Wow, do we have a problem talking about climate change!
Share your Thoughts
Posted on June 1, 2007
Filed Under Global warming/Climate change, Greenhouse gas emissions, Ecological hope, Fossil fuel dependency, Environmental disasters
Fostering Ecological Hope
Today from Margaret Swedish:
My goodness, in the past two days, we have had a real insight into why US society has a problem addressing the challenge of global climate change. In a world where fewer people, including scientists and world leaders, question the science on global warming, where more and more people prescind from the idea that human pollution is causing a harmful rise in global temperatures and then move right on to the difficult question of what to do about it — well, in the US, we are still having trouble even talking about it coherently.
So on the day (yesterday) when the president of the United States discovers that the problem is worth dealing with, putting some of his ever-shrinking political capital into something that might make him look a bit better than his disintegrating presidency makes him look now, we have complete contradictions in the national conversation — yet one more time.
Pick your talk shows and talking points — everybody got something yesterday.
So Bush has proposed talks, a summit on climate change. See, he says, the US is “taking leadership.” Leadership? We are so far behind much of the world on this, it stopped being humurous long ago. Here’s the guy who repudiated the Kyoto Protocol — a wimpy first attempt at an international agreement to cut carbon emissions, but at least an attempt — 
who has consistently bashed the science, an administration that put young inexperienced political hacks in agencies to re-write the reports of scientists on climate change, who has adamantly refused to participate in any meaningful way in international negotiations on an agreement to follow Kyoto (it sunsets in 2012)…
And now he’s going to take leadership by bringing the world’s biggest carbon emitters together to talk about ‘goals’ for emission reductions.
Earth to George: the world has been talking about this for a long time. Hello!
Still, I guess it means something that he sees this as a way to salvage something of his reputation. The announcement comes as the G-8 countries are about to meet in Germany, on which agenda global warming will be right up there. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has proposed a more stringent regimen to reduce emissions (50% below 1990 levels by 2050), already rejected by the Bush administration.
Okay, I will link to these newspapers just because I find the contrast in tone and substance so interesting. The Washington Post article, Bush Signals Shift on Warming, puts his proposal in a bit more favorable light, even saying it impressed some European leaders. I guess it is impressive by contrast, but I wonder how many are on this list today, when the insubstantial nature of the proposal became clearer.
The New York Times, Bush Proposes Goals on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, was a bit more circumspect. In this case, ’some’ European leaders are skeptical, rather than impressed. A lot of the focus is on Bush’s use of the term “aspirational goals.” Doesn’t that sound impressive? Let’s aspire to some goals. That’ll do it. Also of concern is that he does not propose any immediate changes in policy. Everything is put off for a “midterm” of, oh, say, a decade or two. Great. That certainly wimps out this presidency for the remainder of its term.
The Wash. Post writer Dana Milbank has something to say about this, As the World Warms, the White House Aspires. It’s quite entertaining, and right on the mark.
Milbank also brings up the other bit of background noise to all this. Yesterday, NPR managed to get utterly opposing views on global warming from two NASA officials. On Morning Edition, Steve Inskeep interviewd NASA administrator Michael Griffin, appointed by Bush, but still with a whole bunch of academic degrees, so he should know better. He basically said that global warming was fine to study but nothing to worry about. Then he went on to accuse those who think we should do something about manmade heat-trapping gases of arrogance.
I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change. First of all, I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.
This took my breath away. First of all, we are not talking about choosing optimal climate. We are talking about preventing climate changes that could bring about unimaginable human catastrophes. Second, he says it is not in our power to ensure that climate does not change. But that is not what the climate scientists are saying. We are changing the climate already. That’s the point, and we are changing it faster and beyond anything since the evolution of homo sapiens.
Arrogance? Good grief — we are humbly saying that human beings need to live within the balance of nature, not over and above it, cooking and beating it to death. That’s arrogance, and then some.
You can read the transcript or listen to the interview here.
The other side of the argument from within NASA came on the evening program, All Things Considered. To rebut Griffin, NPR interviewed one of this country’s leading climate scientists, James Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 
Hansen was clearly stunned by what his boss had said. He called Griffin’s comments “remarkably uninformed,” and said once again that “time is really running out,” that we are already at a tipping point, and that without emission reductions, “we are going to see some really big climate changes.” (Hear the interview)
He said that when he first heard Griffin’s comments, “I almost fell off my chair.” He says that we built a whole infrastructure for civilization around the current climate, and that to allow emissions to change climate would be “extremely arrogant of our species.”
He goes on to note that NASA’s earth science budget was cut by 30% last year, “decimating the program.”
Bush says climate change is a serious concern, but the level of concern always shows up in the budget.
Oh, and a reminder — Hansen is one of the guys this administration has tried to silence. Hansen has seen the warming world of the future, and it is not a pretty picture.
Lastly on this long post (I had to vent and get all this out to you), Hansen mentions the odd and ‘amazing coincidence’ that Griffin’s comments and Bush’s seemingly contradictory proposal come just as he and other scientists have issued a new report on climate change showing that if we don’t do something about emissions, we will be creating a different planet.
The study was done by NASA and the Columbia University Earth Institute. You can read their press release here.
Where does this leave us? We in the US have a pretty hefty load to carry here. We not only have to address a whole economic life built on fossil fuels that are altering our climate, but we still have to reach some kind of political and cultural consensus on what the science is telling us and what we need to do about it. I think ‘they’ are going to try to keep us in denial and confusion for as long as ‘they’ can. I think we are going to have to take responsibility for this.
The US is not only not in a leadership position, it is in an obstructive position. Your political leaders are not going to tell you when it is time to act. We have to tell them.
Technorati Tags: bush global warming proposal, Michael Griffin, James Hanson, NASA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, tipping point
Photo credits:
Larson Bice ice sheet collapse, NASA
James Hansen, NASA
Comments
3 Responses to “Wow, do we have a problem talking about climate change!”
Leave a Reply
Thank you for such a level-headed and critical look at the administration’s “position” on climate change. Another interesting article came from the BBC today, noting that Bush’s comments are well-times to set the stage for his refusal to discuss serious climate initiatives in the G8 meetings.
I appreciated the clarity of your post!
Dear Colette,
Thanks for the comment. For those interested, here’s the link for the BBC article mentioned by Colette –http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6708995.stm.
And here’s another that shows that skepticism abounds around the world - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6713543.stm
Margaret
[…] Puts in perspective the grave moral failure of people like George Bush and NASA administrator Michael Griffin. […]