Posting in Design
The so-called Climate Bill is a jobs bill. By fighting it, global warming denialists, and carbon industry lobbyists, are keeping us out of markets that can grow like the Internet did in the 1990s, and real estate did in the last decade.
Al Gore was right on the science but, as usual, he was wrong on the politics.
Global warming denialists, backed by industry lobbyists, are now on the march against any action on climate change. They succeeded in stopping a climate bill in Australia, and they have delayed action on a U.S. bill.
They have also used a dirty trick worthy of Richard Nixon to throw climate scientists into disarray. Imagine if your safe were robbed, and the contents then twisted by the thieves so you were made into the defendant in the dock. That's happening right now, and it's disgusting.
The right argument for action is in the bill's new title -- The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.
Right now we're subsidizing carbon and ignoring its costs. Even if climate change were not real, even if the glaciers weren't disappearing, the ice caps melting, the polar bears dieing, the storms growing, and plant climate ranges creeping northward, carbon would still have pollutants.
Parents who complain about mercury in vaccines need to know there is tons being deposited into the air they breathe, and the water they drink, every day by coal-fired power plants. Gasoline contains dozens of pollutants, and anyone who has lived near Houston for more than a day knows the damage from petrochemical plants.
This whole "cap and trade" regime is designed to charge for these costs. Yes, it raises the price of carbon energy. It's supposed to. But how else do you intend to deal with all this pollution -- not just the climate impacts but all of them? Or are you going to pretend no pollution is dangerous?
This provides a quiet subsidy to other forms of energy -- solar, wind, tides, geothermal -- and the technologies needed to get them to market. It does this without paying off anyone. It just raises the price of alternatives to account for their external costs. If these other forms of energy have such costs, we can charge for them, too. But they don't.
What we are talking about, in the end, are market incentives. America has always used market incentives to get the development it wanted. Canals, railroads, highways, the whole carbon energy complex, all depended (and depend) on various tax dodges and incentives in order to move forward.
This bill doesn't even ask to do away with them. Just pay the full costs of what you're doing and these newer technologies will bury you.
Not only that, but in burying you they will create jobs. Lots of jobs. Good jobs, with good pay. Renewables are already creating new jobs at a faster rate than carbon (from a smaller base) and that is going to continue.
Right now Germany and China are burying us here. Absolutely burying us. They have provided their suppliers with market incentives, and they're eating our lunch. Tried to buy a Euro lately?
We can catch up. We can pass them, if we have the incentives in our laws with which to do it. We have more scientists, more engineers, more entrepreneurs, bigger capital markets, and smart workers hungry for work.
The so-called Climate Bill is, in fact, a jobs bill. By fighting it, global warming denialists, and the carbon energy industries, are keeping us out of markets that can grow like the Internet did in the 1990s, and real estate did in the last decade.
Want to know why you can't find work? Exxon. That's why.
Oh, and did I mention that when you "burn" hydrogen (or ammonia), the pollution is water? Save it, store it, use it, and you're creating water in proportion to energy use. You can't do that with carbon. Which is one reason why even the Arabs are looking to create incentives for renewable energy.
Dec 3, 2009
It's that I only have to wait a few days after one of your pronouncements for something to pop up that makes you look completely foolish. For example, your declaration here (http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/how-al- gore-got-it-wrong/2300/#comments) that "Al Gore was right on the science but, as usual, he was wrong on the politics." was completely foolish on the face of it. But then I get a little extra help from Al Gore himself. It seems that even the scientists that he quotes dispute what he says! At Copenhagen, he stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years." The problem is, that Dr. Maslowski never said that: "It?s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this... I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this," he said. "It?s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore?s office." It's very clear to those of us who know "junk science" when we see it how these figures are arrived at. The politicians pick and choose the bites they need to justify their agenda, and then proceed as they see fit. A mostly compliant media (That's you Dana) go along and either willingly or ignorantly repeat the lies. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6 956783.ece
The recent release of the "climate gate" emails shows our buddy Al did not get the science right. The numbers were faked. A British court agrees the science is not their. They ruled his movie could not be shown in British schools as "science" because it had 9 major scientific errors in the "facts" it states. So now the movie can only be seen in political science classes and only with a disclaimer saying the movie is not based in fact. The disclaimer must state the movie is an example of political propoganda.
I'm the one who has been defending "science". I'd love to argue "real data". But if you've been following the recent happenings at East Angliga, it seems that they've "lost" their "real" data. At any given moment, most of my clients can retrieve minutea from events that took place 20 years ago. But for some reason after spending millions of dollars and compiling data that they used to build models and graphs that they wish would be used to change the course of human history, these guys just erased it all. So Dana, you want to talk data? If you want to make the case for anthropogenic global warming, you're the one who's going to have to come up with some data, because it was the advocates for your agenda who erased it. It wasn't me. All I have to show you is declining temperatures since 1998, which were still lower than those of the highest year of the 20th century, which happened in 1934. (Source: the Right-wing zealots at NASA) In real science, proponents of a theory collect their data, do their experiments, and then lay it all bare for their peers to tear apart. If their work survives, then it is taken seriously. What real scientists do not do is hide data that is contradictory and bully peers who are critical of their work. What you are defending are a bunch of guys who refused to produce their data, threw a bunch of graph at us, and when we questioned them about it, their response was "It's all good; trust us!" and then accuse anyone who questions them of being worse than Nazis. That definitely IS NOT science. That is politics, and that is what YOU have been defending.
Any anthropogenic component in the current climate variation is highly questionable. The earth's climate is known to undergo excursions of significant amplitude on a number of times scales and has done so long before the human species had any significant input. Computer models of the climate are unreliable; as they are well known to show sensitive dependence on initial conditions - i.e. they are chaotic. If you can't predict the weather with accuracy more than a few days in advance, how can you use these sort of models to reliably predict climate change decades or centuries into the future? It is insane to base policy on this sort of garbage.
You are totally, completely wrong. You are making a political argument against science. You can't win that way. Pretending you can is stupid in the extreme. You want to kill the theories of global warming? Give me some data. Real data. We can argue about real data. But hacking someone's e-mails and then picking them apart for some friendly quotes is, at best, politics. It's not science. It's the opposite. And those who try to engage science with politics only discredit themselves, not scientists. That said, the point of my piece is that renewable energy is the best way to jobs and growth and national security. No one on your side of the question is addressing any of that. Instead you're going after Gore and climate science with politics. There's a reason for that. And the reason is you're wrong -- wrong on the science, wrong on the politics, wrong on the issue.
Al Gore's "science" is, and always has been a fraud. And now many of the "scientists" behind Al Gore have been exposed as such as well. If their "science" was so solid, then why did they have to fudge their data and subvert the peer review process? Don't get mad at the "deniers". Get mad at the "scientists" who played loose and fast with the facts. They're the ones who now will make it very difficult to make your argument. As for mercury: I am far more concerned about the emissions of actual poisons and heavy metals, such as mercury, into the environment. So why aren't we focusing on that, where there actually is "scientific consensus"? Why are you going to fight to the death over CO2 when there are so many other pollutants that really are a threat?
It's all politics. Right or left doesn't make a hill of beans of difference. Until you can get China and Russia to comply with a "cease and desist" order, nature is gonna do what nature can do. Where were the activists back in the 1800s? Give me a break, already.
He was totally wrong on the science and the politics. Al Gore is a moron! The only thing he is doing is trying to line his pockets at our expense. Have a real look at the science. The Earth has been going through climate change for millions of years. Where was the effect of mankind a million years ago when the Earth was ten times warmer than it is right now. We just happen to be around at the unfortunate time with the Earth is warming and there is not a damn thing we can do about it except plan on how we are going to survive through it. Don't get me wrong, I am all for cleaning up the way we create energy. Let's power our cars with water or batteries. Let's generate as much electricity as we can with renewable sources. And let's support the creation of these sources in a thoughtful and reasonable manor. To go off half cocked because Chicken Little(Al Gore) is crying the sky is falling is not the way to do things. If the The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act helps us get to place we need to be the right way and not the Al Gore way, then I am for it. Food for thought, in the 1970's, we were told that we were headed for the next iceage. What happened to that prediction of disaster? Like I said, look at the science. The Earth warms up and cools off and that if fact. What Al Gore and his lot says is pure fiction.
Mauder Minimums anyone... Man-made climate change...the post religionist religion, except for the world governance, of course. Freudian frauds.
Is finger-pointing. It appears that Global Warming may or may not be a result of human activity but it is a fact. Instead of arguing over whose fault it was, we should be fighting each other over whose going to fix it. Theres nothing like a bit of competition between opposing factions supporting a single cause to get the job done. Does it really matter if its my fault, your fault, or nobody's fault? (And more probably everyones...) Climate change is not a myth, its a fact. Just because it may turn out to be a natural mechanism does not mean we should not deal with it - disease is natural and we devote global resource to fighting that, and with little prejudice compared to this latest insidious killer. It' p*ing us off, hurting our kids and will kill our grandkids. We must look at stopping it, not who will and how much it costs. @JTF243: You should remember we are all children of the world. African poverty exists because resources are not distributed evenly across the planet, although humans build infrastructure to solve that. We are great at modifying our environment to survive... The problem is humans are really bad at seeing past their own noses when it comes to it. For example it pains me that solar isnt deemed viable - there is sunlight on each and every part of the globe for 12 hours, all the time. All you have to do is spread the panels and link them together to have 24-hour supply everywhere, but why is this not done? I know, but I wont say it. Peace
What part of the country would be most affected by cap-n-trade? Those areas that have the LEAST alternative energy sources, the MIDWEST!! We don't have the open spaces for large wind farms. We don't have the dry, sunny days for solar. We don't have huge empty areas that we can dam and flood for hydropower. All we have is COAL. As for "Climategate", the fact that these "scientists" refuse to release their data so their theories can be tested by other scientists, thereby substantiating their claims OR showing up the flaws in their data, shows that they are NOT being completely honest about their claims. DANA - side note - It may not happen this time, BUT almost every time I post something in one of these SmartPlanet columns, it causes an error in I.E. that causes evey open window to crash. (I.E. 6 on XP Pro).
Pass something. Cap and trade makes us compatible with other countries, which could lead to a larger market for carbon credits. Wall Street should like that. I don't know the details of a fee and rebate system. It would be instantly damned as a tax and would have a very tough time passing. Plus it's not terribly flexible. But pass something. Get off the renewable sidelines and get into the game.
If you want jobs, you should pass a bill like the Larson bill in the House which is fee-and-dividend. Just about every economic analysis points out that this approach gives you a "double dividend" because it helps the economy and environment. In fact, a fee-and-rebate bill can be justified on economic grounds alone. Cap-and-trade is a loser for both environment and the economy. It is a "double whammy." For more, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/new-poll-shows-americans_b_377142.html
My argument has nothing to do with Dr. King. It has to do with winning this bill. Gore has been used as a lightning rod by the right, even here, and an excuse not to move forward on the most important jobs bill of our time.
Hi ?Coulter?, Anne is that you? You linked to a publication run by the MRC. Per Source Watch (a wiki), this is where they get their funding: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Media_Research_Center Funding ? Exxon Mobil ? The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc. ? Sarah Scaife Foundation ? Castle Rock Foundation ? John M. Olin Foundation, Inc. ? The Carthage Foundation ? JM Foundation I know you aren?t on board with Global Warming yet, maybe start with evolution first. Work on that one. Baby steps.
This is like saying, "MLK was right, but his politics were wrong". Just like Gore spun the climate crisis as a matter of life or death MLK, spun the civil rights movement as a battle of right vs wrong. Both MLK and Gore should have focused on the economic benefits of tackling these issues. That's your argument.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20091202135822.aspx A little food for thought on the ethics of the global warming crowd. If it is happening and that is IF, it's because of solar activity...NOT CO2. Al Gore is a lawyer not a scientist.
Uh, duh they were lying and covering it up. Quit moaning that getting the proof it was done was done so illegaly. Where were you when Sarah Palin's email was breached? Cheering I bet!
If you wake up every morning and your first thought isn't "I wonder how I can make more money today?" then it might not occur to you to spin preventing the destruction of the planet's ability to support life into a get rich quik scheme for those who do. I think maybe he was thinking like one of those people who wake up and think "I wonder what I can do today to make the world a better place for my kids".
Al Gore made this a political fight about global warming. It should be about market incentives, job creation and economic recovery. All Gore's emphasis on global warming did to the debate was bring out the trolls. You want to argue jobs? You want to argue growth? We can win that argument, all of us, with renewable technology. Oh, and enhance our national security at the same time. The environmental arguments should follow the economic ones, not lead.
Al Gore was right on the science but, as usual, he was wrong on the politics. "Wrong on the politics"? How? Does not say. The rest of your article is about right wing global warming deniers. Basically the antithesis to Mr. Gore.
"How Al Gore got it wrong" Is that referring to "cap and trade" or..? Wait it seems that you are for "cap and trade". What did he get wrong? I don't get it.