NOTWITHSTANDING MY BELIEF THAT IT IS THE MOST CRUCIAL ISSUE OF OUR TIMES, I have, as promised, gone easy on the topic of climate change for a few weeks. However there are several dramatic and crucial bulletins on this issue that must be attended.
The first and most crucial is that this is not an issue that will vanish at the will of the Koch brothers and the Republican Party. Nevertheless, that will not be for lack of trying, crying, wailing and creating obstacles to both scientific study and analysis — and action. I begin here with a bulletin incorporating the Koch brothers’ corporate view, following that with a dramatic environmental movement tied directly to this issue and growing explosively worldwide.
I quote from blogger Brad Johnson, Sept. 22, 2014:
“The political arm of the Koch brothers’ petrochemical empire excoriated President Barack Obama’s address at the UN climate summit today, challenging the science of climate change and the economics of climate policy as ‘radical,’ ‘ideological,’ ‘destructive,’ and ‘needless.’ In an email to supporters, Tim Phillips, the president of the Koch political advocacy organization Americans for Prosperity, decried the president’s ‘radical international energy agenda for what used to be called global warming, then climate change, then extreme weather, and now finally climate disruption.’” (The idea that the left changes the name of global warming as a propagandistic fiction is a conservative meme.) “Phillips then blamed the Republican filibuster of climate legislation on Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.:
“‘The worst part is, President Obama knows that his energy agenda is harmful and will not help our country get back on the path to prosperity. In fact the President’s proposal is so unpopular and destructive, even Harry Reid’s Senate wouldn’t dream of passing it, which is why he has bypassed Congress and taken his short-sighted, destructive energy policies to an international body.’
In an accompanying video titled ‘Obama’s UN Speech Promises to Kill Jobs and Raise Energy Prices,’ Phillips rejects the science of man-made climate change, and falsely claims that reductions in carbon pollution would be economically harmful and environmentally meaningless.
“‘If all the numbers, facts, and figures that the left claims are true, their own numbers say this will make really no difference in saving the planet. We think they’re wrong on the merits, but even if you accept their numbers, this will be nothing but a lose-lose situation for the American public.’
Surely a truly bizarre conclusion! In short, if planetary destruction is coming anyway, why mess with profits today?
On the other hand, perhaps we need to recognize the complexity of their calculations or their read on the situation, which when it comes to the Kochs, is apparently based on what is in the public’s best interest! Corporate profit is a factor that never enters the Koch’s considerations; their incredible sense of patriotism would not allow that. Or so we are incessantly being primed by Koch representatives — and their political allies — to believe!
For a remarkably different read we look to the Sept. 21 People’s Climate March in New York City, together with a large number of marches in cities around the globe. A relatively new and clearly crucial and powerful development has blossomed: the mushrooming growth of general environmental concern about warming. From that early conviction of the most informed scientists and concerned researchers and their deep concern about the dangers, this issue has very recently rapidly grown into a very large movement, including a vastly greater body of students and concerned citizens. That the latter are clearly ready to enter the fray has been dramatically demonstrated recently in New York.
As reported by Amy Goodman in a three-hour “Democracy Now” special broadcast that included video highlights, up to 400,000 people (quadruple the number expected!) filled the streets of New York, calling for action on climate change. The following are excerpts from the report of Karen Rubin for the Long Island Populist Examiner.
“They came from all corners of the country and the globe for the People’s Climate March. On Sunday, September 21, Manhattan’s streets turned into a sea of people, registering their demand for world leaders to take action on what many believe is the ‘defining issue of our time.’
“A Kentucky coal miner spoke of his black lung disease and how his beloved Appalachian mountains are being blown apart; an Asian-American woman told of her kids being rushed to an emergency room for their asthma; a Native-American man told of cancers among his people, the Ramapo, who were here before the American Revolution and now their land, the air and water, is being destroyed by fracking; a North Dakota Native American told of ‘bomb trains’ that carry oil but have a propensity to explode — like the one that killed 47 people in Quebec — and other bomb trains in Alabama and North Dakota; a young woman from Rockaway appealed for action that will stop the destructive storms; and a woman from the Marshall Islands pleaded for something that will save her homeland from being swallowed by rising seas.
“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. faults the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision for giving the fossil fuel industry — the most profitable in human history — and the Koch brothers an outsize ‘voice’ and power to control lawmakers and subvert democracy.
“Stanley Sturgill, the retired Kentucky coal miner, spoke of trying to visit his Congressman Harold Rogers, who refused to see him and then had him arrested.
“‘The power of the march isn’t in the march, it’s the people going home, making change,’ said Van Jones, a former Obama Administration official who now heads Green For All. ‘Things will happen in this country because of this march. As many marchers as are here, there are hundreds and thousands of locations around world. This is the biggest movement in world and just getting started. This is the most powerful climate statement on record.
“‘We thought in a global climate emergency, the federal government would act first, but the laws of political physics don’t change,’ he said. There will not be movement on the federal front until they see the states act. ‘That’s how a movement works.’
“One of the concrete policies being advocated is a carbon tax — something that Republicans had once supported but no longer do. Here again, federal inaction is spurring state action — California imposed a carbon tax, and instead of raising energy costs, energy costs are coming down and the revenue raised is used to offset carbon or incentivize alternative energy. Massachusetts is also considering a carbon tax.
“Senator Bernie Sanders has every right to be cynical and frustrated — though a member of the majority in the Senate — (because) Republicans have used the filibuster to obstruct even wildly popular legislation.
“But he, too, is hopeful.
“‘I’m here because climate change is the great planetary crisis we are facing. I am here because at the end of the day, the only way to make change is exactly by people taking to the street.’”
“And take to the streets they did — in hundreds of thousands in New York, and in hundreds of other locations in this land — and in many others!”
After years of deep concern about the crucial nature of this looming and ominous threat, I too feel a renewed sense of hopeful possibility — the possibility that a widespread awakening, continuing to spread, can result in crucial action before it is too late!
Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Stanley Sturgill, the retired Kentucky coal miner, spoke of trying to visit his Congressman Harold Rogers, who refused to see him and then had him arrested.
Mr. Page, did you research this aspect of your story?
Mr. Page, I was interrupted thus not able to elaborate on my question. I would like to do so, as I believe an opportunity was missed.
I do not think I am going out on a limb when I say your style (lengthy excerpts from others with attribution) serves two purposes: Reinforcing points you agree with, thereby educating the readers. Secondly, inviting the readers to explore the full articles (something I do on an occasional basis).
The quote I posted caught my eye, as it seemed there was more to it than just an innocent victim and an evil politician.
Mr. Sturgill is a victim, but in two ways. First: Black lung disease, a story you have written on before and one we are all familiar with. That aspect has been beaten to death as have the Koch brothers). The second though is more compelling as he is a victim by design.
By that I mean he chose to become an activist, to fight for his cause, to educate others and to raise funds for other victims. All commendable actions.
He also chose to occupy the Congressmen’s office (as additional research indicated) and was not simply arrested at the behest of the evil politician.
Therein lies the missed opportunity. Mr. Sturgill’s actions are such that they could make for a positive story on its own merits.
So the question becomes why does Ms. Rubin chose to ignore the true protagonist, while focusing on a false antagonist? (The Congressman may very well be a bad guy, but not in the situation conveyed by Ms. Rubin).
Ms. Rubin chose to use Mr. Sturgill to make a point for her cause, she did so in a deceptive manner. She would have garnered more credibility by not doing so and discussing Mr. Sturgill’s courage and unselfish actions.
Dennis, yours is a rare intellect. It’s sad that you use it nearly always in wrongful ways. Here, you find a point of valid critique to nit-pick the work of one who strives well in the good cause, whereas your work typically indicates Koch-class worship and wealth-madness. I absolutely prefer Jerome’s mentality and motivation to yours. You’re a bit like the late William Buckley whom I found always entertaining but in general irksomely wrong=headed.
Thank you, Jerome. To hell with the Kochs clan, I don’t need moneyed stupidity. Grassroots revolution will save the planet, it always has
.
Peter Bray, Benicia, CA
Fine work as usual, Mr. Page, no matter that it falls short of Mr. Lunds’s perfection.
Climate Change – A solution looking for a problem for no other purpose than profit. People just aren’t buying it. Move on!
Climate and human impact on it matter greatly to immense numbers of folks, JLB, and as concerns profit motive (meaning financial interest only) you’re wrong about the vast majority of those folks. On the other hand, the carbon industries participate in the national Culture of World Death, and money is their substitute for life itself. I guess you saw no news last weekend?
There is simply no direct evidence that climate change is a man made phenomenum. No provable theory exists! Pure speculation and erroneous hypothesis based on provably false models.
To be clear, I am not stating that man made global warming is not real. But from a purely scientific position, there is no direct evidence.
So what do we do? Collapse world economies by destroying affordable energy sources? Cause global poverty and suffering based on speculation?
There is need to study the issue and prove the hypothesis before engaging in wholesale economic destruction.
And using the Koch Brothers as a target is pathetic. They are great philanthropists if you simply do a little research. Yes, they are politically active. They have a right to be as free citizens. But maybe you disagree with the First Ammendment Mr. Page?
Both sides have their big names. Koch brothers on one side, George Soros and Bloomberg on the other. Put those people aside and get back to the science and the facts. The fact is that the projections are based on modeling not data and the data are proving the modeling is false or at best grossly inaccurate. That fact is well known and has been acknowledge by all parties on both sides, yet it seems to have no effect on the likes of Mr. Page, the alarmists or the politicians who stand to make bank if they can get some traction on the subject.
It’s no use to argue with cast-in-concrete denialists. No reasoning from evidence can be “direct” enough for them. Besides, they would rather refute claims by using ad-hominem attack. Proponents of human impact on climate from carbon burning are slurred as having dishonest “interest” in financial gain from alternative energy. Nobody can be any good with whom they disagree.
Mr. Shelby, it is not about denial, it is about facts. How about submitting some that prove man made global warming exists. The simple truth is there are none. All that has been submitted by the scientific community is a bunch of theories and projections based on data modeling not actual data measurement. And that has been under wide spread acknowledgment including NASA. Remember Al Gore’s predictions for 2013 that never came true. That was not based on factual information. It was a projection based upon data modeling. The facts and actual scientific data do not bear it out and the simple fact is that his and many other projections and predictions are just not happening. WHY? The answer is simple. IT IS NOT REAL. HELLO MCFLY!
The claim that climate scientists are still arguing over the reality of human-caused climate change was designed to resonate with the sensibilities of political conservatives who are inherently suspicious of government intervention in markets and societies. This targeted disinformation campaign has been highly effective in the United States: far more political conservatives than liberals currently believe that there is “a lot of disagreement among the experts about global warming. This disinformation campaign is now being pursued in Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, as well
Mr. Petersen, whether you don’t want to believe there is legitimate debate in the scientific community regarding man made global warming is your opinion and not based in fact. A simple run through the Internet will show highly credentialed scientists openly debating facts and conclusions. The debate continues.
And to reiterate, I am not denying that the phenomenum exists, I am simply stating the debate exists and it is far from concluded. At this point, the predictive models have been wildly inaccurate, meaning, that the scientific community does not have the data and calculations mastered to fully derive a conclusion of mans involvement in climate change.
The main point I make is, why rush into potentially societal and economic changes when no clear disaster is imminent? We have time to study and react. As I stated, carbon based fuels will economically disappear within 100 years. Why push the world economy into a tail spin when disaster does not loom?
Reasonable people can disagree. I have no agenda other than let the facts dictate action.
Matter,
“whether you don’t want to believe there is legitimate debate in the scientific community regarding man made global warming is your opinion and not based in fact.” Interesting statement. It’s not “my” opinion at all. My comments was as objective as they come.
Nearly all climate scientists are convinced that human-caused climate change is occurring, yet half of Americans do not know or do not believe that a scientific consensus has been reached. That such a large proportion of Americans do not understand that there is a near-unanimous scientific consensus about the basic facts of climate change matters, a lot.
Different methods have been used to estimate the degree of scientific consensus about human-caused climate change—including surveys of experts, and reviews of the peer-reviewed literature. Both methods converge on the following conclusion: 97% or more of climate scientists are convinced that human-caused climate change is happening.
The potential benefits of setting the record straight are considerable. By working to overcome this barrier to public understanding of climate change, scientists can help a broader cross section of American society—and perhaps people in other nations as well—to better understand the realities and risks of climate change, as well as the range of potential solutions. Furthermore, an effort to communicate the
scientific consensus can also help bridge the (manufactured) divide between conservatives and liberals about the reality of human-caused climate change and help Americans begin the real debate about climate change—how the nation should best respond. Ideally, a debate about climate solutions should harness the best ideas of people across the political spectrum. Now is the time for citizens, together with government and industry leaders, to engage in a serious conversation about how to manage the risks of climate change.
Sorry … You lost me at “nearly all climate scientists are convinced ….”
Simply and provably not true. That statement is categorically and factually false.
I understand you WANT to believe, but dreams die hard.
I completely respect your choice NOT to understand.
“Matter,” I would be happy to learn that planetary warming was not happening, regardless of human or natural contributions to cause. I have no stake in Armageddon, Ragnarok, End-times, asteroid collision or Yellowstone vulcanism. I’m not eager for biosphere destruction or the mere extinction of humans. I look at the information available to me and do not discount as many sources of it as you do Like you, however, I regard opinions opposed to mine as stemming from “financially interested parties,” in my case, persons invested in carbon fuel extraction and burning. Would it were not so, but carbon burning will be with us for another decade or two. After that, petroleum may figure only as raw material.