“Are we the party of carbon pollution forever in unlimited amounts?”
You can get daily email updates on climate science, solutions, and politics by clicking here. If you want to know more about this website, start with “An Introduction to Climate Progress.” This is a Think Progress repost.
Last week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spoke with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman to discuss clean energy legislation. During the interview, Graham warned his party that it will fall into irrelevancy if it continues to embrace climate change disinformers:
I have been to enough college campuses to know if you are 30 or younger this climate issue is not a debate. It’s a value. These young people grew up with recycling and a sensitivity to the environment “” and the world will be better off for it. They are not brainwashed. “¦ From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them. You can have a genuine debate about the science of climate change, but when you say that those who believe it are buying a hoax and are wacky people you are putting at risk your party’s future with younger people.
It’s a hopeful sign that at least one leading Senate Republican is acknowledging the fact that Americans want clean energy reform. According to the Benenson Strategy Group, 58 percent of voters in 16 battleground states support a cap-and-trade bill like the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act that invests in clean, renewable energy sources. The same poll shows that Americans desire regulation of carbon polluters so much that 59 percent of voters believe the Environmental Protection Agency should act on the issue if Congress does not.
Related Posts:
- Lindsey Graham: “Every day that we delay trying to find a price for carbon is a day that China uses to dominate the green economy”
- Graham: “The idea of not pricing carbon, in my view, means you’re not serious about energy independence. The odd thing is you’ll never have energy independence until you clean up the air, and you’ll never clean up the air until you price carbon.
- Stick a fork in the energy-only bill: Lindsey Graham (R-SC) slams push for a “half-assed energy bill”
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
This is a step in the right direction for the anti-science establishment which research shows is primarily Republican/Conservative in ideology, but it does fall short of what Graham should be saying:
“Today’s climate change is primarily caused by emissions of GHGs by humans. This is very well understood. If we wish to reach out to the younger voters who have embraced environmentalism, let us debate what we are going to do about mitigating this change. To call global warming a hoax is to undermine our credibility in that debate.”
The Republicans Have Tied Themselves Up Into an Impressive Knot on This One — The Type of Knot that You’ve Tied to a Heavy Rock Just Before You Jump in The Ocean.
(If they don’t want to sink, they’d better untie it very soon.)
Republicans, like a large share of the public more broadly, understand that scientific understanding and savvy are important aspects of a country’s future, future economic health, and so forth. Yet, huge chunks of Republicans are “in denial” about some of the most basic and well-accepted aspects of scientific understanding, one of them being climate change.
The Republicans have — as influential energizing spokespeople — the likes of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, and etc. (Sorry if I have spelled a name incorrectly.) How unscientific and un-savvy can you get, really? Except for the present reality that millions of people are ideologically energized by them, they would be complete laughing-stocks, if that’s the right term. From a scientific standpoint, they are laughing-stocks. Ask any serious scientist who uses a real name — not an anonymous one — and who isn’t paid by them.
Then we have a basic inconsistency problem. Last night, I saw Hannity (on Fox) treat global warming as if it was a fake, silly, ridiculous fabrication that only an idiot would believe. But Rupert Murdoch is on record committing to carbon neutrality for NewsCorp, and NewsCorp has a substantial piece on the web committing itself to carbon neutrality. Meanwhile, although ExxonMobil is irresponsible in its actual actions and in its efforts to deceive the public and hamper legislation, nevertheless, when push comes to shove and he is pressed for a comment on the science itself, I think (from what I’ve seen) even Rex Tillerson does not disagree with the overwhelming scientific view, and even he sees global warming as a real risk.
So, people like Hannity (and Beck and Limbaugh and Palin) are out there in “la la land”, far out on a limb that is being chopped off as we speak, by science and by a growing number of folks who are (finally) seeing light.
Most young people will have none of it. In my view, most of them think that adults have made a large mess of things, and most of the adults insisting on a continuance of that mess (in the case of global warming) are among the Republican leadership and main Republican spokespersons. Credibility is going down the tubes, fast. If the stakes weren’t so high — global warming, energy independence, health care, and the basic functioning of government — it would be amusing to watch as they (Republican and Tea Party leadership) slowly (although sometimes quickly) shoot themselves in the feet and dismantle their own credibility.
Someone should really “call out” Hannity (as one example) on this. Point out the dramatic incoherence by comparing what Hannity says with what Murdoch says (at least) about carbon neutrality. (Who knows, for goodness sake, what Murdoch actually thinks, but it’s sufficient to compare what he says to what Hannity says, and then also grab a few already-existing quotes from Rex Tillerson and etc.) You wind up with an incoherent and inexplicable mess. Republican party leaders and etc. are not only contradicting science, they are also contradicting each other all the time, and you can’t trace any of it back to sense. It all becomes nonsense.
But, not enough light is shined on these things. That’s a problem, once again, of the media.
Well, that’s it for now.
Be Well, if you can, even amid the incoherence,
Jeff
The world is round. This is a fact.
The climate change crisis is a fact.
Help meet the crisis head-on. This is what we can do . . .
+1 agree with Scott.
“You can have a genuine debate about the science of climate change… “
You can have a genuine debate? Hrm, weasel words. Not the best Graham quote ever.
GOP…
Grand Old Polluters!
The one trick pony.
Okay, so Lindsey Graham is not a left wing progressive environmentalist. But let’s give credit where credit is due: He is exercising a degree of courage to challenge his party’s dogma on climate change.
We should encourage Graham to continue to learn more about climate change, and why those under 30 believe it’s a serious problem.
In the meantime, we should mobilize those in the middle. Climate solutions (and healthcare) are being blocked by a minority of vocal Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians/TeaPartiers/Birthers/etc. If the middle majority would be as vocal, we would drown out the extreme Right and start making progress.
The only real debate about the basic science of climate change is manufactured by groups and individuals that oppose the solutions to climate change (carbon tax, EPA rules, etc.). You don’t see well-qualified people calling climate change a hoax. When it comes to the options for cutting pollution, there are differing opinions that will present a debate. Unfortunately, we don’t have long to argue.
And these young take science classes. They were taught experiments required the data so another person could replicate the experiments. Climate science is a pretend science and the young now realize the Jones of the world at the CRU will not release the data because it is incriminating.
I have converted to being a sceptic in the last few months.
Henrit,
How much data do you want?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
It isn’t being ‘hidden.’
One reason why people who don’t like the assortment of potential ways to address climate change shift the “debate” to the existence of climate change is that their main arguments against the best solutions are also impossible to support.
Put another way: In many cases, it’s not as if they like Solution A but not Solution B. Instead, in many cases, they actually want to keep doing whatever it is that they are currently doing — producing and marketing gasoline, mining and selling coal, and so forth. They don’t want a cap-and-trade approach of any form — cap-and-dividend or whatever — nor do they want a carbon tax, nor would they support anything else that would actually be effective.
So, they can’t actually “admit” the existence of the problem in the first place. If they admitted the problem, then it would become clear, fairly quickly, that their arguments against the solutions most likely to be effective are silly and unjustified.
You can’t use sound economic theory, even, to argue away the sorts of solutions that would be necessary. Sound economic theory SUPPORTS one or another of these solutions, and the main question has to do with which approach would be the best. But, sound economic theory will tell you that a society won’t be able to address such a problem without a mechanism for assigning a price to the causal emissions, or without regulation of some sort, and with nothing but a “hope and a prayer”. So, the denialists (or many of them; those who at least think a little bit) can’t admit the problem because they realize that, if they do, they won’t be able to use sound economic theory to avoid the whole assortment of alternative solutions, any of which would cause them to have to reduce their selling of oil and coal, which, after all, is the main point.
This whole thing is like “Bop-A-Mole”. And the problem is, with such a “game”, you need someone watching all the holes at the same time: We need a responsible media that can press people for coherent answers and, thus, shine light on those people who, at the end of the day, only have one thing to say: that they want to keep making a mess despite the reality of global warming, and that they’d rather have their money now than be responsible to future generations, other species, and other societies.
We need an energized and honest media, and we need responsible large-scale activism. Period. This process of playing Bop-A-Mole with people who don’t have coherent arguments, reject facts, and don’t even want to have coherent arguments, is going to go nowhere. The sooner we accept that fact, the better. Otherwise, WE are in denial just as much as those who deny the science. That’s the plain fact of the matter, in my view.
Cheers,
Jeff
I prefer Tom Friedman’s analogy: Transitioning to a carbon neutral economy is like training for the Olympic triathalon. Even if there ends up being no Olympics, the worst thing that happens is you get into awesome shape!
There are reasons other than climate change to move away from a carbon consumption world – habitat destruction, poverty, and petro-politics among them. Maybe we should start talking more about solutions than arguing the scientific minutiae of just ONE of the problems.
RE: Henrit #8
The young students you mention are also not blind to the evidence of a warming world around them. They observe the downward trend of Arctic ice are, they observe the melting of glaciers, they observe that the CRU e-mail hack does nothing to discredit the science of anthropogenic climate change, etc. Even without the data sources Lewis has kindly provided, you can see climate change happening around you!
And guess what else young people know? They know that their children and grandchildren will be handed a ruined world if action is not taken to stabilize CO2 at a safe concentration. And they will one day look back on deniers like you and judge them accordingly.
-Dan
Yet more and more Republicans who aren’t as reasonable as Graham keep coming out of the woodwork. If anyone would like to help me refute the claims of this Republican primary candidate in Pittsburgh, the help would be welcome.
http://www.squidoo.com/sternforcongress
I plan a response to the comments I’ve already submitted, but I’m not actually in his district (I’m in a neighboring district). Anybody actually in his district (currently the seat held by Mike Doyle), your comments might carry more weight.
I’ve gotten to the point where I feel the need to refute these claims whenever it’s in my power to do so. As Joe mentions, trying to debate someone who constantly spews lies may never work, but is letting the lies stand unchallenged better? Not sure myself what the answer is to that question. At least he was reasonable enough to remove the statement that the cap and trade legislation will cost every American family $1600. Maybe I can get him to modify some other statements as well.
Another bit of good news!
It is a very salient point that in a few decades’ time, if we have done nothing and even the middle-ground scenarios play out, the backlash against the Republicans could well be the thing that finishes them off completely as a credible political force. They would do well to bear that possibility in mind – otherwise they are going to have a lot of explaining to do!
“I have converted to being a sceptic in the last few months.”
I doubt it.
This is what’s known as concern trolling.
Climateprogressive #14: “…in a few decades’ time, if we have done nothing… the backlash against the Republicans could well be the thing that finishes them off completely as a credible political force…”
If we do nothing for a few decades, politics won’t matter. It will be all about survival.
If Lindsey Graham becomes a Democrat…”fine.” If he becomes a member of
the Green Party, “I will vote for him.” However, he is still a dastardly
Republican. Furthermore, Obamas’ bumper sticker pronouncement “the
perfect is the enemy of the good” is political crap. The environment
requires “the perfect,” nothing less.
“GOP stop demonizing…”
They are not just demonizing the kids… they are ruining their future and the future of the human race.
Henrit (#8) says:
“And these young take science classes. They were taught experiments required the data so another person could replicate the experiments. Climate science is a pretend science and the young now realize the Jones of the world at the CRU will not release the data because it is incriminating.
I have converted to being a sceptic in the last few months.”
Henrit, if you are speaking honestly and in good faith (and more skeptic than septic) we’d all love to hear how your complete understanding of the science changed to something else.
What changed your views?
In math, physics and chemistry or at the molecular and cellular levels of biology scientists try to replicate experiments. In cosmology, astronomy, geology, evolution, population and wildlife biology where this isn’t possible they’ve spent billions of hours observing and recording data, including that of many thousands of meteorologists over many generations. In all relevant disciplines and areas of study human-caused climate change is the only logical conclusion based on painstaking observations.
How is it you know more than they do?
If you are honest, sincere and commenting in good faith we’d love to hear your answers to these questions.
If not you are merely trolling, and a mindless spamming program could do the same.
Lindsey sounds an uncertain trumpet
Tooting at times quite conservatively,
But at other times he sounds off like a liberal,
And accordingly ends up tooting off-key!
As, for example, in connection with “Grahamnesty”
And, apparently, now, in support of legislation
That will do nothing to help control the climate
But will be dysfunctional for a recovering nation.
It’s a shame we have to wait 4 years to git rid of Graham, regardless of his position on climate change…
Thank you Mr. Graham. Now stick with it.
The really curious irony is that the Republican Party may, due to the obvious generational gap discussed above, end up being one of the most infamous victims of climate change. But by the time that happens most of the ideological battles of today will have fallen away in the the face of real debates over how humanity can save what’s left after run away climate change takes off.
Henrit wrote: “Climate science is a pretend science and the young now realize the Jones of the world at the CRU will not release the data because it is incriminating.”
Three questions, Henrit:
1. Do you realize that the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia is not the whole of climate science? (In fact, most of their data comes from outside sources.)
2. If you have not examined this data, how do you know it is incriminating?
3. Are you aware of the many things happening all over the world that show the world is getting warmer? Some of them are mountain glaciers melting, plants and animals migrating toward the poles, growing seasons getting longer.
Science itself leaves the door open for hard right wingers toi throw zingers and put the scientific community on defense. The very nature of science lends itself to political weaknesses. The GOP is a crack team at splitting apart this kind of thing….even after 40 years of studies they simply cannot side with any other side besides corporate and business interests in pursuit of ever greater profits. Profit and capitalism for the sake or profit or capitalism isn’t anything but class warfare, war against mankind, war against the environment…the GOP is a war mongering class of people who are filled with hate and disdain for their fellow citizens. It amazes me the lengths of the ropes they give themselves…and how quickly they are to yang it when somebody else’s neck is inside the noose.
Make no mistake, attempting to “reform” the Republican Party is neither practical nor in our best interests. When it becomes obvious to most Republicans that their elections are at stake they will simply do what corporations like Exxon Mobil and others do. Greenwashing. The Machiavellian tactic of pretending to act in your enemies best interests.
This will simply be yet another delaying tactic that will accomplish nothing but getting up the hopes of masochistic dreamers of political reform. They will say in some near future day: “Is it not wonderful that the Republicans are now talking about the subject?! Let us now try harder and try to get them to understand the true gravity of our situation!”
When will this happen? When we reach 420, 430 PPM?
Rest assured, when they do start taking the issue seriously, irrespective of their normal day to day prostitutional activities, they will start to call for all the WRONG solutions such as Geoengineering, or whatever their corporate pimps think will allow them to keep up business as usual.
Furthermore, when the excrement hits the proverbial fan, they and their corporate masters will take their wealth and relocate to the southern fringes of South America or some relatively cool, high mountain castle.
Last thing you want is to convince a Republican of anything. It will only make things worse and they will stab you in the back in gratitude. Let them shrivel away into irrelevancy and let us focus and ways of directly communicating with the public. We should do that, to use counter Machiavellian strategies in such a way that it will push them into a corner making them even more belligerent.
Remember that McCarthy basically self destructed, unfortunately after creating a lot of havoc. We should expedite that self destruction for the Republicans. We only need to find a way to link up directly to the
public on television.
You guys should read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Confusion-Pandering-Politicians-Misguided/dp/1594033455/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267561681&sr=1-5
Someday it’s going to dawn on the GOP leadership that in the internet age that everything they say can and will be checked by a multitude of people, and that in the long run only the honest truth, fairly presented, can stand up to the intense scrutiny that has become normative. Conservatives ought to be known for being sensible and rigorously honest, not for demagoguery, duplicity and greed.
re – 27 Jay Turner
Indeed – it’s a funny thing as I’m certainly conservative with a small “c” in my general philosophy – meaning “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it”.
This I would apply, for example, to my exhaust pipe on my motor.
Where I and many others draw the line is if people say “if it’s gonna break, don’t fix it yet”.
This I would apply, whilst cursing roundly, to the size of the bill I had getting my brakes overhauled for M.O.T. (not sure what the Stateside equivalent is). Cost me hard, but means I can stop the frigging thing on a sixpence instead of over 50 yards. And not go to prison for driving a dangerous vehicle. Both good things. So to people who say “if it’s gonna break, don’t fix it yet”, I say to you that you would do well to define the Future as something that extends beyond the next few days. Otherwise, you never know what might go horribly wrong.
How much do you think Henrit was paid to post his drive-by?
There was a period of warming in the 20th century but it seems to have stopped. Moreso, most of the warming seemed to occur before cars were invented.
[JR: Uhh, not quite. Read the scientific literature and the posts on this page. I guess I'll have to do a post on this next week.]
Special K (#20), with affection:
The level of poetry
Brought by you and that Bastardi
Is beneath CP and the science
Except of flatulence (“Tooting off-key”? Really?)
Standing up for what’s right in the Graham cracker state
Shows more moral courage than any other Rep has shown to date
If what you want is mindless tit-for-tat
Might we suggest Wattsupwiththat?
I look forward to a plot of “cars invented” against “periods of warming”!
Honest to god, I wonder why some people bother!
Jeff @2: “But Rupert Murdoch is on record committing to carbon neutrality for NewsCorp . . .”
That Murdoch promise fooled me for longer than I care to admit. That promise was reported to you and me on NPR and in some of the MSM, but not trumpeted in Murdoch’s own outlets. As you note, his loudest voices are still selling denialism, fear, and hate.
His words to us are sweet misdirection; his actions in his media empire are as evil as ever.
Richard @ 32: Oooooooh! Poetry response!
That’s good.
The medieval period had warming and no one was driving an SUV.
Although climate change may happen, I’m unconvinced by the data that man is at the root of it or that I (or you) should be taxed by misguided politicians because if it.
[JR: Ahh, more folks who don't know the scientific literature and refuse to use Google. In fact, multiple lines of evidence support the view that it is warmer globally today than back then. But, the more interesting point is that what warming there was back then was FORCED -- but not by human GHGs. I guess I'll have to do a blog post on this also.]
“Medieval Warming Period” = Denier Argument #66 http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Also the usual denier trick of using a warm temperature in one local place as if it were the whole globe.
Leave it to a Republican to characterize the scientific community, the peer review process, the millions of students in elementary, secondary and post secondary science classes across the nation and those who hold good science over corporate and political propaganda public relations.., as “Values Voters”
Even though I am glad he said this, Lindsey Graham is still a idiot.
It is worth noting that Graham does not make any effort to convince his party of the science – because of course, as their last presidential candidate’s selection made clear, the party’s acceptance of AGW is a matter of record.
What Graham is calling for is an end to the policy of feigned rejection of the science, which is expressed in the silence on the issue by senior party figures, while junior types (including Inhofe, Palin & Beck) make the running with the circus of denial.
The implication of this seems to me either :
that the GOP’s climate policy is so grossly inhumane that it can’t be declared, but will be presented as a fait accompli once climate destabilization is plainly beyond remedy, [this would indicate a delusion that climate will change to a stable endurable format];
or that the party is simply extending the lethal brinkmanship with China, over “Who can ignore Global Warming the longest ?” and seeks to crush any resistance to its preferred terms for a climate treaty.
On balance, the latter seems more constructive in at least seeing the need of a treaty. It would also mesh better with Graham’s call to save the party’s profile for the rising generation, in that any further delay is likely to nullify the function of a treaty.
It is also noteworthy that recently both US & China’s heads of state at last publicly acknowledged the impacts of Global Warming within their borders. The fact that they did so within 3 days of each other, after about 7,300 days of formal UN negotiations, would imply that this was a discreet mutual ending of that brinkmanship of denial.
For the GOP to now continue to cling to denial would plainly be self-defeating for US diplomacy, which would explain the timing of Graham’s public statement.
However, there may be other explanation’s of the GOP’s feigned rejection of the science, which I’d hope to see proposed in posts below. The simplest of these is of course that the party could be split at a senior level between the two undeclared policies outlined above.
It is too easy just to continue to vilify the GOP and to fail to identify its actual policy position – and doing so would diminish the prospects of effective national policy. Thus I’d appreciate others’ views on this question.
Regards,
Lewis
Careful with this. The track record of republicans is to take on a topic or issue and then destroy whatever value it might have had all in the interest of the corporations that back them. It’s like the “green” movement. Now it’s a marketing blurb that actually undermines the original intent.
Esquire Magazine interviewed 75 GOP leaders while promising anonymity and only 17% of them claimed climate change was man-made.
“Republican Party of the USA (GOP)
Founded by anti-slavery, pro-Whig Northerners, first president Abraham Lincoln. Fought the civil war, freed the slaves. Ended up as George Wallace populists, dried up and flew away, dessicated by Global Warming.”
My brother, who is a good high school history teacher, has me reading a book called “Revolutionary Characters – What Made the Founders Different” by Gordon S Wood, a Pulitzer Prize winning historian.
Great book.
He talks at length about the enlightened “disinterest” of the founding fathers, both Federalists and Republicans. In particular, it meant being above financial interest and acting sacrificing their own interests in the interests of the country and it’s people.
It was a major aspect of what they considered a gentleman to be, and was a necessary quality in the leaders of their new meritocracy. It was at the root of their hopes for the new democratic Republic. They lived it truthfully in their public lives. Washington retiring after the Revolution and again after his presidency, something previously unheard of in politics, is a prime example of this kind of charactar. Giving up the power was what made him great. These ideals were particulary important to Republicans like Madison and Jefferson. How ironic that todays Republicans like to boast of being the party of Jefferson. He would vomit if he heard them say that.
He and Madison were particularly against raising taxes for an army and militarism, about he only thing modern Republicans think taxes are good for.
you folks are fools. 2 of Graham’s top 5 campaign contributors from 2003-2008 were EnergySolutions, Inc and Scana – nuclear power companies. And we know how you hippies are scare s-less of nooooooclear power mu-hahahaha!
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=N00009975&newMem=N&cycle=2008
Graham doesn’t give a damn about anything except votes for republicans, but at least he sees the writing on the wall where other republicans refuse. So, if the republicans “embrace” climate change, sure, that will help them win political office, perhaps even the WH, but then it’s back to business as usual, and they would look at any progress made up to that point in green technology, climate change etc as a setback.
Unfortunately, I’ve watched as people I grew up with, who are now 45-55, change from progressive liberals to stingy conservatives. In my youth and theirs as well, we had a big push to recycle, to conserve energy (the 70′s oil crisis was fully under way) and to protect the environment.
As we’ve grown older, I’ve watched as some of these people slowly turned selfish. The bigger the SUV, the better. Hang laundry out to dry, heck no! And I’m going to cut (scalp) my lawn twice a week.
Don’t bet on the idealistic youth staying that way.
“Are we the party of carbon pollution forever in unlimited amounts?”
Uh, yeah.
Just wrote the Senator and thanked him for his positive stance, then ripped the GOP a new one, all in the same e-mail. Hopefully, his colleagues will begin to get the idea.