iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Scott Stenholm

GET UPDATES FROM Scott Stenholm
 

Conservatives and Climate Change: The Devastating Irony

Posted: 08/09/2012 5:40 pm

There is a widely held theory that former Vice President Al Gore lost his bid for the presidency in 2000 because of his insatiable, career-long desire to curb the effects of global warming by first and foremost informing the public on the world's climate crisis. At the time, there was overwhelming scientific evidence to support his claim that our planet was dramatically warming as a direct result of the release of manmade greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. However, like a cancer patient in denial who has been diagnosed but has yet to feel the symptoms of their illness, too many Americans failed to give him credence because they were not physically and financially reeling from the side effects of climate change. Twelve years later, our planet is still sick and this summer Americans are seeing and feeling the symptoms like no other time in recorded history.

Posthumously for the Gore campaign, a recent report said the ten hottest years since 1895 have occurred since they lost the election in 2000. The average national temperature has been rising in every state since 1970. This year has seen the warmest first seven months of any year on record for the United States. The national temperature of 56.4 degrees was 4.3 degrees above the long-term average. A NASA scientist recently told a Senate panel that he was "99% certain" recent warming trends that resulted in the Oklahoma and Texas droughts were caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, not by Mother Nature herself. Half of all U.S. counties are now considered disaster zones, mostly due to drought. And on August 8th, federal scientists announced that July was the hottest month in U.S. history.

National interest in warming statistics has been overshadowed by more immediate concerns such as terrorism, war, and a poor economy. However this summer has marked the dawn of a new era where a poor economic climate will not only pale in comparison to, but will be exacerbated by, actual climate. Global warming is literally cooking our lakes, rivers and oceans as evident when it was recently reported that hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of fish have died as a result of water temperatures reaching as high as 100 degrees in Iowa and Illinois at an enormous cost to the fishing industry there. "Those fish have been in these rivers for thousands of thousands of years, and they're accustomed to all sorts of weather conditions," said Mark Flammang, a fisheries biologist with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. "But sometimes, you have conditions occur that are outside their realm of tolerance." Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry has been a champion for deniers by claiming that man-made climate change is a hoax by scientists, all the while his state saw record losses to their agriculture, livestock and timber industries, and its decimation of cattle herds and cash crops which often causes a significant rise in costs for food, clothing and other items. Bottom line: the effects of climate change will only become more devastating to our local, national and global economies.

To little befuddlement, Mitt Romney has flipped-flopped on climate change numerous times. While Governor of Massachusetts he enacted restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions on power plants in his state. But while running for President, he has said the "idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us." He recently acknowledged that the globe is warming, but added, "we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet." This stance is equal to a man who has been diagnosed with cancer by 98% of the world's doctors but can't bring himself to accept such a diagnosis nor to take steps to heal his illness. And this is where the true irony enters, much of the states bearing the brunt of the global warming-induced droughts are deep red states such as Texas and Oklahoma. More rural, conservative areas of the country are expected to see the most immediate effects of climate change in the near future in the form of continued drought and other forms of extreme weather like heightened flooding and tornado outbreaks with increased viciousness.

While Democrats in Washington haven't been immune to dragging their feet in taking the necessary steps to address global warming, the partisanship line here is akin to that of tax cuts for the top 1% or gay marriage: it is the right side of the aisle that is consistently on the wrong side of this issue. Though to be fair, President Obama has yet to put the full force of the White House behind his past acknowledgements of the crisis, a campaign promise both in 2008 and as this year's incumbent, saying in April, "I will be very clear in voicing my belief that we're going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way." Hopefully, we will see this come to fruition as the campaign heats up with the DNC Convention and the debates as platforms. It should be noted that the President recently pushed congress to pass a farm bill that would provide sweeping disaster relief to farmers effected by this summer's drought - something that deals with the effect, not the cause.

Regardless, the Obama Administration has overseen policies that have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the clean energy industry. And the President enacted the largest expansion of land and water conservation and protected wilderness in a generation while nearly doubling America's generation of electricity from solar power since he took office. It is safe to say that a second term for President Obama would be a much more Earth-friendly, and in turn long-term economic-friendly, environment in comparison to that of a Romney administration.

Climate change is an issue of far greater concern than that of terrorism, war, the economy, gay marriage, abortion, education and gun control combined if for no other reason than it is the only issue that truly effects every single living thing on the planet. One can only hope that this will be at the forefront of the electorate's mindset when voting for all levels of government this November.

 

Follow Scott Stenholm on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ScottStenholm

FOLLOW GREEN
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,912
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (24 total)
photo
WOODSTOCKER60
EYESIGHT ISSUES.I TYPE IN CAPS....HAVE A NICE DAY!
07:04 AM on 08/21/2012
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=arctic-sea-ice-likely-to-hit-record


........................................UPDATE 8/21/12....ENJOY!
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
08:40 PM on 08/13/2012
DMD.

I'm with you, dude.

Whatever we do we must not err on the side of caution.

You be Thelma. Let's drive it right over the cliff! Hah!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fjpoblam
¿did I say something?
06:49 PM on 08/12/2012
At the forefront of the electorate's mindset? Don't hold your breath. (Or if you decide to hold your breath, get far outside of Los Angeles before you take a big gulp to hold.)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
benalbanach
01:35 PM on 08/12/2012
I think I read that over %80 of Americans believe in God. I would think that most believers resort to prayer. America along with much of the world is taking a weather-whacking.
Any conclusions being drawn ?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dazed not Confused
A peaceful place, or so it looks from space
10:15 AM on 08/13/2012
Yes, lot's of conclusions by scientists, and of course nothing verifiable by clergy. Regardless of one's faith or belief in God, when it comes to cliemate an intelligent person relies on science and takes action accordingly. Prayer is not going to solve this one.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
provgrays1
09:38 AM on 08/12/2012
Conservatives will say it's the liberal's fault and they can't even spell "irony", let alone define it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rafey
09:24 AM on 08/12/2012
Scientists in 1979 stated that 1980-1990 would mark the turning point during which we had to make the necessary alterations or face the inevitable. I remember Carter's vain attempts at persuasion along those lines but they were met with sneers (except in Europe and Asia, where they went almost to the opposite extremes, only to be effectively neutralized by American efforts). The predicted that, if we did not do something quite drastic, we would face the consequences beginning at the turn of the century. Of course, now it is far, far beyond the turning point and way beyond remedy. What we need to do now is decide how best to spend our final decades and hope that someone comes upon a remedy serendipitously. It could happen ... but not very likely! ... and I have always been an optimist!
01:28 PM on 08/12/2012
Where are you getting your facts? Asia has made every effort to outstrip the US in putting pollutants in the air and has succeeded. Europe has reduced their output only because of the collapse of Communist countries' industries and the recession/slow growth economies of the Eurozone. Neither Europe nor Asia "went almost to the opposite extremes". These are serious issues to be addressed and we don't need fabrications to cloud the issues.
12:09 PM on 08/14/2012
However, it will take a long time before the amount of CO2 emitted by Asians approaches that of the USA. On a per capita basis, China and India are far below the US. Can be really say that the last 50 years don't matter, even though their effect on atmospheric CO2 is what we are dealing with now? I do agree that this is an issue that will require efforts around the world
03:15 AM on 08/12/2012
And both parties will fall all over themselves to provide financial compensation and "relief" to corporate farms -- tax dollars that will go directly into profit columns as they pass the actual cost back onto those same tax-paying consumers. You -- like Wall Street -- can bet on it.
03:51 PM on 08/13/2012
Crops aren't grown by corporations - they are grown by family farmers.

In order to receive government relief from the agriculture department, you have to sign a form indicating you did not have income over $750,000. The big corporations you assume grow our crops would all have incomes greater than this and are therefore ineligible for USDA disaster payments.

The only group exempted from these maximum income levels are Indian tribes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sharkcellar
SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL LIBRARY.
02:27 PM on 08/11/2012
I wish I could adopt the typical unsympathetic angle of a right-winger and simply say "let them eat dust", but the facts are that this is still going to effect all of us.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rafey
09:32 AM on 08/12/2012
Indeed, water is becoming scarce on a global scale as is food, both of which will see exorbitant rise in prices over the next decade. Few will be able to afford either one. Starvation has already hit a high note. All of this is being systematically ignored but will soon be in our faces in a huge way. it will involved each and every one of us. And then, I'm afraid, it will be every man for himself. Soylent Green is not so very far off. If we continue to allow such criminal elements as the Koch Brothers (who are already attempting to monopolize water rights and agricultural commodities) to put themselves in charge of their distribution, we are simply preparing ourselves to be their next dinner!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
hazbro24
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro- HST
02:17 PM on 08/11/2012
Take your analogy one step further. It's a chain smoker who's been diagnosed with cancer, but refuses to quit.
06:35 AM on 08/12/2012
I've known two chain-smokers who developed lung cancer when in their forties, had a lobe resected, and were back to smoking a few weeks after surgery. They didn't live to see their fifties.

But, we, the average consumer, are no different. We are equally addicted to intensive energy use, and it is our addiction that is driving climate change. While we like to blame the politicians, the energy companies, etc, we are driving the problem. That's why I see no chance of avoiding the climate change bullet; there is no way we will give up this addiction.
02:16 PM on 08/11/2012
in the not too distant future, energy is going to be very, very expensive. and that is a good thing!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dazed not Confused
A peaceful place, or so it looks from space
10:21 AM on 08/13/2012
I agree that yes, more expensive energy is a good thing because a) price is the only thing that will compel most(American) people to conserve and; b) every penny of incremental cost of conventional every make clean energy more viable. Focusing predominantly on the short-term economy is one of the things that got us to where we are.
02:16 PM on 08/11/2012
80% of CO2 omissions are from power plants. we need to scale back our use of electricity.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Anaxamenes
It's not how big your micro-bio is...
05:21 AM on 08/12/2012
And retire old coal plants and build new more environmentally friendly ones.
photo
rabidrightwatch
Green lefty & active environmentalist
05:46 AM on 08/12/2012
Emissions I think you mean..??

...and what we need to do is to scale back on our use of electricity AND seek urgently alternative sources of generation... and close the old, polluting power plants too, of course...
02:15 PM on 08/11/2012
we Americans must change our lifestyles. we consume 25% of the word's energy.
photo
rabidrightwatch
Green lefty & active environmentalist
05:48 AM on 08/12/2012
...and usa constitute only 7% of the world's population... good that you point this out...

fanned from across the increasingly acidifying and rising mutual ocean (UK)...
03:57 PM on 08/13/2012
You also need to consider what the US produces with that energy. Many of the thing we produce are exported to other countries - this is especially true of our crops and meats.

I'm sure Chad and other African countries have lower per capita energy consumption than the US but what do they provide to other countries in the form or food or goods?
06:35 AM on 08/12/2012
We know that! What is your credible roadmap for making that happen?
photo
rabidrightwatch
Green lefty & active environmentalist
08:40 AM on 08/12/2012
It depends on how long you've got, will you listen and will you act upon it...??

There are immediate measures all citizens of the Western World can undertake now in order to reduce consumption and, consequently, our dependence on fossil fuels...

...although it would take a sea-change of luddite and reactionary & knee-jerk opinion to do so... perhaps the CCDs, flatearthers, assorted brandishers of holybooks etc should look at the Mid-West and think very hard indeed about their profligate ways?

..and then he woke up...
08:57 AM on 08/12/2012
Solar power, plus incremental steps to make use of fossil fuels more and more expensive until they are illegal and unnecessary, except for the most critical and necessary uses. Anything else is essentially advocating collective suicide.
photo
68Namvet
Sioux, French, German, Jew, American mutt
01:24 PM on 08/11/2012
As I've posted before:
In 1861, scientist John Tyndall built the first ratio spectrophotometer. He tested the light transmittance of the gases in Earth's atmosphere and discovered that oxygen and nitrogen, the major components, are transparent to all light wavelengths.

Carbon dioxide, however, absorbed what we now call infrared light.

The Earth absorbs light energy from the sun and radiates heat (infrared) back into space each night, cooling the planet.

Tyndall speculated that cabon dioxide was "like a dam" holding the heat in.

Later, Svante Arrhenius calculated that if the atmosphere had no CO2, Earth's average temperature should be 0 degrees Fahrenheit, rather than it's actual 59 degrees. Satellite measurements have since confirmed this hypothesis.

Air bubbles in Antarctica ice cores two miles deep provide a history of the atmosphere for the past four ice ages. At each ice age's peak, the CO2 levels were approximately 180 parts per million, and, it reached an average of 280 ppm during the interglacial periods.

Since the industrial revolution, humans have tipped this delicate balance. We are now at 395 ppm, and rising.

It has not been this high since dinosaurs roamed a steaming hot Earth and the oceans were 300 feet higher.

These are the facts of global warming - we ignore them at our peril!
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
02:09 PM on 08/11/2012
All that is in general correct, with a few minor glitches - for example, we only have about 186' to go from current sea level to the highest it has ever been (to our knowledge). However, I applaud this summary. Good job.
photo
68Namvet
Sioux, French, German, Jew, American mutt
04:04 PM on 08/11/2012
Not according to Don Grine, Geophysicist Emeritus

Sea level has changed relative to the land. During the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago, sea level was 300 feet lower than now. The lagoon to our north was carved 300 feet deeper than its present mud floor, then filled with mud when the ice melted and the sea rose. If global warming melts all the ice in Antarctica and Greenland, sea level will be 300 feet higher, lapping at the Lodge.

http://www.torreypine.org/geology/geology.html
photo
MadAs
Tuned-in science editor
06:42 PM on 08/11/2012
Hey RT and Nam,
Let's not quibble. What's a few hundred feet between friends.

The fossil fuel magnates are freaking nuts because they apparently think they will have all their money and possessions and power, when everyone else is gone away.

Face it, the loaf is out of the oven and we're about to be toast. Burned toast.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rafey
09:38 AM on 08/12/2012
We can also take a look at Venus which, although not the nearest planet to our Sun, is none the less the hottest owing entirely to its atmospheric CO2 content. It was once a planet not unlike our own.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
legalclubs
08:53 PM on 08/13/2012
Venus was once a planet not unlike our own? Really? How so?
01:09 PM on 08/11/2012
"Imagine"....just imagine if one of the big mouths like Al Gore actually lived what he preaches, it would go a long way. But the obvious fact is, Al knows what we know: it's not scaling down our consumption that's being preached, it's Cap and Trade, the biggest financial fraud in global history.
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
02:20 PM on 08/11/2012
Keep putting your head in the sand and you'll be a part of the group that forced a change in our world forever, likely leading to the end of industrialized civilization and possibly leading to the end of humanity.

But the planet will be fine after she sheds herself of the human plague.

Good going, Ace.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Noah Cross
Flying to London for some bangers and mash
02:38 PM on 08/11/2012
When you cap your comment with that last bit of nonsense your credibility suffers a fatal injury.
12:10 PM on 08/11/2012
Believe it or not there is a substantial (and growing) progressive movement in "red" state cities like Dallas, Austin, and even Oklahoma City! The times they are a changing :-)
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
05:33 PM on 08/11/2012
I sure hope that's true!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rafey
09:40 AM on 08/12/2012
But way too late!
09:08 AM on 08/12/2012
Natural selection has began to create many "progressives" in Red States and an increasing number of migrants. Oklahoma has seen this this happen before. You can read about it Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath". Sadly, for Oklahoma residents, the republican version of how things should work is for you to "vote with your feet".