|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 13:04:42 GMT
 Here's Why Conservatives Don't Believe in Climate ChangeThey think climate scientists are ... lying?BY JACK HOLMES
OCT 4, 2016
Getty ImagesDavid McNew
Leonardo DiCaprio may have said climate change deniers "should not be allowed to hold public office" in his conversation with President Obama yesterday, but the ones that do—in America, at least—are merely reflecting public opinion. That's according to a new study from thePew Research Center, out today, which finds just 34 percent of self-identified moderate Republicans and 15 (!) percent of conservative Republicans believe the climate is changing and humans are primarily responsible for it.
That's not the real news, though. The Pew study digs deep into the denial phenomenon, uncovering a whole infrastructure of unsubstantiated belief on the issue.
Just 15 percent of conservative Republicans, for instance, think climate scientists "give full and accurate info about causes of climate change."
Eleven percent of that same group—and just 19 percent of moderates—say scientists understand the causes "very well."
Nine percent of conservatives say current climate research reflects the best available evidence,
while 57 percent think it's influenced by scientists' desire to further their careers and 54 percent say it's influenced by their political leanings.
Republicans also tend to think there is no broad consensus among scientists on the issue (there is),
and just 18 percent of conservatives say scientists understand well whether climate change is occurring at all.
Getty ImagesSean Gallup
Luckily, they also believe that none of the negative effects of climate change are likely:
Less than 20 percent of conservatives believe more frequent droughts, rising sea levels, and more severe storms are likely to happen.
They also, however, believe there's nothing we can do to help anyway:
No more than 29 percent believe any of the five strategies Pew listed would help curb climate change—if it was happening, which it's not, so there.
So, to sum it up: Climate change isn't happening, it's just made up by money-grubbing PhDs, but even if it was, it wouldn't cause any really bad effects to the environment, and even if it did, we couldn't do anything to help.
You can find the full study at Pew Research. |
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 13:05:31 GMT
Why Some Conservatives Can’t Accept That Climate Change Is RealBy Carolyn Gregoire  GETTY IMAGES If you’re trying to wrap your head around climate change, don’t consult Donald Trump. “I am not a believer,” the Republican presidential candidate said on a radio show in September. “Unless somebody can prove something to me, I believe there’s weather.” Sadly, Trump isn’t alone. Even as world leaders prepare to convene in Paris later this month for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change with the goal of reaching a new agreement for reducing carbon emissions, a vocal minority of policymakers continue to deny that the problem even exists. Although 97 percent of climate scientists insist climate change is real and caused by human actions, 56 percent of Republicans in Congress deny these atmospheric changes, according to Think Progress. Some conservative commentators have gone so far as to describe climate change as a “hoax.” Yet the facts are undeniable. Sea levels and global temperatures are rising (this year is on track to become the hottest on record), glaciers are melting, and ice sheets are shrinking at unprecedented rates. CO2 levels have also shot up dramatically since the Industrial Revolution — suggesting these events are very likely a product of human activities. “Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has declared. How is it possible to deny this overwhelming evidence that global warming is real and humans contribute to it? For starters, many leaders and corporations — such as ExxonMobile — have a strong financial incentive to ignore the facts. But there are many other subtle reasons why people might turn a blind eye to research. Here’s what social scientists have to say about the psychology of climate change deniers. They seek out information that confirms their beliefs — and ignore anything that challenges them. At the core of climate change denial is the brain’s confirmation bias — a natural tendency to seek and interpret facts in a way that confirms our pre-existing beliefs. “Nobody wants to be wrong, and that elicits confirmation bias, which is when we seek out information that confirms that we believe to be true,” said Dr. Robert Gifford, an environmental psychologist at the University of Victoria. In looking for confirmation, we’re trying to avoid what’s known as cognitive dissonance, which is the uncomfortable state of having inconsistent thoughts or beliefs. If these inconsistencies suggest we should change our behavior, then we will typically change our beliefs to regain a sense of harmony rather than change our behavior. For instance, if a business leader has a vested financial interest in fossil fuels, there’s a good chance he won’t want to acknowledge the threat of climate change, because doing so would force him to address some uncomfortable questions about how he might be contributing to environmental destruction. Dissonance, then, creates tension. Usually, the person will seek to reduce that tension in the easiest way possible — which, in this case, usually means finding a way to believe that climate change isn’t real or isn’t a big deal. Confirmation bias ultimately turns into “motivated reasoning,” an emotion-based decision-making process in which people to cling to false beliefs and ignore any opposing evidence. They don’t trust scientists, and listen instead to high-profile skeptics. Add to this equation a distrust of experts and scientists (a psychological phenomenon known as “discredence”), and you’ve got a recipe for denial. Climate change denial hit a six-year high in 2014, with 23 percent of Americans saying they do not believe in global warming, and 53 percent saying they do not believe global warming is human-caused. This New World The current capitalist system is broken. Get updates on our progress toward building a fairer world. address@email.com This is likely due, in large part, to the influence of high-profile climate skeptics. “Social scientists have documented that the public follows ‘elite cues’ when forming opinions on topics, especially those for which they don’t have a lot of information,” Dr. Riley Dunlap, an environmental sociologist at Oklahoma State University, told The Huffington Post in an email. “So when Republican politicians and pundits, whose voices are amplified by conservative media figures, deny climate change, this readily filters down to party activists and eventually many lay Republicans.” These media messages have a major impact. In a forthcoming study, researchers tested the influence of climate change denial messages on American adults’ views of climate change, and found that they have an especially strong effect on conservatives. “A single exposure to a denial message significantly reduces subjects’ belief in and concern about climate change,” said Dr. Aaron McCright, an environmental sociologist at Michigan State University and the study’s lead author. Dunlap, McCright and Gifford all said mistrust of scientists is a growing issue — and for people who don’t trust scientists, scientific evidence clearly doesn’t carry much weight. Environmentalist Mark Lynas pointed out in The Washington Post that when issues become more politically polarized, there’s a greater gap between scientists and public opinion. “Data reveals a huge and growing gulf between what scientists and the public think about vaccines, animal research, genetically modified food, climate change and more,” he wrote. They get stuck in “echo chambers.” Holding certain ideological views — such as religious fundamentalism or conservatism — makes it more likely that a person will deny climate change, and their denial can be reinforced by others within their social network with similar beliefs. Denial is a social phenomenon, according to Renee Lertzman, a psychosocial researcher whose work focuses on promoting action on climate change in organizational settings. “In order for me to be in denial, I kind of need others to participate in that,” she said. “So we need to recognize that so much of what we’re looking at is a social process, not an individual issue.” It’s easy for people to expose themselves only to beliefs that reinforce their own through media exposure and their own social networks, which may reinforce their views while shielding them from dissenters. This is also known as the “echo chamber” effect. “The conservative echo chamber — Fox News, talk radio, conservative columnists and bloggers — combine to create a ‘bubble’ in which many committed Republicans live, and when it comes to scientific issues we find that they literally create an ‘alternative reality’ in which human-caused climate change is a hoax,” Dunlap said. “The problem is that this conservative worldview is deeply at odds with empirical reality.” So does the science suggest any ways of combatting denial? “In the short term, absolutely not,” McCright said. These experts agree that the best step forward may be to rally those who do understand the issue around potential solutions. After all, McCright said, the debate has never really been about the science. “It would be far more productive for all of us if we would have a national discussion about these differing belief systems, identifying where we disagree but, more importantly, identifying where we agree, and then try to govern in ways that effectively solve the problems we collectively face,” he said. More on this topic: www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-denial-psychology_us_56438664e4b045bf3ded5ca5What You Need To Know About The Paris Climate Summit After Years Of Lukewarm Climate Talks, Paris Cranks Up The Heat How To Talk To A Climate Change Denier Watch How Rising Sea Levels Could Swallow Coastal Cities The Devastating Consequences Of A ‘Small’ Rise In Global Temperatures Mayors Take On Crucial Roles Fighting Climate Change Why This Goal To Curb Climate Change ‘Is Not Ideal’
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 13:06:09 GMT
OCTOBER 4, 2016The Politics of ClimatePolarized views about climate issues stretch from the causes and cures for climate change to trust in climate scientists and their research. But most Americans support a role for scientists in climate policy, and there is bipartisan support for expanding solar, wind energy
BY CARY FUNK AND BRIAN KENNEDYwww.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 13:06:49 GMT
American conservatives are still clueless about the 97% expert climate consensusNow there’s a handbook for thatDana Nuccitelli Thu 5 Apr 2018 06.00 EDT Last modified on Thu 5 Apr 2018 15.46 EDT  Climate scientist Dr. Kevin Trenberth at the March for Science on 22 April 2017 in Denver, Colorado. Photograph: Kevin Trenberth Gallup released its annual survey on American perceptions about global warming last week, and the results were a bit discouraging. While 85–90% of Democrats are worried about global warming, realize humans are causing it, and are aware that most scientists agree on this, independents and Republicans are a different story. Only 35% of Republicans and 62% of independents realize humans are causing global warming (down from 40% and 70% last year, respectively), a similar number are worried about it, and only 42% of Republicans and 65% of independents are aware of the scientific consensus – also significantly down from last year’s Gallup poll. The Trump administration’s polarizing stance on climate change is probably the main contributor to this decline in conservative acceptance of climate change realities. A recent study found evidence that “Americans may have formed their attitudes [on climate change] by using party elite cues” delivered via the media. In particular, the study found that Fox News “is consistently more partisan than other [news] outlets” and has incorporated politicians into the majority of its climate segments.Americans are gradually becoming better-informedNevertheless, public awareness about climate change realities has improved over the long-term. For example, about two-thirds of Americans now realize that most scientists agree global warming is occurring, up from less than half in 1997.  Responses to Gallup survey question asking whether most scientists believe global warming is occurring. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli There’s also a strong correlation between awareness of the expert consensus, that humans are causing global warming, and concern about the issue. This suggests that when people are aware that experts agree, they accept the consensus and realize we need to address the problem. This is consistent with research finding that the expert consensus is a ‘gateway belief’ leading to public support for climate action.  Responses to Gallup survey questions asking whether scientists agree global warming is occurring (blue), whether humans are responsible (orange), and whether respondents are worried about it (black). Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli There’s a handbook for thatJohn Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky, who previously published The Debunking Handbook, teamed up with Sander van der Linden and Edward Maibach to write The Consensus Handbook. It’s a concise and definitive summary of everything related to the expert climate consensus, including how we know 90–100% of climate scientists agree on human-caused global warming, efforts to manufacture doubt about the consensus, its role as a gateway belief, its neutralizing effect on political ideology, and how to inoculate people against misinformation. Those last points are particularly important in light of the Gallup survey data. There’s an intense battle over public opinion on climate change, with cues from political elites having a polarizing effect that’s largely offset when people become aware of the expert consensus. Thus, there’s been a concerted campaign to misinform people about the consensus. That was a key issue that major oil companies accepted in a recent court case, while their fossil fuel-funded supporters denied the consensus in briefs submitted to the court. Meanwhile, the Trump EPA is distributing misleading statements about scientific uncertainty on climate change, helping create this tribal identity that ‘Team Conservative’ denies the realities and dangers associated with human-caused global warming. However, as the Consensus Handbook discusses, research has shown that inoculating people against misinformation can largely offset its influence.  The effect of different types of messages about climate change. Illustration: The Consensus Handbook. The bad news is that misinformation can totally offset the influence of facts on topics like the expert consensus on human-caused global warming. The good news is that people don’t like being fooled, so when they’re additionally informed about the tactics used to trick them with misinformation, they’re more likely to accept the facts. Some are polarized, but many are simply unawareThe challenge is that politicians on Fox News and other media outlets are able to reach a wide audience with their polarizing messages about climate change. Reaching a similarly sized audience not only with facts but also inoculation against the misinformation is a daunting task. However, as John Cook notes,People always ask me “how do you convince conservatives” or “how do you convince Trump voters” and I answer, “the question isn’t how to convince conservatives, it’s who should we be targeting - our audience is the large, undecided majority” One key point from the Gallup polling data is that consistently over the past 20 years, less than 10% of Americans have believed that most scientists don’t think global warming is happening. The vast majority of Americans are either aware or unaware of the expert consensus, but few have it backwards. Data from Yale and George Mason universities tells a similar story – only about 10% of Americans think less than 50% of climate scientists agree on global warming. While Americans badly underestimate the expert consensus – just 13% are aware there’s over 90% expert agreement, and the average American thinks the consensus is just 67% – despite growing polarization, few believe that most scientists reject global warming. Most Americans are simply unaware about and thus underestimate the expert climate consensus. While a number of people can’t be convinced by the facts due to their polarized views, many more in that undecided, uninformed group remain open-minded and reachable. We could solve the problem if conservative politicians and media outlets would simply stop spreading misinformation about and polarizing the subject of climate change. Sadly, the rise of this ‘tribal epistemology’ has done lasting damage to America, and nobody seems to have any good ideas how to stop or reverse it. But the Consensus Handbook provides some important information about the importance of consensus messaging and tools to help it take hold. www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/apr/05/american-conservatives-are-still-clueless-about-the-97-expert-climate-consensus
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 13:07:25 GMT
Here's Why Conservatives Don't Believe in Climate ChangeIt's not Republicanism that is the problem. The Republican Party just happens to be the current home for CONSERVATIVES AND CONSERVATISM. The darkest moments of the Democratic Party was pre-1965 pre-Civil Rights when CONSERVATIVES AND CONSERVATISM made its home there, especially in the South and what we call Red States now.
What's Wrong With Conservatism? www.takeoverworld.info/conservatism.htmDenial101
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 13:08:13 GMT
Conservatives probably can’t be persuaded on climate change. So now what?
One more round of “messaging” won’t do it.By David Roberts@drvoxdavid@vox.com Nov 10, 2017, 8:40am EST:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/57546969/shutterstock_750592441.0.jpg) full article: www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/11/10/16627256/conservatives-climate-change-persuasionElites shape opinion, only elites can change it(keep in mind the 1%, elites, transnational corporations, Wall Street, banking are the "overclass" of today's conservatism, conservatives and the Republicon Party)Say we accept that the majority of hardcore conservatives have negative opinions on climate change, and they see those opinions as reflective of deep ideological values. What should be done about it?
There are two hidden premises that typically inform such discussions.
The first is that the only sensible response is to persuade all those conservatives. That’s why the focus inevitably turns to messaging and “framing,” the endless search for the right tone of voice, the right combination of arguments, the right mix of facts, stories, and imagery, to move the conservative mind. That’s what so many thousands of hours of effort have gone toward over the last decades.
But it’s backward, as Mullin says. Assessments of science follow political opinions, they do not precede them.
And how are political opinions shaped in the real world?
Well, as I’ve written many times, public opinion is not some great enduring mystery. There’s a decent consensus in the social sciences on what most moves public opinion: elite cues.
And so it is with climate change. Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle has been all over this for years — see, e.g., this recent paper with McGill’s Jason Carmichael. Science-based educational campaigns have virtually no effect on climate opinion, they found. Weather events and economic swings have some temporary effects. What moves the needle are elite cues.
That’s just a fancy way of saying that people care more about something when they see it around them, when they read it in the newspaper, see it on TV, hear politicians discussing it, see activists in the streets marching about it, watch celebrities pretending to care about it. Those are all elite cues.
That’s the stuff that shapes ordinary people’s opinions, on all sides of the political spectrum. Very few individuals have the time and wherewithal to investigate the world’s woes independently. They absorb the values and worldviews of their tribes.
Conservatives think climate change is a communist plot because that’s what the right’s elites have told them.Fox And Friends: Spongebob Is 'Pushing A Global Warming Agenda'All the elite cues that surround conservatives in their epistemic bubble reinforce this message: Climate change science is bogus and all proposed climate solutions are plots to grow the size of government and take your money.
The good news is that if conservative elite opinion swung around on climate change, conservative mass opinion would swing easily behind. Nobody really cares about “issues” like this beyond how they inform social identity anyway. Very few people beyond the Heritage Foundation have any independent commitment to flat-earthism on climate.
The bad news is that no one knows how to persuade conservative elites to stop lying to their tribe about climate change.
For one thing, fossil fuel companies play an enormous role in funding the party (and climate denying “think tanks”); the material interests of politicians like Scott Pruitt and Ryan Zinke are bound up in the good graces of fossil fuel executives. What counterbalancing force is there, with the power to nullify or even diminish that influence?
For another, conservative media elites profit the more they work their audiences into a frenzy of paranoia, fear, and loathing toward the left. Bashing on everything the left does is good for clicks and viewers. It is literally money in their pockets. What counterbalancing force is there, with the power to bring about bipartisanship on this one issue?
Honestly, persuading conservative elites seems almost as futile as persuading the conservative masses. Almost all their tangible incentives point the other way.
It might seem hopeless. But that brings us to the second hidden premise. www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/11/10/16627256/conservatives-climate-change-persuasion
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 13:09:48 GMT
Of course, let's turn things around and blame it on LIBERALS...To admit to climate change or man made global warming is to admit Liberals were right. Never mind it is the global corporate elites that use conservative leadership (corporate whores) and their conservative minions (deplorables) to thwart any and all attempts to stop global warming. God forbid we do the right thing. That will NOT be WINNING! Damn the Earth. It will mean regulation that will cost $$$$ and power.from the American Conservative:Too Good a ProblemLiberal politics foster climate skepticism.By ADDISON DEL MASTRO • January 30, 2017
With Trump’s appointment of Scott Pruitt to the EPA, and the accompanying flood of editorials about climate denial and climate alarmism, it’s a good time to consider why skepticism of climate change remains such a popular attitude among conservatives.
Certainly, a lot of skepticism is driven by plain old economic interests. Oil and gas companies aren’t exactly going to cheer the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There’s also the fact that any real positive climate-policy impact—as a result of sharply reduced emissions—will not be observable for decades, making it both politically and psychologically distant. But none of this should cause ordinary people—many of whom are both highly intelligent and owe none of their income to the oil and gas industry—to deny the science of climate change. There’s another reason, I think, why the whole concept is met with such resistance.
A lot of it comes down to the fact that, from a conservative point of view, climate change looks like too good a problem for liberals. Everything liberals want, or that conservatives think liberals want—more regulation, more control of the economy, more redistribution of wealth, skepticism or hostility towards capitalism and of America’s status as an affluent superpower—are suggested or required by the reality of climate change. The conservative sees liberals rubbing their hands together at the prospect of a problem that needs such solutions, and he thinks, “No, such a perfect problem couldn’t ‘just happen’ to arise—it must be invented or massively overstated.”
In a similar vein, climate change also undermines a particular way of thinking about growth, development, and industry that was current at a time when many older climate skeptics were children or teenagers. My father often talks about the 1964 World’s Fair, where oil, electricity, and technology were presented as artifacts of man’s intelligence and drive for better living. The burning of fossil fuel and the manufacturing of chemicals were not mere industrial processes. They were symbols of progress for a country that was, to the likely surprise of today’s young, still building its major highways and electrifying its vast interior and countryside.
Then along come climate activists, claiming that these symbols of human progress and uplift were a toxic addiction that was destroying the planet and would destroy our comfortable way of life with it. Take Annie Leonard, the environmental activist who wrote The Story of Stuff, an anodyne-sounding environmentalist manifesto that doubles as a critique of industrial capitalism. Leonard concedes, in the foreword to the paperback version, that maybe all of the people who called her a communist—and plenty did—were not too far off the mark. Or read Naomi Klein’s intro to This Changes Everything, which states that preventing climate-induced catastrophe involves “changing everything … how we live, how our economies function, even the stories we tell about our place on earth.” One suspects that people of Leonard’s or Klein’s political persuasion did not need climate change to convince them of any of this.
And what’s more, people like Leonard and Klein aren’t just asking people to accept a scientific theory. They are asking them to unlearn a deeply instilled worldview and learn a new one. That is simply not easy, and we really cannot expect people to do it.
But on the other hand, despite their disagreements on the particulars, scientists no longer seriously question that humans play a role in climate change, or that allowing the trend to continue could be disastrous. We must remember that the reality of a problem and the potential solutions or implications of that problem are utterly unconnected.
By getting this wrong—by acting as though the scientific reality of climate change must either be packaged with specific economic policies, or not be true at all—many conservatives have unfortunately removed themselves from one of the most active and vibrant areas of policymaking. And liberal activists, by excitedly treating climate change as a problem that could validate previously desired left-wing policy goals, contributed to climate skepticism on the right.
The conflation of climate policy with climate science also greatly damaged the credibility of scientists as neutral and benign experts. The politicization of the climate issue has understandably driven many scientists to the Democratic Party, which in turn only seems to confirm the conservative critique that the science is a front for the politics.
So to the cheerleaders and the skeptics of any claim: the claim itself, and what that claim, if true, requires in real life, are different. One does not say anything about the other. It is also unlikely, in such a great, diverse world, that such a vast problem could have only one or two specific solutions. Getting this wrong does not just lead to counterproductive politics, but to sloppy analysis and thinking.
Understanding how we got to where we are in the climate debate doesn’t necessarily mean we can reverse it. Political and social attitudes cannot be neatly taken apart like Tinkertoys. But if we understand the psychology and politics behind our thankless approach to climate politics, we may improve it going forward. We might also get along better, and the earth may thank us.
Addison Del Mastro is Assistant Editor for The American Conservative. He tweets at @ad_mastro.
www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/too-good-a-problem/
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 13:10:38 GMT
Why Climate Change Is Making Hurricane Season Worse & The Strong Connection Between The Two | TIME
TIME
Published on Sep 8, 2017
Hurricanes Irma and Harvey have reignited discussions about the link between global warming and extreme weather, with climate scientists now saying they can show the connections between the two phenomena better than ever before.
U.N. releases gloomy report on global warming
CBS This Morning
Published on Oct 9, 2018
Scientists say climate change is getting worse and there could be “life-or-death” consequences for our planet in the next 20 years. The new report from the U.N. predicts that at the current warming rate, millions more people will die from extreme heat by the year 2040. New York Times international climate reporter Somini Sengupta joins "CBS This Morning" to discuss the details of the report.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 13:11:32 GMT
I’m a Tea Party conservative. Here’s how to win over Republicans on renewable energy.
Vox
Published on Apr 18, 2017
"This earth belongs to all of us."
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 13:12:05 GMT
Expect more powerful and destructive hurricanes.
Why Hurricane Categories Make a Difference
Why a storm surge can be the deadliest part of a hurricane
How climate change makes hurricanes worse
How Climate Change Makes Intense Hurricanes
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 13:12:48 GMT
I also think it is possible that in the next ten years, an actual Cat-1 hurricane may threaten Southern California...where, by the way, close to 6% of this nation's population resides. We had 2.5 inches of rain (unheard of) in the Phoenix area from the last Mexican hurricane and today we are expecting Hurricane Sergio (or what's left of it). Sergio is Cat 4. I never believe it until I see it. We have been in a drought here for almost 30 years. Expect insurance rates to go UP everywhere to pay for all this hurricane, flooding and fire damage no matter where it happens. Doesn't seem right for us to be paying for peoples beach houses here in the desert. |
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 13:13:44 GMT
Climate change: Report warns of growing impact on US life9 hours ago
‘It’s happening, it’s now,’ says U.S. government report on climate change
Media captionClimate change: How 1.5C could change the world
Unchecked climate change will cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars and damage human health and quality of life, a US government report warns.
"Future risks from climate change depend... on decisions made today," the 4th National Climate Assessment says.
The report says climate change is "presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth".
The warning is at odds with the Trump administration's fossil fuels agenda.
Sounding an alarm
By James Cook, Los Angeles correspondent, BBC News
During a blast of icy weather in Washington this week, Donald Trump tweeted, "whatever happened to global warming?"
Now, without mentioning the president, his own scientists have answered their boss's question in comprehensive detail.
Global warming is here in the United States, they say - now. It is already deadly serious and without urgent, dramatic change, it will be catastrophic.
Image caption
The report warns that the frequency of wildfires could increase if climate change is unchecked
This report is striking for two reasons. First, it is not abstract. It gives many specific examples - overwhelmed dams in South Carolina; failing crops in the parched Great Plains; a rise in insect-borne disease in Florida.
And, secondly, it majors on the economic impact, in effect challenging the White House's insistence on prioritising economic growth over environmental regulation.
With warnings about the effects on crumbling infrastructure, falling crop yields and decreasing labour productivity, the report sounds an alarm that climate change will soon cascade into every corner of American life.
The White House said the report - compiled with help from numerous US government agencies and departments - was inaccurate.
Spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said it was "largely based on the most extreme scenario, which contradicts long-established trends by assuming that... there would be limited technology and innovation, and a rapidly expanding population".
The world's leading scientists agree that climate change is human-induced and warn that natural fluctuations in temperature are being exacerbated by human activity.
What does the report say?
The US climate assessment outlines the prospective impacts of climate change across every sector of American society.
What is climate change?
Final call to halt 'climate catastrophe'
Risk of 'Hothouse Earth' despite CO2 cuts
"With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century - more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many US states," the report says.
"Without substantial and sustained global mitigation and regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century."
The report notes that the effects of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country, including more frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events.
But it says that projections of future catastrophe could change if society works to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and "to adapt to the changes that will occur".
What reaction has there been?
Environmental groups said the report underlined their demands for action.
Brenda Ekwurzel, director of climate science at the Union of Concerned Scientists and one of the report's authors, said the report made it clear that climate change was not "some problem in the distant future".
"It's happening right now in every part of the country," she said.
GETTY IMAGES
This bar in San Francisco had a climate change message during a summit in the city in September
That view was echoed by Abigail Dillen, president of environmental group Earthjustice.
"While President Trump continues to ignore the threat of climate change, his own administration is sounding the alarm," she said.
What does President Trump say about climate change?
In October, President Trump accused climate change scientists of having a "political agenda", telling Fox News he was unconvinced that humans were responsible for the earth's rising temperatures.
After taking office he announced the US would withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement, which commits another 187 other countries to keeping rising global temperatures "well below" 2C above pre-industrial levels.
At the time, Mr Trump said he wanted to negotiate a new "fair" deal that would not disadvantage US businesses and workers.
During his election campaign in 2016 Mr Trump said climate change was "a hoax". However he has since rowed back on that statement saying in a recent interview: "I don't think it's a hoax, I think there's probably a difference."
How great is the climate threat?
A report released in October by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the leading international body evaluating climate change - said it could only be stopped if the world made major, and costly, changes.
That means reducing global emissions of CO2 by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and reducing coal use to almost zero and using up to seven million sq km (2.7 million square miles) for land energy crops.
If the world fails to act, the researchers warned, there would be some significant and dangerous changes to our world, including rising sea levels, significant impacts on ocean temperatures and acidity, and the ability to grow crops such as rice, maize and wheat.
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46325168
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 13:14:31 GMT
CONSERVATIVES LOVE DEREGULATION ALL FOR A CORPORATE BUCKThe FDA Killed a Rule That Could Have Prevented the Latest E. Coli OutbreakGQ Luke Darby,GQ 2 hours 6 minutes ago
More than a dozen people are already hospitalized from contaminated romaine lettuce.
Just before Thanksgiving, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put out a familiar-sounding warning: Avoid romaine lettuce. The latest crop is a carrier for E. coli, and so far at least 13 people have been hospitalized in this latest outbreak. The reason that sounds familiar is because the same thing happened back in 2011, when more than 200 people in three dozen states contracted the bacteria, resulting in 27 kidney failures and five deaths.
Fruits and vegetables carry E. coli if they're exposed to contaminated water, and salad greens, typically eaten raw, are especially prone to spreading it. Water can get contaminated by livestock or wildlife waste, and that fecal runoff can easily make its way into farming irrigation. So, Congress passed legislation requiring farmers to test irrigation water for pathogens. The legislation would have gone into effect earlier this year based on criteria drawn up by the Obama-era Food and Drug Administration. As Wired reports:
But six months before people were sickened by the contaminated romaine, President Donald Trump’s FDA – responding to pressure from the farm industry and Trump’s order to eliminate regulations – shelved the water-testing rules for at least four years.
Despite this deadly outbreak, the FDA has shown no sign of reconsidering its plan to postpone the rules. The agency also is considering major changes, such as allowing some produce growers to test less frequently or find alternatives to water testing to ensure the safety of their crops.
The FDA’s lack of urgency dumbfounds food safety scientists.
The lack of urgency from the FDA mirrors Trump's own. He often refuses to acknowledge the findings of his own administration, be it on economics or climate change when they don't say what he wants them to say. In fact, he spent Thanksgiving eating Caesar salad despite the CDC's recall warning.
But the connection also reveals what Trump and other wildly pro-business Republicans mean when they talk about the tyranny of big government. He's helped them fight "over-regulation," which for this administration means letting companies pump more mercury into the air or worry less about worker safety. Because it costs a lot less money to ignore petty things like making sure that crap-filled water isn't saturating your bagged lettuce.
CONSERVATIVE MESSAGE TO AMERICA: EAT SHIT AND DIE WHEN YOU MESS WITH MY PROFITS
www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/fda-killed-rule-could-prevented-210206018.html
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 13:15:03 GMT
Republican Candidates Ignore the Biggest Climate-Change Warning YetDrought, Floods, Famine? Meh.
Scott Bixby
10.09.18 7:01 PM ET
Photo Illustration by Sarah Rogers/The Daily Beast
What if an international panel of climate change scientists issued a nearly 900-page five-alarm report, warning of looming droughts, floods, famine and tens of millions displaced by rising waves in the coming decades—and no one listened?
That’s pretty much the state of the Republican Party as it heads into the 2018 midterm elections. Few have even mentioned the issue of climate change at all, and those that have are almost entirely skeptical that climate change exists at all.
Of the 32 Republican nominees for the U.S. Senate this cycle, barely a handful are on record as believing in climate change, much less in humanity’s role in warming the planet. Backed by a president who once described climate change as a Chinese hoax, the majority of Republican senate candidates have stated publicly that either the debate over climate change is too unsettled to justify government action, or that the only climate they care about is one favorable to domestic fossil fuel production.
Some candidates have stated that climate change is merely the result of crooked climatologists perpetrating a hoax on gullible laymen; others have blamed the sun. Only two, Bob Hugin of New Jersey and Robert Flanders of Rhode Island, even mention climate change on their websites. Recent polling for both candidates indicates that the likelihood of either serving in the Senate is unlikely, at best.
Of Republicans who are considered likely to actually end up serving in the Senate in 2019, only one, former presidential nominee Mitt Romney, is on record stating that human impact on the planet’s climate poses a risk that must be addressed.
Global warming, Romney said at the Utah Capitol in August, “means wildfires are going to become a regular part of life and more and more dangerous.” Romney, who is the Republican nominee to replace outgoing Sen. Orrin Hatch, urged Republicans to “recognize that business as usual is not going to solve the problem—we have to step up in a far more aggressive way.”
But among his likely future Senate Republican colleagues, Romney stands alone.
Some candidates—among them sitting senators seeking re-election—have actively worked to undo policies enacted by President Barack Obama, chief among them the Paris Agreement, a global accord signed by 195 countries with the stated goal of limiting global temperature rise to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Rep. Jim Renacci of Ohio wrote an opinion piece saying “good riddance” to the accords when Trump announced that he was pulling the United States out of the agreement, a move that even China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, decried. Minnesota state senator Karin Housley cheered the withdrawal, alleging that it would have cost taxpayers “trillions of dollars” and “hindered the oil, gas, coal and manufacturing industries.”
Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, one of 22 Republican Senators who signed a letter urging Trump to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, even went one step further than any other member of his party, becoming the sole member of the U.S. Senate to vote against a one-sentence amendment declaring that “it is the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax.”
Explaining his vote, Wicker’s office released a statement that the senator “agree with the more than 31,000 American scientists who do not believe the science on this matter is settled,” a reference to a petition circulated among climate change skeptics with an expansive definition of the word “scientist.”
Others who hope to help shape American climate policy have demonstrated an aggressive level of illiteracy on science in general. Jim Newberger, who hopes to unseat Sen. Amy Klobuchar in Minnesota, stated in a debate with the senator that “the number-one factor in climate change is the sun. We cannot change how the sun operates.”
Sen. Marsha Blackburn of even took on children’s science icon Dr. Bill “The Science Guy” Nye, in a confusing debate over climate change wherein she declared that increased carbon production was good for agriculture.
Some candidates—among them sitting senators—have attempted to dodge the issue entirely, either by refusing to use the term “climate change,” or by questioning the scientific consensus on humanity’s role in the warming planet.
Montana’s Matthew Rosendale said in a primary debate that he has yet to see enough evidence that would justify “imposing draconian regulation on our business and our industries... for the potential of possibly having a minuscule impact on the climate.”
Even Gov. Rick Scott, whose home state of Florida faces an existential threat from rising sea levels and hurricanes of increasing frequency and intensity, avoids any mention of climate change on a disaster preparedness page detailing his work helping local governments with “coastal resilience projects and sea level rise planning.” Scott, who once famously declared that he didn’t have an opinion on the veracity of anthropogenic climate change because “I’m not a scientist,” has even turned his personal moratorium on mentioning climate change into unwritten policy for the state of Florida.
The United Nations report, an analysis of more than 6,000 climate studies that was authored by 91 scientists from 40 countries, estimated that without an unprecedented transformation of the global energy economy, the first major effects of the crisis could come as soon as 2040, drowning major cities and causing irreversible damage on a planetary scale. The report cites a potential global economic cost of nearly $70 trillion in lost economic activity, infrastructure expenditures and humanitarian aid.
Trump has expressed suspicion of the report’s validity, telling reporters on Tuesday that “I want to look at who drew it. You know, which group drew it. I can give you reports that are fabulous and I can give you reports that aren’t so good.”
The only way to limit global warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius)—a level that the report still warns would lead to sea-level rise, famine and the death of nearly all the world’s coral reefs—would “imply deep emissions reductions in all sectors, a wide portfolio of mitigation options and a significant upscaling of investments in those options,” according to the report’s authors.
Given the current leadership of the world’s largest economy and second-biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions, that kind of action appears highly unlikely. In addition to vowing withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the Trump administration has weakened carbon regulations, ignored its own reports on the dangers of global warming, and even cited predictions of dramatic rises in global temperatures to justify loosening fuel efficiency standards, the rationale being that since the fate of the planet is already sealed, there’s no reason to spend humanity’s last days driving lamer cars.
The political, economic and diplomatic response required to accomplish such a limiting of global warming is possible, the report states, but a scenario with “no documented historic precedent.”
Scott Bixby
@scottbix
Scott.Bixby@thedailybeast.com
www.thedailybeast.com/republican-candidates-ignore-the-biggest-climate-change-warning-yet
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 8, 2020 13:15:56 GMT
The Conservative Belief in Human Supremacy Is Destroying Our PlanetHuman supremacism is morally indefensible.
By Derrick Jensen / Seven Stories Press August 26, 2016, 11:07 AM GMT
Last year someone from Nature [sic] online journal interviewed me by phone. I include the sic because the journal has far more to do with promoting human supremacism—the belief that humans are separate from and superior to everyone else on the planet—than it has to do with the real world. Here is one of the interviewer’s “questions”: “Surely nature can only be appreciated by humans. If nature were to cease to exist, nature itself would not notice, as it is not conscious (at least in the case of most animals and plants, with the possible exception of the great apes and cetaceans) and, other than through life’s drive for homeostasis, is indifferent to its own existence. Nature thus only achieves worth through our consciously valuing it.”
At the precise moment he said this to me, I was watching through my window a mother bear lying on her back in the tall grass, her two children playing on her belly, the three of them clearly enjoying each other and the grass and the sunshine. I responded, “How dare you say these others do not appreciate life!” He insisted they don’t.
I asked him if he knew any bears personally. He thought the question absurd.
This is why the world is being murdered.
***
Unquestioned beliefs are the real authorities of any culture. A central unquestioned belief of this culture is that humans are superior to and separate from everyone else. Human supremacism is part of the foundation of much of this culture’s religion, science, economics, philosophy, art, epistemology, and so on.
Human supremacism is killing the planet. Human supremacists—at this point, almost everyone in this culture—have shown time and again that the maintenance of their belief in their own superiority, and the entitlement that springs from this belief, are more important to them than the well-being or existences of everyone else. Indeed, they’ve shown that the maintenance of this self-perception and entitlement are more important than the continuation of life on the planet.
Until this supremacism is questioned and dismantled, the self-perceived entitlement that flows from this supremacism guarantees that every attempt to stop this culture from killing the planet will fail, in great measure because these attempts will be informed and limited by this supremacism, and thus will at best be ways to slightly mitigate harm, with the primary point being to make certain to never in any way question or otherwise endanger the supremacism or entitlement.
In short, people protect what’s important to them, and human supremacists have shown time and again that their sense of superiority and the tangible benefits they receive because of their refusal to perceive others as anything other than inferiors or resources to be exploited is more important to them than not destroying the capacity of this planet to support life, including, ironically, their own.
***
Especially because human supremacism is killing the planet, but also on its own terms, human supremacism is morally indefensible. It is also intellectually indefensible. Neither of which seems to stop a lot of people from trying to defend it.
full article:
www.alternet.org/books/conservative-belief-human-supremacy-destroying-our-planet
|
|
