Filed under: Society + Media | Tags: death of environmentalism, global warming, real
100 percent agreement among scientists. The evidence is undeniable. Al Gore says so. Rogert Ebert is an advocate to fight global warming because “there is no other view that can be defended.” I don’t know about you all, but I’m hearing denial defended. Meltdown, a book by Patrick J. Michaels, a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia defends another view for 323 pages. I’m not saying that global warming is as fierce a debate today as it once was. I’m certainly not saying that I don’t think global warming is real. I am saying that I think we may have been better prepared for the Millennium. At least people were sure about that. Okay so that’s a little too far, but really, I don’t think the fight is over. I have to admit I kind of catch what Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus are throwin’ here. They write, “…while public support for action on global warming is wide, it is also frighteningly shallow.” When asked if they wish bad things upon the environment, most will say no. I wonder if we asked would you be willing to sacrifice a luxury for environmental protection if the response wouldn’t be the same. While there is a lot of talk right now about the dangers of global warming, I personally see the widespread public apathy on a day to day basis, and I bet you do too. Death of Environmentalism is at no point saying that environmentalists aren’t trying, it just suggests that effectiveness might be at a low. Largely through materials in this class, I have come across some first-rate media attention to the subject. However, if our survival is truly at stake, why did I go on a walk with an intelligent, news-savvy travel companion a month ago and hear her say, “I don’t know if I even believe that global warming is real”? To me, the essay mostly sounds like a double-dog dare to environmentalists to step up their game. Our game, yes?
-Sonya English
Filed under: Business + Politics
Do you visit the presidential candidates’ Web sites much? I usually avoid them at all costs. They’re typically nothing more than public relations fluff pieces, featuring the safest, most watered-down language on the issues. Still, after reading Gavin Hudson’s interesting assessment of their proposed environmental policies, I decided to do some “research” of my own, and check out the candidates’ sites to see exactly how they choose to frame environmental issues.
SOME IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES:
1) I’m a bleeding-heart Liberal (with a capital L). Not ashamed of it; I don’t expect everyone to follow the same views, either, but this is simply my frame of reference. Having said that, I was educated in a private school that considered Milton Friedman a prophet (of profit), and I understand–and even respect–fiscal conservatism and free market principles. But I also feel that government can–and should–play a key role in regulating pollution among industries, while also providing important financial support for environmentally-innovative research.
2) I’m an Obama supporter. Actually, John Edwards was the one who impressed me most on environmental issues (he said some things in the Nevada debate that really made him stand out from the other two, namely on the issue of curbing coal production)…but, of course, he got an expensive haircut so he had to go bye-bye.
3) I consider climate change to be a major issue–something no longer up for debate. I’m all for creating “Green” jobs, breaking a reliance on foreign oil, providing incentives to corporations that behave…but ultimately, to me, a candidate must acknowledge this is a serious global problem that needs immediate attention.
With that brief manifesto out of the way, here are some of my impressions:
Barack Obama leads his page with a quote calling climate change “one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation.” That’s what I want to hear.
Obama’s site features some interesting video clips (documentary-style stump pieces) and a place for readers to articulate their most important environmental concerns.
(And it also features some nifty art of a compact flourescent lightbulb suspended over a lake, so you KNOW he means business.)
Hillary Clinton’s site features many of the same policy points as Obama’s, but her approach is quite different. She chooses to emphasize the economic value behind green innovation (the top of the page screams: POWERING AMERICA’S FUTURE: NEW ENERGY, NEW JOBS). She makes only passing reference to the climate change crisis.
Clearly, she’s taking the route mapped out in The Death of Environmentalism where you must emphasize the positives, and show what’s in it for the average Joe (new jobs). She doesn’t frame the issue as a “moral challenge,” but rather as an economic opportunity. Hillary’s site, meanwhile, has no art whatsoever…all text–too wonkish, even for my standards!
Meanwhile, things get really interesting on the GOP side…
John McCain starts off great. He says “global warming” is an issue we can no longer afford to ignore. He proudly mentions his help in passing clean air and water legislation…but McCain has been hounded by members of his own party for being too liberal, so just when it looks like he’s about to hit you up for a tax increase to fund a Communist abortion clinic, he drops this bomb:
As John McCain said, “Americans solve problems. We don’t run from them.” He believes that ignoring the problem reflects a “liberal live for today” attitude unworthy of our great country, and poses a serious and unacceptable threat to our environment, our economy, and U.S. national security.
Yep, it’s all those tree-hugging, recycling, bike-riding hippy liberals that are ruining the environment! Whatever. Why use such divisive language on an issue that should bridge our current political divide?
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, makes no mention of climate change/global warming. He, too, frames the issue according to economic opportunity, but in his view it’s mostly about ending dependence on foreign oil…by drilling in ANWR (although he doesn’t say what we do after that well runs dry…).
Romney also makes a questionable decision in comparing his energy plan to The Manhattan Project. Someone might want to remind him that the project didn’t exactly end in the most environment-friendly of ways.
Since the other two candidates (Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul) aren’t really contenders, I’ll dedicate even less to their Web pages.
Huckabee’s is noteworthy for this passage alone:
None of us would write a check to Osama bin Laden, slip it in a Hallmark card and send it off to him. But that’s what we’re doing every time we pull into a gas station. We’re paying for both sides in the war on terror – our side with our tax dollars, the terrorists’ side with our gas dollars.
Wait, what if we pull into the gas station just for directions–does he still get a Hallmark card? Follow-up question: Is this what happens when I fill up with my Dillon’s card?!! Also, are we supposed to be sending terrorists Hallmark cards because I haven’t been doing that…does Hallmark even make a “Thanks for the gas, Terrorist” card? Great, now there’s another sappy card I have to pick out…
Check out Paul’s site, meanwhile, and click on the video clip of him speaking at the top of the page. You’ll hear him support both sides of the global warming debate–the science shows dramatic changes, yet there’s no reason to get worried…sounds kind of flip-flopperish to me.
So there it is…a brief rundown of the candidates and their wacky Web sites. I have no intention of telling you how to vote, but hopefully this will encourage you to follow up on the links and read their plans for yourself…now, let’s do something about this Terrorist-Gas Holiday that Hallmark is trying to foist on us…Secretary’s Day is bad enough!
–Ranjit
