You’ve thrown the worst fear… that can ever be hurled… afraid to bring children… into the world… and for threatening my baby… unborn and unnamed… you ain’t worth the blood that runs in your veins… Let me ask you one question… is your money that good… will it buy you forgiveness… do you think that it could?… I think you will find… when your death takes its toll… all the money you made will never buy back your soul… — Bob Dylan, “Masters of War”
In May 2007, the White House published a photograph of Lynne and Dick Cheney proudly introducing their sixth grandchild to the world. The question is: When Samuel David Cheney grows up, how proud will he be of his grandfather?
A year later, the White House published photos of President George W. Bush with his daughter, Jenna, at her wedding – the first of the Bush twins to take a husband. The question is: When they come of age, what will Jenna’s yet-unborn children think of their grandfather?
It is almost certain that the world of Cheney’s and Bush’s grandchildren will be a far different place than the world we enjoy today. The experts tell us it will be a world of violent weather, more disease, less biodiversity, more suffering, and greater instability in many of the world’s most volatile regions.
A climate that’s less hospitable for our children and grandchildren will be great for terrorists, who will capitalize on misery to recruit more suicide soldiers by blaming the Great Satan and lesser infidels for the selfish, carbon-intensive materialism that will have wrought so much suffering.
The history books that inform the Cheney and Bush grandkids aren’t likely to place all blame on their grandfathers. Greenhouse gas emissions are the atmospheric effluvia of generations of consumers who participated in the industrial revolution. Many captains of industry and world leaders, including a long line of American presidents, could have rallied their publics to solve the problem.
But in the rogue’s gallery of climate villains, none will rank as high as George Bush and Dick Cheney. Never had the science been so certain and the evidence so apparent, and never had the urgency been so great. Yet both deliberately used the power of their offices not just to deny climate change, but to willfully, even gleefully, obstruct high-level action in the United States and the international community. They thumbed their noses at the U.S. Supreme Court, the largest panel of scientists ever assembled by the world community, the United Nations, corporations that asked for federal regulation of carbon to standardize a patchwork of approaches emerging among the states.
From the moment Cheney first closed his door to plot energy policy in secret with the captains of the fossil industries, he played puppet-master in suppressing climate science and subverting any meaningful effort to slow greenhouse gas emissions. He became obsessed with secrecy, presumably because he wanted know historic record of how he allowed greed to trump the well-being of his grandchildren and profit to take precedence over posterity.
George Bush, faced with the opportunity to become a planetary hero, chose to be not the decider, but the pretender. With empty little phrases over the years, he kept hope alive that he would finally acknowledge and do something about the problem. But in his last meeting with the leaders of developed nations, his pretending done, he said goodbye by happily calling himself “the world’s biggest polluter”. It was no joke. While Bush was waving goodbye to the opportunity for global leadership, his people in Washington D.C. acknowledged there would be no change, ever, in this Administration’s commitment to inaction.
But with the fog of denial and deceit dissipated, history will tell the Bush and Cheney grandchildren that the eight years of their grandfathers’ Administration were the most critical years of all in the developed world’s destruction of a climate hospitable to civilization. Not only did they deny the problem and stand in the way of solutions; they left the nation with a massive national debt and an intractable war, with the nation’s unity and its economy in shambles, and with an emasculated federal science capability — an array of disabilities that would make it nearly impossible for a President Obama or President McCain to lead the world back from the brink of a ruined planet in the seven short years that leading scientists estimated were all that remained to transform the global carbon economy.
Without Karl Rove and Frank Luntz to mask their policies with Orwellianisms, history will judge Bush and Cheney harshly. So will their progeny, most likely. It’s too late for their redemption.
But it’s not too late for the rest of us, or for the climate. With each passing day of carbon emissions, the solution to climate change becomes more difficult and expensive. But even Jim Hansen says there’s time, just barely, to prevent the worst consequences of global warming.
The question is: What will our grandchildren say about us?
– Bill B.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Bill B. your an idiot.
“Never had the science been so certain and the evidence so apparent, and never had the urgency been so great”
“Certain” and “apparent” are your terms that reflect your belief. The science behind any man-made effect on global warming is far from concluisive. In fact this is my chalenge to you”: what could the President, or anyone else do to “fix” what you think is broken. Why don’t you expound on what America could do by itself that would SOLVE your supposed climate change crisis. I’ll be waiting….
Learn to spell. You’re the idiot, JA. But you are probably right… if you might fail, you shouldn’t bother trying. Spoken like a true American Hero.
> The science behind any man-made effect on global warming is far from conclusive.
This is completely false. Even the Bush administration now admits that anthropogenic global warming is real. If you want to educate yourself, you can start your reading here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/
> what could the President, or anyone else do to “fix” what you think is broken.
Read the articles on this web site for the last several months and you will have a good answer.
Hey Brian, I like your style. If I don’t have an answer point out a typo. again, there is no proof that:
A. Global warming s real
B. If it’s real, then what is causing it
C. That anyone can do anything to stop it
There I made it simple…just for you.
You want to help…I have an idea:
Have the U.S. drop the ban on DDT. That way we could distribute it to Africa, where its safe and econimical use would save THIUSANDS
Alright, I will ignore your typos/misspelled words. Read the above post. Then you can go to the link below. In it are countless studies that answer parts A and B. As for C, if you know the cause of a problem, you can find a solution. But like I said earlier, some prefer to give up if something might offer a challenge (or an enormous opportunity, depending on how you look at it).
http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/11/how-do-we-really-know-humans-are-causing-global-warming/
Modeling is not proof.
Consensus is not proof.
Many scientist have backed-off and have asked to have their names and qualifications removed from the ipcc.
Finally, I state the obvious: Supposing that everything you believe is correct and true… There is no solution barring a complete breakdown and reversal of our societies as they now stand. This would be diastrous for all third world nations trying to use fossil fuel technology and would kill millions. See the big picture.
You sure are a fast reader. You got through all of those documents already? I forgot that science wasn’t real. My bad. Also, I fail to see how changing from one technology to another will kill millions… in a lot of third world countries it wouldn’t even be that much of a change since a fossil fuel infrastructure isn’t fully developed. The alternatives are cost competitive and if we don’t do anything, the consequences will be much worse.
JA,
What? Record fires in California, record floods in the Midwest, a 10 year long drought in Australia and desertification of the lower Iberian Peninsula not proof enough for you? How about the article from the online Science Daily on July 10th that stated that the Wilkins ice shelf in Antarctica is hanging by a thread. Then there was the statement by Rejendra Pachauri, who heads the IPCC, that we have 7 years to stabilize CO2 emissions or it’s too late.
BTW, scientific consensus is not like journalistic consensus or political consensus. Scientific consensus is achieved through peer reviewing the research. This is an essential and one of the final steps in what is called the scientific method which I and those who accept what the science have learned in freshman year high school. See here for The Scientific Method
Sorry the webiste ate my url link. The Scientific Method link is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Rick, Brian, Consensus is not proof.
Google: Science of “Eugenics”
Note how “everyone” including leading scientist, the federal government, the president, a majority of the “leading” universities ALL proclaimed this “science” as the wave of the future, and the salvation of civilization itself.
We tend to be so myopic, it’s as if nothing has ever happened before we got here, the truth is that history repeats itself…often.
Brian, I am a fast reader because I formulated my answer before you posted your entry. GW proponents claim that global warming will change the face of the earth as the ocean’s rise and coastal communities get swallowed up. Well duh, the eath is changing, anyone see a map of Pangea lately? Earth is always changing. As far as the Third World and countries like India and China, I find it ironic that at the moment they are finally getting their populations into the “modern” world we want to pull the rug out from them.
Make no mistake:
1. No “cure” for the “global warming” crisis couild occur with out India and China.
2. India and China will not capitulate to changes, when they are so close to making a leap in economic and societal improvements.
3. There are NO sustainable, renewable, sources of energy that could take the place of fossil fuels TODAY.
I am not a defeatist, I am a realist, I am not moved by emtional arguements, nor rhetoric, no matter who espouses their opinion. We need proof that something is happening before we take action, heck for that matter rushing to answer before we know what is wrong could make matters worse.
[JR: Sorry, JA. Most of what you have written is factually wrong and quite illogical, thoroughly debunked on this site and elsewhere. Scientists believe cigarette smoking is bad for your health. I guess they are wrong, too. All of science is wrong because people believe it. Only stuff people don't believe is true. You'll probably live to see just how wrong you were.]
Suppose you are correct… what will the efects of global warming be in ten years? How about twenty years? Fity years?
I am interested to think how you think this problem will play out if we don’t do anything.
By the way the CDC from Atlanta issued a report noting that second hand smoke is not the health risk everyone once thought it was. So, all the regulations, the kicking out of people from buildings, justified by the detrimental effect of second hand smoke was for naught.
Oh, and don’t be sorry, we’re just talking… and yes we’ll see what happens and see if I am wrong. So when should I see something happen? Any guess on the time frame, because Al Gore’s movie said that Florida would be inundated with hurricanes, the last two years and… nada, zip, zero.
> I am interested to think how you think this problem will play out if we don’t do anything.
You can read Joe’s book – Hell and High Water, available on Amazon.com
There is another book available on Amazon.com which does just what you ask:
Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet
It discusses the likley changes for each degree Celsius increase in temperature.
JA — You might find the history also of interest: “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
Let’s look at the arguments JA trots out:
“there is no proof that global warming s real…if it’s real, then what is causing it…that anyone can do anything to stop it”
“Modeling is not proof. Consensus is not proof. Many scientist have backed-off and have asked to have their names and qualifications removed from the ipcc.”
“Google: Science of “Eugenics”
“Well duh, the eath is changing, anyone see a map of Pangea lately? Earth is always changing.
“There is no solution barring a complete breakdown and reversal of our societies as they now stand.”
“No “cure” for the “global warming” crisis couild occur with out India and China…India and China will not capitulate to changes”
“We need proof that something is happening before we take action”
No doubt about it, JA is just your typical run-of-the-mill denialist willing to grasp at any op-ed argument and talking point, no matter how flimsy or how many times it has been refuted.
In other words, JA is not worth the time it takes to type a serious response.
Too bad for JA that even the insurance industry takes global climate disruption seriously. I guess they didn’t get the talking points from the GOP Party. (Gas and Oil Party) While they don’t mention it by name they acknowledge that the number of what they term “natural catastrophes” have increased and they are concerned about the cost to their bottom line.
http://www.munichreamerica.com/content/iw/nat_cat_final.pdf
Now the roving gambler he was very bored
Trying to create a next world war
He found a promoter who nearly fell off the floor
He said i never engaged in this kind of thing before
But yes, i think it can be very easily done
Well just put some bleachers out in the sun
And have it on highway 61
Bob Dylan
How come there are no specific everyday magazines on climate change…
amazon.com….
Category
‹ Any Category
Magazine Subscriptions
Your search “climate change” did not match any products in: Magazine Subscriptions
> again, there is no proof that:
> A. Global warming s real
> B. If it’s real, then what is causing it
> C. That anyone can do anything to stop it
It turns out that a lot of this garbage is being promoted by conservative “think tanks” many of them supported either openly (or covertly) by ExxonMobil and other members of Big Oil. Reference is here:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/organizing_denial/
Brief Abstract: A study published in the journal Environmental Politics finds that 92 per cent of 141 English-language environmentally “skeptical” books, most published since 1992, are linked to conservative “think tanks.” The authors conclude that the environmental skepticism of such organizations “is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.”
Addendum: For those interested in reading the actual article in Environmental Politics, it can be found here:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a793291693~db=all~order=page
Think tank: A slow-moving brain with a heavily armored shell, which protects it from contrary evidence.
Now that I’ve gotten the Bush-Cheney Evil Empire thing off my chest, let me suggest an alternative to arguing about climate science.
There are pit bulls among us who are born to fight — contrarians who will disagree with anything just to get in the electronic equivalent of a bar fight. For those who are more interested having a real conversation, there might be general agreement about the following:
1) We need to decouple our economy from the roller-coaster of oil prices. Oil is a global commodity whose price is set in a global market. We have little control over its price, but its price has alot to do with the health of our economy.
2) We need to decouple the economy from energy imports, to the degree we can. Again, insofar as we depend on other nations for critical energy supplies, we put our fate in their hands — and they aren’t the friendly hands of AllState. Every time somebody messes with a pipline in Nigera, or Hugo Chavez fells like causing mischief, we feel it in the price of oil. If Iran decided it wanted to mess with oil shipments in the Strait of Hormuz, 40% of the world’s oil supply would be in jeopardy and the price of oil would rise like a gusher. Unless we’re masochists, we’d be wise to disengage.
3) Our economic problems right now are, in large part, an indication that the old economy doesn’t work very well in the new realities of this century. Rapidly developing nations are competing with us for oil, gas and uranium, all finite fuels. Overall, we face a future of continuing increases in the price of these fuels and, as our national security experts tell us, increasing tensions as we jostle for supplies.
4) We’re on the verge of becoming a third-world nation in regard to vital infrastructure, from roads and bridges to the electric grid. We need a very large national investment to modernize these things. That investment would create a lot of jobs and a massive economic stimulus. In the bargain, we could build an infrastructure that increase our efficiency and energy self-sufficiency — a smart grid and high-speed rail, for example.
How do we pay for it? By redirecting subsidies that now go to mature finite energy industries that really don’t need the corporate welfare; by telling Iraq it must pay for its own reconstruction with its oil revenues; by focusing existing federal loan and loan-guarantee programs on the right kinds of investments; by creating incentives for private investment to support the new economy; and by changing the direction of federal funding for transportation, agriculture, etc.
The bottom line: Just like any corporation that wants to remain healthy and prosperous, we need to adjust to changing market conditions. We need a massive national effort to create a new 21st Century economy that is stronger, more resilient, more stable. While we’re at it, it makes good sense to base that new economy on resources that are cleaner, domestic and more sustainable, so that we minimize future economic crises rather than setting the stage for more of them.
In my little cosmology, that means we need to develop wind, solar, bioenergy and other renewables, and we need to become far more efficient. Again, just like any business that wants to remain competitive, we need to reduce our costs through efficiency and to make sure we have sustainable supplies of raw materials (energy).
Whether or not we accept climate change, a sane approach to building a 21st Century economy leads us to the same agenda, it seems to me. Pick your motivation. Some want to save the planet for posterity. Some want to avoid stupid wars. Some want to make alot of money and believe that green is the new dot-com. Some just want basic economic security and the chance to retire comfortably some day.
Some call the solution a third industrial revolution. Some call it a clean energy economy. Some call it a post-carbon world. It makes no difference. Unless you’re an oil executive determined to sqeeze as much personal fortune as possible out of the status quo, the constructive path forward is pretty much the same.
Insofar as my venting about the Evil Empire in the White House inspired another round of debate over the science, I’ve caused a setback in this blog’s discourse. Sorry. I needed to vent. Now that I feel better, I suggest that the most useful conversation is about how to make our economy and our lives secure again, how to build a solid foundation for the country’s future, and how to keep America competitive in the global arena.
Bill Becker