By golly it sure has been cold. Europe and parts of the United States are freezing their collective asses off. Of course it only took a New York minute before global warming deniers were using the cold snap to argue their case. And why not? All fair in love and war and politics. Advocates of global warming don’t hesitate to tout their case when it’s hot, so turnabout is fair play. All of which leaves the general public in a continuing state of general confusion.
This is why there is not a snowball’s chance in Hell that the Congress will pass any form of substantive climate change legislation this year. For those who like lists, here are three good reasons why we won’t see major progress this year.
The Case Hasn’t Been Made. The climate change case has not been made with sufficient force to galvanize enough public opinion to push legislators to vote that way, especially in an election year when politicians go into turtle mode. Events, be they the mess in Copenhagen or the exceptionally powerful cold snap we are going through, have not been on the side of climate change proponents.
We Can’t Throw Money at the Problem. Staving off climate change requires reducing carbon dioxide emissions. This in turn means restructuring much of our industrial base away from coal to cleaner forms of energy. That takes a lot of expensive carrots and sticks to push and pull change. Where will the money for all this come from, especially here in the United States where there is already considerable worrying about the size of the Federal deficit?
There Are Other Equally Pressing Problems. Climate change is a slowly unfolding problem the full force of which won’t be felt for a decade or two. There’s an impressive array of problems that are happening right here and now, chief among them being high unemployment and a still very weak economy. So you tell me. Which set of problems will demand the most attention from the political system?
You know the answer to that question as well as I do. Our political system is geared to deal with short-term problems that help convince today’s voters to re-elect the current crop of politicians as opposed to solving problems that will benefit the next generation.
Bottom Line. The cold hard reality about global warming is that we will forgo the less expensive ounce of prevention and end up paying for the pound of cure, assuming there is a cure to be had by then. If the science is correct, then absent any immediate and massive mitigation climate change will continue at an ever-quickening rate with consequences we can only dimly perceive.
Good night and good luck. We will need it.
This essay first appeared in PlanetRestart.org



10 Comments







When the food chain in the ocean starts to die because of the rapidly increasing acidification due solely to the ever increasing levels of CO2 then the public will understand just how fucked we are. Once the food chain in the Ocean dies the mass extinction it will trigger will spread rapidly to the land and directly to us. Add to this catastrophe sea level rises of over 20 ft. and atmospheric warming over 5 degs. and you have a vastly different planet in 50 yrs. or less. Oh and did I forget the possibility that huge amounts of Methane are also another likely element that hasn’t really chimed in yet? This gas is 20X’s more efficient as a greenhouse gas and as the Tundra and arctic sea bed warm the hug amounts of methanes being stored here in permafrost and hydrates will also add to the warming in a growing feed back loop.
Even if we did make the case and swung the majority of voters to our side, it would make no difference, as long as the elites that benefit from dirty industry rule congress. Look at public option.
Why are any of you all under the impression that Congress responds to the sentiment of the people or would be inclined to ascertain what the aggregate “best interests” of the people are and move in that direction?
Who said any of us believe that? I think a majority of us here at this site are aware that DC is in the hands of the Fortune 500 and respond to Corp. power way before to the needs of America’s voters.
The easiest single approach to reducing consumption of fossil fuels is to make the case for economic growth.
We need alternative energy creation to be what oil was in the last century.
The second easiest approach is national security. As long as we invest more heavily in petroleum and natural gas, we are investing in global instability. Even using these products from our own reserves means contributing to the overall market demand and price structure for the global fossil fuel market.
Explaining to the public that climate change is both extremes of hot and cold has been difficult because it’s both too easy to game by corporations which own the majority of media in this country, and too easy to game our education system. Parents and kids alike are not getting or have not had rigorous science and math education across the country because corporations fight it. They donate money to far right fundamentalist groups who in turn protest any serious and consistent effort to teach science and math.
Thanks Windroot for another diary on this issue(mine was here.
What I find most disturbing is the tipping point is only 5 years away and no one seems to recognize the political and economic impediments to actually doing something meaningful.
Not only that, but the definition of “something meaningful” has not crystallized. Something really meaningful would be an international agreement to keep the grease in the ground. Is anyone proposing it?
The cold weather in the US and Europe is itself quite possibly a product of abrupt climate change. Rapid heating in the Arctic Ocean has pushed the Gulf Stream over toward Greenland, thus bypassing Europe…
Jeremy Brecher at ZNet has an interesting suggestion. Remember the Nuclear Freeze to end the escalation of the nuclear weapons race between the US and the USSR? The idea was to ask both parties to freeze development to stop making more weapons. Jeremy is suggesting that we ask all parties to freeze carbon dioxide emissions at the current levels. It seemed to work with nuclear missiles and it might work as a starting point for limiting CO2. Here’s the link:
http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/4101
Can we all agree that whatever “solution” our government comes up with will hurt Joe Public more than it will any Big Energy businesses?
Obama could be phasing out old dirty coal plants right now, and raising taxes on Big Oil to fund major green energy developments.
Look at health care reform. Anything they do will hurt us and further consolidate wealth at the very top.