess is that you personally have done all these things. My point is this: that the vast majority of people do value their personal health, understand that lifestyle choices affect it, and make varying degrees of effort to protect it.
That isn't true of all too many Americans regarding climate change. The fossil fuel companies for years have spent millions to muddy the truth and buy politicians who peddle their lies. Further, until very recently the impact of climate change wasn't all that obvious. But climate change is indeed an existential threat to all living things on this planet, and emissions from fossil fuel consumption aren't just one among a very large number of causes to weigh and a choose to act upon.
Imperceptible change is difficult to see! The world as we know it has existed for a hundred years of less, depending on our age. Evidence of my world in Oregon is enhanced by photos my grandfather took in North Dakota and Oregon where his father farmed wheat and later built houses in and around Portland. The change is dramatic.
The acceleration of changing climate is affecting what we can plant as Burpee Seed Growing zones have continued to allow for warmer and some subtropical plants to thrive locally. The vineyards in the Willamette Valley may soon be too warm for Pinot Noir and Chardonnay grapes. Utility companies have noticed a load switch in Oregon to increased air conditioning load approaching levels seen in the southwest.
What I don't see is utility owners and larger corporation reducing their carbon footprint by investing their own funds. Instead I see the focus on the individual consumer. You can signup for their carbon-reducing programs like Blue Sky. They're asking YOU to foot the costs instead of understanding the climate projections and telling their shareholders dividends will be less as we invest in a sustainable future.
The problem I have with yesterday's post, and some of what is in today's post, as well as the most recent comment from someone who loves to cry "communist" is that framing an issue like climate change as a "debate" is bonkers to anyone who has been paying any attention to the science. The consensus among scientists who study such things is overwhelmingly in favor of the points that
A. Climate change is happening and
B. the REASON that the change is occurring so quickly right now is because of human contributions in the form of greenhouse gases that we have released through burning fossil fuels, industrial agriculture, deforestation and more.
A "debate" about whether or not gravity is real, whether or not the Earth is actually flat, whether or not microscopic bacteria and viruses cause us to get sick are just a few other examples of "debates" that have a similar level of merit.
There is debate occurring amongst those who study climate change, but it revolves around things like how fast will the Antarctic ice sheets collapse, and will such an event bring about meters of sea level rise in a matter of decades, or centuries. Those are the sorts of debates that are occurring.
If you had taken a poll in the 1600's asking if the Sun revolved around the Earth, I imagine the answers would have been overwhelmingly in favor of that proposition.
A great analogy for the current "debate" regarding climate change is the remarkably similar "debate" that occurred years ago regarding the health impacts of smoking cigarettes. On one side were the scientists studying the health effects of smoking, while on the other were the cigarette companies who made incredible amounts of money by keeping people addicted to smoking. As well all know (or at least many of us I'd assume) the cigarette companies funded "scientists" who claimed to have found holes in the research linking cigarettes to cancer, and otherwise attempt to, at least in the public domain, introduce an element of doubt about what was happening (cigarettes directly leading to lung cancer), was happening. Similarly, oil companies have known since at least the 1980's (!!!!) that their fossil fuel use would lead to increasing climate change and like their tobacco company brethren, decided to put profit before people and fund/organize a campaign of denying, or at least causing uncertainty in the public view of what the science was clearly showing for decades. It's honestly one of the craziest conspiracies that turned out to be true that has ever happened.
All that to say, while I have some appreciation of Peter's point about this blog trying to be a warning for Democrats, and to make people think about what the other side is thinking, some issues don't warrant that level of both sides deserve equal time. It's giving voice and a platform to ideas whose proponents are currently leading us on a direct path to our extinction. Climate change IS the existential threat we face, and choosing to not treat it as such seems absolutely crazy to me.
The climate crisis is scary and it's understandable that one reaction to it would be denial, particularly when opportunistic politicians, or just stupid ones, get points for reassuring frightened citizens, promoting simplistic explanations and demonizing legitimate science.
Climate study is a worldwide enterprise, perhaps the most studied phenomenon in our civilization after the Kardashians. The data collected shows trends that suggest major changes that will have effects like sea level rise, etc., but more importantly it suggests there are changes coming we can't foresee. While the causes are of interest they are not as important as the question of how humans will adapt.
It's happening. How bad will it get, and how bad will it have to be for humans to put aside their petty squabbles and come together and address it.
Apparently a lot worse.
What I don't see in the Climate Change is the impact that we as consumers have on it. Time for a pseudo political discussion; Green House Gases (specifically CO2). Had a seminar at the city (for a commission I am on) about GHG and where do they come from. For me the presentation was eye opening. 76.5%. 76.5% is what we control of total GHG emissions. 76.5% of GHG is residential contribution. Goods 22%. Driving 17%, Food 15%. Home Energy 13%. Upstream energy 4.5%. Air travel 4%. Waste 1%. I asked the question if that we removed all cars we can only lower GHG by 17%? Yep was the answer. I thought the number would be much greater. Also, the goods and foods was interesting, just something we all forget sometimes. Walk to the farmers market versus ordering via Prime delivery. All of your foods should come from within 100 miles radius of where you live. Prime is also part of the problem; not Amazon specifically but us as consumers. We want it our way and we want it now. Click and it is here tomorrow. I know this much, it is changing how I shop; that is 37% of GHG that are within my control. Get rid of the car and we can get to 54% reduction. We can't eliminate it all, but we can be good corporate citizens and take care of our planet; 1% at a time.
China and India adding new coal plants every single month is not an "argument", it's fact. (If the bad argument is, "Therefore, we need do nothing", agreed, that is childish).
So-called consensus public-policy science is nowhere near an historical peak in credibility and performance since COVID-2. Similar problematic dynamics potentially apply here.
As a subject-area layperson, I can only observe what people in the know do and recommend. The degree of the problem is question one, then the efficacy of proposed amelioration.
The analogy I prefer is an asteroid now on catastrophic collision course with Earth in e.g. fifty years. Efforts to blow part of it up would couple with other drastic measures.
Back to China and India--tech-advanced nations (at the top), but in no way acting as if their very progeny are in peril. Western accords laughably exempt them as "developing".
We already know that Xi is willing and able to apply martial law-style measures if he sees fit. Are Biden and Macron truly convinced, yet still prioritize the next election?
Meanwhile, the vast bulk of what's proposed by our leaders amounts to little more than a massive redistribution of wealth and resources away from the U.S. and Western Europe.
Bottom line, for me anyway: insufficient data.
For all of the incessant warnings we hear about how “catastrophic“ climate change is going to be, we do not see action that would seriously affect greenhouse gas emissions or seriously reduce their levels in the atmosphere.
Where is the push to massively upscale nuclear power generation? Where is the push to seriously research and experiment with ocean fertilization? Where is the push to seriously research and experiment with injecting particles into the stratosphere to increase the reflectivity of the planet and thereby reduce warming? Where is the push for something that would actually work?
Instead, what we have is ineffective virtue signaling. Driving a Prius isn’t going to stop climate change; neither will getting rid of your car altogether. China is building a new coal fired power plant every week; it will take a whole lot of Priuses to compensate for that.
If it’s serious, act like it. Flying 1,000 private jets into Egypt for a conference of the high and mighty global elites doesn’t cut it.
Carl Sagan 1985
In front of congress. He knew his speech was hopeless. https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI
Silent Spring Rachael …people did listen. Children made bulletin boards. People waved signs. We Recycled. And then China said no more junk. No money in this deal. Landfill it. Big Yawn. Drill and frack. Eat the earth and all living things. Zombies toil. And the children eat their doughnuts.
The question isn’t whether climate change is real or even whether it’s caused by man. The question is how to address the issue ASAP. Voter ignorance is one of the biggest obstacles to be overcome. It’s been fostered for years by a barrage of disinformation spewed by special interest groups funded by fossil fuel companies. As Rafe pointed out above, it’s like the smoking campaign by tobacco companies, but on an even more massive scale and with more disastrous consequences. Their bullshit needs to be countered and the public educated about the growing consequences of climate change if we ever hope to get it under control.
Going to throw a different take on this, but first something important to note about CO2. We don't actually know what CO2 levels were historically on this planet. Don't believe me? Start brushing up on your ice cores, reading about clathrates, etc. You are going to hit a wall fast, because two different data sets that don't agree with each other are used to make the famous hockey stick model.
Much of the ice core data comes from two locations, the Taylor Dome and the Law Dome. One of these datasets is accepted by modern science showing that CO2 has been increasing since the start of the industrial revolution. The other dataset shows we are about stable with 800,000 year history cycles. Try as you may you will not find anyone who can explain this discrepancy or even why two different datasets are mis-interpreted.
Not to mention the guy who calibrates all these CO2 detectors does his work by hand on a paid for boat ride in the San Francisco bay, breaking a ton of science rules. He's somehow magically getting perfectly consistent data with Mauna Loa even though we know that fluid mechanics don't allow such consistency even in water vapor. In other words, he gets paid loads of money to be a yes man.
Forget all that, though, here is the other take I fore-promised.
Everyone reading this is only a few short meals away from tribalism, cannibalism, and utter collapse of everything you know and hold dear. Those that survive will be looked down upon by the very descendants they are gleefully willing to give up everything for. If we are truly on the verge of collapse, we are creating a country that is guaranteed to fail in a future where sheer industrial dominance rules. That is we might as well all just die and let China and India take over, because they'll be dead soon anyway right?
If we are not on the verge of collapse, then please admit that America is already on the right path. We are exceeding all climate goals already. There is no need to "do more" because we already have a culture that is doing just that.
We should continue to research and improve for sustainability reasons, of course, but this whole taxing CO2 business is a scam. New Zealand declares trees invasive for crying out loud because of grazing land, while wanting to decrease grazing animals. It's a scam. There was a recent article that literally suggested planting more trees! Sherlock Holmes has apparently joined the discussion.
Now, lets all fight about it so politicians can filter votes.
Regarding CO2 levels in ice core samples, the evidence from NOAA couldn't be clearer:
"The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year."
https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
It's the posting of harmful lies that keep me from social media.
Peter has done the same by encouraging conspiracy fantasies.
Post a Comment