The plague of anti-science syndrome has spread through GOP Senate candidates faster than a globally warmed wildfire (see “Dawn of the brain-dead Senate“). Even the once-immune have fallen to this new, highly resistant strain (see “McCain drinks the Kool-Aid [iced tea?] and becomes a climate conspiracy theorist“). And that most certainly threatens to create a hellish post-apocalyptic world.
Brad Johnson has the story of Pennsylvania’s Senatorial infectee.
Pat Toomey, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, agrees with Christine O’Donnell about global warming. Like O’Donnell and the rest of the GOP Senate candidates, Toomey questions the overwhelming scientific evidence that manmade pollution from burning billions of tons of oil and coal is warming the planet. “There is much debate in the scientific community as to the precise sources of global warming,” Toomey claimed in June, even though the National Academies of Science have explained that the “compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence.” Responding to a caller on WITF radio on Friday, Toomey expanded on his ignorance of scientific reality:
My view is: I think the data is pretty clear. There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it’s clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear. I think that is still very much disputed and has been debated.
Listen here:
“I just can’t see the argument for doing great economic damage, costing tens of thousands of jobs here in Pennsylvania, for a very uncertain gain, if any,” Toomey concluded, attacking policy to limit greenhouse pollution. Toomey’s top contributors include coal giant Murray Energy ($16,655) and Koch Industries ($15,000).
The Plum Line‘s Greg Sargent opines:
Yet because O’Donnell and Angle have the crazy bar so high in so many other, more attention-grabbing ways, this sort of stuff from the relatively buttoned up Toomey passes unnoticed.
– Brad Johnson, in a Think Progress cross-post.
Related Posts:
- National Journal: “The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones.”
- Ron Johnson: “The science of global warming is unproven. It just is.
- Climate zombies on the march: Senate nominee John Raese (R-WV) blames volcanoes for global warming
- Six Senate races pitting climate heroes against global warming deniers
- Cynthia Tucker: The GOP is now a party of know-nothing flat-earthers
- Why the victory of the Tea Party extremists (backed by Big Oil) over the slightly less extreme GOP establishment (also backed by Big Oil) is good for progressives, but bad for climate and clean energy
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Joe, you cannot have enough of these type of posts during election season. As someone who volunteers locally I know this election season is proving tough to motivate people to get to the polls. Keep these posts coming so people know what we are up against and, hopefully, get motivated to get out and vote.
Republican Congressional candidates don’t really have “views” on the subject of climate change. They are following instructions from the oil companies and Republican Party leadership.
“I just can’t see the argument for doing great economic damage, costing tens of thousands of jobs here in Pennsylvania, for a very uncertain gain, if any.”
Those would be coal jobs that Toomey is talking about but I’m not sure that a cap ‘n trade system would cause coal mines to close. Vote sellers like Toomey will say anything to scare the public and it is now easier than ever for coal and oil companies to buy those votes.
Michael Tucker #2: Coal will be disproportionately affected by cap and trade because its carbon content is much higher than fuels supplying other sources of electricity. And that’s the point. In a cap and trade system, fuels that emit more carbon will be put at an economic disadvantage to those that emit less. So some coal mines will close, no doubt. While that is a tragedy for the roughly 100,000 coal miners in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining) and the communities in which they live, there is really little choice. Coal with carbon sequestration and storage is not practically relevant for the next few decades and we need to turn the global greenhouse gas emissions pathway downward in the next ten years if we’re to have any hope of stabilizing at 2 degrees C above preindustrial times. That means coal consumption has to decrease substantially.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-next-key-energy-source-a-flaming-snowball/article1752431/
It would be helpful if these politicians recognize the need for these coal-related jobs to go away. The argument should not be how can we preserve coal mining and coal-powered generation plants, but how can we transform a local economy built around coal mining and change it into something else.
This would not be easy, would not be inexpensive, but is something that should be recognized and discussed. The pain and harm to the local population should be recognized as well. I wish there were real discussion on the mechanisms of addressing issues such as these, instead of pandering to real fears of economic dislocation and denying the reality we face.
Pay now, pay later
Pay now and the penalty of late payment, extinction, may not be applied to the bill.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/12/anti-climate-gov-heartland/
In my view, individual climate scientists, and entire departments, of leading universities and colleges should — quite literally — be speaking out loud to make sure that the public is aware of the reality of climate change and make sure that the broad public broadly understands that these politicians, mainly from one side of the political divide, are uninformed and sadly mistaken when it comes to climate change.
The scientists and their departments should be writing editorials, SEEKING discussions with the media, and even standing on busy street corners, if that’s what it takes. They should also be asking to meet with the politicians who don’t get it.
If the media don’t cover them, they should let us know the media organizations and names of the particular reporters and editors who turned them down.
Also, somewhere, a week or so ago, I suggested an idea involving educating all the politicians or at least offering eduction in such a way that not partaking in it would substantially reduce a politician’s credibility. Time doesn’t allow me to rewrite it now, but it’s an idea that I think should be considered.
Finally — and maybe this is just the mood I’m in presently, or maybe it’s an early sign — I am starting to deeply wonder whether my comments are doing any good whatsoever. Indeed, or also, I spent Sunday at three 10/10/10 events, and enjoyed them all, but I’m also starting to wonder whether my activities in those sorts of things are doing any good whatsoever. I do not get the feeling that the movement(s) are thinking creatively, nor do I feel that any of the movements are reaching out to me for ideas in any sincere and interested way. The only things I hear from the movements are requests to stick with it, requests for donations, requests to participate in national listen-in conference calls (after which I have no idea whether anyone even considered the ideas I submitted afterwards), and encouragement to attend events that occur once every year.
In short, I am beginning to “run on empty”, both with respect to the activities and (sometimes) with respect to my involvement here. And I think that’s a sign, potentially. People are motivated by actual progress, by belonging, by feeling that they are being listened to, and by feeling that their efforts are making a difference. And as I said, I’m feeling like I’m running on empty, which isn’t sustainable of course.
I’m a bit concerned that the full-time leaders of the movements, and the full-time people in think tanks and activism groups and running the blogs, may not be as sensitive to the so-called needs and genuine moods of volunteers, part-timers, or people doing stuff without pay. People in movements who are part-timers, or not paid, normally need to experience real progress, need to feel that their efforts make a sizable difference, need to feel listened to, and need to feel a genuine belonging, in order to remain motivated. At least, I think that’s probably the case, and it seems to be so with me. At this point, I’m almost starting to feel just as “frustrated” with the movement(s) as I am with Rex Tillerson, in different senses of course.
Jeff
I strongly agree with Johnathon Koomey (#3). The solution to climate chaos requires closing coal mines and shutting down coal power plants. All of them within a few decades. That is going to have real costs for certain segments of the USA population.
We are unlikely to get these folks to sign up for a national solution soon unless that solution shares the pain across the nation…AND it is clear to people that this is what will happen.
It all comes back to the “messaging botch” that Joe talks about. The costs and benefits have not been made clear to Americans. The shared sacrifices and shared benefits have not been made clear. The urgency has not been made clear.
Perhaps the next attempt should follow Hansen’s idea of a simple carbon tax economy wide…that would be crystal clear. But it probably also needs some twist where carbon tax money stays in-state. High carbon states could see that they get keep their own carbon tax revenues in-state to transition as they see fit. Fifty carbon reduction labs. No fear of wealth transfers.
The same dynamic exists in Canada with Albertans fearing a gigantic money transfer out of their province with any carbon pricing.
The same dynamic exists worldwide and has been hobbling climate treaties. All the national negotiators are far more versed in the climate science and threats than average citizens and yet they still can’t fashion a solution that shares costs and benefits in a way they each agree on.
We need to be honest that there are more costs to some folks than others and be open and clear about how that pain will be shared by everyone. I actually think the shared pain was done pretty well with the Senate cap-and-trade…but the final deal was so complex it wasn’t clear to most people. The messaging was muddled and muted.
Michael Tucker #2
Hi Michael…
“I just can’t see the argument for doing great economic damage, costing tens of thousands of jobs here in Pennsylvania, for a very uncertain gain, if any.”
I’m a tad confused, you say you don’t understand the argument for causing alleged great economic damage, and job loss in Pennsylvania for what you perceive as “a very uncertain gain”… Hum
OK so how about you pay this every year instead…
“A recent, two-year study for the United Nations Environment Programme, entitled The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (Teeb), put the damage done to the natural world by human activity in 2008 at between $2tn (£1.3tn) and $4.5tn.”
Do you find $2 – $4.5 trillion (annually and rising) to be acceptable?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11495812
Eighteenth century fuel technology visa vie oil and coal are dirty and finite you will have to change anyway as it runs out and it’s price goes through the roof. Changing to a clean infinite energy source will provide huge numbers of jobs (did they forget to tell you about the job creation) and benefit everybody the world over including those in Pennsylvania with a cleaner environment and give us all energy independence.
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.feature/id/1449
http://247wallst.com/2010/05/19/can-solar-energy-create-200000-jobs-amsc-csiq-stp-tsl-yge/
http://www.solarthermalmagazine.com/2010/10/06/interior-department-approves-first-solar-energy-projects-on-public-lands/
It can be done, and loads are doing it…
http://www.ecofriendlydaily.com/news/friendly-countries/
The only beneficiaries from the current modus operandi are the Oil and Coal companies, and they don’t care about anything except their massive daily profits which they intend to keep even if it kills your family and the planet that you and the rest of humanity live on.
It reminds me of the tobacco companies, remember them…
“Go on Mike, have a cigaret… it won’t kill you!”
Yeah right.
I’d like to add that someone should ask Toomey and politicians like him when the last time he bought something from a cooper or a blacksmith was. Of course coal industry jobs will be lost; that’s the whole point! If Republicans weren’t so paranoid about government’s helping those who get screwed economically, it wouldn’t be much of a problem to help unemployed coal workers get through the transition until they can find other types of jobs. However, with the way things are going, I doubt very much that government or any other entity will be able, or even have the oppotunity, to help anyone with anything. As a confluence of disasters from climate change, overpopulation, financial collapse, soaring food prices (not to mention drastic food and water shortages) totally destroy the global economy over the next two decades, any government entities that survive will have their hands full trying to mitigate the chaos that will ensue from thousands of local and regioinal wars. Perhaps having a nuclear holocaust to accelerate our demise might be a blessing to put us out of our misery quickly so that life on Earth can then renew itself gradually over the next few million years. Sorry to say, that’s the future that seems to be coming more clearly into focus with each passing day.
Sime,
Ah, that was a quote from Toomey. I’m sure he will appreciate all your comments.
Jonathan from #3,
The President did not run on shutting down the coal industry. He ran on a platform of “Clean Coal.” The cap ‘n trade scheme IS NOT designed to end coal use or coal mining; that is one reason many Republicans originally promoted it.
It may eventually come to pass that coal is no longer removed from the ground and no longer burned to generate energy but that is not contemplated by anyone in government; only by some individual protesters and a few environmental organizations.
As a Pennsylvania resident, it is distressing to realize the extent to which this historically Democrat-controlled state will call for GOP representation in this coming election, due primarily to the continued shrinking of major resource-intense industries like coal, steel, and cement–not to mention a dilapidated and fractured system of township rule. That PA leaders even debate over whether or not to tax Marcellus Shale gas fracking organizations is an ominous portent for a state with such vulnerable watersheds and some of the largest undisturbed natural land areas left on the East coast. As long as corporate pollution dollars continue to bankroll politicians like Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania’s natural resources will remain at risk and residents will continue to be led blindly into the “pollution-as-good-economic-sense” box as outlined by Pickens and the Koch brothers.