Herbert Rothschild takes me to task for some of my posts. He is correct.
I do see a contradiction between good electoral politics and the Green Agenda. And it is a fair point that my caution about not outrunning public opinion can look indistinguishable from paralysis in the face of an emergency. And he is right that my blog posts have accepted the inevitability of current use of fossil fuels.
People use fossil fuels because they are relatively cheap and available. Since climate change is an existential crisis, we need policies that will work in the USA and in developing countries. The solutions are technological. America needs Manhattan Project-scale developments of alternatives to fossil fuels. Make alternatives cheap and available and people will use them, and not before. It will be controversial and expensive, but I think that this is where Democrats should focus their attention. It is a practical message, congruent with human nature. Humans like things that are cheap and convenient.
Guest Post by Herbert Rothschild.
Reading Up Close over time, I’ve gotten the impression--perhaps wrongly, but the blog stresses the importance of perceptions--that Peter faults Democrats (by whom he really means progressive Democrats, his bete noir) for pushing a Green agenda. The most recent instance was on November 10, when he wrote, “Deep down, voters know . . . Democrats hate fossil fuels, even though they depend on them.” On display here are two of his consistent criticisms: stressing the importance of transitioning from fossil fuels is bad electoral strategy, and such advocacy is hypocritical.
Rothschild
Let’s begin with the second criticism--hypocrisy. Peter grossly abuses the concept. Yes, we all have a carbon footprint. Were that a disqualification for working to slow climate change, all of us would be disqualified. Simply to breathe is to expel CO 2 . The crucial point is whether we are actively trying to shrink our carbon footprints both by individual action and through public policy. For five months of the year the solar panels we installed at home put more electricity into the grid than we take out of it. That for seven months the numbers on the two meters are reversed surely cannot render the solar panels irrelevant or me a hypocrite. I’m working at the problem in the ways I can, including by this guest post.
Which brings me to the larger issue--acknowledgement that global warming is a dire reality in the present and poses an even direr threat in the coming years. To ignore or deny our condition is to paralyze us just when we need to be most active. Were Democrats to become the dominant party for years to come by abandoning a Green agenda would benefit the country inconsequentially.
What the movement to stop the U.S.-Soviet arms race accomplished in the 1980s was to persuade almost everyone in the world that a nuclear war must never be fought. So pervasive was that acknowledgement that it completely reversed Ronald Reagan’s stance. It was he and his Republican successor, George H.W. Bush, who accomplished what Democrats, all too many of whom were hesitant to push such an agenda, had never achieved. The human race may still be destroyed by nuclear weapons, but it won’t be because leaders intended to start a nuclear war.
So it must be with the existential threat of climate change. We must convince almost everyone that we cannot continue on our present course. As the costs in human suffering and national treasure escalate, even Republicans will finally get it. To convey by one’s writing that it’s a mistake for candidates to advocate for ending our reliance on fossil fuels as quickly as possible is irresponsibly myopic. We don’t let near-sighted people drive their cars without corrective glasses.
--- --- ---
Herbert Rothschild was an eyewitness to social change, and a participant in it.
 |
| Newswire Review |
[Note: To get daily home delivery of this blog go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
13 comments:
Al Gore was ridiculed unmercifully when he came out with “An Inconvenient Truth,” mainly by politicians and media heavily financed by the fossil fuel industry. It reminds me of when I visited a friend at a nursing home. There was a fellow in a wheelchair outside smoking. My friend didn’t want to get too close because the smoker didn’t always remember to turn off his oxygen. She said he was dying of COPD, caused by smoking obviously, but he continued to do it.
As a nation, our addiction to fossil fuels is similar. We make excuses, ignore the facts and are already suffering the consequences which we also ignore. Not everyone, of course. Climate change denial, like election denial and pandemic denial, seems to mainly be a Republican characteristic. Their rejection or reality is literally killing us.
"...even Republicans will finally get it."
I would point out that denial is a feature, not a bug, of the Republican party and in general the GOP electorate. Consider the recent mid-term campaigns. Climate wasn't even remotely on the agenda, we were too consumed with election denial.
The fundamental problem we face is the failure of the concept of a two party system, the primary reason for this being money. Perhaps it is an inevitable result of prosperity and the grotesque inequities between rich and poor, which includes those of spirit.
Can it be salvaged? Not by Progressive optimism alone. The last election mitigated the threat to the Republic posed by election denial, which is nothing compared to the threat to humanity posed by Republican climate denial. Every rooftop panel is negated by those who guzzle energy without concern for anything but their own convenience.
This is reality, and simply points to the inertia we face. Democrats have an opening but it will require fighting a multi-front battle that includes climate, inequality, and burgeoning fascism.
Let's start by standing down the biggest users of energy worldwide...the military.
To quote the deceased Economist, Herman E. Daly:
“There is something fundamentally wrong in treating the Earth as if it were a business in liquidation.”
Setting aside for the moment the spotty predictive record of environmental prophets since Paul Ehrlich, the main objection to Big Green as I understand it is not the existence of a problem but the provenance and efficacy of proposed ameliorative measures.
On that note, I did hear a scientist on NPR last weekend declare that no meaningful diminution in reliance upon fossil fuels is possible without renewed investment in nuclear energy. It's not the days of "The China Syndrome" and Three Mile Island in America any more.
We Democrats are right about fossil fuels and their attendant environmental problems, global warming, the environment, saving lives from Covid, health care, equal treatment of minorities, abortion, gun safety and other issues. I am going to vote for people who support these positions and try to convince others of the rightness of them.
People supported 40 hour weeks and prohibiting child labor long before these positions became law. We have to advocate the right policies and vote for the right candidates even if we are perceived to be elitists. Medicare was originally a Democratic policy, but today, it's everybody's.
Everything needs to be on the table right now, including Nuclear power, because the situation is so dire. Climate change is the single most important threat humanity faces and our lack of a concerted effort to take significant mitigation efforts is unthinkably idiotic and shortsighted, it's literally the equivalent of if the dinosaurs had advance warning of the asteroid coming, had the technology to do something about it, and chose not to.
Unchecked climate change, the path we are currently on, will lead to the near certain extinction of not only us, but basically all other life on Earth as well. If there are any people alive 100 years from now to look back, they will view our actions with a similar scorn as we view Neville Chamberlain today.
Please support green. Please support politicians who prioritize climate change. The future of our species literally depends on us doing something drastic NOW.
Two things:
The climate crisis is more about scale than human nature. If there were not so darn many of us, there would not be a climate crisis. To come up with solutions that scale well is immensely difficult. It may be that we will need to poison or burn or drown significant numbers of us to get the climate to get more benevolent.
All of us western culture and civilization are very comfortable in our velvet ruts. The good life is not very tolerant of perceived long term existential threats. I got mine, you make do with what you got and the future will have to take care of itself. Why should I reduce my comfort or convenience for the sake of some threat which is obscure and slow to manifest?
I am struck by the contradiction between these two comments (by different authors) today:
Let's start by standing down the biggest users of energy worldwide...the military.
and,
If there are any people alive 100 years from now to look back, they will view our actions with a similar scorn as we view Neville Chamberlain today.
The problem that Neville Chamberlain faced was only solved through military power. The problems posed by CO2 emissions will only be solved by an equivalently powerful force: nuclear power, perhaps, but definitely not unreliable technologies like wind and solar.
If climate change is such a dire problem, we need quick and effective solutions. Personal actions like solar cells on your roof or purchase of a Prius are not going to materially affect the situation.
I have advocated ocean fertilization with iron since the 1990s, because it could be a relatively cheap and easy way to pull mass quantities of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Environmentalists have a blocked experimentation with this technique because they are afraid of unanticipated side effects. This strikes me as objecting to the possibility of water damage when your house is on fire and the fire department shows up.
Either it’s an emergency, or it isn’t. Either act like it’s an emergency, or stop the incessant catastrophizing and scolding from the likes of Greta Thunberg. International climate conferences where the global elites arrive on CO2-spewing private jets are not a good look.
If it’s such a serious problem, get serious. Maybe more people will be convinced if you act like you mean it.
I'm not sure there's a particularly large contradiction between my own comment and Rick's. The US military is a massive contributor to greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change and I think that's what Rick is getting at. In terms of my remark about Neville Chamberlain, it was in regard to the massive scale of the problem he faced (aka Hitler/rise of fascism) and his woefully inadequate response to said problem, which I find very similar to our lack of serious response to climate change.
As I said earlier, I think Nuclear power SHOULD be on the table and being brought online. It's true that currently solar and wind aren't scalable at the level we need to end reliance on fossil fuels, so using nuclear as a bridge until we can actually switch to some truly sustainable energy should and needs to be happening. I have written and advocated as such to my representatives in congress.
In terms of ocean fertilization with iron, I agree that more experimentation and soon would be a great idea, and from my understanding is being currently undertaken, but it's something I would be very cautious about viewing as a silver bullet solution until the unanticipated side effects can be better gauged. It's a similar problem with any idea that involves geoengineering our way out of the climate crisis. Very risky to start messing with Earth systems at scale when you don't know the consequences. And obviously nuclear is incredibly risky too, but is something with known risks and if attempts are made to put in proper safeguards can be very safe.
It’s too late for any discussion. The climate has changed and there is no reversal . Adaptation. Running north. The migration will overwhelm any good intentions, inertia reigns. The third world is running to more desert. Those with money will build their gated solar roofed joke. Their army will shoot. They will be shooting blanks. Join hands and hold each other and watch us evaporate. The tipping point is here. The youth, like Greta, know a “phony” like Holden used to say. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Climate Change is a scam. Yes....you just heard me say it! The climate has been changing for millions of years on it's own, without any human intervention. If every person in America died tomorrow, then there would be negligible change in the climate. Humans don't impact the climate.
While we are destroying our economy to satisfy the demands of communists who want to destroy capitalism, China and India are building brand new coal plants by the dozens. America is not the polluters, yet communists want us to pay the price as if we are.
Climate Change is a scam intended to destroy capitalism, it's a vehicle intended to do "wealth transfer", and to give Democrats more power over every facet of your life. It's all about more power and control, and by hypocrites who live in Ashland in 3,000 square foot million-dollar houses (like Jeff Golden).
Ocean iron fertilization is, in fact, being studied:
https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/special-series/ocean-iron-fertilization/
At this point, there’s no evidence it would result in significant enough CO2 sequestration to mitigate climate change.
What we do know is that reducing our output of greenhouse gases will make a significant difference. Renewable energy alternatives are already available, and there’s no question they can replace fossil fuels if we develop them with the same enthusiasm. Here’s a little factoid from ucdavis.edu: the amount of solar energy hitting the earth in one hour is more than enough to power the world for one year.
Post a Comment