Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, beset by the health care battle among other problems, says he's thinking about putting off action on the huge climate change bill. Much as we hate to say it, and speaking as people who've been trying to educate the public on energy, it may not be such a bad idea.
We admit, we have mixed feelings about this ourselves. As a nation, we need to make decisions about energy and global warming, and we need to make them soon. Critics rightly point out that delay could derail the Copenhagen climate conference in December (although the Obama administration is making noises that those talks may drag into 2010 as well). But before you jump all over us, consider this fact from Public Agenda's Energy Learning Curve survey: four in 10 Americans can't name a fossil fuel.
It gets worse: half can't name a renewable energy source. More than half say nuclear power contributes to global warming, and three in 10 say the same about solar power. Solar, the poster child for green technology!
When the public's knowledge levels are this low, the risk of fear mongering, misinformation and pandering is very high- - as the health care town halls have proven.
The problem with energy as an issue is that it's boring, complicated and affects everyone. If most Americans don't understand energy, don't take time to learn more about it and are touchy about changes in how they use it, building public support for legislation becomes tremendously difficult - and tremendously important.
In addition, this is hugely complicated legislation. With cap-and-trade, we're talking about creating the biggest commodities market in history. Very few people can explain cap-and-trade in a sentence (and that's leaving aside the argument over whether it will work).
Lack of knowledge is not a crime, and we would be the last people to argue that the public should be excluded from this debate because they've haven't done enough reading on the topic. Despite the statistics we've cited, we're convinced the public can grapple with these issues. Under the right conditions, people can and do work through complicated problems. We've seen it happen in civic engagement projects around the country.
There's also cause for optimism: our Energy Learning Curve survey found an openness to change, plus broad consensus on more than a dozen ideas for changing our energy future, including alternative energy, conservation and green jobs. There's a lot of public support for lawmakers to build on...if leaders do the heavy lifting involved.
If policymakers just put off the climate change bill out of exhaustion and obsession with health care, then more time leads to more stalemate, or worse. If political leaders use the time to actually build public support, explaining the options and the reasons to act, they might actually come out ahead. Delay can be fatal, but only if it's another word for denial.
Rep. Ed Markey: Mitt Romney's Fuzzy Math on Clean Energy Legislation
Romney, and the other opponents of clean energy legislation, are now claiming it will cost $1,761 per household. But the actual household costs are predicted to be about a postage stamp a day.
http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998
"‘Global warming stopped in 1998’—Only if you flagrantly cherry pick"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm
Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years
Data that cluster like that over time is the definition of what scientists call a "trend". Sure, 1998 was the hottest ever, but 2005 is a tie, or close second depending on some subtle differences in calculations. Anyway, the second through 11th richest people on Earth are not destitute, and the second through 11th hottest years on record were not cool, only slightly less extreme than #1. In the years since 1998, the Sun's output has declined, as it regularly does, cyclically.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090402200749.htm
The current solar minimum has been longer than usual, but temperatures have remained ABOVE average. Without the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, temperatures since 2005 would have been well BELOW average. The fact that they were instead among the hottest in the past 130 years rules out the Sun as primary driver of temperature trends since the Industrial Revolution, and it is evidence that Al Gore is right and deniers are lying.
I'd like every denier to disclose, under oath, who funds them. It would be interesting to see how many of you actually work for Koch.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries
Of course, the deniers are lying. What is curious is that they know they are lying, but keep going anyway. It is much easier for them to lie than to change their views. It is part of the conservative make-up.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual_bar.png
If 1998 was not a year with such an extreme anomaly and so much hotter than preceeding years, it would look like just another year on the steady slope of rising temperatures. It is the same with Arctic sea ice. Comparing ice loss to the year 2007 as a starting point is silly because 2007 was such an extreme outlier year. Anyone who familiar with statistics would not do it, other than for propaganda purposes. Revkin should know better.
Part 1 of 2:
You are wrong. I think the American public is much more aware than you give the credit.
This report may help you:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
I do agree that our education system has fallen to new lows. While other nations send their kids to school 6 days a week, and concentrate on language, math, science, geography, civics, and history, we send our kids to school 5 days for fewer hours and concentrate on the life of gay penguins. No school in the country should receive federal funds unless the children are exposed to 5 hours a week in each of the following: language skills, math, science, literature, civics, history and PE. Yes, that is 35 hours a week. And this should be constant from 3rd grade to 9th grade. 1st thru 3rd grad should be focused on reading and basic math, with some introduction to geography and science., along with PE/recess. After 9th grade, then the students should have some leeway in their choices of science, but be able to take drama, or debate, specialized courses in chemistry or physics...
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/does-delay-mean-disaster_b_291724.html
We expect so little from the kids and that is what we get. Go back to the 1920's and look at a third grade english primer... our high school senior would fail the course.
At the end of ninth grade, you should be able to select one of two paths: Continued education as stated above, or a split day: 3 hours of math, language, and civics/ history/geography; 3 hours a day of a specialized field such as computer programming, or accounting, or architectural design, CAD/CAM, medical billing, construction, legal assistant, administrative assistant, graphic design, etc.
That way, those that wish to can graduate with a skill but this would require an extra year... the 13th year. Yet still have the option of University because math and language has been continued. Those that wish to go on to a University can do so after 12 years. But they should be required to take their university entrance exam after 10th grade.
So what kind of bill should we be pushing? We need a bill that will reduce American oil consumption by 25% over a given time span by encouragement of satellite offices, work from home programs, 4/10 work schedules, tax breaks for high-mileage vehicles, enforcement of speed limits, development of public transportation, and so on. Make a bill that encourages gasoline conservation, and people will get behind it. Push cap and trade, and only those of us who follow the subject will see it as anything other than another big government program that creates another hidden tax.
I've tested the concept of a gasoline conservation program on other forums, and even conservatives like it. They see it as a rational approach to an identifiable problem.
We know Obama and the Dems are going to be attacked in every way possible, no matter what they do or say.
Pretty soon, Fox "News" will be saying "Obama is going to take control of your weather! Obama is going to give your resources away to aliens from another galaxy!"--whatever they can dream up.
This is another reason why I keep saying a national investment bank would be a good idea, especially focused on the new industries, energy, infrastructure and technologies of the future, to replace jobs that have already been lost and are going to be lost in the future.
The Democrats can walk anything they want through congress right now. A delay means even they don't want this to happen.
You've been warmed, DWTS!
Face it, there is as much demogogory on the side of "climate change" as there is on the "denial" side.
Apparently, the debate is not over, despite what the Goracle says.
Scientists have no doubt about the causes of climate change. The consensus is just about taken for granted now. "According to a survey of Earth scientists UIC climatologist Peter Doran conducted, 90 percent believe that mean global temperatures have risen since 1800, and 82 percent say human activity has been a significant contributing factor."
"The survey went to more than 10,000 scientists, and more than 3,000 responded."
"“There are a handful of doubters you see on the news all the time that keep saying it’s not real, but really, the vast majority of the climate scientists say it’s real,” Doran said. “I think that’s a powerful conclusion.”
http://www.usanpn.org/files/shared/files/RMitchum_Chicago_Tribune_Jan22_article.pdf
That so many choose to believe what they want is more of a psychological question than one about the climate!
Given the incredibly loose wording of the survey, it's interesting that 540 out of 3000 scientists still responded that human activity played no significant role.
Most scientists accept that the Earth has warmed up since the Little Ice Age. That is not where the debate lies.
And, equating climate skeptics (which presumably include these 540 scientists) to "birthers" is just silly. All all climate alarmists "truthers"?
I am incredibly surprised that as many as 540 do not agree with the widespread consensus. Remember though that only 90% percent believe there has been any warming at all, despite what the detailed records show. So if you don't believe temperatures have risen, it is hard to believe that man plays a "significant role." I would imagine they are further away from specializations which study anthropogenic change. It is funny that you are surprised that even 18% of scientists may believe your position, yet are always so full of certitude.
It is still being debated whether the "little ice age" was a regional phenomenon or global.
Yes, people who believe in anthropogenic change are "truthers." They follow the science, as opposed to the occasional right-wing sponsored website, as do "birthers" and deniers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2&hp
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686?paged=60
Delay also means that a bitterly cold winter in the northern hemisphere this winter, will dampen any residual interest in future climate warming issues, if it occurs. If the coal trains are stuck in the snow, and the people shiver, support for a climate bill will be slide into the deep freeze.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
It may be interesting to monitor climate change if we do little or nothing. Fifty years from now our grandchildren will be furious we took no action despite the overwhelming scientific consensus. They will be shocked self-interest triumphed over any common sense.
The real concern is that in the fear raised over the fate of polar bears that the real impact upon people's lives will be lost. This is very complicated issue. Our current standard of living is tied to the availability, reliability and affordability of energy at every level. Pushing at one place affects every place in some manner that is not always apparent.
While uncertainty is hard for business to deal with, correcting a miss-step by congress may be impossible. Delay till next year may not be a bad thing.