Month 12, Day 24: I’m Glad I Don’t Understand Science, Because If I Understood It, I’d Be Less Likely To Be A Jackass

The New York Times runs a long and fascinating biographical piece on Charles Keeling, the guy who did the half-century’s worth of atmospheric CO2 measurements that provide us insight into our predicament. It isn’t always this easy to find a theme for a letter; I am grateful to the Gray Lady.

After I got this written I saw that it was 149 words. So I added the “oy.”

It is a tragic commentary on a forty-year decline in scientific literacy in America that the work of Charles Keeling is so egregiously misinterpreted by conservative legislators and a significant fraction of the general public. At a time when we need greater understanding of science and scientific method, we are instead offered the scriptural rationalization that since global warming is mentioned nowhere in the Bible, it cannot exist. At a time when we need unity of purpose in combating one of the most significant threats humanity has ever faced, we are instead offered the blustery hyperpartisanship of incoming committee chairmen who eagerly anticipate hindering the researchers who are our first line of defense. At a time when we need wisdom and farsightedness to recognize the implications of Dr. Keeling’s fifty meticulous years of work, we are instead offered folly, measured out in quarterly profit margins and two-year electoral cycles. Oy.

Warren Senders

Month 12, Day 23: Don’t Tell Me No One Ever Died Of Seasickness! The Hope of Dying Is The Only Thing That’s Keeping Me Alive!

The Baltimore Sun notes that there is a tiny ray of hope poking through the gloom.

The best news to be found on the climate change front this month was a report that the polar bear, a threatened species that has come to symbolize the dangers of global warming, may yet be saved — if greenhouse emissions are reduced over the next two decades.

Unfortunately, that’s a big “if.” International climate talks that ended early this month in Cancun produced no legally binding agreement. They weren’t expected to — nor is the stalemate expected to break in the near future. Negotiators are keeping expectations low for next year’s United Nations-sponsored conference in South Africa.

Good news is now buried so deeply in the queue of nested conditionals that it requires special training to be able to spot it. Anyway, today’s was a pretty generic “Conservatives are idiots” approach, notable only for some clever wordplay in the last three sentences. Is it noticeable?

There is indeed cause for optimism on climate change. Eventually all but the most ideologically hidebound will recognize the reality of global heating and the importance of action. Is the time required for an intellectual turnaround more time than we’ve got? Climatic “tipping points” are moving past us inexorably; nature’s laws will doom the foolish and the wise alike. Most conservatives are inextricably attached to the notion that climate change does not exist (because it’s been discussed by scientists, who are presumably liberals) or cannot exist (because it’s not in the Bible). A few acknowledge the problem, and assert that our technology (along with the magic of market capitalism) will save us. But technological wizardry won’t pull our climatic chestnuts out of the tropospheric fire unless we start spending money on developing that technology. The only thing that’s absolutely certain is that the costs of inaction dwarf those of action.

Warren Senders

22 Dec 2010, 4:56pm
Jazz music vocalists:
by

leave a comment

  • Meta

  • SiteMeter

  • Brighter Planet

    Brighter Planet's 350 Challenge
  • The Man Who Made James Moody “James Moody”

    Here’s a little classic from King Pleasure:

    Snarlin’ Arlen Haz A Sad

    Soon-to-be ex-Senator Specter feels betrayed:

    “The Supreme Court has been eating Congress’ lunch by invalidating legislation with judicial activism after nominees commit under oath in confirmation proceedings to respect congressional fact finding and precedents,” said Specter, who voted in favor of both Roberts and Alito when the Bush appointees came before his panel.

    Specter specifically took issue with the court’s controversial 5-4 decision early this year, in which it relaxed federally-imposed campaign finance regulations for corporations and unions.

    “Ignoring a massive congressional record and reversing recent decisions, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito repudiated their confirmation testimony given under oath and provided the key votes to permit corporations and unions to secretly pay for political advertising – thus effectively undermining the basic Democratic principle of the power of one person, one vote,” said Specter. Chief Justice Roberts promised to just call balls and strikes and then he moved the bases.”

    Asshole.

    This is not on climate issues, so it doesn’t count as a Letter-of-the-Day, but I just faxed this to his office:

    Dear Senator Specter –

    I’m glad you finally noticed that Justices Roberts and Alito have been functioning as judicial activists from their positions on the Supreme Court.

    Too bad you couldn’t anticipate that at the time you voted for confirmation.

    For what it’s worth, a lot of us ordinary people out here in America looked at John Roberts and Sam Alito — and we knew beyond any doubt that these guys were lying to the Judiciary Committee. We knew beyond any doubt that they’d side with big corporations against ordinary people.

    How did we know?

    While the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee were posturing for the cameras, we looked at the things they’d said and written, and we looked at the things they’d done. And we were scared, because we knew that if Roberts and Alito were approved, a decision like the Citizens United disaster would not be long in coming.

    But we were ignored, presumably because we were liberals. More precisely, we were ignored because we were part of the group of Americans that seems to scare politicians more than any other; we were Hippies. Why the irrational fear of hippies, Senator?

    All we ever did wrong was to be right. Hippies were right about Vietnam, and we were right about Nixon, and we were right about Reagan and about Bush and about Iraq and about air pollution and about civil rights and about pretty damn near everything in the past forty years. And (just to rub your nose in it a little) we were right about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill.

    And we were, once again, right about John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

    And you were wrong.

    Just once, it would be refreshing to see a major political figure stand up and say it, out loud: “The hippies were right. I was wrong.”

    Not that I have any hope of your doing that, of course.

    But I can dream, can’t I?

    Have a wonderful Christmas.

    Warren Senders

    21 Dec 2010, 5:55pm
    environment:
    by

    leave a comment

  • Meta

  • SiteMeter

  • Brighter Planet

    Brighter Planet's 350 Challenge
  • Month 12, Day 22: David Cameron Makes Positive Noises

    The Pakistan Times runs a little piece about the British PM’s statement on the Cancun agreement:

    LONDON (UK): British Prime Minister David Cameron has hailed the agreement at the UN Climate Change talks in Cancun, Mexico, as a “very significant step forward” to tackling climate change through multilateral action.

    Cameron said he was clear that Britain would meet its international obligations and stressed he would continue to make the case for a “global, comprehensive and legally-binding climate agreement”, a message received by ‘Pakistan Times’ [Daily e-Newspaper] from 10 Downing said.

    Always nice to hear people saying the right things once in a while, no?

    The Cancun climate accord may be a small step, but at least it is a step in the right direction. There are few nations in the world that are as acutely aware of the need for a robust and realistic plan of action on climate change as Pakistan. Sadly, the planet’s wealthiest countries are among its biggest polluters, while the states which bear the brunt of extreme weather conditions are often those whose carbon dioxide emissions are statistically insignificant. Cancun represents at least a tentative step towards a global recognition that the richest can no longer afford to ignore those they harm. The coming years will determine not only the fate of the world’s nations, but of humanity as a whole. If the climate crisis has a positive side, it is simply this: awareness of global warming may force us to recognize our shared destiny as a species.

    Warren Senders

    Month 12, Day 21: Good Night and Good Morning.

    The Christian Science Monitor runs another “Cancun isn’t much but it’s more than anyone expected” article. I used it as a hook to rail against the media and the corporatocracy.

    I can see the full moon outside but it will be too late for me to see the eclipse tonight. Too bad.

    The Cancun agreement marks a modest forward step in the struggle against global climate change, and one which is especially welcome given the overwhelmingly pessimistic predictions made before the conference began. But the forces aligned against realistic action on the complex tangle of environmental and economic issues are enormous. To take just one example, it is folly to imagine that the world’s oil industry is going to support a move away from our crippling dependence on fossil fuels. Equally problematic is the symbiotic relationship between our national news media and the corporate systems which bankroll them. These corporations (and their extraordinarily wealthy executive castes) will not allow the media outlets they control to tell the truth about global warming — because it would negatively impact their quarterly profit margins. And so, instead, we get equivocations, celebrity distractions, he-said-she-said stenography, false equivalences, misleading statistics and outright lies. This would be bad enough if the subject were a normal crisis; for a threat of this magnitude it is a moral catastrophe.

    Warren Senders

    Month 12, Day 20: Don’t Be Silly! They Couldn’t Hit An Elephant At This Dist—!

    If only this had started happening, I dunno, maybe twenty or thirty years ago:

    The United States’ top climate negotiator is calling on scientists and policymakers to orchestrate an “educational effort” to change the public’s perception about climate change.

    Todd Stern, the country’s special envoy on climate change, pointed to a gap between what science says about the changing climate and what American’s believe.

    “There is a gap and I think there is an educational effort that really needs to be made,” he said in a pre-taped interview with the energy and environment news program energyNow! that aired Sunday. Asked who should lead the education effort, Stern pointed to both scientists and policymakers.

    Better late than never, I suppose.

    Dear Mr. Stern,

    Your call for a widespread educational effort to inform American citizens about the realities of climate change is absolutely correct. The news media have been at best irresponsible and at worst criminally negligent, at a time when we need accurate information more than ever. The opposition to the very notion of global heating in the Republican party has now reached a point where it is essentially an article of faith — a religious conviction, if you will. These two factors have combined in a deadly synergy that virtually guarantees a systemic failure to act in the face of the gravest threat humanity has confronted in millennia.

    Ordinary citizens have little recourse in the face of such egregious misconduct in the corridors of power, and very few of us have the time or inclination to educate ourselves about the dimensions of the problem. Those who do will write letters and make telephone calls, and invariably we’ll be ignored by those who are beholden to the world’s largest polluters and the mountains of cash they manipulate.

    If we are to forestall a tragic outcome for our species and for our planet, we need the strong and unambiguous voices of people who are prepared to speak with authority on the issues of climate, attacking attack the systemic propagation of ignorance everywhere. Your position as the chief climate negotiator for the United States gives you that authority. I urge you to organize a Climate Misinformation Task Force that will take on the ignorance engendered by the media and enabled by our dysfunctional political system.

    This is a debate our species cannot afford to lose. If the ignorant and avaricious have the final say in the climate debate, that could be the last words of our civilization or our species.

    Yours Sincerely,

    Warren Senders

    Month 12, Day 19: Only Two Things Are Infinite…

    The York County, Maine, Journal Tribune (York County’s only daily newspaper) runs an editorial citing “modest progress” at Cancun. Hard to argue with that. I used it as the opportunity to call out our media and political establishments for their anti-reality programming.

    With all due respect to an excellent editorial summary, I would submit that the biggest challenge to managing climate change may not be reining in the greenhouse emissions of China and the U.S. It’s true that China’s is the largest share of worldwide CO2 output; it’s equally true that the dubious honor of the most emissions per capita belongs to the United States. And while humanity has never faced a planetary threat greater than atmospheric carbon dioxide, getting it under control will be easier than making our politicians grasp the enormity of the problem. Denial of science and scientific expertise is now an article of faith for conservatives, and a simple economic decision for the fossil fuel industries which bankroll them. As long as our media keep playing the game of false equivalence, in which the opinion of an expert climatologist is “balanced” by a corporate shill from a conservative think tank, we’re never going to make any real progress on climate change. Meanwhile, of course, the clock is ticking, and the world is getting ever hotter.

    Warren Senders

    Month 12, Day 18: Homeopathic Solutions for Climate Change?

    Sunita Narain, the Director of India’s Centre for Science and Environment, is less than thrilled about the Cancun accord.

    The first agenda before Cancun was to decide on how much the industrialized countries – primarily responsible for this global problem – would cut. The target discussed at the Bali conference in 2007 was a reduction of 40% over 1990 levels by 2020. So, tough decisions were needed at Cancun.

    The Cancun deal has been struck by letting these countries off the hook. There are no targets. Instead, it has been agreed that now these countries will take action based on what they “pledge” to do. Take the US. If the target was being set (as was decided in Bali) on the basis of its contribution to the stock of gases already in the atmosphere, then it would have to reduce 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. Now, US has “pledged” that it will reduce zero percentage points in the same period. Cancun legitimizes its right to pollute. It is no wonder that it worked hard to stitch the deal. It is no wonder that western media and leaders are ecstatic about the breakthrough. It is their victory.

    What Cancun has done is to shift the burden of the transition to the developing countries. If the combined pledges of the developed world are compared to those of the developing (including India’s commitment to reduce energy intensity by 20% by 2020) then the sell-out character of the deal becomes clear. The industrialized countries, who till now were being asked to take on the burden, will end up cutting less emissions than the developing world. They cut roughly 0.8-1.8 billion tonnes, against developing country pledges of 2.8 billion tonnes.

    She has a point.

    As an American citizen, I heartily concur with Sunita Narain’s assessment of the Cancun agreement. The inability of the world’s biggest polluters to take responsibility for the disaster they have fostered is a moral outrage, an ecological nightmare, and an economic travesty. What does it say about our system of values that wealth is so strongly correlated with pollution and environmental destruction? Of course, there are reasons for optimism in the fact that an agreement of any sort was reached at all; the current accord is assuredly better than the contentious travesty that was last year’s Copenhagen summit. But it’s hard not to feel that we’ve slapped a tiny bandage on a huge wound; when humanity confronts a threat that may well destroy the lives of billions, we need robust, concerted and immediate action to end our dependence on fossil fuels if our species and our civilization are to survive.

    Warren Senders

    Month 12, Day 17: The Idea Of North

    This is a first for me; I have never written a letter to Nunatsiaq Online before. They ran an article about a conference in Ottowa where a whole bunch of Arctic climate specialists got up and said, more or less, “AAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!”

    Nunatsiaq is pretty far North:

    A is me. B is Iqaluit, Nunatsiaq. Google:

    We could not calculate directions between 300 High St, Medford, MA 02155 and Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0, Canada.

    I asked Travelocity to find me fares between Boston and Iqaluit:

    We apologize. Your last request could not be processed. Thank you for your patience.

    While Jakarta & Sydney are certainly more distant, this is definitely the remotest place I’ve written to:

    The thing to keep in mind when reading about climatologists’ reactions to changes in Arctic temperatures and weather conditions is that scientific terminology was developed specifically to minimize emotional responses. While the popular conception of scientists is based on this style of communication, it’s a mistake to think that these experts don’t care deeply about what they study. The participants in the Ottowa conference obviously love the Arctic, and their use of words like “unusual” and “dramatic” when discussing current conditions should set our alarm bells ringing. Those are strong words for scientists, the sort an epidemiologist might employ to describe an outbreak of bubonic plague; the sort a zoologist might utter when faced with a living, breathing Sasquatch. If Arctic specialists are sounding perturbed, it means the evidence of catastrophic system failure is overwhelming. We (all of us, everywhere on the planet) ignore their observations at our peril.

    Warren Senders

    Published.