The New Republic

This is truly appalling. Now every time we have a storm we're supposed to panic about climate change? And demand an imperative to "get our climate under control"? Give me a break. Climate change has been a feature of our planet for billions of years. Man currently seems to be speeding up a warming trend (or postponing a cooling one), but the idea that we should get hysterical about it in a way that damages the very thing we need most to address climate change's consequences--human ingenuity financed by a healthy economy--is simple hysteria.

- Robert Powell

October 30, 2012 at 2:15pm

I sometimes wonder what effect it might have had on our climate change policies and discourse (or, as McKibben rightly points out, lack of such) if at some point Pres. Obama had done a tv address to the nation on this issue. He could have reasonably pointed out that while no one event can be directly attributed to climate change, the scientific consensus is that it will bring more severe weather and consequences, such as droughts, major hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, etc. Whether or not such an address would have fueled successful legislation, at least we'd be discussing climate change more whenever these horrible events occur...which itself can fuel legislative and policy change sooner or later. Sigh, I'll dream on...

- Thunderroad

October 30, 2012 at 2:43pm

No, it is not simple hysteria. The hysteria comes from those like Robert Powell who somehow think that addressing human impact on climate change is somehow an assault on capitalism. If you've got nothing better to do than throw stones, go away.

- cspencef

October 30, 2012 at 2:59pm

If climate change is a problem, then how come those that are screaming the loudest continue using a disproportionate amount of energy? Nobody--not the scientists, not the politicians--are acting like this is an emergency. They continue to use energy at the same jaw-dropping rate they've always used it. And if that well-fed bunch of folks aren't going to cut back, then who is? If they want me to believe this is an emergency, then ACT like this is an emergency. Let those that have the most lead by example. That sets a tone for everyone else to follow. If the producer of Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth is going to maintain a house on both coasts and fly back and forth in a private jet whenever the mood strikes her...if that isn't frivolous enough to cut, then what is?

- seattleeng

October 30, 2012 at 3:30pm

Why is the right so big on ad hominem arguments? Why is, Person A: "I'm worried about what science is telling us about climate change" Person B: "Oh yeah, well Al Gore has a big house!" Considered at all to be a reasonable discussion?

- hairdan

October 30, 2012 at 4:08pm

This is typical seattle, meaning typical right-wingnut libertarian craziness. Unable to address reality and evidence, they adopt the conspiracy theory of everything. "If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not primarily responsible for the mortgage loan crisis, then why did the SEC sue them instead of the private banks? This proves that they were, forget the actual facts about where the bad mortgages came from or who originated them or how they were sold. If climate change were a real problem, then Al Gore's producer wouldn't travel by private jet, would he? This proves there is no climate crisis, forget the facts about rising temperatures, melting ice, rising sea level, more frequent and more powerful storms, drought." There is always some irrelevant action by some third party from which we are supposed to infer the truth rather than looking at the relevant facts. This is the nutcase conspiracy theory of everything.

- roidubouloi

October 30, 2012 at 4:34pm

Possibly some combination between the scope & scale of the problem being something that we've not needed to previously on an evolutionary scale, and we are singularly bad at handling the problem. A similar problem exists in people's insistence on focusing on very unlikely "big" events (plane crashes into buildings) and ignoring the far more likely but mundane of danger (let me Drive my car, even though my average risk is considerably higher) That and a lack of leadership and a lack an actual ability for the US to affect anything meaningfully anyway. OTOH, Obama's Green energy pushes would be about the only thing the US can do (invent new technology). Perhaps he does care and just chooses to frame it differently?

- Nari224

October 30, 2012 at 6:28pm

er.. that should be "singularly bad at handling such problems"

- Nari224

October 30, 2012 at 6:29pm

Far and away, the obvious, simplest, must effect, and least economically disruptive thing to do is to impose carbon taxes (eschewing a complicated scheme like cap and trade that is designed for the benefit of business) and slowly keep raising them, giving people the incentive to conserve, the market the incentive to help them do it, and the market the incentive to invent new technologies, that don't emit carbon, in order to provide energy at a lower cost than the market + carbon taxes cost. A double win would be to ultimately to use the tax revenues to replace payroll taxes. It is this simple: tax what we want less of, carbon, and reduce taxes on what we want more of, income producing labor. There is absolutely not reason whatsoever to expect that general carbon taxes replacing payroll taxes would have a negative effect on economic activity or growth. We can continue to have our golden-egg laying goose while creating the incentives for the market to unhook us from our fossil fuel habit. For all its simplicity and economic soundness, this is, sad to say, politically impossible in our world. The current president of my alma mater was for some decades a highly regarded environmental activist in DC. He had had high hopes that cap and trade would pass and was bitterly disappointed when it did not. One of the first things I asked him was whether he thought we would respond to the crisis of climate change in time to avoid disaster. He said, no. That only when the damage was both evident and enormous would we respond, by which time the process might be too late to stop but would in any event require a very long time to halt and reverse with awful consequences. We are leaving a world of terrible problems to our children and grandchildren. We should be ashamed.

- roidubouloi

October 30, 2012 at 7:49pm

RP, the evidence for anthropogenic climate change--rapid, marked climate change--is much stronger than you indicate. Yes, climate change has been a feature of Earth since its formation, but we are seeing change of unprecedented speed. The geologic record shows that the degree of warming that we have seen over the past four decades would in the past have taken millennia. The consequences of such rapid warming are unknown, but it would be foolish to bet against their being severe. That said, I'm pessimistic that mankind is capable of responding to climate change effectively. Collective sacrifice if the required magnitude might well be literally impossible. What's more, going half the distance might well be worse than doing nothing, being economically crippling without actually curtailing dangerous climate change. We need people like McKibben to remind us of the real dangers we face, but the chances of actually doing what needs to be done--to stop burning fossil fuels--are zero. Climate change is coming. It's unstoppable. Either human civilization will adapt or it won't. If it doesn't, human civilization will end.

- AaronW

October 30, 2012 at 8:06pm

Even if the burning of fossil fuels DOES have a significant impact on the climate - and I honestly don't believe climatologists really know for sure one way or another - first of all, fossil fuels originated from decomposed plant material, which decomposed in an anaerobic environment preventing the CO2 the plant took from the air from being released back INTO the air upon decomposition. Meaning, burning them is just returning CO2 to the air which plant life took out of the air. The area with huge oil resources are now desserts but used to be jungle -- they are desserts now because of the development of certain mountain ranges stopping monsoons from coming over the ocean into those area. I would think those mountain ranges had a bigger effect on the climate that all the burning of oil we could ever engage in would. You also need to consider the impossibility for human beings to even control their own economy sufficiently enough to stop burning fossil fuels once technology has become dependent upon them -- but, even if it causes global warming, all I can say is so what about big storms and the sea level rising. Let it rise -- if we have to move coastal cities over by a mile or two, it would be great for the economy, create a lot of jobs. Catastrophes happen all the time, who are we to think we can avoid them? I fail to see how global warming would cause much significant harm to the human race for all practical purposes. And, don't forget one thing: by now the debate is hopelessly politicized. Who are climatologists but a bunch of scientists and academics desperately seeking funding? The moment a "chicken little" idea comes along suggesting potential global catastrophe which THEY need to be given lots of grants (government or otherwise) to "study," how could there not be a "consensus" regarding global warming, simply because it helps the funding needs of all of those departments and that whole field? Not to mention, now we have a whole green energy sector. So, global warming has by now turned into a huge crony capitalism movement. Can we trust what anyone says anymore about it? It is all political and I strongly suspect it is impossible to come up with any kind of scientific determination one way or another -- even if we do "figure it out" we will never know it. Self-interested voices from one side or the other side will drown the opposing opinion out.

- dmschlom

October 30, 2012 at 8:35pm

I know a storm in NYC is big news, and NBC had to add an extra half hour for their drama queens to tell their stories, including climate change, but a little historical perspective here. While Sandy is a Superstorm, large autumn storms like this come around every 10-20 years or so. Remember Nov 10, 1975? Edmund Fitzgerald. Larger waves on the great lakes and very low pressure, similar to Sandy. And November 9, 1998 was another doosey. Not every storm is Climate Change. Sometimes it's just the change of seasons.

- CRS9TNR

October 30, 2012 at 9:44pm

CRS9TNR, autumn storms on the east coast are typically cyclonic--they're called nor'easters because the clockwise rotation makes the onshore winds on the leading edge of the storm seem to come out of the northeast--but what Sandy is that the typical autumn storm is not is a tropical cyclone, AKA a hurricane. A hurricane this late in the year is very rare--since records have been kept, there have been just four that formed after November 1 (I know, we're not quite there yet, but you get my point)--and a hurricane this late in the year that ventures as far north as New Jersey before making landfall without losing strength is entirely unprecedented. The farthest north any previous late-year hurricane made it was the Gulf coast. Hurricanes are fueled by warm seas. The reason no previous late autumn 'cane made it so far into the North Atlantic without breaking up is that historically the North Atlantic has been too cold to to support them. The fact that Sandy made it so far, so late is strong circumstantial evidence that something unprecedented is occurring with regards to ocean temperatures. Maybe it's a fluke--though I doubt it--but one thing it is certainly not is normal seasonal variation.

- AaronW

October 30, 2012 at 10:06pm

I'm pretty up to date on the science Aaron. The question is what to do about it. If we destroy the economy by making changes that won't even effect the problem in this century (if at all given that no matter what we do China, India, et al aren't going to forego progress), we've made a bad choice: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137681/bjorn-lomborg/environmental-alarmism-then-and-now A suggestion like roi's makes emminent sense. However, I don't see how we can do it without drastically raising taxes somewhere as further cuts in our already under-funded entitlements will have to be covered somewhere. I know many here don't see any problems with raising taxes on "the rich", but there are both political and economic limits to this solution. In any case I think it's necessary to have the conversation notwithstanding that it sometimes results in boorish nonsense of the sort demonstrated by cspencef.

- Robert Powell

October 31, 2012 at 10:07am

seattle chimes "If they want me to believe this is an emergency, then ACT like this is an emergency. Let those that have the most lead by example. That sets a tone for everyone else to follow." That would be America. We are the second biggest consumer of energy in the world. Canada beats us. America also carries a big stick when it comes to moving the needles in one direction or the other. For most of the folks that use weak arguments against ANY sort of action to address human impacts on the environment (green house emissions, over-fishing, deforestation, desertification, freshwater depletion, overpopulation, etc., etc.) are typically whining about the possibility of possibly being required to change their lifestyle. Yet in the same breath, will claim (as dmschlom does) we just do nothing about how humans negatively impact the planet and then "adapt" when we're forced into much bigger lifestyle changes and disruptions of entire populations. Folks like Seattle, Robert, and dmschlom dismiss any sort of structural change in the ways we extract, produce or use energy, materials, resources, etc. because it would be too expensive. Yet they dismiss the long-term costs of doing nothing to maintain broken, wasteful, decrepit systems and what the ultimate cost will be do deal and adapt 50 or 100 years in the future. Why is that? Is there a vested interest in maintaining the wasteful status quo? Sure is. Profits. Has absolutely nothing to do with saving consumers money or economic impacts. More money and jobs can be created by solving the energy issues, human impacts on climate change and retooling infrastructure to be less wasteful, more efficient and cleaner without the negative impacts. Ohio's wind industry employs more than agriculture and mining combined. But I'll give you an analogy that will help explain the broken, myopic thinking that goes into solving these issues as it relates to changing our dumb ways. In 19980-2000 I was on an advisory board for the decommissioning of the Rocky Flats Weapons Facility outside of Denver. This was where the plutonium buttons used to be made for our nuclear arsenal. The facility and buildings, at the time the FBI shut down the facility, were being operated by a private military contractor with DOE oversight. There was rampant disregard for worker safety, general operational protocols, resource waste and plenty of toxic waste dumping with no regard for community impact. The buildings were later determined by the EPA to be the most dangerous buildings in America due to the toxic and radioactive contamination. Both the defense contractor and DOE claimed there was no reason to decommission or shut down the facility (if we did why the Russians could still beat us!), the contractor and the DOE also claimed no responsibility for the complete and utter negligence in operating the weapons facility - both for the toxic and radioactive contamination on site but the radioactive plumes moving through underground streams towards aquifers used by ranchers and nearby residential communities. When it was determined that Rocky Flats should be dismantled and decommissioned and cleaned up. Discussions ensued about how much to clean up or how how little and at what cost. The defense contractor and DOE balked at doing anything beyond the bare minimum of clean-up. Why? Because it would cost too much money right now. They claimed, that by doing very little and simply monitoring the contamination then someday, someone else, would or could clean up the mess. Of course, as we all know from experience, dealing with the situation in today's dollars is cheaper than trying to fix the situation after it's all gone completely to shit costs much more. When it was pointed out to the DOE and contractor that the community, State and Fed EPA offices wanted the site cleaned up to the lowest levels of contamination possible and turning it into a wildlife refuge to ensure no future humans would mess with it or lead to future environmental issues the looks of blank faces filled the rooms. When pointing out that at the rate of inflation and bureaucratic inertia in making fundamental changes with regards to environmental clean up or policy, not only would the future cost of clean up sky-rocket but that the community could almost guarantee that nothing would get done either. In the end, the contractor and DOE came on board realizing that the 'status quo' of doing little to nothing would not solve the long term issues, resolve the lingering long-term liability of future contamination of the community and environment. That the only reasonable and cost effective solution was to spend more money than they were comfortable with now, to diminish the long-term costs of having to come back at a later date and at much higher costs to deal with the site in 50 or 100 years. So...again, when folks like Seattle and Robert complain about the others not leading the way first and it costing too much money, I have to question whether or not they're actually thinking through the issues or just simply knee-jerking. I would like to think America could lead on addressing human impacts on climate change & the environment, engineer, design and build the technologies that would reduce our negative impacts on the environment and you know...make some money doing it. But instead they would rather whine about this or that, losing their freedom to use an Edison bulb instead of an LED bulb or not burning coal instead of using some other means of renewable energy. But I guess if we're all satisfied that passing the figurative and literal buck to the next generations is better then at least admit you guys really don't give a shit.

- singlspeed

October 31, 2012 at 1:48pm

Robert Powell, cries 'hysteria' at Bill McKibben's suggestion that we attempt to get our carbon future under control. Powell's argument, that 'we can't do anything about climate change because it will destroy the economy to do so' doesn't make sense. Providing our energy through fossil fuels costs x and delvers y profits to fossil fuel businesses like Exxon. 'Doing something about it' means that over time we switch to clean energy at a cost of x-plus something or x-minus something, delivering profits to the same (if they expand into renewables) or different businesses. How does this process destroy the economy? It moves the money around. And reduces the amount of carbon we spew into our atmosphere. Problem?

- AB

October 31, 2012 at 3:15pm

RobertPowell - I know you are a bit far from Wendell, Mass, but there is an open house on Saturday Nov 3 from 1-3 pm at Diemand Farm, 126 Mormon Hollow Road to demonstrate Easthampton-based Urban Power USA' vertical axis wind turbine for rooftop installation. Purpose? "part of an eventual effort to change zoning laws..." from today's Greefield Recorder. I have been following vertical-axis wind turbines for rooftops since 2005, and glad to see a US company working on it. Those who refuse to realize that one answer is to devolve power generation to the building itself are those who continue to believe that only Federal laws are the answer, whilst ignoring the reality that so many small solutions are actively blocked at the local level. I tried in NYC, blocked at every turn, and find it sad that the same mentality is at work in Massachusetts where even planting long-lived trees in your yard is bashed by "environmentalists" because trees eventually die and release the CO2. That was how I was slammed at a town greening meeting by the official moderator - for suggesting people could plant certain species of trees without taking into account that oak tree will die in one hundred years.

- K2K

October 31, 2012 at 5:12pm

Sounds interesting K2K. Would attend if I was still in New England, but alas the Former Evil Empire where I am now located is a bit too much of a comute. In any case this is the kind of innovation that has a chance of getting the support of reasonable people going forward rather than just whining about how stupid those questioning panic-driven solutions are. The "problem" AB is that working on genuine solutions that address our energy/environment issues has to avoid to the extent possible political gridlock. Simply mis-stating the positions taken by those who don't buy 100% of the current proposals by climate enthusiasts is counterproductive. In this way my objection to McKibben's bizarre suggestion that we should, or even could, " get our climate system under control" becomes "we can't do anything", or complaints about led lightbulbs. Yes, we have a problem. No, we're not going to flip a switch and change the planet's energy usage paradigms overnight. Take a minute and read the Foreign Affairs article I linked above and let me know what you think. It at least reflects a genuinely thoughtful take on the issue.

- Robert Powell

November 1, 2012 at 5:21am

RP - glad you came back because this thread is cold, lost in the swirl here. Earlier today, I read about the issues with Vertical-Axis at NatGeo, but I still think it can be viable in windy-ish terrain. I agree with your stance "Yes, we have a problem. No, ..." except I think it is too late to do anything on a global scale unless a plague kills half the population. If McKibben is reading this, surely he would recognize this point. Yes, I shall read your FP link. Am familiar with Lonborg. My tnr.com subscription expires in two weeks or so, so, it has truly been a pleasure RP.

- K2K

November 1, 2012 at 8:28pm

Thanks K2K--a pleasure indeed. Sorry to see you go--if you just take the digital subscription you can still post and keep up without accumulating all that recycled tree material....

- Robert Powell

November 2, 2012 at 4:57am