Climate Progress
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Get ThinkProgress email alerts
About Climate Progress
Edited by Joe Romm, we cover climate science, solutions and politics. Columnist Tom Friedman calls us "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named us one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010." Newcomers, start here.
Joe Romm's New Book
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga.
Joe Romm has pulled together the secrets of the greatest communicators in history to show how you can apply these tools to your writing, speaking, blogging — even your Tweeting.
Subscribe to Climate Progress by Email
Powered by NewsWhip
Got a Hot Tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Climate Progress Archives
About ThinkProgress | Contact Us | Donate
You come out smelling pretty good, Joe (for a hippie, that is).
Signed,
Another bald, middle-aged, hippie scientist
[JR: None of my original general debunkings nor my specific detailed financial debunking were ever refuted.]
“Love him or hate him (and I’m a lover), Joe Romm is not exactly a slick media spin artist. He doesn’t seem to know any way of communicating other than by stating, in the strongest possible terms, what he believes to be correct. He doesn’t couch his criticism in the sort of soothing, this-side, that-side, we’re-all-reasonable-people throat clearing that attracts the admiration of Serious People. He just blasts away, all guns blazing; he can’t help it. Whatever you call that, it’s hardly a devious strategy to control Bryan Walsh’s mind. It’s pretty above board! The guy who really wants to manipulate your narratives, the guy who’s good at it, doesn’t tell you he’s doing it.”
Amazing.
[JR: None of my original general debunkings nor my specific detailed financial debunking were ever refuted.]
Because they were right.
OT, but here’s a weekend post suggestion: What are CP readers doing about investments? What mix makes sense? Stocks, bonds, real estate, metals, food, water, knowledge, individual security measures or what?
Uhhmmmmm. Hhhmmmmm.
Although I’m glad that absurd reports are debunked, and it was entertaining to read about the history of the BTI (though that caused me to miss parts of the James Bond movie I was watching), and we apparently have lots of super-smart people arguing with and debunking and complimenting each other, it’s not at all clear to me how this is all going to help get the climate problem addressed? Am I missing something?
[JR (update, I left out some key words here): The climate problem cannot be addressed as long as groups aggressively flacking false narratives are not debunked. The Breakthrough Bunch in particular worked hard to kill the climate bill and has been pushing people even harder to stop talking about climate. So debunking them is critical if we are to have any chance. Unless you think that not talking about climate is the way to solve our climate problem.]
I’m a Washington outsider. I’m not an employee of the climate movement: I’m just a part-time volunteer in it. But from my outside perspective, I’m increasingly feeling two things: The first is that we aren’t making progress. (That of course is frustrating and demotivating.)
[JR: I think it is safe to say that the progress has been halted. It is frustrating, and the forces opposing action certainly hope to demotivate you. I hope they don't succeed.]
The second is that there seems to be a lot of back-and-forth fighting, infighting, outfighting, and whatever taking place among Washington insiders and climate movement insiders, blogging insiders, media insiders, and so forth. It’s all starting to seem like, feel like, and sound like a soap opera. Meanwhile, there’s no progress. (Or is there progress? Am I just failing to see it?)
[JR: You are failing to see it. The point of Roberts' post is to make clear that the Breakthrough Bunch has created a phony infighting. If they have are contributing to your frustration or and demotivation -- or merely to misdirecting your legitimate outrage from the disinformation campaign, anti-science ideologues, and MSM, then again, they have certainly accomplish their goal, but their goal isn't your goal.]
So I’m a grouch tonight. So be it. But please, can anybody (of all the smart people writing reports and blogs and etc.) tell me, please, what the F they propose to do DIFFERENTLY — you know, something that’s intelligent and will be effective?
[JR: I have posted a number of pieces by people suggesting different strategies. Obviously there isn't going to be any serious national legislation or the next two years and, unless Obama gets some climate cajones, the next six years. Now that is frustrating. But there is still a lot of indications that needs to be done, grassroots organizing, cleantech deployment -- plenty of useful stuff to do.]
In his recent speech, Bill McKibben politely mentioned the phrase ‘civil disobedience’, and then he outlined the plan for the next big 350 event, to take place many months from now, which will be a big global day of bicycle riding, if I understood it correctly. Just half an hour or so ago, while I was reading the entertaining writing in the “best GRIST post ever” about the history of the BTI (and missing parts of my James Bond movie), I got a call from an 800 number, a nice lady who did a great job trying to raise $60 (her suggested amount) to help an organization out here fight the Repub efforts to give/extend more tax breaks to big companies and rich folk. But I told her ‘no’, politely I hope. I told her that although I agree with her cause, I basically think that politicians have thrown reason itself out the door and that we’ll have to do a lot, a lot, a lot more than what she had in mind in order to even begin to make a dent in the current messes. In other words, I am seeing no signs that the movement’s organizations, think tanks, and so forth are being effective, at all. Here’s what I see: No or little progress. Organizations calling for donations. And (with all due respect) Joe and the GRIST guy and etc. discussing the flawed report by Nisbet that much of the media seemingly swallowed hook, line, and sinker. So should I be feeling well tonight, or should I start praying that James Bond shows up to somehow save the day?
[JR: I spend virtually all of my time doing communications. The multiple false narratives put out by Nisbet with the help of a PR firm and some in the media forced me to divert a little bit of my time. YOu should be feeling the same as you were before Nisbet. The forces lined up against action have for the time being won the day. But the public needs to be informed about climate, especially if we aren't going to take the necessary action to avert multiple catastrophes.]
Sorry for the gripe. There is a very real aspect to it, though, that Washington folks and movement leaders would be wise to take to heart, I think. From out here, it’s all starting to look a bit like some form of ineffective, professionalized soap opera. There’s drama, but no progress. There’s fighting, but no progress. There are setbacks, but no progress. There are bad reports to be criticized, but no progress. We seem to be entirely on the defensive, and the score of the game is 99 to 3, against us. But have hope: there’s a day of bike riding coming up in five or six months!
Am I wrong to be a bit frustrated?
Cheers for now,
Jeff
[JR: You should be very frustrated. Anyone who cares about their children and the fate of billions of people and countless future generations should be. You should be a little frustrated that Nisbet's blame-the-victim false narrative has taken hold with some. But if you go through life thinking that the only things worth fighting for are causes you know you are going to win, or causes that are easy to win, well, you've picked the wrong issue. But we need you and many more if we are to have any hope, however slim, of succeeding.]
Right on, Jeff. I’ve felt the same way you have for some time now, with my hope for improvement within the traditional channels/system disappearing completely during the Obama admin. Progress is not being made despite massive effort on all fronts. But defeats are consistently being labeled victories, which is all the more soul crushing. Lobbying is all that matters anymore in American policymaking.
I’m left thinking that the only meaningful contribution one can make toward stopping climate destruction is through some sort of monkeywrenching, or worse. Tim DeChristopher is agitating for this, and valiantly serving a 10 year prison term for his actions.
http://www.bidder70.org/
Agreed that was a phenomenal post by Dave Roberts.
I live (and teach) this climate change stuff, especially as it relates to energy and the law. And I too have had a hard time motivating to get excited about the Nisbit report. I mean, folks who follow the political debate know almost instinctively that the conclusions are wrong. There are contrarian reports and suggestions that I will spend my time researching, nuancing and/or debunking. Nisbit’s just didn’t do it for me. It’s just another piece of false rhetoric that I’ll have to see or hear whenever I have a discussion with a skeptic. I’m thankful to Joe Romm for taking the time to blast it out of the water. That’s good enough for me.
These debates over political money and lobbying influence, over political messangers, over government grant money vs. industry disinformation money, over Al Gore, etc. … I’m pretty comfortable with the climate hawks’ position in these debates, but it has become almost a waste of time to engage in them. What matters with respect to climate change is the science is getting stronger; the politics are getting more partisan (my kingdom for a GOP statesman willing to buck party’s anti-science rhetoric); new technologies are being developed and can be deployed rapidly with the right policies; whether our piecemeal approach is making a dent in our emissions or whether some new comprehensive policy intiative is needed (and can gain political support); can we fend off attempts to strip EPA of CAA powers; can hydrofracking be done in such a way that eliminates the bulk of fugitive emissions (as well as excessive fresh water use and produced water waste); are we all doing what we can to curb the problem at this crucial time of government failures; etc. These are the debates I need to engage in. Nisbit, climategate, Fred Singer, Sen Inhofe … these are just sideshows.
One key part of the Nordhaus and Shellenberger story is the “I used to be an environmentalist, but…” line. Actually, nobody ever heard of N and S until they published their awful book about the “end” of environmentalism. If they were involved in green actions at all, it was as the slick, half educated urban opportunists and desk jockeys that they are today, not as people who actually spend time in the wilderness.
You can tell if someone is motivated from within to do the right thing. These guys are the worst kind of half educated urban yuppies, scrambling to write what will sell.
They are also quite vicious, as I learned when I wrote something about them and Pielke on an internet magazine that they succeeded in squelching. When I showed up on their blog to defend my piece, they reacted like ruffled bitches, to the delight of their hippie bashing fans.
Oh, and their data is bad, of course, along with their dream that a little more research will defeat the fossil fuel companies. Thanks for this, Dave and Joe.
As a clean tech investor, I follow new energy policy (or lack of it), as well as technological assessment. I was recently at an environmental NGO lunch, where the conclusions were: in the absence of climate change action in the US, clean tech must be catalyzed in the public markets. They took a page out of the Hartwell paper. I view the Hartwell conclusions as prescriptive, not combative.
Jeff @ 4: There is no doubt that these are dark days. What am I doing to justify my existence in the fight? Well this year I am installing a Solar Array with enough capacity to cover my home use and perhaps a bit more for the neighbors. It looks like I might be a producer by my 70th birthday this July 16. While the economics look good with the Washington State progressive incentives, (~9%/year for 8 more years, unless the GOBP get their hands on it and give it to the billionaires), it is highly unlikely that I will be able to see the day of total return on my investment. That is however not my primary motivation. The ability to daily see a GREEN cash cow on my property eating nothing but photons and a big “In your face” to Corporate America rape and pillage, that is my incentive. Already I am getting interest from friends and relatives for their own but have been afraid to make the move. Almost all the components are made in Washington and I have changed the diapers on of one of the owners of the company that will be installing the array.
It feels good…
Thank you all for your understanding and support over this last year+ and the friendships I have made. You are all truly family in my moist eyes.
Two Palms UP.
Leif
“Hitting Hippies”
— by Horatio Algeranon
Tweedledee and Tweedledum,
Were going nowhere, hum-dee-dum,
When Tweedledum to Tweedledee
Said “Hitting hippies is for you and me!”,
Then Tweedledee to Tweedledum
Said “Look how popular we’ve become!
“Our phone is ringing off the hook,
And all that cash from your new book!”
Don’t look so glum, my Tweedledum,
Let’s celebrate and have some fun”.
But Tweedledum replied in turn,
“Dear Tweedledee, you never learn.”
“Our fifteen minutes is nearly spent,”
“Our day in the sun just came and went.”
Agreed, hands down: Dave Roberts had outdone himself, this is a fabulous post: it’s gritty, honest, textured with all the legitimate frustration with the S&N crowd, and nails the issue right on the head. And I so can relate to his statement: “I’ve paddled that douchecanoe myself, many times, and every time ended up feeling vaguely dirty. I can’t put my finger on the precise mechanics, but I’ve learned to recognize it.” Not only did a learn a new word :) but empathize completely and have experienced the “I need to take a shower now” feeling like I’d been rhetorically slimed. The other observation Roberts makes about hippies bashing other hippies being “crack rock” for the media is also right on target. It’s an odd sociocultural phenomenon worthy of psychiatric review and possibly medication: we are sick society! One important take-away conclusion from this is that those of us with the ability to interpret numbers on our own without having them misinterpreted FOR us, those of us who still have the ability to think critically and tell the truth about what’s really going on on the ground, those of us with just a few neurons still firing in the cerebral cortex need to STAND UP against “the Breakthrough Crowd” and any other douchecanoers we encounter (I really do love that word) and speak out, not tolerate BS, not allow perverted world views to have the last say. Oh, and one other highlight here, praising Joe Romm: “.. not exactly a slick media spin artist… doesn’t seem to know any way of communicating other than by stating, in the strongest possible terms, what he believes to be correct..doesn’t couch his criticism.. just blasts away, all guns blazing; he can’t help it.” And thank god for that! Blaze away!
The Sun Still Rises
Well, first of all, sorry for my grouch-fest last night in my Comment 4. I meant it and it was sincere, of course, and we do need to make real progress: Even persistent idealists who are deeply concerned about climate change can’t run and keep motivated forever on strained smiles, mere “hope”, setbacks, politicians doing nothing and speaking nonsense, and so forth. The bottom line is that the actually active portion of the movement will still consist of only a Very Small Percentage of the population, five years from now, unless Really Real progress is made. Humans are like that. X percent of the population (with X being quite small) will be active no matter what — and I’ll probably be part of X, albeit a frustrated part — but the only way that X is going to grow to 10X or 30X or 60X is if real progress is made. (Or on the other hand, X will eventually grow only when real big catastrophes become increasingly apparent and it becomes impossible to deny their relationship to climate change, but by then we will have lost far too much time.)
Joe, I appreciate your thoughtful comments and I agree with them. Sorry to distract you but thanks for your time. I’m not giving up, of course. That said, reading your comments this morning helped me “distill” part of the message that I’d like to send, so to speak.
First, I may or may not be like “most people” when it comes to what strikes me as credible and what gets and keeps me motivated. (I don’t know, because I don’t know “most people”.) But I’d rather have more of our leaders — that is, the leaders of the movement — get Real Serious, think of and implement ideas with nerve, and show some frustration and heat and passion themselves, than continue hearing them give us shallow cheerleading, pats on the back (for what; ineffectiveness?), forced smiles, and so forth. Put another way, what will keep and get people motivated, I think, are effective leaders talking honestly and doing effective things that make real progress. I think I’m going to get sick the next time I see or hear someone with a strained smile call on us to “have hope”, “redouble efforts”, and blah blah blah and then propose some idea for a day-long event ten months from now as the new centerpiece of the strategy, the next big push. (This isn’t a criticism of any particular person, and especially not anyone who is doing the best he can. It’s not a criticism of a person: It’s a criticism of the thinking and tactics, which are far too small and ineffective.)
In other words, we should tell it like it is, we should think much bigger and more creatively, and rather than only smiling at each other (in the face of our ineffectiveness) we should be doing things that will be effective, and we should start to give ourselves failing grades if our ineffectiveness continues. The movement can’t afford unwarranted grade inflation and “happy smiles” on homework assignments if real progress isn’t being made. The motivating call must become “PROVOKE PROGRESS or PERISH”, so to speak. Indeed, the approach of the present movement feels far too much like the good-old “publish or perish”, as in academia, but ‘publish’ and ‘progress’ are two different things. (Progress and once-a-year events are two different things as well.)
Part of what we need to admit is something that won’t be easy to admit, but it must be admitted: The main reason for our lack of progress — and especially the main reason over which we actually have influence — is NOT that “the other side” exists or that they have troublesome tactics and lots of money. Instead, the main reason for our lack of progress is that our strategies and tactics are akin to whistling shyly in the wind. In other words, we are trying to shift the direction of a fast-moving freight train by whistling shyly in the wind and waving at the windows of the train as it roars by us. It seems to me that we need to admit this as a first step to doing MUCH better. Unless and until we admit this and get serious with each other, we will (I’m afraid) keep doing the same old things, and meaningful progress (of the sort that the climate system will actually notice some day!) will perpetually elude us.
But are we “men and women” enough to admit that we need to revisit and dramatically ramp-up our strategies and tactics? It doesn’t appear so from here. Heck, we can barely get our President to mention the words ‘climate change’ — and we elected him and he’s in the party that we’re in, supposedly. We applaud and see it as a promising sign when he manages to barely mention the words, or when he says a few seemingly-serious things to a friendly group behind closed doors. “Bravo!” (Give me a break.)
And then the posture of most of the people in the “movement that isn’t causing any real movement” is that we must commit to re-electing our President, no matter what he does, because “think of the alternative oh-my-gosh!” That is a defeatist attitude if I ever saw one. Because what about this alternative: What if we tell the President, the Administration, and the Party that unless he (and they) DO dramatically ramp-up their approach on climate change, we WON’T elect him again. What if WE do THAT? That is the active attitude, not the defeatist and “lesser of two evils” attitude.
You see (I hope), in these ways and more we need to get serious. I’ll bet that nobody can tell me, or us, how we can make Real Progress (of the degree that’s needed) without getting Real Serious and doing things differently. We seem addicted to those uneasy smiles, those pep rallies, those inflated grades, those feelings that come from mere ‘publish’ rather than real Progress.
None of this disagrees with your thoughtful comments, Joe. Or at least I don’t think I’m disagreeing. I agree with, and appreciate, what you’ve said in response to Comment 4. Instead, this is a criticism of the movements (including all of us, including myself). The size of the movement will stay at X, and indeed may well grow smaller, unless Real Progress is made. To pick another phrase, we need to think in these terms: Lead or get out of the way. Indeed, this is the phrase that we should be applying to the President at this point: Lead or get out of the way and let someone else lead. Period. That says it well.
In order to do more than complain, I’l repeat the offer that I’ve made before. If any leader in the climate movements finds herself or himself in the San Francisco Bay Area, I’d be happy to get together with her/him/them to share thoughts and ideas.
Cheers for now (and thanks again for your comments, Joe),
Jeff
A heartfelt thanks to all who show the fortitude to don raincoat & galoshes (& goggles) and take on misinformers.
You be heroes.
[JR: It is a dirty job, but....]
One of the niche claims made by those who want us to do nothing but talk, is that natural gas is the ‘answer’ (to what?). But NG is a fossil fuel, right? And generates energy by oxidising carbon, in the same proportion to energy generated as in any other fossil fuel.
The advantage, we are to understand, is that it produces less aerosol pollution. But (vide James Hansen’s ‘Faustian Bargain’) doesn’t that just take a major chunk of negative feedback out of the equation? The implication here, is that we need an immediate start to achieve a complete phase out of all carbon fuels, world wide, within the next 20 years. Absent that, I think we’ve stuffed it.
It’s a terrible thing to contemplate, but it may be that the best hope for humanity lies in the rising surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico, and the East coast of North Queensland.