Month 12, Day 29: I Came For The Waters. I Was Misinformed.

The Orange County Register fumes about the EPA’s intention to step up its regulatory regime. It’z FASHIZM, I TELZ YA, FASHIZM!

They bring in a Pollution lobbyist, a former Bush apparatchik, to spew forth his particular brand of noxious nonsense:

“If the regulations actually force companies to make meaningful emission reductions, they will drive up energy costs and be very expensive,” observed Jeffrey R. Holmstead, who headed the EPA’s air and radiation office under President George W. Bush and now represents utilities and other greenhouse emitters that would be affected.

So I thought I’d unpack that quote a bit.

Jeffrey Holmstead’s statement that forced emissions reductions will increase the cost of energy is misleading, and his clients (greenhouse gas emitters) pay him well for his obfuscation. Let’s examine his words closely. First, it is only in a short-term sense that fossil fuels are cheap; if we factor in the costs of cleanup, health effects, and the costly wars we wage to protect our sources, it’s clear that oil and coal were never inexpensive to begin with. Second, energy companies have never been particularly reluctant to pass along higher prices to the consumer; they’re worried about their profits, not our savings. Third, the costs of failure on climate change will dwarf the costs of action. The EPA’s regulatory initiatives are essential elements of a robust and meaningful climate policy, which could save us trillions over the next century. When floodwaters are rising, only fools complain about the price of sandbags.

Warren Senders

26 Dec 2010, 12:13am
environment:
by

leave a comment

  • Meta

  • SiteMeter

  • Brighter Planet

    Brighter Planet's 350 Challenge
  • Month 12, Day 26: Boxing Day Special Edition

    The Guardian (UK) sounds a call to action:

    On an observatory 11,000 feet high on Mauna Loa, a volcano in Hawaii, a pair of ageing, automated detectors have been churning out details about the make-up of our atmosphere for several decades. This month, they produced their most alarming result to date. They showed that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have touched 390 parts per million – a 40% increase on pre-industrial levels.

    The timing was striking. Just as negotiators were reaching their compromise deal on global warming in Cancún two weeks ago, the Mauna Loa machines showed the problem of greenhouse gas emissions – left largely unresolved in Mexico – have reached an unprecedented level. Humans have procrastinated while the composition of the air around us has changed remorselessly.

    It is a point stressed by Pieter Tans, who heads the US government’s carbon monitoring programme. “I find it shocking,” he said after Republican politicians claimed carbon dioxide posed no threat to Earth. “We really are in a predicament here and it’s getting worse every year.”

    The comments at the bottom of this article prompted this letter.

    Unable to refute the facts, global-warming deniers resort to conspiracy theories of ever-greater intricacy in their efforts to explain away a worldwide consensus of experts. Some paranoid constructions insist that climatologists seek to profit on so-called “green technologies”; others claim that attempts to mitigate global warming’s effects herald an attempt to impose a One-World Socialist Regime. Religious framings often assert the inevitability of the Biblical Armageddon simultaneously with the notion that “God won’t let climate change happen.” Finally there is the claim that humanity will be fine when atmospheric CO2 levels reach 600 or so, since they were much higher at earlier points in Earth’s history. Only this last theory, which suggests scientific misunderstanding rather than willful obduracy, is worthy of response. While CO2 was indeed much higher in the Mesozoic Era than it is today, this accumulation took millions and millions of years, allowing life an opportunity to adapt. Anthropogenic global warming will accomplish the same transformation in a century or so. Abrupt changes can be catastrophic. Just ask anyone whose car has hit a wall.

    Warren Senders

    The Very Definition of Conservative Veriphobia

    My letter to the Jakarta Times got picked up by a Colorado Conservablogger.

    This is a good one, friends. It’s headlined:

    “The Very Definition of America-Hating Liberal Guilt”

    Then he cites my letter published in the Jakarta Times a few days ago.

    To refresh your memory, I wrote:

    As a US citizen, I must accept responsibility for my own nation’s abject failure to take responsibility for its actions.

    As the world’s largest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases and as the enabler of a consumerist lifestyle which, if left unchecked, is absolutely certain to submerge the planet in giga tons of toxic trash, the United States has been the driving force behind the climate crisis.

    Unfortunately, my country’s responsibilities are unlikely to be met any time soon, for we are in the grip of a political crisis brought about by a national exaltation of demagoguery and ignorance.

    Thus our governing bodies are riddled with arrogant men and women who dismiss scientific expertise as irrelevant, preferring the comforts of ancient superstition.

    Global warming’s realities are terrifying. But as citizens of ocean states can attest, ignoring those facts will surely lead to outcomes beside which our nightmares will pale into insignificance.

    Warren Senders
    Medford, Massachusetts

    And here’s Colorado Right’s response, with my interpolations:

    So we start off with a line that could be lifted from just about any Barack Oprompter speech outside the US apologizing for their country.

    Whereas Conservatives know that taking responsibility, either for your own actions or those of your country, is totally wimpy and self-hating! America doesn’t have to take responsibility for what it does, because WE’Z NUMBAR WUN!

    Indeed. We’re Number One in the production of trash, for one thing, which is another way of saying America is tops in the world at subtracting value from things (that’s what trash is, right? Stuff from which value has been removed.).

    Anyway, USA ROOLZ, just because we can.

    Next:

    Breast beating about how we use lots of energy since we manufacture and consume so much that our economy is still 20% of global world output. In other words – we generate more economic activity and energy in 2 days than the entire country of Indonesia does in a year. Yeah, that’s something to be really sorry about.

    And how much of that manufacturing and consumption is for stuff that, y’know, actually adds value to the world? Just because you pay money for the gas you burn while your Hummer idles outside the coffeeshop doesn’t make it an actual contribution of anything except greenhouse gases.

    And the point I was making is of course that if we’re the ones generating all the pollution, we should be the ones taking responsibility for cleaning it up. And, furthermore, if a country like Indonesia, with a carbon footprint that’s less than a rounding error, finds its actual existence imperiled because of rising sea levels (triggered by climate change brought about by greenhouse emissions), then we have a moral responsibility to address the problem, rather than just shouting “USA ROOLZ!!”

    Which loops me back to the issue of responsibility, addressed above.


    Islamic foreigners think the US is Satan anyway – so knocking your own country as “a national exaltation of demagoguery and ignorance” and “riddled with arrogant men and women who dismiss scientific expertise as irrelevant” will make them feel so good about you. Of course you little knock about ancient superstition – does that include say Islamic beliefs about having 4 wives and marrying off your 9 year old girls?

    When faced with irrefutable facts, what do you do?

    YIKES SKAREEE MOOOOOOSLIMS!!!!! ZOMG!!!! OH NOEZ!!!!

    Mind you, I hold all the Abrahamic sects in more or less equal regard.

    Here’s a conditional for you: If America’s founders had been Islamic schismatics in search of a new place to carry on their particular version of their particular version of the tribal creed, and their descendants had written a secular Constitution with a First Amendment just like our own back in the late 1700’s…and modern America was filled with fundamentalist Islamic historical revisionists who were trying to argue that “America has always been a fundamentally Judeo-Mohammedan nation”…and they were denying climate science in the bargain — why, I’d have written exactly the same letter.

    And here’s the one sure thing Warren – when Islam takes over America you will be one of the first ones up against the wall. Regardless of how much you grovel from your centrally heated and air conditioned, 24 hour per day electrically provisioned, suburban house that any Indonesian would chew off their arm to live in.

    When Islam takes over America? What on Earth are you smoking?

    I swear, Conservative Islamophobes are the biggest bunch of bedwetters I’ve ever seen.

    On the other hand, when Muslim-majority countries like Indonesia and Bangladesh are submerged or rendered uninhabitable by rising ocean levels, there will be millions of climate refugees, all extremely pissed off at the industrialized West for very good reason. Where will they go? YIKES OMG!!!

    Therefore, the best way to avoid an Islamic takeover of America is to fight global warming. Q.E.D.

    The ball’s in your court, Spiro.

    This article has been crossposted under my Username at Daily Kos.

    Month 4, Day 4: I’d Loooove to See George Will Under Oath!

    I thought I’d ask Ed Markey to hold some more hearings on all the industry-funded denialists we keep seeing on the boob tube and in print. I’d love to see George Will get quizzed, wouldn’t you?

    And this piece at DK is the other part of the puzzle. Who’s giving the denialists all their funding? Koch Industries, that’s who.

    Dear Representative Markey — Thank you for all you have done so far on the crucial issue of global climate change. The Waxman-Markey legislation is an excellent start on a realistic approach to this greatest of all threats.

    Unfortunately, the Republican opposition and their enablers in the print and broadcast media are continually disseminating misinformation that serves to confuse the public and to render the debate unintelligible to the average person. This is tragic; since the effects of climate change don’t differentiate between Republicans and Democrats, the denialists are simply making their own futures more uncertain and terrifying.

    Now that the so-called “Climategate” or “Climatehack” scandal has been conclusively debunked by the British House of Lords, can we ask you and Rep. Waxman to hold further public hearings on the industry connections of prominent climate change deniers? These people are mendacious in the extreme, and they’re doing it in large part because they’re paid well, often by Koch Industries, as Greenpeace’s recent report makes stunningly clear. Theirs is a malign combination of cupidity and stupidity that has done incalculable damage already (George Will comes immediately to my mind. How about you?)

    It is up to the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate to expose these frauds and corporate shills for what they are. Without clearing the air of their misleading statements and deliberate obfuscations, genuinely robust climate legislation will be terribly weakened. And there is no time to waste.

    Yours Sincerely,

    Warren Senders

    Month 3, Day 1: Getting Al’s Back

    Al Gore wrote an excellent piece in the Times this weekend. A Kos diary about it triggered an invasion of asinine denialist trolls, wasting bandwith with their bleating. I’m sure the Times got its fair share of letters from people who think James Inhofe is a scientist and James Hansen is an ignoramus…so I thought I’d weigh in.

    It’s always an interesting challenge to get these things as close as possible to the 150-word NYT limit. Today, I managed it exactly.

    Al Gore’s thoughtful advocacy for meaningful action on climate change will no doubt bring the climate-change “skeptics” out of the woodwork once again: these conservative denialists would rather watch the country fail and the planet burn than admit the former VP is right. It is absurd to imagine that our politicians and our media will learn enough science to do the right thing rather than the politically expedient one. Our inability to address the climate crisis is both an intellectual and a moral failure. In the 1950’s, Sputnik threatened our national pride — and America responded with an intensified focus on science education, building a space program that accomplished wonders. Fifty years later, the threat we face is not to our pride, but to our planet — and we respond by ridiculing those who sound the warning. Mr. Gore deserves the thanks of future generations, not James Inhofe’s uninformed mockery.

    Warren Senders

    Published.

    Month 2, Day 13: Invite the Republicans to Talk in Public About Their Climate Stupidity.

    It’s Saturday. Time for another email/fax/letter to the President.

    It’s late. I’m tired. This letter is kind of a mishmash. I like the “swollen belly of a starving child” analogy so much I’m using it for the third day in a row.

    Dear President Obama,

    It is crucial for our country that you continue highlighting the obstructionist tactics of the G.O.P. minority. Your upcoming bipartisan conference on health care will do a great deal to make it clear to the American people where their real allies are. We need more such events, each focusing on different critical issues for our country.

    It is absolutely crucial that our nation’s citizens learn the truth: failure to pass meaningful climate legislation will lead to a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. Right now support for robust regulation of Greenhouse Gases is low; there are not enough Americans who are convinced of the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Recent events like Washington’s amazing blizzard have inflamed climate denialists, who are trumpeting the ludicrous notion that a snowfall somehow disproves global climate change. This is analogous to claiming that the swollen belly of a starving child disproves the existence of world hunger!

    Please, Mr. President. Do a public bipartisan conference on climate issues. Bring expert climatologists to speak about the likely consequences of continuing our present level of Greenhouse emissions. Bring people from the Department of Defense to speak about the sociopolitical scenarios they envision as a result of catastrophic climate change. Bring people from the insurance industry to describe how they are refusing to insure properties in areas likely to be affected by rising sea levels. Bring economists to testify about the cost of action versus the cost of doing nothing. The American public is watching you more intently than any president has been watched in a long time; if you do something like this it will have a huge effect.

    It is absolutely vital that we fight back against the climate-denial lobby and those members of our government who are in their thrall. This issue is too important. Waiting for the Rapture may be Senator Inhofe’s preferred environmental policy. For good and obvious reasons, it cannot be the policy of a rational Administration.

    Your recent approach to dealing with the Republicans has been galvanizing. Please keep it up. Please intensify it. And please apply your keen focus to transforming our national understanding of the climate crisis. If ever there was an issue that calls for the Fierce Urgency of Now, this one is it.

    Yours Sincerely,

    Warren Senders

    Month 2, Day 10: All the Specious Equivalence That’s Fit To Print

    Thank goodness for Daily Kos. Today I saw two useful posts which provided me with the recipient of this letter (the New York Times) and a framing device which surfaces briefly in my 145 words.

    The first, cleverly titled “NYT Soils Itself, AGAIN!” described an article about conflict of interest accusations against Dr. Rajendra Pachauri of the IPCC, and rebuked the Times for its “balanced” approach to the subject, which presents unsubstantiated allegations from AGW skeptics as somehow forming a valid counter-argument to the intensively documented and cross-checked work of the IPCC’s scientists.

    The second was an article by David Brin (who’s a wonderful science-fiction novelist when he’s not writing at Dkos) noting that the climate-change denial business is a manifestation of the pervasive anti-intellectualism that saturates American culture. I strongly encourage you to read “The Real Struggle Behind Climate Change — A War on Expertise.” It rings very, very true.

    So that’s the backstory for today’s letter. Off it goes to the Paper of Record, almost certainly to be filed and forgotten. Does that deter me? Not yet.

    The climate-denial sector criticizes Dr. Rajendra Pachauri for supposed conflicts of interest, and generalizes to suggest that the conclusions of the I.P.C.C. are somehow compromised. These aspersions are a troubling confluence of two influences: entrenched corporate resistance to any change in business practices, and anti-intellectualism masquerading as common sense. Thousands of qualified climatologists are firmly convinced of anthropogenic global warming, yet professional denialists suggest they’re lying about it for the most venal of reasons — to increase their chances of grant funding! The evidence suggests otherwise: that Christopher Monckton and his ilk are the ones doing the lying — and receiving fat paychecks for doing so. The Times needs to report aggressively on the funding and control of the climate-denial industry, rather than adhere to a specious policy of false equivalence in which scientific facts are “balanced” by unsupported assertions from corporate shills.

    Warren Senders