All this talk about Climate Change being the "in thing" to promote is, in my mind, a laughable, except that its terribly serious. Rhetoric and action are not the same thing. To see what people really believe, go to the action, not the rhetoric. There can be no doubt about it that the climate change deniers have the upper hand:
1. The graph above.
2. In the recent presidential debate, Obama and Romney were falling over each other trying to convince their listeners that their reign would result in lower fuel prices. [In case you missed it: LOW FUEL PRICES = A DENIAL THAT HUMANS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE].
3. Currently, in Canada, the NDP opposition has said they favour a carbon tax. I do not think they are making a big deal of it. If they have, I have not heard it. The Conservatives, on the other hand, are making a big deal of id. Every piece of propaganda I get from my MP emphasizes that the Conservatives work at improving the economy, whereas the NDP favour a Carbon tax.
4. I'll change my mind if some serious ACTION comes out of the current round of Doha talks.
What do others think? I think most of the people reading this blog think that the media is at fault for spreading the idea of climate change. Do you think though that mainstream, popular thought has followed? Do most people think that climate change is attributable to humans or even that climate change is happening at all? I also wonder if it is different in Europe as opposed to North America.
ReplyDeleteFor me, in conversation with a few people and reading the comments in articles about climate change on the internet I do not get the idea that most people think that global warming is happening. Also judging by what the major political parties in both countries are saying and doing I do not think that they believe that global warming is happening. I do not get the sense that it is going against the mainstream to oppose the idea of global warming. What is your sense?
Mark
I heard about Germany going away from nuclear. Are they planning to add more renewable energy? I have also heard they rely a lot on Russia for their natural gas and other fossil fuels. Will this be expanded on?
ReplyDeleteMark
I was at our church yesterday, and was appalled (is that too strong a word) at what I saw. Our secretary/receptionist had been out getting some supplies. Big among that was a case of bottled water. "For whom?" I asked. "For the staff" was the reply. "I refill my bottle, but the others don't."
ReplyDeleteSo here we have tested water at the fountain, etc, etc (you have all heard the arguments. If not, let me know and I will provide them.) So here we have church leaders, ostensibly leaders in responsible living, who choose to drink bottled water (which leaves how large an environmental footprint?) rather than drink at the refrigerated drinking fountain we have in our church. Why? I have no idea, because I can discern no benefit in drinking bottled water. I am still not sure what I do about it. So far nothing. To add to that, our conference subscribes to a "creation care" program, and the executive director of our conference, Willard Metzger, blogs and speaks about creation care. You can't convince me that these people believe in Climate Change. Actions speak louder than words!
Of course this is just one of hundreds, maybe thousands of examples we could see everyday that bear witness to the same mindset.
That bottled water mindset very closely resembles the mindset that we are entitled to cheap energy prices (hence the subsidies, and votes for politicians that promise cheap energy, even if it is subsidized).
I realize K has been quiet for a while and probably very busy with other things but I was wondering what his take was, or anybody else`s for that matter, on the ``fiscal cliff`` that I have been hearing more and more about.
ReplyDeleteMark
Hello Mark. I have been extraordinarily busy of late, and I have found the news too depressing the past 5 weeks to properly follow.
ReplyDeleteThe way the media talks about the fiscal cliff, both right and left in this case, confuses the issue. The fiscal cliff is related to the fact that starting January 1st/2013, taxes will go up fairly meaningfully on the top 2% income earners. In addition, the stimulus package passed in February 2009, exhausts its funds at the end of this year. Therefore, the combination of higher taxes and less government spending, could have a big negative impact on the economy according to many (the math is a 6%+ hit to GDP, sending us into recession).
What does it mean when the media says "are we going to go over the cliff?". They are confused in my view. Going over the cliff simply means, that in addition to the top 2% income earners paying more in taxes (that part is virtually certain), all income tax brackets increase slightly, so that the other 50% paying income taxes also will see an increase in their taxes. The Democrats want to simply raise taxes on the top 2% even more (instead of cutting spending or raising taxes beyond the top 2%), while the Republicans want to see more spending cuts. If the two parties find no common ground, taxes will go up January 1st for all 52% of the nation paying income taxes. But either way, taxes are going up for those that generate jobs (the top 2%).
However, the economic impact may not be too bad in the near term. Businesses have been concerned about the fiscal cliff for over a year, and hence given the uncertainty on tax levels have been holding off on investment until they have more clarity. Once they have that clarity - even if taxes go up - they may temporarily increase spending from freeing up the delayed investments.
Karl, you do not say what aspect of the news you find depressing, but I thought of your statement as I exercised and listened to my favorite blog preacher Greg Boyd give his approach to Advent. http://whchurch.org/blog/7360/marshmallow-advent What I got out of his sermon is that unless we become overwhelmed with the reality that everything we now consider precious is passing, and we long for that time when the passing nature of this world will no longer be a part of our reality, we are not really ready for the Kingdom of God. Nevertheless as we wait and long for that time, we are God's emissaries here. We are called to model the Kingdom.
ReplyDeleteThe sermon is well worth listening to.
Thanks for the explanation of the fiscal cliff. That is helpful.
Al Gore (sigh). In my view trying to fit the Climate Change into a Left/Right paradigm is lobotomizing. I wonder, at times, where we would be at today in that debate if Al Gore had not entered the fray. With his entry, it became a leftist agenda. I viewed "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The 11th Hour" around the same time. I thought "The 11th Hour" was a significantly better movie and gave a better overview of the situation, but because of Al Gore, I'm sure many more people have seen "An Inconvenient Truth".
ReplyDeleteI had not heard of the Al Jazeera purchase until I read your blog and then googled for it. Of course you are right. Fox reports it, and the mainstream media reports on Fox's reporting. Bias - Probably.
BTW I put up a new post on Dec. 29. According to the stats I can access, nobody has visited that post. Can you see it? Does it reek? or what? I know it is quite long.
Of course there is bias in the media! Here are two examples that happen to concern me:
ReplyDeleteAustralia has always had heat waves, but the current one is far from typical. Australia has started 2013 with a record-breaking heat wave that has lasted more than two weeks across many parts of the country. Temperatures have regularly gone above 48°C, with the highest recorded maximum of 49.6°C at Moomba in South Australia. The extreme conditions have been associated with a delayed onset of the Australian monsoon, and slow moving weather systems over the continent.
Is this a result of global warming? Nobody knows for sure, but there has been no report of this in the news I happen to watch most, namely CBC.
James Hanson is one of the people I follow. Hanson heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The I add that is just to say that he is not your mere garden variety scientist. On Jan. 15 Hanson came out with his "Global Temperature Update Through 2012". Has the mainstream media given this any coverage? No, you can check it out. Bias? I think so. Had Al Gore come out with this, it would be all over the news. But then Al Gore is a politician. Hanson is a mere scientist.