But finding areas of agreement is harder than it seems. Andrew Revkin, author of the NY Times blog Dot Earth, tries to pinpoint agreement as a starting point for civil conversations about global warming in his post, Back to Basics on Climate and Energy. A reader, who self identifies with the conservative party, calls this out as too simplistic, since people from the same party can't even agree.
"What exists is a whole team, or more accurately a "cloud", formed from social networks, informed only by bloggers and talk show hosts who are willing and eager to engage in a debate to which they refuse to bring any constructive points. At the same time you'll have a number claiming that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas (which is demonstrably untrue) who then get support or lack of criticism from those who move on to argue that CO2 just isn't the "most important" greenhouse gas. They will get support or lack of criticism from those who then claim that while CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, the climate simply isn't sensitive enough to it for it to matter.
To identify points of agreement with that crowd you'd have to find a point of agreement WITHIN that crowd."
"What exists is a whole team, or more accurately a "cloud", formed from social networks, informed only by bloggers and talk show hosts who are willing and eager to engage in a debate to which they refuse to bring any constructive points. At the same time you'll have a number claiming that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas (which is demonstrably untrue) who then get support or lack of criticism from those who move on to argue that CO2 just isn't the "most important" greenhouse gas. They will get support or lack of criticism from those who then claim that while CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, the climate simply isn't sensitive enough to it for it to matter.
To identify points of agreement with that crowd you'd have to find a point of agreement WITHIN that crowd."
Emphasis added by the reader.
I agree the issue of climate change has become a bipartisan discussion, and should not be tied to just the Left. The social costs associated with not taking action is just inexcusable. Improvement and innovation should be something that we strive for, not consistent cashflow and century old uses for energy. If record snowfall across the United States does not catch the eye of those disproving climate change, I really don't know what will. Possibly, each of us cooking slowly at 140 degress come summertime.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do think the argument that some of the right proposes are the costs associated with investing in renewable technology, which should include nuclear power development. The potential loss of jobs from petroleum based industries. Lastly, the loss of revenue for an industry, which is attached to several other areas within our economy such as automobile manufacturing and other products.
Fortunately, some of these companies have begun long-term planning instead of just looking at short-term gain. Also, consumers are slowly changing their lifestyles and habits to help the environment. What needs to happen is long-term strategy and planning not only with business and government, but with individuals. We are just as responsible for the damage of the planet as those petroleum companies who use fossil fuels as their driving product. There is no profit, unless you have a market and have consumers.
First of all, I am really excited to have a comment. How's it going Blake?
ReplyDeleteIt really is unacceptable that environment is a partisan issue. Despite the rhetoric, I suspect the majority of the public are pro-environmental improvement. Many say so in surveys, and I do think they are being honest. How much each person is willing to pay for an environmental policy may differ, but within reason, this is (or should be) a nonpartisan subject.
There certainly are costs associated with manufacturers and other factories reducing total pollution. Some jobs could be lost. However, in theory, there would also be new jobs in creating technologies to help reduce pollution output. There is also an interesting bill in the Senate called a cap-and-dividend bill that would give money from permit sales back to taxpayers to offset increased prices for goods. Something else to consider with respect to the automobile industry is that the companies that failed to innovate and improve fuel efficiency were hurting even prior to the start of the recession. (Of course, Toyota sits in a different position nowadays, but you get the point.)
As companies (and people, as you pointed out) change behaviors, things will improve. I agree that an all-encompassing strategy would be best, but if that isn't possible, other regulations do need to be enacted. There is a cost to not putting policies in place. (See last post.) If we do it now, we can spread costs out over 10- to 20-year periods.
Well you're bringing up a good topic, I couldn't resist on putting in my two cents. Everything is good, and it's my last semester so I looking forward to that. You make some great points. Especially when speaking of new jobs created by renewable energy. The only problem I forsee is the amount of difficulty from solely depending on solar and wind, because energy from those sources is hard to store. Nuclear power, along with these traditional renewable resources has the ability to end our polluting habits.
ReplyDeleteHave you seen any of Bill Gates discussion and lecture on energy improvement and development? He makes some great points and really emphasizes the dire situation we are placing ourselves in. If not below is a link to his lecture this past month. Let me know what you think.
http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html