Writing in this morning's Washington Post, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin wrote, "many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges."
Unfortunately, her promise to roll up her sleeves and tackle serious issues is followed by a column that focuses on everything but the single grave challenge that forms the basis of all of our actions: the crisis of global climate change.
Yes, she manages to write about the climate change action in Congress without ever mentioning the reason we are doing this in the first place. It's like complaining about the cost of repairing a roof without factoring in the leaks destroying your home.
The global climate change crisis threatens our economy and our national security in profound ways. Governor Palin need look no further than the view from her front porch in Alaska to see how destructive this crisis can be. The small native village of Newtok is being literally wiped off the map because of a melting permafrost and disappearing sea ice. The New York Times reported nearly two years ago:
"The earth beneath much of Alaska is not what it used to be. The permanently frozen subsoil, known as permafrost, upon which Newtok and so many other Native Alaskan villages rest, is melting, yielding to warming air temperatures and a warming ocean. Sea ice that would normally protect coastal villages is forming later in the year, allowing fall storms to pound away at the shoreline.
Erosion has made Newtok an island, caught between the ever widening Ninglick River and a slough to the north. The village is below sea level, and sinking. Boardwalks squish into the spring muck.....The ragged wooden houses have to be adjusted regularly to level them on the shifting soil.Studies say Newtok could be washed away within a decade. Along with the villages of Shishmaref and Kivalina farther to the north, it has been the hardest hit of about 180 Alaska villages that suffer some degree of erosion"
Since then, the citizens of Newtok voted to move their village to higher ground nine miles away.
Around the world, the effects are already being felt. The Himalayan glaciers, source for almost all the major rivers of India and China, are shrinking, putting the future water resources of billions of people in doubt. Shifting weather patterns may turn the American "breadbasket" into a dustbowl. And stronger storms and rising sea levels can devastate coastal communities across our country and around the world.
All of these effects (and many, many more) will have a devastating effect on our economy and threaten our national security. For example, just imagine the situation in India and Pakistan if the rivers on which the region depends for agriculture dry up. Imagine how much worse the problems of poverty, terrorism, and instability would become in that situation.
Reading Gov Palin's op-ed too often it sounds like the only threats America faces are solely economic. But that's not what our intelligence experts and military leaders tell us. General Anthony Zinni, a rock-jawed military man and former commander of our forces in the Middle East who is tough to peg as any sort of climate alarmist warned that without action -- and I quote -- "we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."
We can't afford to ignore this reality -- in an op-ed column or in our public debate over an entire piece on legislation designed to meet these challenges. An op-ed on Guantanamo policy that fails to acknowledge the existence of terrorists would not be taken seriously. Neither should an op-ed on energy reform that fails to mention the irrefutable reality of climate change.
And, unfortunately, even in the areas Gov. Palin does focus on, she gets things wrong. She focuses on energy production, but ignores the huge expansion of new, clean energy sources made possible through smart energy reform legislation.
She says that, "The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet." That's incorrect: The Congressional Budget Office's analysis says, of the measurable costs, "Households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020, while households in the highest income quintile would see a net cost of $245."
Governor Palin also states of energy reform legislation: "It is an enormous threat to our economy." Once again, this is just wrong. Palin confidently claims job losses are "certain," she somehow neglects to mention that jobs in our emerging clean energy economy grew nearly two and a half times faster than overall jobs since 1998. And objective analysis indicates, at most, a nominal cost to the economy and, at best, a significant benefit.
And here's the big thing: almost all of these models don't take into the account the enormously destructive effects of doing nothing. This legislation will be a clear win for the economy -- and for our future economic security.
We need a 21st century economy that is powered by clean, renewable energy sources, and uses that energy efficiently and wisely. But the reality is that we will reform our energy economy not only because of the upside, but also because we must do so if we are to avoid a climate catastrophe. Our climate demands it, our economy needs it, and our security depends on it.
To get this right, we need an honest debate that focuses on the real issues. Both Democrats and Republicans will be better off if Governor Palin joins the debate we need to have -- one about climate change as well as energy security -- rather than leaving so many important details on the editing room floor.
Follow John Kerry on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JohnKerry
Kerry is wrong and Palin is right.
Go to :
http://www.star-telegram.com/ed_wallace/story/659081.html
to read an interesting article on energy.
Energy will cost more because of OPEC, oil speculators and alternative energy sources that are still expensive.
Snow & Ice Data
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It is interesting to monitor the Snow and Ice Data Centre & their Sea Ice Outlook site with their predictions regarding ice cover at the end of the northern melt season in September. Their present estimate released on 4/7/09 was based on data to the end of June. Their next report is due within the next three days. Their present report is beginning to look overly pessimistic going by their daily graph. Contrary to predictions the ice cover for September 08 was greater than for 07. Another indicator going the wrong way for the True Believers?
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/report_june.php
jai96 - if it's a global issue, it certainly is a national issue. If dirt poor people care most about clean water, food to eat, roof over their head, then they should care the most about energy reform and a green revolotion, since both will improve their chances at getting those things.
wilsonveteran - I'm glad the weather is so good and stable for you in Minnesota. I guess we shouldn't worry about the things that are quickly and literally disappearing from under our feet (glaciers, permafrost, etc.) that make our comfortable experience of weather (nice day, go outside, bad day stay in) possible. You just look out your back door and decide that global warming is a liberal fiction? If only that were true! Why don't you just go on and join S. Palin's dream team (dream as in fiction-creating).
Senator Kerry's article is right on and important to read.
Wake up this is just a way to make money. Al Gore has made 40 million since his movie. He will make hundreds of millions with his software to measure carbon output when cap and trade passes. Obama is ready to give GE billions in contracts to make green technology. All subsudised by the government. Goldman Sachs another Obama friend will make billions trading Carbon Credits. Obama has already given them 10% of the Carbon Trading Company in guess where Chicago.
You liberals are so gulliable tell you the sky is falling and you are ready to give up everything to the person who told you.
You have to know facts before you can forget them
I've stated my position on Cap and Trade previously. I'm not convinced, solely because polluters have a habit of buying their way out of compliance. As the EPA. They will do a cost-benefit exercise and if it is more cost-effective for them to continue to pollute and pay the fines, they will do so. That does not mean I'm a global warming denier - quite the opposite. And I get that the government has to find money to invest heavily in green technology. But it seems to me that some of them already get it. BP and Renault, for example, appear to see the writing on the wall.
The way forward must be carefully considered, but we need to accelerate our efforts. Because I cannot stress too strongly that the adverse effects of global warming are dire - beginning with our oceans. The Pentagon concurs - global warming is the biggest crisis we humans face. Everything else pales in comparison. We're talking about a serious threat to world food supplies.
Trouble is, neither of these two are the scientific method. In fact "global warming" is not provable using the scientific method. That makes is a "theory" a.k.a. something that is not provable. You can talk all you want about how obvious it is or use the word "deny" in its various forms to attack those you don't agree with. But that it not how plain science works. On the other hand, real scientists are like supreme court judges: they come to their profession with their personal bias. The good ones figure out how to leave their bias out of their work. Think about it.
I believe the burning of fossil fuels is contributory.
Global warming "deniers" are people like Joe Bastardi, who keeps insisting the earth is cooling. And my opinion is that group includes people who state that the activities of man has either no impact at all, or even believe that manmade activities "help".
Now, let's examine what happens when the earth warms. Seas rise, and sea temperatures rise. That kills coral - which is at the heart of tropical marine ecosystems. Global warming also means increasing desertification. It also affects trade winds and the timing and intensity of seasonal monsoons, not to mention levels of precipitation overall. Droughts or persistent precipitation/flooding affects harvests. All the above impacts the human food supply.
This is undeniable - not theory nor opinion.
Algae blooms have always existed, but in recent years we have seen many more, larger blooms and they are impacting marine life all over the world, notably in cold currents.
What you are not taking into account is a rise in sea surface temps in more vulnerable regions. It might be down to underwater volcanic activity, or atmospheric pollution, or a combination of the two.
Aw snap. It's a good thing you zinged her back after her last jab at you.
Senator Kerry, I wish you and all your colleagues in Congress would have just gone on PAID VACATION for the last six months and DONE NOTHING. It would have been far better than voting on 1,100 page stimulus bills or 1,200 page Waxman-Markey bills, loaded with pork, with the completed versions finished in the dawn of morning and voted on the same day without reading.
The United States should limit the amount of children couples can have (I say 2) and if you go over the limit the fetus will be aborted and you will be fined.
The only way we are going to save this planet is if we limit the cancer that is human beings.
but when it's COLD---it's "CLIMATE CHANGE".
The story will change to fit the circumstances.