I tried posting something to this effect before, but it either got
lost or the moderators in here believed that it didn't meet the test
of acceptability for the group. So I'll try again in somewhat more
restrained language.
I'm quite appalled by the same thing that Michael Tobis finds
appalling -- the continued denial by the GOP right of what looks like
the reality principle -- at least as I see it.
However, I don't think it's at all surprising that fairly large groups
of humans will decide to ignore or deny, or possibly fight against, a
new set of theories and/or facts that at least purports to be
scientifically grounded, but that threatens either their ideological
and political beliefs, or their economic self-interest, or both.
If people in here who are persuaded that AGW is a big issue and a real
environmental problem wish to counteract this tendency in their
opponents to deny or distort what we think of as "the truth" about
climate, therefore, I think we should think about addressing the roots
of why so many of the GOP faithful, for example, are taking the
denialist and/or contrarian stance.
Meanwhing what? Well, first I think we AGW true believers need to
face the facts that some people see the entire AGW issue as being
cooked up to justify "big government," if not the dreaded word
"socialism," and to diminish human liberty in the process.
If we want to try to talk AGW science to these people, then, I suggest
we find ways to think about cures to AGW that won't involve big
government, socialism or major losses of individual liberties.
Secondly, I think it's clear that some AGW skeptics/contrarians/
denialists are motivated to repudiate the IPCC because its finding
threaten the fossil fuel industries, the American auto industry, etc.
Personally, I think this is inevitable -- real curbs on CO2 emissions
no doubt would threaten some large industries, especially in the US.
But people who believe in AGW and the findings of the AGW researchers,
as I like to think I do, might make the conflict a little less, and
help to make proposed CO2 curbs more popular with a sector of the
public, by addressing the legitimate economic interests of thousands
of people who would be affected by any shift from a fossil fuel
economy to either a nuclear one or a "greener" one fueled by solar,
wind, biomass, etc.
What can the AGW crowd say about, or lobby Congress about, the
creation of new "green" jobs to replace those that a low-carbon future
might destroy in the coal mining industry or the US auto industry, for
example?
The US government supposedly already provides some economic transition
aid to working people whose jobs are lost to economic globalization,
although the proferred aid is apparently not very effective.
Could the AGW crowd help to think up, and join with other interests to
lobby for, US government aid to working families displaced by the
transition to a greener energy economy?
What about a "Superfund for Workers," as the late Tony Mazzocchi of
the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers once called it, to provide job
retraining funds and a daily living stipend to workers in obsolete and
dirty industries, as they went back to college or trade school to
learn new job skills?
Alternatively, would it make sense for AGW believers and other
environmental and labor groups in the USA to lobby for the imposition
of a 35-hour work week, such as they recently have had in France, in
hopes of spreading available working hours around more broadly -- so
that the transition to a greener energy future doesn't threaten people
with unemployment?
What about some kind of program to provide limited government-funded
relief to small business owners who are threatened by the economics of
a post-carbon world?
Since society as a whole should ideally benefit from the shift to a
post-carbon energy economy, should society as a whole help small
distributors of heating oil and natural gas, for example, to adjust to
our Brave & Green New World?
What about publicly funded programs, or government tax breaks, to
small oil field services companies in Texas and Oklahoma?
I'm mentioning specific policy proposals here only as hypothetical
examples; I'm not saying that any one of them is "the" answer, and
perhaps some of them can't contribute to "the" answer; perhaps some of
them are wrong-headed.
But the question I hope to raise is how AGW true believers like myself
(for better or worse) can help the transition to a post-carbon economy
become less threatening to thousands of Americans, or maybe even
millions of Americans, who today have some very real short-term
reasons for rejecting it.
I don't know if this non-scientific, non-climate-oriented issue is a
valid one for this group to discuss. But then, we're already
discussing political attitudes, which are certainly not completely
rooted themselves in existing climate science.
If we hope to influence political attitudes and keep them from
hampering people's appreciation of new scientific information, I think
we need to address the political values (e.g. Libertarian worries
about individual liberties) and the economic interests (e.g., the
worries of coal- and oil- and auto-dependent communities about
unemployment) that are affecting those attitudes.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
