In the process of doing research for the 350 campaign, I came across an AFP press release from a few weeks ago, that is too important to be ignored:
Global warming has plunged the planet into a crisis and the fossil fuel industries are trying to hide the extent of the problem from the public, NASA’s top climate scientist says.
“We’ve already reached the dangerous level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” James Hansen, 67, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, told AFP here.
“But there are ways to solve the problem” of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which Hansen said has reached the “tipping point” of 385 parts per million.
In a paper he was submitting to Science magazine on Monday, Hansen calls for phasing out all coal-fired plants by 2030, taxing their emissions until then, and banning the building of new plants unless they are designed to trap and segregate the carbon dioxide they emit.
The major obstacle to saving the planet from its inhabitants is not technology, insisted Hansen, named one of the world’s 100 most influential people in 2006 by Time magazine.
“The problem is that 90 percent of energy is fossil fuels. And that is such a huge business, it has permeated our government,” he maintained.
“What’s become clear to me in the past several years is that both the executive branch and the legislative branch are strongly influenced by special fossil fuel interests,” he said, referring to the providers of coal, oil and natural gas and the energy industry that burns them.
In a recent survey of what concerns people, global warming ranked 25th.
“The industry is misleading the public and policy makers about the cause of climate change. And that is analogous to what the cigarette manufacturers did. They knew smoking caused cancer, but they hired scientists who said that was not the case.”
Hansen says that with an administration and legislature that he believes are “well oiled, our best hope is the judicial branch.”
Last year Hansen testified before the US Congress that “interference with communication of science to the public has been greater during the current administration than at any time in my career.“
Government public relations officials, he said, filter the facts in science reports to reduce “concern about the relation of climate change to human-made greenhouse gas emissions.”
While he recognizes that he has stepped outside the traditional role of scientists as researchers rather than as public policy advocates, he says he does so because “in this particular situation we’ve reached a crisis.”
The policy makers, “the people who need to know are ignorant of the actual status of the matter, and the gravity of the matter, and most important, the urgency of the matter,” he charged.
“It’s analogous to an engineer who sees that there’s a flaw in the space shuttle before it is to be launched. You don’t have any choice. You have to say something. That’s really all that I’m doing,” he explained.
On my end, I am going to contact NRDC and E2 to get their counsel, and see what kind of actions can be taken to address Mr. Hansen‘s concerns. I would love to get your ideas as well.
Marguerite,
After looking at this and the post about McKibbin and 350, I’m inclined not to add much. We had better hope that they are wrong because no trend right now favors such serious cutbacks in CO2 emissions.
A more immediate concern, but closely related, is the growing recognition that high food prices and energy prices are two sides of the same coin. As Uri Gordon and Lucy Michaels pointed out today, “The striking fact is that from 1974 to 2005, real food prices dropped by 75 percent globally. So what can explain this sudden and aggressive upturn? Though it has been played down in official reactions, the obvious explanation is staring us in the face: the dramatic rise in oil prices.”
In an earlier piece on your blog I pointed out, as many others have, that the great expansion of the human population has come about in parallel with, and largely because of, our discovery and use of petroleum and its many byproducts. IF the days of cheap oil are gone, and it is not looking good right now, THEN the days of population growth may be gone as well, unless we find other ways to increase Earth’s carrying capacity for humans.
As John Greer noted yesterday, “Rationing by price is a profoundly inequitable way to sort out who gets food and energy in a time of shortages, and who does not, but unless the industrial world goes through drastic political changes in the very near future, it’s the way we’re stuck with, and it does have at least one pragmatic advantage: the ration coupons (we call them “money”) and the entire system of rationing are already in place, ready to use, without massive social engineering.”
Though in the longer run adjustments of many kinds may be made, food supplies may be increased, different forms of energy may become widely available, etc., but, as John Maynard Keynes once noted, “In the long run we’re all dead.”
Hansen says, “The industry is misleading the public and policy makers about the cause of climate change. And that is analogous to what the cigarette manufacturers did. They knew smoking caused cancer, but they hired scientists who said that was not the case.”
Actually, it’s not analogous, in many cases it’s the same people and groups.
Sourcewatch is a good place to go any time you see a report about a “scientist” from some “institute” with “freedom” or “independent” or something like that in its name.
For example Fred Singer, there are heaps of guys like him. So when the fossil fuel and minerals companies wanted some doubt and confusion tossed over climate change, they just went straight to the groups and people who’d been buddies with the tobacco industry. Here were of people who were already shills for one bunch of corporations, why not a new bunch?
One way to deal with them is to expose their connections. That’s what Sourcewatch is for. But we have to keep our eyes open. Sometimes someone will quote an article by one of the shills, not realising they’re a shill. Keen eyes can spot that and point it out, discrediting them. This won’t change the people on our side, or the deniers, but it’ll sort out the people on the fence.
For example, on this blog an article was posted, and the article was about a “study” by some shills. So I posted there about their connections. This left only a few deniers blathering away, and made them a bit hysterical.
And here on the greens party blog, who should pop up but Jennifer Marohasy, climate change denier and corporate shill – she’s in the Institute for Public Affairs, which gets big donations from companies like Exxon Mobil – and while an irrigator’s group was donating money to the IPA, Marohasy testified before a parliamentary committee that no, the river didn’t need more water, heaps more could go to the irrigators. Pointing that out in the comments put her on the back foot, she didn’t post very much more and her tone became a lot more reasonable when she did.
Now, it’s quite possible that they could be paid to say something, but it could be true anyway. And maybe Britney Spears really does think Pepsi is better. People are naturally sceptical of those who are paid to say things. So we can point out their connections, and this has a strong effect on public opinion. This combined with being more conscious of our choices as citizens, the occasional letter to an MP, and so on – it slowly makes a difference.
Gary, thanks for the quote from John Greer. I totally agree. In the absence of conscious intervention, things will regulate themselves, more or less, although at the disproportionate expense of the less fortunates.
Kyle, for reminding us about Sourcewatch. Great resource! And I really should be more systematic in using them.
http://del.icio.us/meryn/government+reference
I think Maplight has the most powerful tools. See
http://maplight.org/video/2/FedTourMay1662007.html
Very impressive.
Great concept! Thanks Meryn. It seems that they are just in beta right now. Still I will contact them with link to this post and ask for their input.
[…] Posts ‘Green Porno’ Is Making Waves On the Sundance ChannelSpecial Fossil Fuel Interests Blocking Progress On ClimateNew Global Warming Research At Risk of Being MisinterpretedWill You Go 350 With Bill McKibben?Green […]
In the interest of time tonight, I’m going to try a very dangerous experiment: typing directly into this little box, without help from my MWord. So, if you see typos, sorry!
I’m not an expert on government, so some of the things in the post I can’t confirm.
That said, I’ve seen and read plenty to convince me beyond any doubt that, for a number of reasons, many in the coal industry and some in other industries (e.g., ExxonMobil) are causing dangerous delays and confusing the public in ways that I consider completely unethical under the circumstances. And, I’m a chemical engineer, with a substantial business background, who studies ethics.
I agree with much of what Hansen says, and I applaud his courage.
You know it’s time for (positive) action when the Rockefeller family itself goes public to strongly criticize ExxonMobil. It was, of course, a Rockefeller who originally founded Standard Oil that was later split up by the U.S. Supreme Court, the largest piece of which became Exxon, now ExxonMobil. After following their (ExxonMobil’s) public communications rather closely, and after doing some of my own analyses of their stats, and (now) after seeing that even the Rockefellers are criticizing their own child, I can tell you this: In my view, it would be very responsible, and a good idea, to stop buying ExxonMobil products at this point.
Although this sounds like a “rant”, it is well-founded and timely. (Sorry for the repitition.)
Cheers. Jeff
[…] fresh from the recent media frenzy around rising gas prices, and still pondering what to do about James Hansen’s call to action, I was not about to let this one go. And went on the Energy Tomorrow’s […]
I wish I could say I were surprised by this news. But being a consumerist country, profits have taken precedence over human lives for centuries. At what point do we really learn the value of human life?
Dagny McKinley
http://www.onnotextiles.com
organic apparel
When we start hurting . . .
[…] have written before about the evil role of special fossil fuel interests in blocking some key climate protection initiatives. What happened with the apple moth made me […]
[…] before has the addiction to oil metaphor been more apt. Big Oil is leaving no soil unturned, no ocean unprobed, to satisfy our need for our daily oil […]
[…] the tobacco industry and Big Oil. It is time to expose the scandals of big oil producers and other special fossil fuel interests getting richer by the seconds at the expense of our overall well being. Time to show the dirty work […]
[…] in the face of flagrant manipulations from special fossil fuel interests, as in behind the scenes lobbying, and massive progaganda. In climate matters, Chevron, and Exxon hold the cards, not […]
I know Jim – like many of us he is extremely frustrated. The large energy companies clearly distort. A huge issue is that we the people are hungry for the energy and when supplies get expensive or are threatened, we tend to worry about where we will get more rather than taking logical steps. (note how the majority of the population is for drilling and Obama even came out for taping the SPR)
The thirst for cheap energy is so basic to our society that it touches nearly everything and fundamental shifts in behavior are necessary. Until that starts happening we won’t see much interest by the politicians. It is quite possible that a push for more carbon based energy will happen as that is perceived to be the easy choice that works with the current infrastructure. We need to be addressing those issues.
I was talking with a member of the House a few months ago. He noted that “all of those greens are shrill and hypocritical. They still fly all over the world on vacation and know they can cover their sins with carbon offsets. They are out of touch with and aren’t worth listening to…” Whether this is true or not, it is a perception that is strong. This guy happens to be a Democrat with a Sierra Club rating higher than Obama’s. He sees a huge problem, but feels the “green” part of America is causing more harm than good.
[…] eight years of a White House waiting hand and foot on big oil, John McCain offers more of the same. At a time of skyrocketing fuel prices, when American families […]