[TheClimate.Vote] December 7, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Fri Dec 7 10:07:29 EST 2018
/December 7, 2018/
[no surprise, but important]
*Poll: Majority of voters worried about climate change
<https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/06/morning-consult-poll-voters-climate-change-1046063>*
By STEVEN SHEPARD - 12/06/2018
A new poll shows most voters side with elements of the federal
government that sounded the alarm last month in a dire report on climate
change rather than with the head of that government -- and the nation's
leading climate-change denier -- President Donald Trump.
According to the latest POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, two-thirds of
voters say they are very or somewhat concerned about the report. A 58
percent majority agrees with the scientific consensus -- and disagrees
with Trump -- that climate change is being caused by human activity.
- - -
But 58 percent of voters say climate change is being caused by human
activity, compared with 30 percent who say it's a natural phenomenon.
Only 4 percent of voters say climate change is not happening, while 8
percent are undecided.
More than 3 in 4 Democratic voters, 78 percent, say human activity is
causing climate change, compared with 34 percent of Republicans and 58
percent of independents.
And most voters are worried about climate change: 67 percent are very or
somewhat concerned about the impact that climate change is having on the
U.S. economy, while only 17 percent are not too concerned and just 11
percent aren't concerned at all. Roughly the same percentage, 68
percent, are very or somewhat concerned about the impact of climate
change on the environment.
Many voters also see climate change as an urgent problem for the U.S.:
46 percent say it's a critical threat to the vital interests of the
country, while 29 percent say it's an important threat but not critical.
Only 19 percent say it is not an important threat at all...
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/06/morning-consult-poll-voters-climate-change-1046063
[Washington Post editorial board opinion]
*It's time to face the inescapable truth: We're running out of time on
climate change
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-face-the-inescapable-truth-were-running-out-of-time-on-climate-change/2018/12/06/d8452156-f99f-11e8-863c-9e2f864d47e7_story.html?utm_term=.d42b2a8a57e9>*
By Editorial Board - December 6
THE WORLD is heading in the wrong direction, and it does not have much
time left to change course. After several years in which global
greenhouse-gas emissions leveled off, they spiked to record levels this
year, according to projections a group of scientists released Wednesday.
Along with some major developing nations, emissions in the United States
are projected to grow substantially. So much for all those assurances
that the market would take care of the problem.
The news comes just after the United Nations released a report finding
that climate change will disrupt human society, kill many people and
permanently reshape the Earth unless stemmed aggressively, and soon.
The inescapable truth: The transition from fossil fuels is essential, it
is going to be hard, and the United States must step up.
Overall, global emissions are projected to rise by 2.7 percent this
year, up more than a point from last year's growth rate. China's
emissions are up 5 percent, and India's 6 percent. China remains the
world's largest emitter. Even so, its emissions intensity -- that is,
how much carbon dioxide it spews into the air relative to the size of
its economy -- has declined substantially in recent years, and the
country is still on track to meet the landmark target it set in the
Paris climate agreement. India, meanwhile, has lots of poor people
struggling to emerge from miserable poverty, who will naturally use more
energy as they improve their standard of living. Yet that country is
poised to exceed its Paris commitment.
The United States is not, and the country does not have the excuse that
its economy is still developing. U.S. emissions are up by 2.5 percent
from last year, and it is one of seven major nations lagging on their
Paris goals. Canada is also behind, but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
just announced an ambitious carbon-tax plan. The European Union, too,
needs to do more to meet its Paris commitment, but its emissions were
down this year, and the bloc has worked hard to cut its carbon footprint.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, is trying to push the
United States backward. The day after the latest emissions numbers
emerged, the Environmental Protection Agency announced another rollback
of a regulation on coal-fired power plants, the greatest villains in the
climate change story.
The reason for the United States' surge in emissions appears to have
been higher energy use to heat and cool homes this year. As the world
warms, people will want to use more air conditioning -- producing more
emissions unless the country gets its energy from low- or zero-carbon
sources. This is just one of the many, many factors that make it more
sensible to combat climate change before it worsens rather than waiting
until it becomes an emergency. World leaders have missed their chance to
avoid the warming already here and built into the system. The Trump
administration would have humanity miss its window entirely.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-face-the-inescapable-truth-were-running-out-of-time-on-climate-change/2018/12/06/d8452156-f99f-11e8-863c-9e2f864d47e7_story.html?utm_term=.d42b2a8a57e9
[who insures the insurers?]
*Insurance company goes under after California's most destructive
wildfire
<https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/04/us/camp-fire-insurance-company-liquidation/index.html>*
By Holly Yan and Chris Boyette, CNN
December 4, 2018
(CNN) California's Camp Fire didn't just kill dozens of people and
destroy thousands of homes. It also left an insurance company in
financial ruins, unable to pay millions of dollars to policyholders.
A state judge ruled that Merced Property & Casualty Co. can't meet its
obligations after last month's Camp Fire, the deadliest and most
destructive wildfire in California history.
Merced's assets are about $23 million, but it faced about $64 million in
outstanding liabilities just in the city of Paradise, court filings show.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/04/us/camp-fire-insurance-company-liquidation/index.html
- - -
[after fire comes flood - weather channel video]
*Southern California Rain Kills 1; Evacuations Ordered at Burn Areas*
https://weather.com/news/news/2018-12-06-southern-california-rain-impacts
[Wife of coal baron Joseph Craft]
*US ambassador to Canada tries to "both sides" climate science
<https://www.vox.com/2018/12/6/18128749/kelly-craft-climate-change-interview>*
Kelly Craft began her tenure with an extremely cringeworthy interview.
By Aaron Rupar - Dec 6, 2018
During an interview with CBC, the new US ambassador to Canada, Kelly
Craft, claimed she believes "both sides" of climate science.
Asked, "Do you believe in climate change?" Craft responded, "I believe
there are scientists on both sides that are accurate."
"Do you believe there is science that proves that man is not causing
climate change?" the interviewer followed up.
"Well, I think that both sides have, you know, their own results from
their studies, and I appreciate and respect both sides of the science,"
Craft said.
- -
*Craft has a conflict of interest*
In 2016, Craft reportedly donated $265,400 toward Trump's election and
$17,000 to the Republican National Committee.
Craft's husband, Joseph Craft, is a billionaire coal magnate. A Global
News report from 2017 provides some details about him:
[Craft's] husband is coal billionaire Joe Craft, who's been called the
most powerful non-elected person in Kentucky. He is the president and
CEO of Alliance Resource Partners LP, which is among the largest coal
producers in the eastern U.S.
Craft was a fierce critic of the Obama administration's climate
policies, getting his SUV's licence plate stamped with the slogan,
"Friends of Coal."
While the Crafts have a personal financial stake in pushing climate
denialism, other prominent Republicans have tried to tamp down on the
conclusions of the Climate Assessment by citing concerns about the
impact curbing greenhouse gas emissions would have on "industry and jobs."
But as Vox's David Roberts has detailed, "[t]here is no consistent
evidence that environmental regulations cause long-term changes in
overall employment."
https://www.vox.com/2018/12/6/18128749/kelly-craft-climate-change-interview
[because we exist in our environment]
*How Climate Change Is Challenging American Health Care
<https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/lancet-study-says-global-warming-threatens-public-health/577477/>*
Experts say mounting environmental pressures will make people sicker,
and that the health-care system will play a major role in averting disaster.
- - -
At that forum, with experts who were fluent in both climate and health,
with perhaps more M.D.s on display than Ph.D.s, it was made clear that
climate change and health care cannot be considered as separate domains.
Rather, just as environmental stresses such as pollen and pollutants are
key components of public-health initiatives, so the effects of a warming
world must first be concerns for doctors and public-health officials
working to create healthy communities. On the one hand, these are not
necessarily conversations that physicians are primed for. On the other,
people generally trust their doctors, and America's public-health system
has provided the muscle for some of the most ambitious breakthroughs in
terms of quality of life in the country's history. With the realization
that climate change will have serious and perhaps devastating effects on
human health over the next century also comes the realization that it
can be addressed as a public-health problem, and combatted with the same
kinds of interventions that have proven effective in fighting tobacco
use and drunk driving.
According to Georges Benjamin, the executive director of the APHA, "One
of the central challenges that we do have is trying to encourage people
that climate change is here today and is impacting our health today."
While polls do indicate that most Americans believe the climate is
changing, and that it is caused by anthropogenic actions, there's still
a disconnect between that knowledge and informing the public of the
tangible risks to their and their children's lives. Additionally,
public-health models currently stress the importance of enduring racial
and class health disparities, which Benjamin thinks will only be made
doubly worse by the effects of climate change, which will also likely
affect vulnerable populations first. How can policy makers make people
care about health problems that may be disproportionately affecting
people who don't look like them--in a country where bigotry is rampant
and encouraged at the highest levels?
These are the points of consideration as a scientific movement at the
intersection of climate change and public health truly begins to take
off. The major debates at that intersection are no longer about whether
the climate is changing, but the roles people should play in addressing
it, who will be harmed, and how. For Benjamin, the role for the medical
community is clear: "The way I think about it is: Somebody was made sick
yesterday from climate change, someone is being made sick today as we
speak, and someone is going to be made sick from climate change tomorrow."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/lancet-study-says-global-warming-threatens-public-health/577477/
[Help Jim Hansen edit his draft paper]
*Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm
<http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20181206_Nutshell.pdf>*
06 December 2018
James Hansen
Young people today confront an imminent gathering storm. They have at
their command considerable determination, a dog-eared copy of our
beleaguered Constitution, and rigorously developed science. The Court
must decide if that is enough.
That is the final paragraph of my (thick) Expert Report written more
than a year ago for Juliana v. United States. We are fortunate to have
such a brilliant and dedicated group of attorneys who have assembled a
score of Experts and are working to ensure that young people receive
their day in court.
In the meantime, there are reasons why it may be useful to summarize the
climate science story.
Albert Einstein once said that a theory or explanation should be as
simple as possible, but not simpler. And it depends on who the
audience is. My target is the level of a Chief Justice or a fossil fuel
industry CEO.
This is a draft, because I want to be sure that there are no
inconsistencies in my testimonies against the government, against the
fossil fuel industry, and in support of brave people who have taken
risks in fighting for young people. So I am seeking suggestions for how
to make this science story clearer.
I should say something here about end-game strategy. We probably are
getting close to the next opportunity for real progress. We blew the
last opportunity, when Barack Obama was elected. It was not his fault.
We had not really made the whole climate/energy/economics story clear
enough.
- - -[ jump to the conclusion] - --
Let's reflect upon how we got to this point, before we examine
implications of
what the (growing) gap of 0.015 W/m2 per year means for young people. The UN
scientific group, IPCC, realized that unfettered fossil fuel emissions
would cause
growth of atmospheric greenhouse gases to outstrip scenarios in which global
warming is limited so as to avoid dangerous consequences. Thus they
devised a
scenario, RCP2.6, in which large quantities of CO2 are assumed to be
stripped from
the air, so as to make up for any failure to achieve emission reductions.
How much CO2 must be extracted from the air today to offset the excess
growth
of greenhouse gas forcing in a single year, i.e., to reduce climate
forcing by 0.015
W/m2?
Atmospheric CO2 must be reduced almost exactly 1 ppm CO2 to increase
heat radiation to space by 0.015 W/m2. [We actually need to suck more than 1
ppm from the air, because the ocean reacts to the reduction of
atmospheric CO2 by
increasing the net backflux of CO2 to the atmosphere. However, we can
make our
point without including this added difficulty in achieving CO2 drawdown.]
One ppm of CO2 is 2.12 billion tons of carbon or about 7.77 billion tons
of CO2.
Recently Keith et al. (2018) achieved a cost breakthrough in carbon capture,
demonstrated with a pilot plant in Canada. Cost of carbon capture, not
including
the cost of transportation and storage of the CO2, is $113-232 per ton
of CO2. Thus
the cost of extracting 1 ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere is $878-1803
billion.
In other words, the cost, in a single year, of closing the gap between
reality and
the IPCC scenario that limits climate change to +1.5C is already about
$1 trillion.
And that is without the cost of transporting and storing the CO2, or
consideration of
whether there will be citizen objection to that transportation and storage.
This annual cost will rise rapidly, unless there is a rapid slowdown in
carbon
emissions. This annual cost is not being paid, and common sense tells us
that it
will not be paid in the future as the cost rises to astronomical levels.
Instead the
mess is left for young people. Continued high fossil fuel emissions
sentences
young people to a massive and likely implausible cleanup and growing
deleterious
climate impacts.
*The tragedy of this situation is that it is unnecessary. Honest pricing
of energy,*
*economists and common sense concur, would move us toward carbon-free
energy.*
Economists caution that the carbon fee or tax should be imposed
gradually but
surely, so as to both minimize short-term disruption and provide a price
signal that
spurs an effective response from our technologic and industrial sectors.
Human-made climate change presents an intergenerational issue. What rights
will we accord to young people and the unborn? Was Thomas Jefferson right in
writing 'that the Earth belongs in usufruct to the living'?
What is clear is that young people today confront an imminent gathering
storm.
They have at their command considerable determination, a dog-eared copy
of our
beleaguered Constitution, and rigorously developed science. The Court must
decide if that is enough.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20181206_Nutshell.pdf
[game of chicken]
Wednesday, December 05, 2018 - by Common Dreams
*Record-High Carbon Emissions Show 'We Are Speeding Towards the
Precipice of Irrevocable Climate Chaos'
<https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/12/05/record-high-carbon-emissions-show-we-are-speeding-towards-precipice-irrevocable>*
"Brutal" new research offers a global "reality check" as world leaders
discuss Paris accord goals at COP24
by Jessica Corbett, staff writer
As world leaders are meeting at the COP24 in Poland to discuss how to
achieve goals outlined in the 2015 Paris climate agreement, scientists
and activists are raising alarm about "brutal" new research published by
the Global Carbon Project on Wednesday which offers the international
community a "reality check" by showing that carbon emissions will hit a
record high this year.
"We've got a LOT of work to do folks. After flat-lining for 3 years, CO2
emissions have now ticked up two years straight," tweeted Penn State
climate scientist Michael Mann, linking to the Washington Post's report
on the new data. Mann also called for electing politicians willing to
take the urgent actions that experts increasingly warn are needed to
avert global catastrophe.
*As the Post summarized, according to the research:*
Between 2014 and 2016, emissions remained largely flat, leading to hopes
that the world was beginning to turn a corner. Those hopes have been
dashed. In 2017, global emissions grew 1.6 percent. The rise in 2018 is
projected to be 2.7 percent.
The expected increase, which would bring fossil fuel and industrial
emissions to a record high of 37.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide per
year, is being driven by nearly 5 percent emissions growth in China and
more than 6 percent in India, researchers estimated, along with growth
in many other nations throughout the world. Emissions by the United
States grew 2.5 percent, while emissions by the European Union declined
by just under 1 percent.
While the surge in the U.S. was driven partly by a cold winter and hot
summer--which led to an increased use of heating and air
conditioning--China's rise was notably fueled by investment in
coal-powered manufacturing. Researchers say reversing this trend will
require climate-friendly reforms to transportation, manufacturing, and
agriculture.
"This is terrible news," Andrew Jones, co-director of Climate
Interactive, told the Associated Press about the project's findings.
"Every year that we delay serious climate action, the Paris goals become
difficult to meet."
The Paris agreement--which President Donald Trump has vowed to withdraw
from, making the United States the only nation on the planet that
doesn't support the international accord--aims to keep "global
temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above
pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature
increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius."
Noting that the Trump administration has turned its back on the accord
and consistently worked to roll back climate regulations in favor of
polluting industries, Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah
Hauter called on elected officials at lower levels of the U.S.
government to take action to curb planet-warming emissions.
"This is the latest and most alarming warning to the world that we are
speeding towards the precipice of irrevocable climate chaos. Sadly,
President Trump doesn't care. But if he won't act, other leaders must,"
Hauter said in a statement, responding to the new research.
"It's time for the governors of our country to adequately address this
impending climate crisis by enacting immediate moratoria on all new
fossil fuel development," she added. "This is the bold, urgent action
that the latest science calls for, and the response that our future
generations are owed."
The new data follows a World Meteorological Organization report from
November that found atmospheric concentrations of the top three
greenhouse gases driving global warming--carbon dioxide, methane, and
nitrous oxide--have hit record high levels, which provoked warnings that
"without rapid cuts in CO2 and other greenhouse gases, climate change
will have increasingly destructive and irreversible impacts on life on
Earth."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/12/05/record-high-carbon-emissions-show-we-are-speeding-towards-precipice-irrevocable
[NPR radio story]
*Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Up Again. What Now, Climate?*
DOWNLOAD
https://ondemand.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/atc/2018/12/20181205_atc_emissions_from_big_polluters_are_up_again_what_now.mp3?orgId=1&topicId=1025&d=156&p=2&story=673821051&siteplayer=true&dl=1
TRANSCRIPT
https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=673821051
December 5, 2018
Heard on All Things Considered
CHRISTOPHER JOYCE
As climate negotiators from around the world meet in Poland this week
and next to figure out how to keep greenhouse gases out of the
atmosphere, they are hearing some discouraging news: Emissions of the
biggest pollutant, carbon dioxide, are going up.
For three years -- 2014 through 2016 -- the amount of atmospheric CO2
had leveled off. But it started to climb again in 2017, and is still rising.
- -
"It's cheap gasoline," says Jackson. "We're buying bigger cars and we're
driving more miles per vehicle." Jackson also notes that emissions from
air travel recently have been growing about five percent a year.
more at -
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/05/673821051/carbon-dioxide-emissions-are-up-again-what-now-climate
[increasing heat means increasing melt]
*Greenland's Ice Melt Is in 'Overdrive,' With No Sign of Slowing*
The ice sheet is adding more to sea level rise than any time in the last
three and a half centuries, new research suggests. Could it be nearing a
tipping point?
BY BOB BERWYN, INSIDECLIMATE NEWS - DEC 5, 2018
Melting on Greenland's ice sheet has gone into "overdrive," with
meltwater runoff increasing 50 percent since the start of the industrial
era and continuing to accelerate, new research shows. As more water runs
off the ice sheet, it drives sea level rise, putting new pressure on
coastal communities around the world.
"Once the ice sheets get kicked into motion, they just keep going. This
is a wake-up call that shows how fast Greenland is changing," said Rowan
University climate researcher Luke Trusel, co-author of the new study
published Wednesday in the scientific journal Nature.
The scientists found that the trend of increasing surface melting across
the ice sheet began in the mid-1800s as the Industrial Revolution was
ramping up, and that more meltwater is running off Greenland's ice sheet
now than at any time in the last 350 years, and probably since long
before that, going back 6,000 to 7,000 years, Trusel said. As a result,
Greenland is also adding more to sea level than at any time over those
centuries, he said.
The findings support previous estimates that melting ice from all
sources will raise sea level between 8 and 12 inches more by 2050, but
what happens after that will still partly depend on future greenhouse
gas emissions and other factors, said co-author Sarah Das, who studies
ice and ancient climates at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
The researchers used ice cores--long tubes of ice drilled out of the ice
sheet that capture a history of ice thickness and melting year to
year--from several locations across the ice sheet. Combined with
satellite measurements and climate model output, the ice cores help
establish one of the most accurate estimates of how the ice sheet
responds to the warming caused by greenhouse gases...
- - -
At some as-yet unknown temperature threshold, there's a chance that ice
sheets in Greenland and Antarctica could start collapsing much faster
than expected and swamp highly populated coastal areas with sea level
rise before they have a chance to get ready. Climate feedbacks like
increasing soot from wildfires or increased algal growth on the ice that
drive more melting could hasten the meltdown.
*Some Melting Is Already Locked In*
If all of Greenland's ice were to melt, it would raise sea level by
about 20 feet. The latest IPCC report estimates that global sea level
will rise somewhere between 10 and 30 inches by 2100 if global
temperatures warm by 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times.
With 2 degrees Celsius warming, sea level would rise an additional 4
inches, putting 10 million more people at risk of flooding, the report says.
Beyond 2100, recent research suggests that at least 30 feet of sea level
rise have already been locked into the system, said Greenland ice
researcher Jason Box, who was not involved in the new study.
"The point and benefit of mitigation (carbon drawdown) is it will buy us
time to prepare for that sea level rise and save lives," Box said.
In a related study published online Nov. 27 in the journal Polar
Science, Box and other researchers highlighted the widespread impacts of
Arctic global warming, showing that, even with big cuts to emissions,
the Arctic is expected to warm another 4 degrees Celsius from today by 2050.
That warming will also affect lower latitudes by thawing permafrost,
which releases more greenhouse gas emissions, causing further warming,
and by shifting ocean currents and storm tracks, all with "large
ecological and social impacts," Box and his co-authors wrote.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05122018/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-tipping-points-sea-level-rise-climate-change-arctic-warming
[More Arnold]
*Schwarzenegger: I would time travel to terminate fossil fuels
<https://nypost.com/2018/12/04/schwarzenegger-i-would-time-travel-to-terminate-fossil-fuels/>*
By Associated Press December 4, 2018
KATOWICE, Poland -- Arnold Schwarzenegger says he wishes he could travel
back in time like the cyborg he played in "The Terminator" so he could
stop fossil fuels from being used.
"If we would've never started in that direction and used other
technology, we'd be much better off," the actor and former California
governor said Monday at the start of a UN climate conference in Poland.
"The biggest evil is fossil fuels: it's coal, it's gasoline, it's the
natural gas," he told conference delegates.
Schwarzenegger also insisted that the United States was "still in" an
international accord to curb global warming despite US President Donald
Trump's decision to walk away from the agreement.
Calling Trump "meshugge" – Yiddish for "crazy" – for abandoning the
accord, Schwarzenegger said the 2015 agreement has widespread support at
the local and state levels even if the federal government isn't on board.
American states, cities, businesses and citizens can do a lot to curb
global warming and representatives from those arenas should be invited
to next year's climate conference, he told the audience in Poland.
"And if you do that, I promise you: I'll be back," he said in another
reference to "The Terminator."
Schwarzenegger later told The Associated Press he has converted his
signature Humvee trucks to run on hydrogen, electricity and biofuel and
only allows himself to eat meat three days a week.
"I mean, maybe it tastes delicious, but I think we should think then and
there before we eat about the world and about the pollution," he said.
"So I discontinued eating meat four days a week. And eventually, maybe
we'll go to seven days"
https://nypost.com/2018/12/04/schwarzenegger-i-would-time-travel-to-terminate-fossil-fuels/
[This means war]
War of Words
*Battle metaphors pit one group against another. Do they undermine our
ability to take on climate change?
<https://grist.org/article/the-war-on-climate-the-climate-fight-are-we-approaching-the-problem-all-wrong/>*
By Kate Yoder - Dec 5, 2018
Each dead house fly was worth a quarter, my mom told us kids, but I
never earned any money. Every time I cornered a fly, I pictured goo
marks left on the wall -- spots splayed with tiny black guts and twisted
legs. My half-hearted swats with an issue of National Geographic gave
even the most sluggish fly time to escape.
That I genuinely couldn't hurt a fly might have been something I picked
up in church. I grew up attending a Mennonite congregation in Indiana.
We weren't the bonnet-wearing, buggy-riding sort, but we embraced some
traditions, like the Anabaptist teaching of nonviolence. This sometimes
expressed itself in an instinct for conflict avoidance. I took that
further than most, tending to stay away from arguments, competitive
sports, and eating meat.
So I was surprised when violence crept into my speech three years ago
when I started working as a journalist covering climate change. Some
ancient spirit took hold of me, and I found myself deploying the
narrative of war. Carbon tax proposals were "battles" to be fought.
Greenhouse gas emissions had to be "slashed." As for climate change
itself? Well, that was an issue to "fight" -- and "eco-warriors" and
"climate hawks" were leading the charge.
'd adopted the language of the climate movement's leaders who'd gone all
out with the wartime cliches. The only way to overcome climate change
inaction, environmentalist (and Grist board member) Bill McKibben once
wrote, "is to adopt a wartime mentality, rewriting the old mindset that
stands in the way of victory." Hillary Clinton reportedly wanted to
equip the White House with "a situation room just for climate change."
Author and activist Naomi Klein and newly elected Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, among other advocates, are calling for a World
War II-scale mobilization against global warming.
The whole "fighting climate change" frame rests on the assumption that
opposition is the best way to get things done. But that's not always the
case, as the linguist Deborah Tannen wrote in The Argument Culture:
Stopping America's War of Words back in 1998. Military and sports
metaphors train us to see everything in terms of conflict -- this side
versus that side -- and that perspective limits our collective
imagination about what we can do to fix complex problems.
Coming from a pacifist background, and obsessed with linguistics, I've
grown uneasy with the way war shapes our words. The thought struck me
earlier this year: By pitting one group against another, do war
metaphors undermine our ability to address the complex problem of
climate change, the biggest global crisis we face? Are there other ways
to frame our predicament and convey the sense of urgency that's needed
-- without dividing us into Hatfields and McCoys?
My gut feeling was that talking about climate change as a battle between
rivals will ensure our ultimate defeat. But the reality might be more
complicated than that.
War narratives are everywhere, so prevalent that they usually pass
unnoticed. Politicians and the media have declared wars on poverty,
drugs, obesity, and terror. There's also supposedly a war on Christmas.
These wars were declared against concepts, trends, and tricky issues
with no simple solutions. And none of them have been won.
- - -
So here's the important thing about this war on climate change: We're
losing it. Scientists have sounded the alarm bells for 40 years; the
window to address the problem is shrinking; drastic action on greenhouse
gas emissions keeps … not happening. The future of humanity is at stake.
Will you join our fight for justice?
This rally-the-troops tone reminds me of the old Uncle Sam posters
created during World War I. "I want you," the poster says, with a stern
Sam extending a forefinger, "for U.S. army." It's an aggressive moral
appeal, explicitly trying to arouse an emotional reaction and a
commensurate commitment. The enemy is coming. Are you with us?
In wartime, not taking sides is almost as bad as betrayal. During World
War I, at least 138 Mennonites who refused military service were
court-martialed and sent to jail. Many others were sent to army camps
where they were ridiculed and even tortured for their commitment to
nonviolence.
- - -
Shortly after the surprise Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December
1941, the U.S. had overhauled its economy and society for the war
effort. Government spending soared from 30 percent of the economy in
1941 to 79 percent at the peak of the war in 1944. With a shared sense
of national purpose, people made sacrifices for the common good. They
planted victory gardens, bought war bonds, and rallied to produce the
tanks, planes, and machine guns needed to fight a global war.
Klein Salamon said climate change is such an enormous threat to the
planet that it demands similar sacrifices. "That's really the challenge
we face now," she told me. "Can we achieve the mentality we had as a
species that we had [achieved] only exclusively during wartime?"
Her organization has had some success. Cities in California, New Jersey,
and Maryland have declared a "climate emergency" and committed to an
all-hands-on-deck, wartime-like response. Oakland aims to "reach zero
net emissions at emergency speed." The Climate Mobilization wants
commitments like these to spread from city to city, building up local
climate policy around the country.
This approach has worked in towns and cities where people are deeply
concerned about climate change. But what about places where people aren't?
A full 30 percent still don't think it's a thing, despite the
overwhelming scientific consensus behind it. And Americans who accept
the obvious generally prefer to avoid the subject. Is war rhetoric the
right way to bring a divided nation together? Or does it simply escalate
our existing conflicts?
- - -
In the search for an opponent, climate activists have landed on several
suspects: Climate deniers. Reluctant politicians. Polluting
corporations. Billionaires! The whole system of capitalism. Our own
unwillingness to give up driving cars or eating meat.
The blame points in every direction. It's not that climate activists
necessarily set out looking for more enemies. They were simply handed a
narrative toolkit that emphasized conflict, and voilà enemies appeared.
- -
The good news is that there's a way to overcome these obstacles and
break through seemingly intractable disputes. As the journalist Amanda
Ripley wrote, the key is not to avoid conflict, but to complicate it.
Ripley pointed to a study hatched at the Difficult Conversations
Laboratory at Columbia University, where researchers sat down people who
disagreed with each other in a windowless room then recorded their
uncomfortable exchanges. Participants with opposing views on abortion,
gun control, or other hot-button issues were paired together and asked
to write a joint statement on the subject in 20 minutes.
"Over time," Ripley wrote, "the researchers noticed a key difference
between the terrible and non-terrible conversations: The better
conversations looked like a constellation of feelings and points, rather
than a tug of war."
- - -
As for getting rid of war metaphors themselves, well, it's not easy. "I
don't know if it's possible to express the kind of action that's needed
in peaceful terms," Bhikkhu Bodhi, a Buddhist monk and climate advocate,
told me.
It's certainly going to require some imagination. Perhaps Earth is
running a fever, and we need some wind-turbine ibuprofen to bring down
the heat. Or maybe it's a sinking boat, and instead of scooping water
out, our crew needs to patch the hole where it's rushing in. Or maybe...
Whatever you choose, I'm putting down my metaphorical weapons and
fighting for…no, adopting, more peaceful metaphors. And beyond that,
shifting focus. Instead of turning differences into fights, I could
frame the climate discussion in positive terms -- discussing how a shift
to renewable energy creates jobs, for example.
Charles Eisenstein, author of the newly released book Climate: A New
Story, agreed with me that framing an important problem like climate
change as a fight stokes partisanship. It widens any divide while
simultaneously obscuring grounds for agreement. After all, warriors need
their enemies.
"There is a time and a place for resolving problems by fighting," he
told me, "but it's kind of taken over everything."
https://grist.org/article/the-war-on-climate-the-climate-fight-are-we-approaching-the-problem-all-wrong/
*This Day in Climate History - December 7, 1999 - from D.R. Tucker*
December 7, 1999: The New York Times reports:
"In a concession to environmentalists, the Ford Motor Company said
today that it would pull out of the Global Climate Coalition, a
group of big manufacturers and oil and mining companies that lobbies
against restrictions on emissions of gases linked to global warming.
"Ford's decision is the latest sign of divisions within heavy
industry over how to respond to global warming. British Petroleum
and Shell pulled out of the coalition two years ago following
criticisms from environmental groups in Europe, where there has been
more public concern than in the United States. Most scientists
believe that emissions from automobiles, power plants and other
man-made sources are warming the Earth's atmosphere.
"British Petroleum and Shell were so-called general, or junior,
members of the lobbying group. Ford is the first company belonging
to the board that has withdrawn, and the first American company to
leave the coalition, said Frank Maisano, a spokesman for the coalition."
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/07/business/ford-announces-its-withdrawal-from-global-climate-coalition.html
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request>
to news digest./
*** Privacy and Security:*This is a text-only mailing that carries no
images which may originate from remote servers. Text-only messages
provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for democratic
and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe,
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to
this mailing list.
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list