State GOP: The sky isn't falling!
Wow.
The Georgia General Assembly convened 'experts' and they panned global warming.
While I'm not shocked that the conservative leadership in Atlanta would deny global warming, I am somewhat befuddled by the fact that this was a state-sponsored panel hearing ... featuring three global warming skeptics and only one individual who felt it was a possible problem.
So, pretty much, Georgia stands alone. We were one of eight states to vote against California's efforts to combat global warming in a recent governors' convention and while Florida and South Carolina, both with Republican leadership, make strides to articulate alternative views on how to best address the problem ... Georgia holds a faux panel discussion, Clay Cox - the open-minded intellectual giant he is - declares 'hearing people say what I want them to say makes me feel even better about my narrow-minded views!' and Jeff Lewis - the chair of our state's energy committee - says 'global warming ... forget about it!'
Why, on so many fronts, when the rest of the country is taking positive steps forward and engaging in discussion on so many issues, are we stuck in neutral and slowly drifting down the hill?
The Georgia General Assembly convened 'experts' and they panned global warming.
While I'm not shocked that the conservative leadership in Atlanta would deny global warming, I am somewhat befuddled by the fact that this was a state-sponsored panel hearing ... featuring three global warming skeptics and only one individual who felt it was a possible problem.
So, pretty much, Georgia stands alone. We were one of eight states to vote against California's efforts to combat global warming in a recent governors' convention and while Florida and South Carolina, both with Republican leadership, make strides to articulate alternative views on how to best address the problem ... Georgia holds a faux panel discussion, Clay Cox - the open-minded intellectual giant he is - declares 'hearing people say what I want them to say makes me feel even better about my narrow-minded views!' and Jeff Lewis - the chair of our state's energy committee - says 'global warming ... forget about it!'
Why, on so many fronts, when the rest of the country is taking positive steps forward and engaging in discussion on so many issues, are we stuck in neutral and slowly drifting down the hill?
posted by Jmac at 11:07 AM
8 Comments:
What was the point of this hearing? Thank God we are spending so much time staging media spectacles to thumb our noses at the rest of the world. Even if you don't believe in global warming that doesn't mean that we can't take sensible steps to simply help the environment as a whole. Did the hearing conclude with a stirring speech in which Jack A**hole professor emeritus at DeKalb Tech said "Therefore there is no such thing as global warming so...hell, cut down trees, create massive run-off, waste energy, throw your used motor oil into a stream...because who cares?" After the hearing did everybody go outside, hop in Escalades and drive in a circle for two hours "just to fu*k with Gore!! YEE-HAAA!"
And Lord - you gotta love this line: "'If you care about warming, you should care about affluence,' Michaels told lawmakers.
Michaels argued that people with more money will invest in companies that produce things like hybrid cars that use less fossil fuel."
Apparently EVERYTHING can be solved by good old trickle down economics - "no seriously, I swear by cutting taxes to the super-wealthy you will see a marked decline in the sales of Maroon 5 CDs and our long national nightmare will be over".
Sigh, I have pretty much given up on Georgia politics and its current "leadership"...and this goes far beyond scheduling pointless global warming circuses, err...hearings.
I guess its best to focus efforts on the local level and let the rest of the country drag our backward looking state kicking and screaming into the future...and hopefully sanity.
Patrick Michaels is more than just a "skeptic". He "is a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He holds A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979. Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." He's also on the board at the Cato Institute, hardly a Republican playground.
Last year he published a policy paper entitled "Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories". I didn't get to really digest it though. It had way too much empirical, scientific data. I like pictures.
And Stanicek: "Even if you don't believe in global warming that doesn't mean that we can't take sensible steps...". Um, who exactly is this WE you're referring to? Are you suggesting we take steps? Cool, go nuts. I use and consume less than anyone I know. Or are you suggesting the gov't step in and force us to take "sensible" (whatever that means in this context) steps? Big difference there, good sir.
And Michaels is right, if you do care about warming you should care about affluence. I don't see any poor people marching for reducing the carbon footprint. Poor people don't buy tickets to Green Aid '07 or whatever that worldwide concert was.
I don't see any poor people marching for reducing the carbon footprint. Poor people don't buy tickets to Green Aid '07 or whatever that worldwide concert was.
Bear with me, but what is the point of this? Could it be that's because poor people are preoccupied with, you know, buying food, providing shelter and genuinely trying to survive?
Michaels' argument, a faulty one I think, is that if rich people had more money, they'd invest it in alternative energies. Maybe they would, but, quite frankly, I strongly doubt it. Rich people are going to invest their monies in what makes them even more money, so fine. I think we need a series of tax incentives to kickstart a greener economy, coupled with targeted restrictions.
Back to Michaels ... Dave, I'll concede that Michaels has a decorated academic pedigree, but so do the countless other climate scientists who disagree with him. Do their litany of degrees and experience miserably fail solely because one gentleman who says something different is also academically accomplished?
I mean, Pat Robertson has an impressive theological resume, but that doesn't mean I necessarily think he's right on everything.
Jmac:
"Michaels' argument, a faulty one I think, is that if rich people had more money, they'd invest it in alternative energies. Maybe they would, but, quite frankly, I strongly doubt it. Rich people are going to invest their monies in what makes them even more money, so fine."
Rich people definitely WOULD invest in alternative energies, and they WOULD do it to make even more money. (Take First Solar Inc. [FSLR on the Nasdaq] as an example, whose stock has gone up 300% in one year). That's the power of commerce - if it's good, people will buy it. But most people aren't going to buy something just because it might possibly have some effect at some point. At least I wouldn't. I'd need something a little more tangible, like heated seats, a kickin' stereo system and/or the ability to climb hills. And if something like that comes along, you won't need tax incentives etc. to make it more appealing.
It's good to see that you at least conceded Mr. Michael's academic pedigree, considering you made it a point to put the word "experts" in quotes, as if to suggest they're not.
And no, I don't believe the "litany of degrees and experience miserably fail" because of Michael's own experience. This isn't a black-and-white, totally wrong or totally right issue. But it doesn't seem like you actually just stopped to consider these guys' positions. Do you honestly, honestly think the AJC article has no bias? Read it again and tell me what you think, especially the paragraph that begins "Georgia's hearing...".
I have never flatly denied that there is such a thing as global warming, nor have I denied that it is at the very least partly attributable to human action on this planet. Quite the contrary.
And first point last, that was my point exactly. The global warming fearmongers need to get out and start chastising poor people - they don't do anything for the environment, and shame on them for it. "Your two jobs and five kids will have to be put on the back burner, ma'am; you've got a planet to save!"
Ultimately I think the worst thing that will come out of this global warming mess we're in is that people will see the word "skeptic" and immediately think it's a bad thing. What a shame.
That's the power of commerce - if it's good, people will buy it.
But Dave even you have to concede that this doesn't always translate into the real world. Don't get me wrong, I credit the market for a good many things, but sometimes - in fact many times - people tend to buy what is most affordable and most convenient and folks tend to invest in what is profitable.
If your suggestion was unshakeably true, then we wouldn't have so many foreign products that are poorly made in our markets (and this isn't meant to be a knock against free trade either as I'm a strong proponent). Those goods are cheaper and more convenient.
My point being that the integration of alternative energies into the marketplace - particularly on the accelerated path I'd like to see them - will probably need some incentives to fully come on board.
It's good to see that you at least conceded Mr. Michael's academic pedigree, considering you made it a point to put the word "experts" in quotes, as if to suggest they're not.
My knock was against Jeff Lewis and Clay Cox who merely lined up folks who they agreed with rather than engage in an actual discussion on the matter. Again, despite thinking he's mistaken, I've got no qualms with Michaels' academic credibility. However, to stack a panel in a manner that is so obviously out of whack with the actual makeup of the views of the scientific community and then declare 'the debate is over ... we're right!' reveals a gross disdain for actual scientific debate and a profund ignorance I can barely fathom. It's disrespectful to not only the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who respectfully disagree with Michaels, but also to the citizens of Georgia who foot the bill for this sham of a panel discussion.
The responsible thing would have been to put some voices on the panel that have a different take than Michaels, and let them debate this in the proper way.
Regarding the poor, you're not only making a blanket assumption that is impossible to prove, but it's also mildly insulting to those in poverty ... who rely on those inexpensive goods that I referenced earlier.
As an aside, here's a hypothetical ...
As a libertarian, you arguably support the free market and wish to avoid government regulation in the market. The primary job of the government, if I understand you properly, would be to foster an environment of freedom with the only necessary spending on the protection of the state and the enforcement of laws.
So, bear with me, what if the doomsday views of global warming science were not only true, but accelerated? That is, our temperatures will rise and significantly damage our world, killing and displacing millions and forever altering our way of life for the worse ... but massive changes in our lifestyle could slow or reverse this trend, yet players in the market responsible for CO2 emissions refused to do so citing damage to the economy.
All this to say ... what is the point that government regulation would be deemed OK? Arguably we can all say it's fine to use force to repel an invasion, but what about this?
Michaels is a nut job. I saw him speak when he came to UGA last year. He admitted global warming was a fact, that humans played a role in it, but that it was too expensive and would cost tax payers too much to do anything about it. Well, I guess the fact that doing something about it is expensive and might inconvenience our lifestyles is reason enough to do nothing. The fact that he is a fellow of the Cato institute tells you what his agenda is --no govt intervention. As to the Republicans who invited him, their agenda is to poo-poo global climate change so that they can tell their Hummer-driving constiutuents it's OK to go on doing what they've been doing.
Jmac:
My statement about commerce and sing-songy joke about the poor both had a point that you made better than I did. You are correct when you say "people tend to buy what is most affordable and most convenient". This is especially true for lower-income people/families.
Personally, if I'm one of those lower-income people/families, I'm not spending extra money on products that are "environmentally safe" and/or "environmentally beneficial" since there isn't any discernable proof that the product is either. Instead the gov't has to offer tax incentives to hopefully encourage people to spend more at the point-of-sale, something poor people typically aren't able to do.
I completely agree with you that this hearing should have been better balanced. I'll never disagree with good, intelligent debate and discourse.
And regarding your when-govt-regulation-would-be-ok question: Any tangible imminent threat should be dealt with. But even "players in the market" would cease their activity if the threat was very real. They wouldn't want to get sued and they wouldn't want the people who pay them to die.
Gov't does have the power to regulate in times of crisis. Maybe one day there will actually be a legitimate crisis for the gov't to step in and handle.
Post a Comment
<< Home