The last presidential debate not only continued the silence on climate change, it also advanced the false narrative that we have to choose between economic growth and action on climate change. While the candidates focused on how to keep gas prices down, increase energy independence, and create jobs, they never addressed how we can use our energy plan to fight climate change. By refusing to address climate consequences, both candidates reinforce the idea that we either focus on economic growth or we focus on the environment, but not both. In fact, the truth is the two are inextricable intertwined and we cannot address one without addressing the other.
The only time the debate came close to touching on climate change was a discussion on energy policy. Yet, instead of discussing how we need a new energy future to stave off the worst impacts of climate change, both candidates touted their love of fossil fuels and their plans to expand, not contract, their use. When asked why she didn't address climate change, the moderator said:
"I had that question for all of you climate change people. ... We just, you know, again, we knew that the economy was still the main thing so you knew you kind of wanted to go with the economy."
I assume by "all of you climate change people," Candy Crowley meant humans. But beyond that, ignoring climate change is not only bad for the environment; it is bad for our economy. There is literally no aspect of our economy that won't be affected by climate change. For example, climate change increases the likelihood of extreme weather events, like the drought that plagued significant parts of the country this past summer. In turn, extreme drought has a heavy economic cost for farmers, ranchers, and consumers as crop yields drop and prices for food and feed increase. A recent study found that climate change will cost billions of dollars in losses to agriculture sector by 2050.
Extreme heat and drought also caused the Mississippi River levels to drop, which increased the cost of transporting goods up and down the river. A series of reports released by Dēmos earlier this year show the high economic costs states will bear as a result of climate change, ranging from increased health care costs to decreased tourist revenue to water supply shortages. Sea level rise will disrupt our energy infrastructure by flooding roads in low-lying states, like Louisiana, further increasing energy costs.
Yet, discussion of these challenges were nowhere to be found in the debates. If anything, both candidates doubled down on policies that would advance climate change. Mitt Romney and President Obama reiterated their support for coal, oil, and natural gas and each promised to increase drilling. While President Obama did mention support for energy sources of the future, like wind, solar, and biofuels, his support for them was based on energy independence, not because they help transition us to a sustainable low-carbon economy.
As long as energy independence remains the primary goal, we will never reach our full energy potential, let alone fight climate change. The fossil fuel interests are too entrenched in our political system and will fight tooth and nail to ensure that we remain dependent upon them, instead of investing in our energy future. However, if we shift our priorities so that averting climate change is our primary goal, then we can have a real energy and economic future.
With fighting climate change as our primary goal, we can begin implementing policies that make us stronger environmentally and economically. Refocusing our investments into renewable energy creates far more jobs per dollar invested than fossil fuels. Shifting the cost burden from the public to polluters brings in more revenue and deters polluting behavior. Encouraging less overall consumption saves money, saves natural resources, and is better for our health. Not only are these steps good for our economy, they help fight climate change. These are the policies we should be enacting, not doubling down on a dead end energy strategy.
The climate silence is not only bad for the planet, it's bad for our economy.
Follow J. Mijin Cha on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@jmijincha
Kelly Rigg: Climate Change: Will Presidential Candidates Pass the 'Invisible Brick Wall' Test?
Tom Zeller Jr.: Global Warming At The Presidential Foreign Policy Debate: The Elephant In The Room
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
The problem will not be solved with current technology short of a population die off to one or two billion people.
So perhaps we should consider future but near term technology. One that has come out of left field is laser propulsion. Because it provides much higher exhaust velocities than are possible with chemical fuels, the payload fraction is as high as 25% for single stage to orbit vehicle.
With such technology and a transport rate of 500,000 tons per year, we could build 100 GW of new space based solar power and sell power in the 1-2 cents per kWh, seriously undercutting fossil fuel on price with a source that could grow to encompass all the energy humans use now within 20 years of starting.
Perhaps people will be talking about this by the next Presidential election.
If you really want to know more, ask. hkhenson@gmail.com
what happens to all the poisonous gases released by mining
it would move out of the tunnels because the hot air would push it out and into the atmosphere
thats not good better suspend mining till investigated
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
The object of science is like the object of your eyes, nose, tongue, and all the other sensory organs few Americans deserve to use. You measure reality directly with your senses. Every idea you have any faith in came from something you saw, heard, smelled, or felt. Science does this exact same thing for the entire human race, but in a much more trustworthy way for you than your senses. Its objective is to measure everything in the measurable universe, and use the measurements to imagine rules that can predict measurements correctly.
But yes, you can continue to ignore the reality we have measured just fine, as long as you ignore the measurements, you would never even know climate change was happening, or that we live in a galaxy, or the planet is billions of years old, or that our universe is only a few times older, or that fertilizers on midwest farm sometimes drain into the mississippi, etc. ad nauseum. But the fact is there are natural concequences to being ignorant, and the next century will simply prove my point. Maybe one day there won't be ignorant people, but hey, then we would all be part-time scientists.
DONT BELIEVE THEY ARE SPRAYING? TAKE A LOOK AT THIS:
This incredible capture taken from the garden of Werner ALTNICKEL who is working tirelessly coming up with amazing evidence and verifiable facts.
My friends the evidence is flowing, gather it all up and become familiar and fluent with all this knowledge the establishment’s are hell bent on suppressing… originally published on Sep 28, 2012 by SaubererHimmel
Not only does this video conclusively show that they are spraying, it also makes clear that many of the shorter trails, that seem to dissipate , are in fact also sprayed aerosols.
We have some solutions. Clean coal is one. Turning trash into clean fuels is another.
So put up or shut up !!! Stop asking the taxpayers to fund your ideas; raise the money and do it !!!
Bill Fortune Industrial consultants inc, Lee, NH NHcleanenergy.com
Nobody has ever polled me [maybe because I have no land line], but If somebody would just ASK, I'd tell them that by far the most important issue to me isn't Iran or Libya or even the economy or reproductive freedom; it's global warming. At the rate that the polar ice caps are disappearing, we just HAVE to get our heads out of our air-conditioned rears FAST because it will very soon literally be too late to reverse. It's a MASSIVE crisis but too many people manage to ignore it, not remotely in the future, it's happening. Wake the eff up!
Perhaps one of the reasons why there are skeptics of AGW is because there is not a current alternative to coal and oil. Conservation is not enough for us to stop putting carbon into the air. Is nuclear an answer? Is geothermal an answer.
The entire problem with AGW and Politics is Politics. This is not stuff that should be legislated. First of all ask any scientist inside or outside of climate research if it can be known whether humans are causing warming. They will all say no, but may follow it up with a likelihood scenario. There is little science that can concretely support AGW or disprove it. Any drastic measure on this could be stupid and fatal to our economy and our environment. Also if a politician starts talking about funding green energy let's vote them out because they obviously aren't smart enough to have an engineer advising them.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044005/article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html
For every article stat you cite, I can cite one as well. And, perhaps a study in economics will do you some good. "Shifting the cost burden from the public to polluters brings in more revenue and deters polluting behavior." Do you think that these evil polluters are also going to lose margin and make less profit?
I agree, we need alternative fuels, but we should do so when the MARKET determines that and not waste upwards of $100 BILLION dollars on these "green" jobs; there green all right.
Here's the rebuttal: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
In the whole scheme of things, I've yet to be convinced that I should worry about what is happening in terms of supposed "global warming." I happen to live in a generally cold high mountain climate where a bit more warmth would be welcome, though I don't anticipate getting any significant amount of it. Fossil fuels are finite. If they are the problem, then I don't see why supposed global warming isn't a self resolving problem, given the finite nature of the causes. In the 1970's, alarmist scientists warned of global cooling due to pollutants. Now it is global warming. I do see Peak Oil and the finite nature of fossil fuels as presenting a real energy crisis in view of the ill advised population growth of the world. So alternative energy is needed, I'll agree with that much. Otherwise, I remain to be convinced.