Election Eve: Climate Science and the 2012 Election
Election eve: Climate Science and the 2012 Election – Redux (2)
In the last entry I wrote about the forecast of Hurricane Sandy in light of the upcoming election. That begat a short special to The Globe and Mail, a major Canadian newspaper. In that piece, I stated that the hurricane was an opportunity to bring climate and climate change back as a serious political issue. Here, at the election I want to revisit, briefly, some of the political issues discussed in these blogs over the past four years, and think a little bit about the future.
In January of 2012 I wrote an entry on Climate Science and the 2012 Election. I ended it with this:
Looking forward to the 2012 election, I don’t expect that climate change will be an oft-articulated issue. The issue out front will be jobs, and the prominent link will be made between the exploitation of fossil fuels, new jobs, and energy security. Our approach to climate change will remain quietly in the hands of those savvy enough to use the unique knowledge provided by climate projections and those post-government truth tellers who no longer have to look away.
As we made it past the debates, a few pieces started to appear about the absence of climate change in the debates and in the political discussion as a whole. (Eugene Robinson (Washington Post), and Erika Bolstad (McClatchy, in Bradenton Herald)) There have been a few good political cartoons, such as this one by David Horsey.
Figure 1: By David Horsey and from the Los Angeles Times. Here is a link to the story that accompanies the drawing.
Climate change was thrown prominently into the headlines, when Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City endorsed President Obama, citing at the top of the list Hurricane Sandy and the need to address climate change. Though to my knowledge New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has not made any recent statements about climate change, his tour of the hurricane damage with President Obama has ignited a number of anti-climate change pieces and suggestions that the governor has strayed from the conservative mantra. Hurricane Sandy has put climate change into the headlines, and perhaps made it a small issue for the election, but it is not back as a substantive political issue.
If we look back over the past 4 years, then there are a couple of moments when climate change did appear overtly on the political agenda. Most prominently was in 2009 when the House or Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey, American Clean Energy and Security Act. (my blog at the time) The bill did not go very far in the political process. It was part of the run up to the 2009 United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP15) in Copenhagen. The other significant policy posturing prior to COP15 was U.S. EPA’s decision to regulate carbon dioxide. The threat of regulation is often a policy motivator in the U.S. Ultimately; however, any EPA action was burdened by strong bipartisan opposition to any action that would imperil the role of fossil fuels in the economic recovery.
After COP15 I felt that the U.S. had lost any leadership potential that it might have had on the global stage of climate policy. I also felt that we were squandering technological and economic advantage. I made a prediction prior to COP15: “I imagine that the machinations of legislation and lobbying will push climate change legislation close enough to the mid-term election that it will languish next to health care and Afghanistan and the economy. I think that there will be climate legislation, but I bet that it will be early in year 4 of the Obama administration, with its passage dependent on what Obama’s re-election looks like.”
So that prediction was wrong. What I did not anticipate was the sweeping change in the mid-term election that amplified the political attack on climate change, as well as an attack in general on the use of scientific information in policy and regulation. This attack on the use of knowledge in policy, which is complemented by assaults on very small parts of the U.S. federal budget in the name of budget cutting, only amplifies my concern that the U.S. is placing itself at technological, economic, and, now, research disadvantage. I would insert into the argument about, for instance, the bankruptcy of Solyndra, that our unstable policy on technological investment delayed U.S. development while foreign competitors built effective and market-friendly alternatives. We simply came to the game too late. The fragmented, up and down nature of both energy and climate policy hurt us everyday. For example, we are currently enamored of cheap natural gas and its potential to revitalize industry. This is a great local and short-term benefit. As far as climate policy, it does not serve as convincing reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, there are other environmental challenges with the acquisition of natural gas that will emerge rapidly in the next few years. Therefore, as far as energy policy, it is only short-term opportunism.
Despite the flurry of chatter of climate change as an issue that has followed Superstorm (nee Hurricane) Sandy, it is difficult to look across such a close election and see climate change emerging as a substantive issue on a national scale. To make progress on this issue requires support in the Legislative Branch. I expect that tribal partisanship will continue, and I hope that we spend our first quota of bipartisan behavior on stabilizing the federal budget, dealing with political-economic sequestration, and reconciling continuing resolutions. Thinking about voting, more than climate change in particular, the continued assault on science and the use of science-derived knowledge is, fundamentally, part of the threat to our thriving. This notion of American Exceptionalism takes on the hollow boosterism of Dust Bowl towns, which looked knowledge in the eyes and denied its existence. The world is changing in ways that we do not control, and it will not be good if we are the ones reliant on burning stuff for our way of life.
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 — Blog Index
i thought the EPA was tougher when dems control things??? or is the EPA tougher when the repubs control things???
In order for the EPA to function properly it should be independent and non aligned with any political party. The EPA should be left to do the job it was formed to perform.
The EPA was set up under the Nixon administration - United States Environmental Protection Agency - President Nixon was a Republican.
The Clean Air was also set up under President Nixon and the EPA is charged with enforcing the laws under the Clean Air Act - 40th Anniversary of the Clean Air Act in 2010
The Clean Water Act was originally called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act when it was first set up in 1948 - Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. President Nixon greatly revised and expanded The Federal Water Pollution Control Act in 1972 and was then known as The Clean Water Act - Summary of the Clean Water Act.
So, what do we have here? A Republican president that not only talked about a cleaner environment but, also helped to create laws to enforce a cleaner environment. Days gone by when the Republican Party not only "talked the talk" but would also "walk the walk". Political parties have seemed to have lost their integrity to do as they say they would do. Today's Republicans clamor all over the public touting how they favor a clean environment. "YES! YES! We should do all we can do to clean the environment!" But, when it comes to allowing the EPA to do its assigned duties, today's Republicans want to destroy any legislation that is designed to protect the environment. Do some research on how Tom DeLay organized the Republicans in the House of Representatives to try to overturn The Clean Air Act and The Clean Water Act. When he failed to gain the votes needed to overturn these Acts, he successfully cut the funding of the agency that is charged with the enforcement of these laws, the EPA. He also directed the cutting of funds for OSHA after he could not get rid of it. Every single serious contender of the last Republican Primaries vowed to get rid of the EPA. Republicans to day still "talk the talk" concerning the environment, but when it comes time to "walk the walk" they have a strong tendency to mess in their pants in then try to waddle their way through it.
The EPA was set up to enforce environmental laws. In order for any agency to enforce the laws that are on the books it must be independent of any political party that would only make efforts to steer it away from its primary responsibility.
American Liberty Publishers
Ethanol and MTBE - Should EPA Be Abolished?
At long last EPA has lifted its requirement that corn-based ethanol or MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) be added to gasoline, allegedly to fight pollution, in compliance with the Clean Air Act of 1990. But, as I pointed out in my book MAKERS AND TAKERS, as far back as 1997 EPA was receiving reports of adverse health consequences from MTBE, and some states were already banning its use. EPA officials admitted they were surprised to find MTBE in blood samples from people even in Alaska. So why did it take almost another nine years for EPA to take action?
By 1999 sixteen states had banned MTBE. Still, EPA would do nothing for another seven years. By 2001, MTBE was found to have polluted the ground water in 49 states, including 20 percent of the nation’s urban water wells. California alone had identified 10,000 sites of polluted ground water, with some sites having 1,000 times the EPA limit for this chemical. Santa Monica found MTBE in its municipal water supply. You could no longer drink the water in beautiful Santa Monica. By 2002 the city had imported water continuously for four years at a cost of $3 million per year. New York identified 1,500 MTBE-polluted sites, and 3 million people were exposed on Long Island alone, which was found to have more than 100 polluted municipal wells, and those people had no alternative source of water.
Link
August 25, 1999. Ms. Carol M. Browner. Administrator. United States Environmental Protection Agency
At least the Air was cleaner?
Oh it is a real scorcher in AZ.
I wonder where the empirical data hits the science theory,
The Fiscal Cliff?
000
SXUS75 KFGZ 120101
RERFGZ
RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FLAGSTAFF, AZ
600 PM MST SUN NOV 11 2012
...RECORD LOW HIGH TEMPERATURES FOR NORTHERN ARIZONA ON NOV 11 2012...
CITY (PERIOD OF RECORD) NEW LOW HIGH PREVIOUS RECORD/YEAR
NAVAJO NM (1939 - 2012) 31 32 IN 2000
PETRIFIED FOREST (1931 - 2012) 42 45 IN 2000
PRESCOTT (1898 - 2012) 41 44 IN 2000
SPRINGERVILLE (1911 - 2012) 34 44 IN 1915
...RECORD LOW TEMPERATURES FOR NORTHERN ARIZONA ON NOV 11 2012...
CITY (PERIOD OF RECORD) NEW LOW PREVIOUS RECORD/YEAR
PAGE (1957 - 2012) 30 30 (TIED) IN 1968
PAYSON (1948 - 2012) 20 23 IN 1952
SELIGMAN (1905 - 2012) 10 12 IN 1947
Link
As I had said, in my post #52, it is the EPA's job to enforce the laws. Should a law be flawed then it is Congress's job to modify or remove the law. Politics, not sound environmental science, lead to the use of corn based Ethanol as a gasoline additive. I agree that corn based Ethanol should have never been mandated as a gasoline additive. No table food source should be and non additive should be considered as such without a sound scientific basis to do so.
SXUS74 KAMA 121436
RERDHT
RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE AMARILLO TX
0835 AM CST MON NOV 12 2012
...RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE SET AT DALHART...
A RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE OF 16 DEGREES WAS SET AT DALHART TODAY.
THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 17 SET IN 2000.
Link
The date of the first snow of the season can vary greatly from year to year but, on average, the it usually occurs before November across the Rockies and over the far north. Places such as Boston and New York City usually do not get their first measurable snowfall until mid-December, but this year it came early.
Yep, that warming is unbelievable!
I wonder if his name is Jesus?
Nope, just ICE.
Sir Arthur Eddington
Viewing: 51 - 57
Page: 1 | 2 — Blog Index