Huntsman: This is an issue that ought to be answered by the scientific community; I’m not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them. I respect science and the professionals behind the science so I tend to think it’s better left to the science community - though we can debate what that means for the energy and transportation sectors.
Jon Huntsman, Jr., Obama’s former ambassador to China and a potential contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, told Time he believes in the diagnosis climate scientists have made about global warming — he just refuses to embrace any treatment now.
His flip-flip to now oppose cap-and-trade — or any type of action now — however, isn’t enough to satisfy the right wing, with its anti-science litmus test. As The Politico reported:
American Spectator’s Chris Horner, RedState’s Daniel Horowitz and Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin all hit their blogs to attack Huntsman yesterday and questioned whether it makes him a loser in a GOP primary.
Horowitz wrote that Huntsman’s remarks to Time magazine, “can only mean that he is seeking the VP nomination for a Mike Bloomberg ticket.”
As Tim Pawlenty proudly observed in March, “Every one of us” running for president has flip-flopped on climate change. Huntsman is no different, as ThinkProgress points out in its post, “Jon Huntsman’s Secret Life As A Progressive“:
Supported cap-and-trade: Huntsman supported a cap-and-trade policy to limit the country’s carbon emissions. He signed Utah onto the Western Climate Initiative that would lead to a cap-and-trade system, and during the 2008 gubernatorial debate, said, “Until we put a value on carbon, we’re never going to be able to get serious about dealing with climate change.” He also touted the University of Utah’s status as a leading center of innovation on carbon capture programs and advocated moving toward a “greener economy.”
Now, however, Hunstman proudly embraces inaction:
Cap-and-trade ideas aren’t working; it hasn’t worked, and our economy’s in a different place than five years ago. Much of this discussion happened before the bottom fell out of the economy, and until it comes back, this isn’t the moment.
Brad Johnson notes that:
In fact, cap-and-trade systems developed under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush saved the ozone layer and cleaned up acid rain. The Northeast’s regional carbon cap-and-trade system is boosting state economies and reducing pollution. Europe’s carbon market is meeting its targets, helping clean energy industries throughout the European Union.
If Huntsman actually listened to the scientific community, he would know that the nation’s scientists believe that there are “many reasons why it is prudent to act now. ” In a new report commissioned by the U.S. Congress, a committee of the National Research Council “” representing the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine “” concludes that there is a “pressing need for substantial action to limit the “environmental, economic, and humanitarian risks of climate change.” Committee chair Albert Carnesale, chancellor emeritus of UCLA and dean emeritus of the Kennedy School of Government, explains: “It is our judgment that the most effective strategy is to begin ramping down emissions as soon as possible.”
Huntsman also argued that putting a price on carbon pollution would be “putting additional burdens on the pillars of growth.” In fact, investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy creates four times as many jobs as the oil and coal industry. The committee of the nation’s top scientists found “the most efficient way to accelerate emissions reductions is through a nationally uniform price on greenhouse gas emissions with a price trajectory sufficient to spur investments in energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies. “
The conservative-led government of Britain thinks that in fact this is the time to act — see Britain pledges to cut carbon pollution in half by 2025 (from 1990 levels). Too bad the U.S. conservative movement has joined the scientific equivalent of the birthers.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
I live in Utah. My hobby is studying the Mormon (LDS) Church so I can understand my neighbors. Huntsman is a Mormon, although he’s trying to distance himself from it. Mormons do NOT believe in science and evolution, their church tells them such things are of the devil. You can draw your own conclusions, but if he says he believes in Climate Change, you can bet it’s part of a win campaign and subject to change. Google “Lying for the Lord.”
Let’s see. He’s a Mormon who accepts the science of climate change and supports gay civil unions with full spousal benefits. Hard to believe GOPers will take him seriously.
It will be schadenfreudenly-interesting to see the cognitive dissonance develop.
Is he going to borrow Newt’s idea of giving a billion dollar (tax-free) prize to the entrepreneur(s) who solves the clean energy puzzle?
OT -
Snowpack numbers from the Natural Resources Conservation Service confirm Day’s observation. As of Wednesday morning, before the latest storm hit, water content in snow in the Upper North Platte Basin stood at 200 percent of the historical average. Other areas with big numbers included the Snake River Basin, 195 percent; Powder-Tongue river basin, 194 percent; the Little Snake River Basin, 204 percent; the Upper Green River Basin, 203 percent; and the Upper Bear River Basin, 267 percent.
“I’ve never seen it that high,” Day said, while cautioning that some snowpack numbers are beginning to be skewed because there’s still snow at some low-elevation measuring stations that usually don’t have any at this time of year.
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_60e10575-04ef-56bf-b10c-85baf57b1855.html
Huntsman is too sane to win the GOP presidential nomination.
Watching CNN early this morning , they reported a reading of 114.8F in Pakistan, with the humidity the heat index was 150F.
Which is worse: immorality, deliberate stupidity, or dishonesty? These are the three positions adopted by all Republican candidates for president when it comes to climate change. Perhaps it does not make any difference
Sibi Pakistan -
Temperature
120 °F . Heat Index: 125 °F.
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/41697.html
Colorado Bob: The town of Green River, Utah is preparing for flooding. They expect it to be worse than 1983, when the golf course (an abandoned meander) flooded, as well as some farms. It’s raining hard in Moab, Utah and the creeks are rising rapidly. Everyone in this part of the state is amazed at how wet and cold the spring has been with continuing storm after storm. It feels like autumn, not spring. I feel bad for the birds trying to nest and keep their eggs/babies warm, including the meadowlarks above my office door. I haven’t seen one gnat all spring and usually by mid-May they’re coming out in droves or herds or whatever you call the clouds of little buggers.
Huntsman and Gingrich bring to mind a quote of Albert Einstein: “He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surly suffice.”
Both are afflicted with Limbaughgary – the inability to take a stand based on scientific evidence without having a filter rushed through it.
-
Btw, good article in Grist today by David Roberts referencing Dr Romm:
http://www.grist.org/climate-change/2011-05-18-prof-socolow-bizarre-climate-comments-pessimism-serious-people
Huntsman pulls a ‘Newt’!
He tries to recover by saying the science should be left to scientists and let’s debate the energy and transportation ramifications…You went too far Huntsman!
But just as Newt found out, you oppose the Gang Of Polluters at your own peril. Newt is now out after stern re-education.
You MUST tow the party line. Independent thinking will be punished! The GOP is stricter than Mao!
OCO -
The other side of this coin -
LUBBOCK (May 18,, 2011)–Preliminary numbers show that the worst drought in decades is responsible for $1.5 billion in losses and could easily surpass the single-year record, the Texas AgriLife Extension Service said Wednesday.
Spokesman Blair Fannin said Wednesday the amount includes costs related to livestock and wheat, corn and sorghum crop losses from November through May 1.
Click here to find out more!
If drought conditions persist into June, officials in the nation’s second-largest agricultural producer say losses will easily top the 2006 record of $4.1 billion.
Livestock losses of $1.2 billion are from costs associated with trucking in water and for supplemental feed since November.
Some parts of the Texas have not gotten any significant precipitation since August and much of Texas is in the two worst stages of drought.
The GOP are a mirror of our larger society in that both are currently grabbing at short term gain at the expense of long-term viability.
Both know they are fighting a losing battle against the laws of physics as unmovable as gravity, but can’t resist the short term payoff.
The image I have of the GOP these days is a bunch of people in a big canoe enjoying the ease and thrill of rapidly zooming down a river without having to paddle. Around them other canoes are full of people working hard to paddle slowly back up stream. They shout to the GOP that there is a big cataract up ahead. The river is getting increasingly turbulent in places…but the GOP are loving the ride and convince themselves this is not a reason to actually roll up their sleeves and start paddling up stream.
Occasionally a person in the GOP gets nervous. “Uh, what if there is a waterfall ahead? Those other people seem to know the river pretty well.” This person dips a paddle into the water to make a small stroke backwards. The rest turn on the faint-hearted paddler and make it clear that either they stop paddling or they will be tossed out of the canoe.
At some level I just feel sorry for smart guys in the GOP like Huntsman. They gotta know the path the GOP is on is self-destructive but any attempt to walk back from denial is met with threats of immediate expulsion.
As Socolow said in his talk with Joe yesterday, human nature wants to see something as either “easy” or “impossible”…but not “hard”. Reducing our climate pollution will be “hard”. We are all going to have to do some paddling upstream.
It looks like the GOP just can’t do “hard” even if it means self-destructing.
Well, I guess we can scratch one more contender off the GOP presidential list.
But I should address this:
“Huntsman is a Mormon, although he’s trying to distance himself from it. Mormons do NOT believe in science and evolution, their church tells them such things are of the devil.”
That’s not necessarily true. I know and work with quite a few LDS (that’s the term they prefer) people around here, in extremely technical jobs. There’s a spectrum of belief in the LDS church, as with any religion, and although there is certainly a fundamentalist end of that spectrum which is pretty anti-science, there’s a more liberal end of the spectrum also. It doesn’t necessarily follow that just because Huntsman is LDS he doesn’t believe in science and evolution; I know quite a few who solidly support both.
(just in case anybody was wondering, I’m not LDS myself. I was brought up Anglican, and identify as an atheist).
Do you think so? It seems to me they only “know” what the sophisticated disinformation propagandists tell them: corrupt science is in the service of a leftist agenda. This relieves them of all worry on the subject, and makes Huntsman appear to them as not just a traitor, but a credulous fool as well.
Barry @ 14: I would point out that we in the up-stream paddle mode could sure use some help from any GOBPers that may seriously want to help. Our canoes are far from full and a little more speed and endurance would benefit many.
Posted by Leif in spite of what the Computer gods in the ether want to say.
Sorry to spoil the suspense, but the nominee is going to be either Romney, Daniels, or Pawlenty. These are the only guys that all three wings of the GOP (teabaggers, corpratist neocons & social conservatives) can collectively hold their noses enough to vote through the process. The VP pick might be a total curveball, just like Sarah Palin was last time, but that’s what 2012 will look like.
A Romney vs. Obama election would probably be the best as far as policy discussions go, but I think Romney’s chances to make it through the primary process keep falling as the social conservatives and the teabaggers start to consolidate around their chosen candidate, which isn’t him.
By itself, Huntsman working for Obama might not be a deal-breaker.
However, this just gives fuel to the notion of Huntsman being “corrupted” by “liberal” influence. Yeah, he’s toast.
As president, there is a chance Huntsman could be better on climate than Obama. I’m going to give this guy a long look in 2012.
Given the political climate among GOP activists around this issue, Huntsman’s position has to be one of the more courageouus stances taken on climate change by a U.S. politician in a while.
“Sorry to spoil the suspense, but the nominee is going to be either Romney, Daniels, or Pawlenty. These are the only guys that all three wings of the GOP (teabaggers, corpratist neocons & social conservatives) can collectively hold their noses enough to vote through the process.”
I dunno. At this point I have some difficulty imagining any of them making it through the primary. On the other hand, I don’t see any other viable candidates. It could well be somebody that nobody has even thought of yet.
A characterful face. By a certain age you have the face that you deserve. Still, lovely hair. I think that Trump should buy his hair, and reconsider a run at President.
Well, his nuanced views do give him a bargaining position with the oil corporations.
Perhaps he thinks he won’t pull down as much graft money if he’s too easy.
Is there such a thing as being too cynical, these days?
Still, whatever the reason, it’s a more realistic position with regard to climate change than outright denial.
If he survives the primary process, this guy could be a real threat to Obama, maybe, picking up cross over votes.
His non-denial also gives him name recognition, and makes him stand out from the pack.
Yes, he beats Trump on the hair issue, hands down. :)