According to National Geographic; the world currently subsidizes fossil fuels to the tune of 2 Trillion dollars a year. The cost to convert and stop global warming is about 1 Trillion a year. do the math! In addition new infrastructure and new business models always seem to produce economic growth. only the entrenched interests of the current, non-responsive businesses need fear the impact.
11
I applaud this David Brooks column for its wise observations-- and because
it was a "conversation" with Alexander Hamilton. Oh, if only we had political
figures today of the caliber our mutual hero, A. Hamilton.
As demonstrated in the current , and brilliant, Broadway hit, it could indeed be said Hamilton "threw away his shot." He did, however, leave us with a lasting
legacy that we ignore at our peril.
it was a "conversation" with Alexander Hamilton. Oh, if only we had political
figures today of the caliber our mutual hero, A. Hamilton.
As demonstrated in the current , and brilliant, Broadway hit, it could indeed be said Hamilton "threw away his shot." He did, however, leave us with a lasting
legacy that we ignore at our peril.
There is a huge individual benefit to reducing emissions: cleaner air. Many of the world's most populous cities have air that will take years off your life for every month you stay. Across the world, asthma is getting more and more widespread, and its intensity is also increasing, with more young people limited in activity, hospitalized or dying from it.
Lung disease causes chronic distress for patients, their families and friends, and high costs for healthcare and educational systems, and employers. Why can't anyone get behind changing THAT even if they don't believe in climate change?
Lung disease causes chronic distress for patients, their families and friends, and high costs for healthcare and educational systems, and employers. Why can't anyone get behind changing THAT even if they don't believe in climate change?
6
The President was right this morning when he linked the environment and Syria. One current catastrophe, another looming. Correctly, he sees no future for a Syria with Assad. It follows then that Assad and his minions must relocate out of Syria. Has anyone asked the other side under what terms this could happen? Perhaps a deal could be struck if the members and supporters of the current regime were permitted to exit their country, retaining all of their assets, irrespective of how those assets were obtained, and emigrate to a country of their choosing. In return, those assets must be invested in helping to solve the worlds environmental problems. Earnings from these investments would be tax free and investors made whole if things didn't work out. Hamilton might have approved and we sort of already do something like this. Too sweet you say? Not only have we made worse deals with other equally evil governments, but the human and dollar costs would be far less than the paths taken in Iraq and Afghanistan. Syrian refugees are currently wearing out the welcome mats of host nations. Potentially they could be repatriated, armed and trained, to rid their country of Issis. Only Syrians can ultimately control their destiny. As far fetched as some of this may sound, let's not repeat the mistakes of recent history in the region.
I'm not sure why, in Brooks' seance, Hamilton didn't give his stamp of approval to a carbon tax. It's the quickest way to achieve the solution that Brooks favors, which is for alternative energy to become economically compelling.
It seems to me that Hamilton would favor a carbon tax because it is both just and minimally invasive. As things stand, oil companies are able to privatize the profits of selling fossil fuels while socializing the costs. That's pretty much tantamount to robbing the national treasury, which Hamilton would never favor. A carbon tax would correct that injustice, while incentivizing innovative, market-based solutions. What's not to like?
The whole thrust of Brook's pessimistic analysis is that the people who benefit from burning fossil fuels bear none of the costs, and so they have no incentive to stop. A carbon tax would address that problem in the most efficient and least invasive way. Sounds Hamiltonian to me.
It seems to me that Hamilton would favor a carbon tax because it is both just and minimally invasive. As things stand, oil companies are able to privatize the profits of selling fossil fuels while socializing the costs. That's pretty much tantamount to robbing the national treasury, which Hamilton would never favor. A carbon tax would correct that injustice, while incentivizing innovative, market-based solutions. What's not to like?
The whole thrust of Brook's pessimistic analysis is that the people who benefit from burning fossil fuels bear none of the costs, and so they have no incentive to stop. A carbon tax would address that problem in the most efficient and least invasive way. Sounds Hamiltonian to me.
6
What's not to like about a carbon tax? Like ALL other taxes, it will be passed on to the consumer - most of them, middle-class and poorer. The liberal fantasy that big corporations and "rich countries" will pay for their preferred environmental fixes is just that: a fantasy. David is right. This isn't time for socialist-minded payback. It's time for capitalist innovation!
3
Oh, David, I hate to burst your Hamiltonian bubble, but old Alex was no anti-government conservative. Remember he was the one who wanted an American monarchy.
If you had really and truly seanced up Hamilton to talk over solutions to global warming, when you got to the part about individual pain and collective benefit he would have interrupted you to point out that you had just described precisely the situation where government action is most necessary.
Hamilton would never have told you that government really doesn't have to address a world-threatening problem - that it's OK to sit back and hope for the arrival of a technological knight in shining armor. Hamilton would have told you that we must act, and if private action is insufficient then government action is necessary.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
If you had really and truly seanced up Hamilton to talk over solutions to global warming, when you got to the part about individual pain and collective benefit he would have interrupted you to point out that you had just described precisely the situation where government action is most necessary.
Hamilton would never have told you that government really doesn't have to address a world-threatening problem - that it's OK to sit back and hope for the arrival of a technological knight in shining armor. Hamilton would have told you that we must act, and if private action is insufficient then government action is necessary.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
8
It is funny, Hamilton was a big believer in public improvements. What we would call infrastructure. Presumably current expenses for future benefits. He was also a big proponent of deficit spending to tie the wealthy to the well being of the new country. Perhaps some form of debt to be used for climate improvement would be an Hamiltonian idea with good future benefits.
8
Quite enjoyable! We need to be able to laugh as we face the greatest challenge of our time. I particularly loved what Hamilton had say about the Republicans and the Thought Police.
An aside: Weight loss and addressing climate change both require individual pain in the short term. I would propose, though, that failure to succeed at either enterprise imposes a cost that is ALREADY borne collectively to some extent (e.g., the high price of treating weight-related chronic conditions that drives up health care costs for everyone). I would also propose that it is in our self-interest now to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and excess weight. Ocean acidification, which also accompanies increased carbon dioxide emissions, is already getting serious/ We're seeing droughts, far more frequent extreme weather events, and mass extinctions now.
i like to think Mr. Hamilton would have asked Mr. Brooks to go beyond the monetary costs of global warming and to educate himself and us about the danger to ecosystems we rely on and tipping points that will be hard to recover from. I also wonder if he's considered the cost we're paying now for more extreme weather events, droughts etc.
Finally, I think Mr. Hamilton would see the value of stopping the protection and subsidization of fossil fuel companies as we increase investments in alternative energy breakthroughs. The talent for innovation is there. Let's not handicap it as valuable time ticks away.
An aside: Weight loss and addressing climate change both require individual pain in the short term. I would propose, though, that failure to succeed at either enterprise imposes a cost that is ALREADY borne collectively to some extent (e.g., the high price of treating weight-related chronic conditions that drives up health care costs for everyone). I would also propose that it is in our self-interest now to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and excess weight. Ocean acidification, which also accompanies increased carbon dioxide emissions, is already getting serious/ We're seeing droughts, far more frequent extreme weather events, and mass extinctions now.
i like to think Mr. Hamilton would have asked Mr. Brooks to go beyond the monetary costs of global warming and to educate himself and us about the danger to ecosystems we rely on and tipping points that will be hard to recover from. I also wonder if he's considered the cost we're paying now for more extreme weather events, droughts etc.
Finally, I think Mr. Hamilton would see the value of stopping the protection and subsidization of fossil fuel companies as we increase investments in alternative energy breakthroughs. The talent for innovation is there. Let's not handicap it as valuable time ticks away.
2
Brooks: Sad to read that your solution is best achieved by more government.
I doubt you are reading Alex's mind.
I doubt you are reading Alex's mind.
Hamilton is good, but he lived in a time when the entire population of North America was less than that of eastern New Jersey today, and had a fossil fuel consumption less than half of Hoboken. And nobody then knew what a greenhouse gas is, or had a clue that using fossil fuels heavily for a few centuries could damage the global climate and global economy for millenia to come.
Instead of Alexander Hamilton consult James Hansen. A carbon tax could work if China and the US and a few more large countries could strike a deal on it among themselves.
Instead of Alexander Hamilton consult James Hansen. A carbon tax could work if China and the US and a few more large countries could strike a deal on it among themselves.
2
I think the first Earth Day was pre 1971 wasn't it?
The irony of Mr.Brooks commenting on climate change and Green Tech while espousing the "ideas" of the republican party, is probably not lost on anyone except republicans. It will be up to the progressives and the democrats of this country to move us forward on new technology and solving our pressing problems. Meanwhile I'd like to suggest a new symbol for the republican party. Nix the Elephant and replace it with a symbol of an Ostrich with it's head burried in the sand.
4
As I have asked before and found no answer, why was it necessary to move 3000 leaders (according to a recent NYT article), theis staffs, the media, and the various supporters and protesters to Paris for these talks? How much extra pollution was added to the world by this, when the conference could have been conducted electronically from the home capitols of the leaders?
Of course, that would not have given their spouses a Paris vacation, nor given them the photo ops with other members of the great and powerful, so I suppose the extra carbon was well worth it. Look to the actions of the leaders to determine their real priorities, not their words.
Of course, that would not have given their spouses a Paris vacation, nor given them the photo ops with other members of the great and powerful, so I suppose the extra carbon was well worth it. Look to the actions of the leaders to determine their real priorities, not their words.
5
Recently, the Times featured an article explaining( among other things) how bad it would get if we didn't do something about climate change. It cited 2 prior periods of warming, one extreme and one mild( of course, there were ice ages in between as well). The periods were so long ago that humans weren't even a factor. The point is that mother nature will do what mother nature does without any help or hindrance from mankind. It is therefore highly presumptuous of us to think we can change the predetermined course of mother nature, either through our actions or forbearance. Furthermore, we don't even have enough data points to know which side of that course we're on. So in the words of the Jefferson Airplane about 40 years ago" The human crowd.. doesn't mean s*** to a tree". I'm sure some dinosaurs thought they could stave off extinction by eating fewer leaves to no avail.
2
It already makes sense on all levels. I thought you would research better. Alternate energy is already competitive and might just be in time so your grandkids inherit a better and safer environment.
3
I find it hard to believe all the babble about CO2. Without CO2 we and all the animal and biological life on this planet ceases to exist. We are actually experiencing low levels of CO2 and increases in that most essential gas would actually benefit our planet.
The most serious issue however is that there are greater than twenty different factors that impact climate, all of which are more significant than CO2. CO2 has been nothing but a "Red Herring".
The most serious issue however is that there are greater than twenty different factors that impact climate, all of which are more significant than CO2. CO2 has been nothing but a "Red Herring".
2
We are already well above the levels of CO2 needed to support plant life. Further increases in CO2 will trap heat that would otherwise be radiated back into space. Experiments with agricultural plots that are irrigated with increased CO2 (to predicted 2050 levels at current rates of increase) have not shown improvement in crop yields. So, I disagree, it's not a red herring.
5
An entertaining chat with Hamilton is as close as Mr. Brooks can come to telling Republicans to stop pretending. They have children, too.
2
The simplest solution to engage the market is rising carbon tax that essentially tells consumers and industry that the price of the equivalent of a gallon of gas is going to rise by $2.50 over the next 10 years $0.25 per year for the next decade. Adapt or pay, but the choices are clear and simple and they will be effective. A simple escalating carbon tax will significantly change the behavior of consumers and industry and speed the adoption of green technologies.
3
Pre 1996? Pre 1996?
An unseasonably warm day in New York, the first of December, I picked up the phone and placed a call to Paris. It could have been Rome, or Israel for my friend but I chose Paris first, and he was there, a friend of many years, a brilliant career for the cause of children's welfare, a prominent professor at a University in Israel, and the joy of it all, to hear his voice so gentle, to hear his news at the end of a long journey, his art of knowing how to live, how pleased other admirers of his would be to hear that he is doing well.
Where are you, he asked. I am here of course because somebody has to look after the Statue of Liberty, I replied, and we discussed the times we live and reading the Times. I like Roger Cohen, David Brooks (he gets plowed), actually all our journalists have a rough time of it, adding a short list of favorites.
I could sense his smile on the phone and he likes an old-fashioned hard copy of the newspaper on his door in the morning pigeon delivery Paris. Paris is chaotic, he added, while I forgave him for not visiting New York with his life-long companion, and we decided that although we were facing hard times, in some ways he is more content than ever. He did not stand up until he was six because he was hiding from the Nazis behind a farm house.
We cannot be depressed all the time, we both agree that the President is beyond extraordinary, and somehow, somewhere I believe there will always be cold banana pudding.
Where are you, he asked. I am here of course because somebody has to look after the Statue of Liberty, I replied, and we discussed the times we live and reading the Times. I like Roger Cohen, David Brooks (he gets plowed), actually all our journalists have a rough time of it, adding a short list of favorites.
I could sense his smile on the phone and he likes an old-fashioned hard copy of the newspaper on his door in the morning pigeon delivery Paris. Paris is chaotic, he added, while I forgave him for not visiting New York with his life-long companion, and we decided that although we were facing hard times, in some ways he is more content than ever. He did not stand up until he was six because he was hiding from the Nazis behind a farm house.
We cannot be depressed all the time, we both agree that the President is beyond extraordinary, and somehow, somewhere I believe there will always be cold banana pudding.
2
The new David Brooks! Great writing! Especially,
"First, he was struck by the fact that on this issue the G.O.P. has come to resemble a Soviet dictatorship — a vast majority of Republican politicians can’t publicly say what they know about the truth of climate change because they’re afraid the thought police will knock on their door and drag them off to an AM radio interrogation." "
So funny, sad and true.
I have bet a friend a penny that in the next two weeks, a prominent Republican will come out of the closet on climate change.
"First, he was struck by the fact that on this issue the G.O.P. has come to resemble a Soviet dictatorship — a vast majority of Republican politicians can’t publicly say what they know about the truth of climate change because they’re afraid the thought police will knock on their door and drag them off to an AM radio interrogation." "
So funny, sad and true.
I have bet a friend a penny that in the next two weeks, a prominent Republican will come out of the closet on climate change.
5
To meet carbon emission goals anytime in the near future we need to go back to the future. Nuclear is the clear and present answer until we develop permanent alternative sources. Wind and solar can't come close with the current technology. An op-ed in the times last week said that the US would have reached its carbon emission goals some time ago if we had bulit all the nuclear power plants planned in the 1970's.
1
Except for the thermal pollution in streams and ponds that cooling these reactors generates, not to mention the thorny problem of what to do with the spent nuclear fuel. We generally regard the Japanese as masters of engineering and safety, but look at Fukushima. Nuclear power may solve carbon emission but it comes with major problems of its own.
4
This is a moral issue about the stewardship of our home.
Climate has been changing forever.
The greater focus needs to be on clean air, water and soil.
No amount of money is too much at this time to invest into our future.
If only men would stop manufacturing hypocritical wars for money while playing their patriarcal power games there would be trillions of dollars available for the betterment of all.
Climate has been changing forever.
The greater focus needs to be on clean air, water and soil.
No amount of money is too much at this time to invest into our future.
If only men would stop manufacturing hypocritical wars for money while playing their patriarcal power games there would be trillions of dollars available for the betterment of all.
4
Just retired from a Coal Fire power plant. My former employer has been steadily been shifting to greener energy because they are economically more efficient. Nothing political about it. Just a different kind of green power exerting itself.
3
When a columnist resorts to interviewing people who aren't there, you know the columnist is past his sell-by date.
3
They say that statistics can be tortured to say anything, and Hamilton's nonchalance about climate damage being "only 3% of global GDP" is just more waterboarding output from those who think it makes sense to roll the dice on potentially cateclysmic ecological and economic disruption.
I live in California, with an ecology being majorly disrupted by the greatest drought since record-keeping began as we speak, so please Mr. Brooks - save your biased expert slant for the zombie deniers who refuse to see the melting glaciers or increasing weather anomalies and damage already under way.
Here's a quote directly from the IPCC text that belies Mr. Hamilton's and your unwarranted, blasé attitude. The emphasizing angle brackets are mine:
"Little is known about aggregate economics impacts above 3°C. Impact estimates are incomplete and depend on a large number of assumptions, many of which are disputable. Aggregate impacts hide large differences between and within countries. >The incremental impact of emitting a tonne of carbon dioxide lies between a few dollars and several hundreds of dollars per tonne of carbon< [10.9.3, robust evidence, medium agreement].
So, you could drive a truck through the gap of uncertainty of outcomes once temperatures go up over 3 degrees, which to my mind, they now seem very likely to do, even with significant efforts. Collaborating to be safer makes sense. Our mass-consumption-based economy needs to change in any case.
I live in California, with an ecology being majorly disrupted by the greatest drought since record-keeping began as we speak, so please Mr. Brooks - save your biased expert slant for the zombie deniers who refuse to see the melting glaciers or increasing weather anomalies and damage already under way.
Here's a quote directly from the IPCC text that belies Mr. Hamilton's and your unwarranted, blasé attitude. The emphasizing angle brackets are mine:
"Little is known about aggregate economics impacts above 3°C. Impact estimates are incomplete and depend on a large number of assumptions, many of which are disputable. Aggregate impacts hide large differences between and within countries. >The incremental impact of emitting a tonne of carbon dioxide lies between a few dollars and several hundreds of dollars per tonne of carbon< [10.9.3, robust evidence, medium agreement].
So, you could drive a truck through the gap of uncertainty of outcomes once temperatures go up over 3 degrees, which to my mind, they now seem very likely to do, even with significant efforts. Collaborating to be safer makes sense. Our mass-consumption-based economy needs to change in any case.
If we made this much improvement going from oil to natural gas just think how much improvement we will make when we go from natural gas to solar, wind and water sources of energy.
1
Republicans always love to say "we've got to study the problem more" when it comes to doing something they don't want to do, like address climate change, and never consider studying the problem more when there's a chance to drop bombs somewhere.
Another things Republicans hate--conservation. Maybe we could all just produce a little less waste. We could try for something like 3% less a year, for as long as we can keep it up. Would that be so terrible?
Another things Republicans hate--conservation. Maybe we could all just produce a little less waste. We could try for something like 3% less a year, for as long as we can keep it up. Would that be so terrible?
Thank you David Brooks. This is so radically different from the know-nothing, do-nothing oppositional attitude so popular among Republicans. Very glad to hear your positive thoughts and suggestions about human caused climate change.
Dear David,
I hope this column makes it safe for other Republicans to come out of the climate closet.
Still, I wish you had taken the opportunity to urge Congressional Republicans to back off their foolish efforts to sabotage the Paris talks by denying the President's modest request for $3 billion in international climate aid.
If present trends in storm damage, droughts, forest fires, failing crops, tottering states, and climate-induced migrations continue to escalate, todays Republican leadership will look like so many climate Neville Chamberlains, waving the white flag as catastrophe builds on the horizon.
At some point, one hopes the heirs of Mr. Hamilton's political legacy will regain his sense of realism.
best regrds
I hope this column makes it safe for other Republicans to come out of the climate closet.
Still, I wish you had taken the opportunity to urge Congressional Republicans to back off their foolish efforts to sabotage the Paris talks by denying the President's modest request for $3 billion in international climate aid.
If present trends in storm damage, droughts, forest fires, failing crops, tottering states, and climate-induced migrations continue to escalate, todays Republican leadership will look like so many climate Neville Chamberlains, waving the white flag as catastrophe builds on the horizon.
At some point, one hopes the heirs of Mr. Hamilton's political legacy will regain his sense of realism.
best regrds
2
First let me point out to Mr. Brooks that he omitted one very important piece about the wonders of fracking: it puts out much more methane than other extraction methods and methane is a far more dangerous greenhouse pollutant than CO2. Then let me add that not only is Mr. Brooks confused he is grossly uninformed and has no business writing such a confusing and disinforming column.
12
"Look at what you’re already doing, he countered. The U.S. has the fastest rate of reduction of CO2 emissions of any major nation on earth, back to pre-1996 levels." It would be nice to then see the list that you are endorsing that has brought this about and it's not fracking (which has other interesting marketing effects but is overall just burning more fossil fuels). Progress, slowly, has taken dedicated application of the Clean Air Act (still being fought by fossil fuelists) along with many other standards and planning requirements at all levels - that are still not enough. Yes more research and investment for innovations; however, government is usually poor at picking winners vs the private sector with their own funds at risk. What's critical is for the government to set standards and do enforcement - what the private sector needs to function.
So can we see your list of policy endorsements - not related to taking more fossil fuels out of the ground?
So can we see your list of policy endorsements - not related to taking more fossil fuels out of the ground?
1
Mr Brooks, you suggest that republicans need to get past their collective denial of climate change. I agree. And then your hero, Hamilton, believes that the republicans would support much needed R&D for energy and climate change. Now both are thoughts are welcomed but do you really think republicans can do that? What on earth are you drinking?
2
"The former Treasury secretary pointed out that [cap-and-trade hasn't] worked in reality."
I'm pleased to report that Mr. Hamilton is just plain wrong, here.
Examples of cap-and-trade systems working in reality include CFC trading under the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, SO2 trading under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Regional Clean Air Markets program in the Los Angeles area, and the NOX trading program that controls smog in Mr. Brook's hometown.
I'm pleased to report that Mr. Hamilton is just plain wrong, here.
Examples of cap-and-trade systems working in reality include CFC trading under the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, SO2 trading under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Regional Clean Air Markets program in the Los Angeles area, and the NOX trading program that controls smog in Mr. Brook's hometown.
5
The reason we've been able to reduce the price of clean energy is because we've deployed it. Subsidized deployment of solar panels and wind turbines has allowed those industries to do the R&D on implementation that's the real key to reduced emissions. Sure, we should spend more money on research at the NSF level - fundamental research in materials science that might, someday, get us a cheaper, better battery or solar panel - but the way to make existing technology cheaper is to induce the market to deploy it at scale.
2
" He used government to incite, arouse, energize and stir up great enterprise." (Alexander Hamilton)
In complete but conditional agreement with that! The critical caveat is the definition of "great enterprise."
For me it is a conglomerate of progressive endeavors aimed at public well-being, social justice, environmental stewardship, and proportionate generation and distribution of wealth based on ethical principles of individual need and capacity — to each according to need, from each according to capacity.
What is your definition, David?
In complete but conditional agreement with that! The critical caveat is the definition of "great enterprise."
For me it is a conglomerate of progressive endeavors aimed at public well-being, social justice, environmental stewardship, and proportionate generation and distribution of wealth based on ethical principles of individual need and capacity — to each according to need, from each according to capacity.
What is your definition, David?
i think what brooks has decided that he must be spokesman for the 'moral inversion' that has taken place in Washington. and we indeed need someone in the media who is not afraid to put his true feelings not emotions on issues and not just 'rationale' for what must be done. frankly there has been far too much pursuit of the vitriolic. serious attention needs to be given to the nation's motto and its implications for today 'e pluribus unum.' out of the many -- one. Lincoln talked about forming a 'more perfect union' wondering while wondering in the same speech whether a nation so conceived as ours 'could long endure'. Natural law appeals to 'we hold these truths to be self evident.' the right must do the right thing, as must the left. people who dwell on the extant fail to take full account of the emergent -- de Tocqueville was absolutely dumbfounded when writing about the pioneers on the frontier of civilization. he could hardly believe that citizens would spontaneously form order [Hayek and polanyi] without the aid of an aristocracy. yes we need an enlightened oligarchy, it seems to be in the nature of the civil beast. but don't underestimate the power of small groups of dedicated citizens to give Archimedes a place from which we can move the world.
So you're saying that a strong governmental stance on climate change is the key to success. I think you're starting to get it!
9
The right solutions depend on how much time we have or what difficulties we would endure from climate change.
I'm happy to hear Mr. Brooks is experimenting with psychadelics in his older age. The hallucinations they elicit in a middle aged conservative blogger are a little more boring than mine have been, but hats off for taking that plunge into mind expansion. With regard to policies that will hold countries accountable and mitigate the very real problem that Mr. Brooks highlighted of the present-day costs and future and diffuse benefits of enacting effective climate change, William Nordhaus recently wrote an article in the NY Review (A New Solution: The Climate Club) that contains no ghosts at all.
Excellent column about the political realities verses the economic perspectives on climate change. There is a more concise description of the problem from a purely academic perspective concerning risks assessments and public policy that addresses the uncertainty about the issue. There is insufficient data to apply the science of decisions methods but enough to make considering the consequences of the worst outcomes very seriously. The fact is that events have tended to be worse that what have been the most moderate predictions and the timeline shorter but we do not know how it will all turn out with much certainty, yet. Waiting for greater certainty may be very risky because remediation methods probably cannot produce results for decades after implemented, so the complacency of the naysayers really is silly. We need to remind ourselves that while our ability to forecast the future is rather short and human predictions are never certain, the forces at work are natural and will do as they will do whether we understand them or not. We need to realize that we need science to understand what we face and to stop treating the anti-scientific perspectives popular amongst conservatives as a valid counterpoint to the findings of science, because that viewpoint is inane.
Thoughts:
Per Mr. Books' description of his chat with his hero, Mr. Hamilton, Alexander "Mr. Federalist" Hamilton would not be a 21st century Republican: "Hamilton reminded me that he often used government money to stoke innovation."
"ensure cheating"? Even Mr. Brooks' other hero, Ronald Reagan, got one thing correct (blind pigs and acorns?) when he advocated "Trust, but verify".
"He used government to incite, arouse, energize and stir up great enterprise. The global warming problem can be addressed, ineffectively, by global communiqués. Or, with the right government boost, it presents an opportunity to arouse and incite entrepreneurs, innovators and investors and foment a new technological revolution."
Is Mr. Brooks really a closet Democrat? Surely no 21st century Republican advocate such a scenario. The last Republican President who might have died in 1969.
Whither Ike?
Per Mr. Books' description of his chat with his hero, Mr. Hamilton, Alexander "Mr. Federalist" Hamilton would not be a 21st century Republican: "Hamilton reminded me that he often used government money to stoke innovation."
"ensure cheating"? Even Mr. Brooks' other hero, Ronald Reagan, got one thing correct (blind pigs and acorns?) when he advocated "Trust, but verify".
"He used government to incite, arouse, energize and stir up great enterprise. The global warming problem can be addressed, ineffectively, by global communiqués. Or, with the right government boost, it presents an opportunity to arouse and incite entrepreneurs, innovators and investors and foment a new technological revolution."
Is Mr. Brooks really a closet Democrat? Surely no 21st century Republican advocate such a scenario. The last Republican President who might have died in 1969.
Whither Ike?
1
David says: ".....a vast majority of Republican politicians can’t publicly say what they know about the truth of climate change...". Yes, that's because this country is now essentially a plutocratic oligarchy, dictated to a great degree by the Koch brothers & fossil fuel interests & war profiteers & their ilk, who own a lot of the media which can destroy any political candidate. This is no longer a democratic republic. Now, every dollar has an equal voice in government. A candidate like Trump has appeal because people sense that he's the only Republican candidate who can speak his mind, which he can do to some extent because he has his own money.
Excuse me for getting a little off topic .....but I've been daydreaming about what things would be like if Gore hadn't lost by a hair's breadth in 2000. Would Gore have ignored the 9/11 warnings? Probably not. Even if he did, would he have started an unnecessary war in Iraq? Definitely not. Would he have begun to do something about climate change long ago? Definitely YES. The trillion dollars we burned up in Iraq might have been invested in green technology.
Excuse me for getting a little off topic .....but I've been daydreaming about what things would be like if Gore hadn't lost by a hair's breadth in 2000. Would Gore have ignored the 9/11 warnings? Probably not. Even if he did, would he have started an unnecessary war in Iraq? Definitely not. Would he have begun to do something about climate change long ago? Definitely YES. The trillion dollars we burned up in Iraq might have been invested in green technology.
5
Mr. Brooks seems to be unaware about the total greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas in general and fracked gas in particular. While it is true that natural gas combustion emits less CO2 per unit energy than coal combustion, methane itself is more than 25 times more potent (molecule per molecule) than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. See, e.g., www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html. This is not an issue when methane is combusted; rather, the danger arises from the release of fugitive (unburned) methane. The natural gas system, including the pipes that bring gas to our homes, etc., is well known to be leaky (for example, Con Ed has a crew dedicated to chasing leaks in Westchester County alone); fugitive emissions are a much greater problem in the case of the fracking process. Therefore, any comparison asserting the benefits of reliance on natural gas must consider the total life cycle of natural gas production and delivery, not just its final combustion. For Mr. Brooks to opine in his high profile national platform on the relative merits of natural gas without a grasp of this issue is highly irresponsible. (And no fair trying to blame Alexander Hamilton, who never even heard of natural gas.) Although at least Brooks today recognizes climate change as an issue, something not always apparent in his commentary.
2
Thank you, Publius, for your accurate comments regarding fugitive methane emissions from natural gas extraction, processing, and transportation. While I am glad that Mr. Brooks called out his fellow Republicans who are climate change deniers, I got the feeling that he was reading the natural gas industry talking points regarding carbon dioxide emissions of coal versus natural gas. I respect Mr. Brook's work and was sad to read such inaccuracy written by him and in a paper with the stature of the NYT.
3
I congratulate David on his clear and forceful statement about the Republican Party's self-imposed commitment to know-nothingism.
I hope this statement will be quoted again and again.
Thank you.
I hope this statement will be quoted again and again.
Thank you.
1
The problem I see with all green tech is that if it is not coupled with population reduction, or at least population stabilization, you get situations were over twenty years you make something 25% more efficient but are using it 50% more, an example being Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, which uses 20% less fuel per passenger mile; it takes the commercial aviation fleet twenty years to overturn, so let’s say every airliner is using 25% less fuel per passenger mile in 2050, but with the middle class growing in third world countries and trends continue the airlines will be flying 300% of the air miles they fly today, so even though each airplane will be more efficient, many more of them than there are today will still be spewing 225% of what they are spewing into the environment of what they are spewing today. And to add to that, our wealthy are going to start flying into space, and it takes a hundred times the amount of energy to take a pound into orbit as it does to take it to 30,000 feet.
1
"Green energy will beat dirty energy only when it makes technical and economic sense."
Strangely the price of fossil fuels has declined just in front of the declining price of renewables. I have a funny feeling that the powers that be will make sure this will continue to be the case, otherwise they can't say - as Brooks says here - renewables aren't competitive and we shouldn't help them.
Rubbish.
According to some numbers, half of all energy generating capacity added in the last year globally was renewable.
As for the ideology underneath, I've noticed a narrative voice emerging in the Times opinion pages of late, not totally voicing for a position, but rather seemingly offering a bit of criticism of the players of one side of an issue, but then proceeding to totally dismantle the players of the other side, quite disingenuously. I guess the word has been put out to offer more 'balance', and this is somehow the sad window dressing of that. We are not fooled.
Oh, and regarding European investment in climate change abatement, no David, it hasn't moved the mark globally as the world includes many others. What it has done though, is measurably reduce Europe's greenhouse gas emissions. There are quantified studies on the positive impact of European cap and trade, but you've conveniently omitted things like that.
Green energy will beat dirty energy when the entrenched conservative interests either figure out how to monopolise green energy, or are beaten back by the public.
Strangely the price of fossil fuels has declined just in front of the declining price of renewables. I have a funny feeling that the powers that be will make sure this will continue to be the case, otherwise they can't say - as Brooks says here - renewables aren't competitive and we shouldn't help them.
Rubbish.
According to some numbers, half of all energy generating capacity added in the last year globally was renewable.
As for the ideology underneath, I've noticed a narrative voice emerging in the Times opinion pages of late, not totally voicing for a position, but rather seemingly offering a bit of criticism of the players of one side of an issue, but then proceeding to totally dismantle the players of the other side, quite disingenuously. I guess the word has been put out to offer more 'balance', and this is somehow the sad window dressing of that. We are not fooled.
Oh, and regarding European investment in climate change abatement, no David, it hasn't moved the mark globally as the world includes many others. What it has done though, is measurably reduce Europe's greenhouse gas emissions. There are quantified studies on the positive impact of European cap and trade, but you've conveniently omitted things like that.
Green energy will beat dirty energy when the entrenched conservative interests either figure out how to monopolise green energy, or are beaten back by the public.
4
You and "Hamilton" are right -- and, sadly, you can bet that the current mutant "GOP" will obstruct pretty much ANY government action or investment because the Far Right fringe now controlling the party would rather strut their ideological "purity" than engage in creative compromises needed to solve big problems.
By denying climate change even exists, they give themselves permission to prevent responsible planet-saving action. But, in the end, they can't wish away science and they can't fool Mother Nature.
By denying climate change even exists, they give themselves permission to prevent responsible planet-saving action. But, in the end, they can't wish away science and they can't fool Mother Nature.
Belittling Europe's efforts at combating climate change as having "very little measurable impact on global temperatures" is evidence that your conversion from Republican apologist to open-minded Democrat remains a work in progress. Our most important ally in war and peace outranks only Australia for physical size, and though a lofty third when ranked by population, still has only 10% of mankind. And yet what they are doing is, apparently, helping and they continue to work toward a noble goal, regardless of dollar cost at this time. You would be okay if they accepted the GOP position and just threw in the towel?
The very vocal Republican opposition to clean energy focuses on the higher costs being subsidized by government policies. But they become as deaf as a statue, blind as a bat, and their tongues turn to stone when the litany of governmental giveaways, over the past century and then some, to the oil and coal industries is laid out for their inspection and comment.
And let's not forget the dollar and direct environmental costs of, oh the odd deep sea well blowout, or the tanker driven onshore as if beaching harmlessly so the crew can picnic in the sand.
Republicans' hypocrisy and cowardice, fearing to stand up and work to stop what they see happening, and only for their own job security, is the legacy they will leave mankind.
Your second paragraph was your strongest, even if you did slip your words into Hamilton's mouth. You should have quit after the third.
The very vocal Republican opposition to clean energy focuses on the higher costs being subsidized by government policies. But they become as deaf as a statue, blind as a bat, and their tongues turn to stone when the litany of governmental giveaways, over the past century and then some, to the oil and coal industries is laid out for their inspection and comment.
And let's not forget the dollar and direct environmental costs of, oh the odd deep sea well blowout, or the tanker driven onshore as if beaching harmlessly so the crew can picnic in the sand.
Republicans' hypocrisy and cowardice, fearing to stand up and work to stop what they see happening, and only for their own job security, is the legacy they will leave mankind.
Your second paragraph was your strongest, even if you did slip your words into Hamilton's mouth. You should have quit after the third.
3
(1) When arguments start by citing "human nature," they are either naive or ideological (or both). (2) I vaguely recall a writing assignment in junior high that this column could have been a response to -- something like "imagine you are talking to a historical figure about some current event." The writing would have gotten a check-plus. The argument (what with the bogus reliance on "human nature") a check-minus.
You know David, I was just enjoying your commentary until the part that talked about fracking.............(Oh heck, we don't need clean water) Our country can do SO much better than this.............We need out of fossil fuels and into green renewables.............But, to your credit, you acknowledged a very important fact about Republicans...........the Thought Police. Given that climate (no pun intended) your compatriots will never really have a dialogue or disagree with the main theme of the Republican Party. (Fossil Fuels forever) There will never be honest discussion and agreement because the objectives of this party at this point ( I used to be a Republican) are skewed in favor of whatever flavor each each billionaire enjoys. (Those silly corporate types who sit in their towers and decided how to make more money). But.....kudos on the green tech solutions.....dare I say you are slowly crossing some lines? You have a bully pulpit. Use it for some good before those same corporate types send around those thought police to you.......
1
I tend to agree with most of this, but also believe that both political parties are not doing all they should do here. The dems clamor after more and more government intervention, regulation, and picking winners...and the repubs, even worse, don't face the facts that this is a real issue for our children and it could also be a real opportunity for our economy. The big accord that will come out of Paris will not do much other than make our president feel better about himself, while the hard work that has to be done will as always be accomplished mostly by the private sector if we keep the public sector mostly (but not all) out of the way.
1
The conversation is not about "saving the planet" as so many commenters state. The planet will be fine - it will continue to evolve. It's humans that are toast.
5
INNOVATION, NOT LEGISLATION
Problems such as climate change aren’t cured by legislation,
any that will succeed will come from innovation.
Legislators surely aren’t the people who will cure our planet’s problems: we
need innovators who’re from paradigms that passed away quite free.
[email protected]
Problems such as climate change aren’t cured by legislation,
any that will succeed will come from innovation.
Legislators surely aren’t the people who will cure our planet’s problems: we
need innovators who’re from paradigms that passed away quite free.
[email protected]
1
brooks is playing make believe with dead people...time for him to write a blog for fox news...
4
Climate change is not addressed by our politicians on oth sides because they are paid for by the corporations that benefit financially by keeping the status quo. Like so many of the issues we face at home & internationally corporate greed & the accompanying lack of political will are the main obstacles. We have the too few making decisions the majority of people worldwide would support. Get corporate money out of politics if you want real issues addressed in any way.
1
Maybe humanity is on a trajectory to become extinct and thus allow Mother Nature to go on nurturing less destructive species. We're at a crossroads of evolution, being hard-wired with greed; we seem to be taking the wrong road: solving our problems via the market economy. What will become of all the luxury high-rise building here and in Saudi Arabia, and all the mcmansions without Homo "Sapiens" to fill them when the plug is finally pulled? I guess the neighborhood will change when cockroaches and ants take over those neighborhoods.
Homo Sapiens indeed. We called ourselves that; I wonder what Mother Nature calls us?
Oh, I give up. We'll just destroy ourselves drowning in profits as we look for a market solution to our doom. Mother Nature, who can be very unforgiving, unlike the feel-good God we created for ourselves, will just pulls the switch when she's had enough of Homo "Sapiens'" shenanigans. The jokes on us.
Homo Sapiens indeed. We called ourselves that; I wonder what Mother Nature calls us?
Oh, I give up. We'll just destroy ourselves drowning in profits as we look for a market solution to our doom. Mother Nature, who can be very unforgiving, unlike the feel-good God we created for ourselves, will just pulls the switch when she's had enough of Homo "Sapiens'" shenanigans. The jokes on us.
3
Mr.Brooks writes: " Over all, the Europeans have spent $280 billion on climate change with very little measurable impact on global temperatures."
I just have to wonder sometimes how intelligent he is. Does anyone think, who has a clue about climate science, that there is going to be some sort of easy to see quid pro quo between spending and results as far as something as variable as temperature? If you think that way and demand results then it is if you decided to eat vegan for a year and finding that your life had not substantially improved, you go back to McDonald's.
The real question behind our ability to address climate change is one of understanding. If we can't understand and develop the imagination that allows us to realize how dire a 2 C or 3 C or 4 C change will be to our present ecology, there is not much chance of developing the political solutions that will be necessary to drive us in the right direction. Brooks is living in an old political ecology that will doom us. He needs to get out of that environment and get into a new one.
I just have to wonder sometimes how intelligent he is. Does anyone think, who has a clue about climate science, that there is going to be some sort of easy to see quid pro quo between spending and results as far as something as variable as temperature? If you think that way and demand results then it is if you decided to eat vegan for a year and finding that your life had not substantially improved, you go back to McDonald's.
The real question behind our ability to address climate change is one of understanding. If we can't understand and develop the imagination that allows us to realize how dire a 2 C or 3 C or 4 C change will be to our present ecology, there is not much chance of developing the political solutions that will be necessary to drive us in the right direction. Brooks is living in an old political ecology that will doom us. He needs to get out of that environment and get into a new one.
Keep writing articles like this Mr Brooks and I'll lose my conviction that you are a good - though misguided - man. Governments, private enterprises and individuals are taking action to limit how much further global warming greenhouse gases are being added to Earth's atmosphere. It is fine to suggest that they do this more, it is fine to suggest they do this differently, it is not fine to suggest they should not bother - as you skirt awfully close to suggesting here.
Every watt of electricity not supplied by CO2-emitting means is a good thing for instance. Evidence that more and more electricity is being supplied by non-CO2 emitting means abounds more and more. They're called solar photovoltaic systems, wind farms and solar thermal plants David. You can expect there will be more of them more widely distributed around this planet with each passing year. You make suggestions for future action here that have been happening for quite some time. Well done! Not.
By the way - "You're asking people to impose costs on themselves today for some future benefit they will never see" - reads like an atheist argument in opposition to promoting religious conviction. I'm sorry people believing in the future of their species and acting to ensure it is better than it could be offends you so. If I was a theist I'd be concerned for the fate of your soul. You really need to broaden your philosophical horizons before its too late. Irrelevancy sucks after all I'm sure you'd agree.
Every watt of electricity not supplied by CO2-emitting means is a good thing for instance. Evidence that more and more electricity is being supplied by non-CO2 emitting means abounds more and more. They're called solar photovoltaic systems, wind farms and solar thermal plants David. You can expect there will be more of them more widely distributed around this planet with each passing year. You make suggestions for future action here that have been happening for quite some time. Well done! Not.
By the way - "You're asking people to impose costs on themselves today for some future benefit they will never see" - reads like an atheist argument in opposition to promoting religious conviction. I'm sorry people believing in the future of their species and acting to ensure it is better than it could be offends you so. If I was a theist I'd be concerned for the fate of your soul. You really need to broaden your philosophical horizons before its too late. Irrelevancy sucks after all I'm sure you'd agree.
Pretty cool, Mr. Brooks. Although a "left-winger" myself, I really LIKE a lot of Al Hamilton's ideas. Especially the ones about "federalism" and a "national bank." His willingness to use Government Money and Influence to promote "the general welfare" is, unfortunately, NOT shared by most of today's "right-wingers." I still cannot figure out why they CONTINUE to support massive Government subsidies for the fossil fuel industry while steadfastly opposing Government efforts to promote cleaner energy production. I'd really appreciate it if you could EXPLAIN that to me.
5
Mr. Brooks--
All reasonable comments, Hamiltonian or not, but the missing discussion piece remains nuclear power generation. Until this country begins to reinvest significantly in this area, especially in the newer designs which offer the potential for small-scale distributed power sources, we'll concede control of this technology to questionable players.
All reasonable comments, Hamiltonian or not, but the missing discussion piece remains nuclear power generation. Until this country begins to reinvest significantly in this area, especially in the newer designs which offer the potential for small-scale distributed power sources, we'll concede control of this technology to questionable players.
The Green Tech solution--penned by David Brooks? It was heartening that he did cite the stupidity/intransigence/recklessness of his beloved GOP. Unless that changes (unlikely in my view), there is truly no hope--both for the US and the world since our "leadership" will largely determine what (if anything), will be done to address GW.
As for his "solutions"........fracking is a poor choice. Yes-natural gas produces less carbon that coal. However, the extraction process requires large fossil fuel inputs, releases CO2 in the process, pollutes groundwater and destroys local ecologies. Hardly a win-win. More like a win-lose-lose-lose. Short-sighted support of such "solutions" (ethanol anybody?) are the result of failing to view the problem holistically.
I absolutely agree that significant resources, govt. and private should be devoted to research and development of strategies and technologies which could impact GW. The 800 pound gorilla here is that the implementation of such technologies require cooperation, by governments and corporations.
1) Will the GOP do an about-face and admit that govt. leadership is absolutely essential to meeting the challenge of GW?
2) Will corporations support measures that benefit the commons (health and well-being of the planet, water supplies, and ALL of it's plant and animal life) if it means lower returns?
3) Can we work together internationally?
With apologies to Dr. Pangloss, the answer at the present time is a resounding NO!
As for his "solutions"........fracking is a poor choice. Yes-natural gas produces less carbon that coal. However, the extraction process requires large fossil fuel inputs, releases CO2 in the process, pollutes groundwater and destroys local ecologies. Hardly a win-win. More like a win-lose-lose-lose. Short-sighted support of such "solutions" (ethanol anybody?) are the result of failing to view the problem holistically.
I absolutely agree that significant resources, govt. and private should be devoted to research and development of strategies and technologies which could impact GW. The 800 pound gorilla here is that the implementation of such technologies require cooperation, by governments and corporations.
1) Will the GOP do an about-face and admit that govt. leadership is absolutely essential to meeting the challenge of GW?
2) Will corporations support measures that benefit the commons (health and well-being of the planet, water supplies, and ALL of it's plant and animal life) if it means lower returns?
3) Can we work together internationally?
With apologies to Dr. Pangloss, the answer at the present time is a resounding NO!
1
Addendum:
As an aside Brooks tosses in: "Maybe there’s a partial answer in increased vegetation". Increased vegetation--reforestation and restoration of destroyed local ecologies is of utmost importance. Creating healthy ecological systems, is one of the most important tools available to us. Such projects have been demonstrated throughout the world. Oases have been created in the most inhospitable areas using permaculture principles. Such projects have successfully transformed desert into regions which produce significant food crops, stabilize and build fertile soils, capture sparse rainfall and SEQUESTER CARBON. Before rushing to the conclusion that such projects "cannot be upscaled', consider the "green wall of China", an area the size of France which has been rejuvenated in a relatively short period of time using principles and practices of sustainability.
On the other hand, millions of acres of land (in industrialized countries as well as developing nations), have been purchased by international corporations and investment groups since the global food crisis of 2008--food production and land-grabbing has become very sexy for investors. Industrial farming results in:
displacement of small farmers to growing urban slums
depleted aquifiers
loss of topsoil
heavy fossil fuel inputs
damage to pollinators
downstream pollution
Policy COUNTS! Do we support local ecosystems and small farmers or hand the keys over to investors with no stake in the land they ruin.
As an aside Brooks tosses in: "Maybe there’s a partial answer in increased vegetation". Increased vegetation--reforestation and restoration of destroyed local ecologies is of utmost importance. Creating healthy ecological systems, is one of the most important tools available to us. Such projects have been demonstrated throughout the world. Oases have been created in the most inhospitable areas using permaculture principles. Such projects have successfully transformed desert into regions which produce significant food crops, stabilize and build fertile soils, capture sparse rainfall and SEQUESTER CARBON. Before rushing to the conclusion that such projects "cannot be upscaled', consider the "green wall of China", an area the size of France which has been rejuvenated in a relatively short period of time using principles and practices of sustainability.
On the other hand, millions of acres of land (in industrialized countries as well as developing nations), have been purchased by international corporations and investment groups since the global food crisis of 2008--food production and land-grabbing has become very sexy for investors. Industrial farming results in:
displacement of small farmers to growing urban slums
depleted aquifiers
loss of topsoil
heavy fossil fuel inputs
damage to pollinators
downstream pollution
Policy COUNTS! Do we support local ecosystems and small farmers or hand the keys over to investors with no stake in the land they ruin.
2
An interesting article coming from David Brooks. He clearly agrees with the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas warming is the most important problem the world has today and that his party, the Republicans, are on the wrong side of this issue. He owes us a followup article to explain how and why the Republican "thought police" became so powerful, and why they use that power to deny that global warming is a problem. Is it a character flaw? How much is due to big money from fossil fuel interests, and how much is due to antipathy to any government regulation?
2
Some excellent points, David. If enough countries are committed, perhaps the remaining cheaters and those countries who are not willing to do their part (e.g. India) could be made to face a pollution import tax/penalty on their products in the future.
This is a problem of governance. Alexander Hamilton was very good at seeing what was best for the country and going for it. But today's Republican Party has no interest in doing what's best for the country - no interest in actually governing - they just want to win elections. That's why they got in bed with the crazies. It's very sad, because the party of my childhood - Lawrence Rockefeller, George Romney – has been replaced by the fascist, Donald Trump. In Congress they're too busy voting on Obamacare every 15 minutes to even notice the temperature. It's tragic. Each time I think it can't get any worse I'm wrong. The venom that gets spewed is unbelievable. I'm sure Alexander Hamilton is turning in his grave. Someday I think historians will go back and trace the beginnings of the demise of our democracy to a corporate innovation – the creation of Fox News.
5
I am often "helpless" not to agree with your "palaces of paragraphs." True, if we "take a look around and see what is happening," "oceans are rising," and "empires may be falling." But America still "has a story to tell" that can "blow us all away." Poignant isn't it that we changed the world with the help of France? We can't "just wait for it," but need to "rise up" "to stay alive." Even Burr recognized there need not be a duel because "the world is wide enough for both." We need to be in "all the rooms where it's happening" for our legacy to be on the road to character.
2
Of course there is going to be cheating! More reason for an agreement to keep "cheating to a minimum" , that's how it's done ...Brooks.
1
The solution is a carbon tax -- and if it could somehow be imposed globally, that would be better. A carbon tax has 3 main benefits. 1) It makes people bear the cost of their own choices. This has an ethical component but also changes supply and demand. We saw how quickly things can change during the oil embargo of the 70's when cars went from getting 10 mpg to 35 and people insulated their homes and put solar panels on their roofs. And we saw how quickly those things unwound when the price of oil went down. 2) The government doesn't have to subsidize alternative energy or invest as heavily in alternatives because if people bear the cost of their use of carbon, alternatives automatically become cost effective. 3)The revenues from a carbon tax could be used to fund government and possible to invest in alternatives or for curing certain perceived inequities that arise from the carbon tax.
21
As Mr. Brooks extols the potential of technology, he ignores the reality that technology got us into this environmental mess. We cannot count on NASA engineers and their equivalents to get us out of it. I doubt if any modern day conversation with Hamilton would get beyond his astonishment of how the Second Amendment has recently been interpreted, as it has nothing to do with the compromise with Jefferson that states could have militias and the federal government would get a national army training academy.
Alexander Hamilton is one of my favorite founding fathers also. My ancestor fought under his command at Yorktown while he was a member of the Virginia Militia.
You are correct that all that is happening in Paris is a round of pronouncements and will make little or no difference. Coal will continue to be the world's primary source of generating electricity. One of my favorite interest groups is the German Green Party. The are having the few nuclear plants Germany operates and those will be replaced by soft coal burning power plants. Only China burns more soft coal than Germany. The USA burns virtually none as we have none.
Our universe has been running rather well for over 10 billion years on fusion power. The answer to the carbon problem can be solved by scientific research and then developing the technology to harness that research. Coal will be replaced when it becomes too expensive. BTW no deaths from radiation poisoning happened in either Chernoble or Fukushima.
If you can't see, smell or taste it - it has got to be bad.
You are correct that all that is happening in Paris is a round of pronouncements and will make little or no difference. Coal will continue to be the world's primary source of generating electricity. One of my favorite interest groups is the German Green Party. The are having the few nuclear plants Germany operates and those will be replaced by soft coal burning power plants. Only China burns more soft coal than Germany. The USA burns virtually none as we have none.
Our universe has been running rather well for over 10 billion years on fusion power. The answer to the carbon problem can be solved by scientific research and then developing the technology to harness that research. Coal will be replaced when it becomes too expensive. BTW no deaths from radiation poisoning happened in either Chernoble or Fukushima.
If you can't see, smell or taste it - it has got to be bad.
fusion has been studied for half a century, little progress
th engineering problem of igniting a plasma to 100,000,000 c and containing it for sustained periods may prove insurmountable
th engineering problem of igniting a plasma to 100,000,000 c and containing it for sustained periods may prove insurmountable
I fail to see what Alexander Hamilton has to do with this. This should be the man than Republicans hate since he fathered the idea of a nation debt to bring the country together and definitely wanted a high Estate Tax to keep Aristocracy to a minimum. He was not from an Aristocratic background like many of the Founding Fathers.
Republicans deny climate for two reasons:
1) The business interest they are beholding to (big oil and coal) will not be happy and will not support them at election time.
2) They cannot be truthful and just say they do not care because they need to cater to voters who may be a little concerned about the environment but have some conservative views.
I am not a Republican and I do accept the science of Climate Change. But unlike most Republicans, I will readily admit "I DON'T CARE".
All I want is my energy costs to be low (home and travel).
Use whatever energy source you want, just do not cause me economic hardship.
So I challenge Republicans and many Democrats and Independents to be honest. Admit you don't care and put the discussion to rest. Then lets get on to terrorism, health care, poverty, hunger, genocide and income inequality. These things are killing us a lot faster than Climate Change.
Republicans deny climate for two reasons:
1) The business interest they are beholding to (big oil and coal) will not be happy and will not support them at election time.
2) They cannot be truthful and just say they do not care because they need to cater to voters who may be a little concerned about the environment but have some conservative views.
I am not a Republican and I do accept the science of Climate Change. But unlike most Republicans, I will readily admit "I DON'T CARE".
All I want is my energy costs to be low (home and travel).
Use whatever energy source you want, just do not cause me economic hardship.
So I challenge Republicans and many Democrats and Independents to be honest. Admit you don't care and put the discussion to rest. Then lets get on to terrorism, health care, poverty, hunger, genocide and income inequality. These things are killing us a lot faster than Climate Change.
1
You're right. We will live more easy lives. We can solve poverty, income inequality and health care. We can defeat terrorism, eventually. But before all this is accomplished we will lose some lives. If nothing is done to curtail climate change, the world will become uninhabitable. There will be no Americans. There will be no hunger, no inequality, no threat of terrorism. Is that your plan to solve the problems we have now?
I have made this observation before, in several comments over the past couple of years, many of which were not published. Population size is important, and most importantly. population growth in the United States is critically important. Yet population growth in our country cannot be curbed without acting to limit immigration, legal as well as illegal. The Times has an agenda on this topic, which is to push for more and more immigration, and that position is supported by most of the readership, for humanitarian reasons. But the environmental problems which we face, from habitat destruction and consequent species loss. to air pollution in its most basic form, cannot be addressed without confronting population growth and the driving contribution that immigration plays in this.
3
You're thinking too small. This is a world problem not just an American problem. There's no problem with immigration. Just because we allow immigrants we are not growing the world population. They come from somewhere so one country's population goes down and ours go up. There's no net increase.
2
Population growth may be an issue, but immigration is a zero sum game. The people will live somewhere on the globe that needs to reduce global warming. Immigration is zero part of the problem.
2
Obviously, investment in new technologies is a great idea. However, the real problem is that the extraction industries naturally want to keep profiting, AND that in our current system, aided and abetted by a right wing Supreme Court, they can buy the politicians who will keep things they way they are, possibly forever.
2
Uncharacteristically (I believe), Brooks has got some major things wrong. 1. Studies of climate change mitigation strategies (e.g. McKinsey and Conference Board, "Reducing US Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much At What Cost?") show that about half the likely strategies save $$ and make the US economy more competitive. This has been the case since the prescient publication in mid-1990s by Amory and Hunter Lovins "Climate Change: Makes Sense and Making Money." Studies have shown that fuel economy standards save consumers over the vehicle's life despite potentially initially higher costs. Conserving energy, job #1 in battling climate change, is nearly always in the self-interest of people and organizations. 2. Natural gas is mostly methane, and methane leaks from natural gas productions and distribution systems can reduce much of the benefit from switching electricity production from coal to natural gas. This is partly because a unit of methane is 84-86 times worse for climate change than carbon dioxide in its first 20 years after emission, and there's no reason the world should be using the 100-year effect on climate instead of 20 years, according to IPCC scientists. Solution is Greenhouse Gas Taxes, and there's no reason Hamilton wouldn't have supported them.
3
David Brooks is on vacation. This column was actually written by Bernie Sanders and edited by Gail Collins.
4
Transmission lines? Those are for hydroelectric dams or power plants that are far away from urban centers. With solar power on Big Box stores and every large building, there would be no need for transmission lines.
Incidentally, isn't it cool that a Texas power utility that uses wind energy gives free electricity to its customers after 9PM? See NYTimes November 9th article at http://nyti.ms/1PwleiU
Incidentally, isn't it cool that a Texas power utility that uses wind energy gives free electricity to its customers after 9PM? See NYTimes November 9th article at http://nyti.ms/1PwleiU
1
"Over all, the Europeans have spent $280 billion on climate change with very little measurable impact on global temperatures." Would not the proper measure of success of these efforts be if the Europeans were able to reduce overall carbon emissions? Otherwise a spot on article. I especially was amused by the idea of AM radio torture!
1
You, last I looked, still choose to be registered in a party that has a one-word answer for all of your noble (and accurate) sentiments about the value of government investment in innovation: Solyndra.
6
Which - in hopelessly disjointed but none the less very real fashion - then inescapably leads to a second word not mentioned here - Benghazzi. And these are the people to whom we are to bring our noble (and accurate) sentiments?
As long as apocalyptic dead-enders stalk the halls of Congress and economic 'free'-traders skulk through the forests, valleys, and mesas of this fair land, no change worth its weight will transpire. Technological advances, even if allowed to become manifest, will not solve the issue of catastrophic climate change. It's here, we brought it on ourselves through adherence to the pathology of materialism, shortsightedness, greed, and stupidity.
1
"Natural gas is replacing coal, and natural gas emits about half as much carbon dioxide."
That's like saying its better to receive only one fatal gunshot wound instead of two.
That's like saying its better to receive only one fatal gunshot wound instead of two.
2
Duh! Give a conservative a decade or two and a couple of 'trumps' on the head, and reality begins to break through the otherwise permanent fog of self delusion that certainty and control are simply a matter of removing the clutter of imperfect humans.
I'm a scientist, Mr. Brooks. Relevant and basic research federal funding skidded to a standstill just when W. was elected. Since industry didn't take up the initiative, and went offshore for most matters technological, and universities do not spend their own money on research, we've been stuck for quite a while.
Now, the new crop of political adventurers is hellbent on cutting what remains, not only for the greed of the few, but also because there is no consideration for the future, ours, or anyone's. You're quite right in assuming that the rest of the world might not exhibit a level of human morality exceeding ours, so that's pretty much the end of the story. Small details like Paris do not matter.
Now, the new crop of political adventurers is hellbent on cutting what remains, not only for the greed of the few, but also because there is no consideration for the future, ours, or anyone's. You're quite right in assuming that the rest of the world might not exhibit a level of human morality exceeding ours, so that's pretty much the end of the story. Small details like Paris do not matter.
You would be less confused, David Brooks, if you could stop yourself from misrepresenting facts. India, for example, is not demanding 'reparations'; it's asking for technology transfers and capital investment so that it can grow WITHOUT "burning mountains of coal." China was not "forced" to correct its coal statistics; it discovered and reported the discrepancy when it revised its obsolete economic statistics system several years ago. The US has reduced its carbon emissions, first, by economic recession--not a plan Hamilton would endorse--and second, by substituting natural gas--a fossil fuel that will ultimately just delay the day of reckoning, not prevent it, while releasing unaccounted quantities of methane. You're smoother than your Republican friends--who just deny the facts and make stuff up--but that just makes your disinformation more dangerous.
3
Mr. Brooks'/Hamilton's cheery analysis ignores the cost to human beings unfortunate enough to live in poor and developing countries: many of them will die or lose everything they have if we just focus on "costs." Green energy coming from wind, solar, tidal power, and other sources need to be put in place much more quickly than Brooks/Hamilton suggest. Additionally, numerous critics, many of them writing in this paper, have pointed out that there are many potential, unforeseen problems with geoengineering solutions. And, finally, we cannot rely on so-called "cleaner" natural gas because it, too, is a pollutant.
I would have expected Hamilton to start by saying that the Republicans, with their head in the sand, notwithstanding the Tea Party factions' predilection to dress up in revolutionary garb, are the closest to the shortsighted hegemon he helped defeat in these colonies as there ever was.... Giving them a pass because they are afraid of an AM radio interrogation does not excuse an utter lack of moral fiber. If the GOP stands for moral fortitude and individual responsibility within the context of a working "whole", then none of the current Republican in elected positions deserve that moniker. none. Continued apologia by Mr Brooks only adds him to the ranks of the morally corrupt. It is time Mr Brooks recognized this and stood up and was counted as one of those unafraid to be "lynched" in AM radio....
Solar, wind, natural gas and electrical storage technologies can help reduce the economic addiction to fossil fuels and all the consequences of burning them, but the addiction will never be eliminated until either of two things happen. One, we run out. Two, we find a better economic alternative. We've already demonstrated that nuclear fission isn't a better alternative, far from it. But recent advances in nuclear fusion suggest that if we have any interest at all in a viable end game, that's where our technical and political intensity should be focused. That's what our children hope anyway.
These people will never agree to do anything, much less do it. There are folks screaming in this country because coal miners are losing their jobs. Forget global warming, how about being able to warm my house?
1
December 1, 2015
Imagination is inspiring having the world leaders united to plan for reality budgets of energy and life saving proposals that will and does set the stage for a grand unified convergence of elite minds in the all fields of modern studies from - political, social, economic, matrix statistical physics, biodiversity genome systematic, and the crowning blue marble - economics - all for applications that 'is' not hot air - for we either live sharing the planet or - yes default to the divine Goddess of Earth and children weeping acid rain....
jja Manhattan, N.Y.
Imagination is inspiring having the world leaders united to plan for reality budgets of energy and life saving proposals that will and does set the stage for a grand unified convergence of elite minds in the all fields of modern studies from - political, social, economic, matrix statistical physics, biodiversity genome systematic, and the crowning blue marble - economics - all for applications that 'is' not hot air - for we either live sharing the planet or - yes default to the divine Goddess of Earth and children weeping acid rain....
jja Manhattan, N.Y.
1
This paragraph gives me hope:
"Hamilton reminded me that he often used government money to stoke innovation. Manzi and Wehner suggest that one of our great national science labs could work on geoengineering problems to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Another could investigate cogeneration and small-scale energy reduction systems. We could increase funding on battery and smart-grid research. If we move to mainly solar power, we’ll need much more efficient national transmission methods. Maybe there’s a partial answer in increased vegetation."
Government innovation and involvement is key to adapting to climate change.
In order for this to happen, in tandem with efficient government, our best minds need to be attracted to the sciences, not finance jobs and social media potions. Perhaps all the top-down meddling in education is tainting the allure of science as an occupation. Our goal should be to make the process more creative, not necessarily more competitive. Sounds counter-intuitive, but we lose the best minds when school becomes a relentless slog of memorized facts that are forgotten in a few days.
"Hamilton reminded me that he often used government money to stoke innovation. Manzi and Wehner suggest that one of our great national science labs could work on geoengineering problems to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Another could investigate cogeneration and small-scale energy reduction systems. We could increase funding on battery and smart-grid research. If we move to mainly solar power, we’ll need much more efficient national transmission methods. Maybe there’s a partial answer in increased vegetation."
Government innovation and involvement is key to adapting to climate change.
In order for this to happen, in tandem with efficient government, our best minds need to be attracted to the sciences, not finance jobs and social media potions. Perhaps all the top-down meddling in education is tainting the allure of science as an occupation. Our goal should be to make the process more creative, not necessarily more competitive. Sounds counter-intuitive, but we lose the best minds when school becomes a relentless slog of memorized facts that are forgotten in a few days.
2
Imagine if half of Americans drove electric cars, charged by solar energy. What would happen to the price of oil will so much less demand? Of course, it would go down, making gasoline-burning cars more attractive economically, and reducing the economic benefit of the non-carbon-emitting vehicle. We will still burn as much fossil fuel as we can unless we assign a cost to environmental damage. In addition to a carbon tax, we would need carbon tariffs on international goods to make sure our trading partners are also reducing their emissions.
2
An observation about technologies for harvesting renewable energy sources; waste mechanical energy, for example; is that the implementation of these would be inherently labor intensive. This is unlike for fracking, for which the wealth created is first and foremost in the value added to oil and gas made accessible by the technology.
Not only will the development of clean energy technologies create great wealth, it will do so by creating great numbers of jobs.
Not only will the development of clean energy technologies create great wealth, it will do so by creating great numbers of jobs.
2
Great wealth for whom? Not for the masses who will provide the source of wealth that is extracted by the power players in this little drama. Ask yourself why Gates, Gore, Bloomberg, and so on are lined up at the trough. Trillion$ will change pockets. Billions of little pockets will be emptied to fill the huge pockets of a few.
This advice will find fallow ground in China, but never in today's Republican legislatures. Remember in the words of the GOP patron saint that government is not the answer, it is the problem.
2
Dear Mr. Brooks.
You need another party.
As Democrats who voted or Jacob Javits and John Lindsey we see nothing of the responsible fiscal conservatives whose constraining hand we admired in those days. We have Republican friends who would welcome a party that accepts the sciences a guide to ameliorating our situation, rejects religious intolerance and racial bigotry, and wants to be sensible about fiscal and monetary policy.
The current Republican party offers none of this. The GOP was the most successful third party in our history. It is time for a fourth such success.
Perhaps you should help lead.
You need another party.
As Democrats who voted or Jacob Javits and John Lindsey we see nothing of the responsible fiscal conservatives whose constraining hand we admired in those days. We have Republican friends who would welcome a party that accepts the sciences a guide to ameliorating our situation, rejects religious intolerance and racial bigotry, and wants to be sensible about fiscal and monetary policy.
The current Republican party offers none of this. The GOP was the most successful third party in our history. It is time for a fourth such success.
Perhaps you should help lead.
4
Hamilton was a believer in Government action. They made plans for progress and carried them out. There were no powerful "special interests' to hijack the government for their own use. Our biggest obstacle is our dysfunctional governments at all levels.
3
The developed countries cannot begin to solve this global problem. It stems from very large populations in the undeveloped world with a goal to share in the developed life style. Our Darwinian solution is isolation. As a high tech society, with the appropriate willpower and drive we can prepare western civilization for the worst that nature can bring, and survive. Saving 2 billion people with skill and determination is infinitely easier than trying to save 7.5 billion people who haven't got a clue.
2
What a brilliant sollution! Do nothing!
Let the markets take care of the biggest threat to life until it becomes technologically and economically possible to do something. (Economically possible means for the billionaires not for the poor slobs who are losing their lives.)
Fracking for fossil gas is half as dirty as coal! This proves it!!! (NOT)
Yippee!! Fossil gas burnes half as dirty but fracking emits ten times more methane during extraction than coal mining. Methane emissions more than wipe out any benefit in terms of slowing down climate change.
Mr. Brooks are you uninformed or (and I hate to say this) as Carl Popper said about the leadership of the old Soviet Union - I paraphrase - ignorance is not the absense of not knowing but of actively seeking ignorance.
How does it feel Mr. Brooks to be on the side of President Putin, King of Saudi Arabia Salman, the Koch brothers, Exxon-Mobil CEO Tillerson, and coal baron Blankenship who all have been reported to advocate going slow on preventing climate change?
You are no better than the rest of the Republicans.
Let the markets take care of the biggest threat to life until it becomes technologically and economically possible to do something. (Economically possible means for the billionaires not for the poor slobs who are losing their lives.)
Fracking for fossil gas is half as dirty as coal! This proves it!!! (NOT)
Yippee!! Fossil gas burnes half as dirty but fracking emits ten times more methane during extraction than coal mining. Methane emissions more than wipe out any benefit in terms of slowing down climate change.
Mr. Brooks are you uninformed or (and I hate to say this) as Carl Popper said about the leadership of the old Soviet Union - I paraphrase - ignorance is not the absense of not knowing but of actively seeking ignorance.
How does it feel Mr. Brooks to be on the side of President Putin, King of Saudi Arabia Salman, the Koch brothers, Exxon-Mobil CEO Tillerson, and coal baron Blankenship who all have been reported to advocate going slow on preventing climate change?
You are no better than the rest of the Republicans.
1
Speaking of doing nothing, your friends gathered in Paris for the annual Climatefest have been nothing for a generation.
No. Wait. They have been doing something. Their annual herd migration has been dumping huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. That's quite an accomplishment.
If the Paris holiday attendees really believed in their incessant apocalyptic predictions, they would stay home and Skype this whole shindig. They won't do that, though, because with trillion$ and trillion$ in potential wealth transfer on the table, they all want to be where the action is. To wit, Bill Gates en Paris.
The foremost item on the Paris agenda is where to hold next year's crucial climate conference. Been to Bali. Conferenced Cancun. Gee, where can they go for some serious, secluded hard work saving the planet? How about Monte Carlo with a side trip to Tuscany next year?
No. Wait. They have been doing something. Their annual herd migration has been dumping huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. That's quite an accomplishment.
If the Paris holiday attendees really believed in their incessant apocalyptic predictions, they would stay home and Skype this whole shindig. They won't do that, though, because with trillion$ and trillion$ in potential wealth transfer on the table, they all want to be where the action is. To wit, Bill Gates en Paris.
The foremost item on the Paris agenda is where to hold next year's crucial climate conference. Been to Bali. Conferenced Cancun. Gee, where can they go for some serious, secluded hard work saving the planet? How about Monte Carlo with a side trip to Tuscany next year?
Why are the two countries with arguably the most risk exposure to the ill effects of global warming, China and India, the two major stumbling block to a global agreement to reduce greenhouse gases? By all I've read, China is drastically under reporting their use of coal and continues to add massive amounts of coal burning plants to their electrical grid. India obviously cares more about continued growth than climate change.
Any global agreement to reduce greenhouse gases has metrics defined by each participating country and each country self-reports on compliance. How is this legally binding or enforceable on any country? Under these circumstances, how does it make sense to fund the massive transfer of wealth from the US and other developed countries to the developing world, when their motivation is support their own development, regardless of the impact on the global climate?
Better we should put our own house in order. Use tax incentives - yes I would support a carbon tax and other taxes on fossil fuels to spur development of non-carbon based energy - as these technologies mature and become economical, the rest of the world will follow.
Any global agreement to reduce greenhouse gases has metrics defined by each participating country and each country self-reports on compliance. How is this legally binding or enforceable on any country? Under these circumstances, how does it make sense to fund the massive transfer of wealth from the US and other developed countries to the developing world, when their motivation is support their own development, regardless of the impact on the global climate?
Better we should put our own house in order. Use tax incentives - yes I would support a carbon tax and other taxes on fossil fuels to spur development of non-carbon based energy - as these technologies mature and become economical, the rest of the world will follow.
1
That's why Bush , in one of his few good moves wouldn't sign the Kyoto agreement.
Does anyone else find this Hamilton seance thing a little crazy? Even by Mr. Brooks' standards? Heck, he even admitted that the GOP resembles a Soviet dictatorship, something must be wrong.
4
For all this talk about new technologies, I fail to see significant mention of the most obvious holy grail of energy generation: nuclear fusion. If there were to be a concerted effort to speed up already-existing projects like Iter, in France, and the work being done at the National Ignition Facility, among others, we could develop nuclear fusion within a decade or two. Just give me, oh let's say, 200 billion dollars, a fraction of what we have spent on our punitive expeditions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
29
I am surprised there is so little interest in this obvious solution which is far and above the Holy Grail not not only energy but a host of other impending issues and crises confronting The World As We Know It. ITER, the international experiment, will cost less than $100B and bring the world a step closer to the fusion solution. However, hidden from the world's view and grossly underfunded for reasons I do not understand are a half-dozen or so alternate approaches to the fusion solution, some striving for the neutron-less (nonradioactive) B11-p reaction. The total investment in some of these is a few $M/yr yet making better progress toward ignition/break-even than the ITER. Why isn't our federal government (DoE) spending our tax dollars on these albeit high-risk, yet almost infinite ROI gambits? DoE spent $500M in one year on Solandra, just another player in the crowded solar PV panel business, and waved off the loss as "that's what happens in investments, occasionally." Spending $50M/yr R&D on these alternative fusion approaches might, in ten years, show how we can scrap not only all coal-fired plants, but all gas and oil-fired plants and perhaps many giant environmentally-compromised wind and solar farms, as well. Why not??
Well, I guess it's progress that Mr. Brooks deigns to write a tongue in check column about global warming.
Here in California we've been doing something about emissions for decades, even though Republicans here, and in other states, have tried to stop us (funny how Republicans only like states' rights when it fits into their narratives).
California now gets a quarter of its electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind, a figure expected to double by 2030. Californians use the same amount of energy today as they did in the 1970s, even as per-person energy use has spiked across most of the country. Policies to discourage gasoline consumption have led to cleaner fuels and helped put more than 150,000 electric vehicles on the road, a number that is growing quickly.
California has a multi-pronged approach, but we've acted on climate without inflicting economic disaster. The state has outpaced the rest of the country in job growth and GDP growth since the height of the Great Recession, even as carbon pollution has fallen.
"The biggest worry is that curtailing greenhouse emission will have really negative economic effects," said Ann Carlson, co-director of UCLA's Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. "So far, that has not been true for California."
Go ahead and make excuses for why we can't do anything about climate change, Mr. Brooks. I'm glad you didn't have to fight Hitler or go to the moon either because that would have been too hard.
Here in California we've been doing something about emissions for decades, even though Republicans here, and in other states, have tried to stop us (funny how Republicans only like states' rights when it fits into their narratives).
California now gets a quarter of its electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind, a figure expected to double by 2030. Californians use the same amount of energy today as they did in the 1970s, even as per-person energy use has spiked across most of the country. Policies to discourage gasoline consumption have led to cleaner fuels and helped put more than 150,000 electric vehicles on the road, a number that is growing quickly.
California has a multi-pronged approach, but we've acted on climate without inflicting economic disaster. The state has outpaced the rest of the country in job growth and GDP growth since the height of the Great Recession, even as carbon pollution has fallen.
"The biggest worry is that curtailing greenhouse emission will have really negative economic effects," said Ann Carlson, co-director of UCLA's Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. "So far, that has not been true for California."
Go ahead and make excuses for why we can't do anything about climate change, Mr. Brooks. I'm glad you didn't have to fight Hitler or go to the moon either because that would have been too hard.
6
Addressing "Climate Change" on a international summit scale is proactive. Its what needs to be done. Its not about grandchildren. Its about water, mega storms, changing weather patterns, preparing for this winter and every winter. Green solutions will come.
Global summits are about chaining minds.
Global summits are about chaining minds.
1
Mr. Brooks, with your sometimes heretical views you will be excommunicated from the Republican Party. How dare you suggest that Government should have a role in anything? Don't you know that government is the spawn of the devil and should be blown up ala an Ayn Rand novel?
Besides your premis is all wrong. Global warming is not happening. The melting permafrost is not releasing huge amounts of methane, those palm trees about to sprout in the arctic are a mirage and coral reefs have just decided to turn white and glaciers never existed anyway.
Self interest and greed are the way of the world. We all die alone so what's the use of working together to solve something. So let's just have a party and turn up the air conditioning.
I wish I could be more hopeful. But until the world wide community gets its head out of the sand, stops squabbling and starts to get serious about new technologis and policies to reduce our foot print on the world our future looks bleak.
Besides your premis is all wrong. Global warming is not happening. The melting permafrost is not releasing huge amounts of methane, those palm trees about to sprout in the arctic are a mirage and coral reefs have just decided to turn white and glaciers never existed anyway.
Self interest and greed are the way of the world. We all die alone so what's the use of working together to solve something. So let's just have a party and turn up the air conditioning.
I wish I could be more hopeful. But until the world wide community gets its head out of the sand, stops squabbling and starts to get serious about new technologis and policies to reduce our foot print on the world our future looks bleak.
3
There is an old business axiom that says; in order to make money you have to spend money. That money spent is invested is in either advertising and r&d. Both David Brooks' column and Hillary Clinton's plan to invest in the country's infrastructure, which was reported on elsewhere in today's NYT, point to the necessity of investing in the infrastructure we do have and research and development of green technology.
But we have to spend the money first and there's the rub. Without the investment innovation cannot happen or if does it happens more slowly than what is needed. Even investing in infrastructure could lead to innovation to make roads, bridges, etc. safer and last longer.
Natural gas may be cleaner when burned than coal but the process to get to it is just as ruinous to the earth if not more so and it is still a fossil fuel. Investment in green technology r&d will make it "technical and economic sense" sooner.
The GOP thinks we don't have the money and all the time in the world when in fact the money needs to be spent now because we don't have all the time in world. In business the bottomline is profit but for the country the bottomline is saving what we do have and investing in new technologies to insure a future.
But we have to spend the money first and there's the rub. Without the investment innovation cannot happen or if does it happens more slowly than what is needed. Even investing in infrastructure could lead to innovation to make roads, bridges, etc. safer and last longer.
Natural gas may be cleaner when burned than coal but the process to get to it is just as ruinous to the earth if not more so and it is still a fossil fuel. Investment in green technology r&d will make it "technical and economic sense" sooner.
The GOP thinks we don't have the money and all the time in the world when in fact the money needs to be spent now because we don't have all the time in world. In business the bottomline is profit but for the country the bottomline is saving what we do have and investing in new technologies to insure a future.
1
Will leaders leave Paris with nothing more accomplished than giving lip service and hollow pledges to addressing climate change? Probably. Had we in this country adapted more of President Carter's energy saving proposals in the 1970's, this country would have been far better off in terms of reducing our need for fossil fuels. Research dollars could have been invested for years in "green" technology, but Republicans resisted such "political correctness". Now the wolf is at the door in terms of carbon emissions and energy consumption. Also, the 800 pound gorilla n the room of overpopulation is not even being addressed.
Whatever happened to "0" population growth? This earth has only enough arable land to feed 10 billion people. We are fast approaching that number. What happens when that number is reached?
The future is looking fairly bleak right now. I am not even sure we can pull back from the brink of disaster. It may be too much, too little, too late in terms of carbon load and overpopulation, but we have to at least try to find and employ solutions. One positive thing we can do is to elect a President who is not a science denier.
Whatever happened to "0" population growth? This earth has only enough arable land to feed 10 billion people. We are fast approaching that number. What happens when that number is reached?
The future is looking fairly bleak right now. I am not even sure we can pull back from the brink of disaster. It may be too much, too little, too late in terms of carbon load and overpopulation, but we have to at least try to find and employ solutions. One positive thing we can do is to elect a President who is not a science denier.
Failing to halt and reverse climate change is far more costly than any budget deficit imaginable. The fraught so in Syria and Yemen foments war now, what will happen when Bangaladesh is submerged, Chinese coastal cities drown and India is cooked? How much will that cost? How many wars will it generate? How many millions will die in famines?
The Republican echo chamber cannot wean itself from hydrocarbon. There are too many businesses, banks, and billionaires who will not allow their party to not take every nickel they are entitled to, according to them.
We are going to be the last industrial power to fail, as Germany and Japan, devote their efforts to renewables instead of providing tax breaks to fat cats, and credits to gluttons of this generation. The next generation knows that it is being betrayed but has not connected the dots yet. The connections in China are killing 160 thousand a year directly from poisoned air.
Sophomoric arguments are wasting ink, expensive, and will be derided for their petulant of misdirection. Our attention should not be on some imagined tech, but on those things that work now. How about taking all of the credits and breaks that hydrocarbons suck up and give them to renewables? Let's tax oil and coal for the costs in wars, health, and corruption?
The Republican echo chamber cannot wean itself from hydrocarbon. There are too many businesses, banks, and billionaires who will not allow their party to not take every nickel they are entitled to, according to them.
We are going to be the last industrial power to fail, as Germany and Japan, devote their efforts to renewables instead of providing tax breaks to fat cats, and credits to gluttons of this generation. The next generation knows that it is being betrayed but has not connected the dots yet. The connections in China are killing 160 thousand a year directly from poisoned air.
Sophomoric arguments are wasting ink, expensive, and will be derided for their petulant of misdirection. Our attention should not be on some imagined tech, but on those things that work now. How about taking all of the credits and breaks that hydrocarbons suck up and give them to renewables? Let's tax oil and coal for the costs in wars, health, and corruption?
2
The most aggravating climate change myth paraded out by Republicans is that the United States can do nothing by acting on its own. It's true that we cannot reduce the global carbon footprint enough to matter all by ourselves. But if the world's largest and most innovative economy -- driven and supported by investment funded by modest carbon taxation -- were to make a conversion to a sustainable energy economy, it would produce solutions and reduce costs so as to allow the rest of the world to make the conversion much earlier than it otherwise might. That's not nothing.
2
The government already has the technology to get us off fossil fuels. Everyone reading this will think it a wacko conspiracy theory, but it is true. Go to siriusdisclosure.com. Many hours of testimony from high level government officials on video may be seen there, and it is quite convincing. It is run by Dr. Stephen Greer, a former ER doc.
The Media, including the Times, is committed to writing this off as nutty, but that is exactly what they have been led to do.
The Media, including the Times, is committed to writing this off as nutty, but that is exactly what they have been led to do.
The idea that market forces could and would solve climate change once alternative energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels is based on the false that our economic system is a level playing field in which superior products always prevail, and the false notion that cheaper alternatives to fossil fuels do not yet exist. Anyone who believes either of these falsehoods is invited to watch "Who Killed the Electric Car?", the 2006 documentary that details the debut of the General Motors EV1 in the 1990s, and shows how the petroleum industry, working via its minions in state and federal government, effectively crushed the marketing of an electric vehicle that was cheap, efficient, and extremely popular with the small number of consumers who were allowed to try it. Why? Because they knew that if consumers switched to electric vehicles, their profits would decrease.
Twenty years later, anyone hoping to introduce sustainable alternatives faces the same barriers. The fossil fuels industry is doing its best to fill the media with disinformation about climate change and alternative energy, and Republican politicians are only to happy to do their bidding. If alternative energy and fossil fuels were to compete solely on their merits, with all costs (including environmental) and benefits known and understood by consumers, I have no doubt that the economy could be weaned off fossil fuels within a relatively short period of time. But that level playing doesn't exist.
Twenty years later, anyone hoping to introduce sustainable alternatives faces the same barriers. The fossil fuels industry is doing its best to fill the media with disinformation about climate change and alternative energy, and Republican politicians are only to happy to do their bidding. If alternative energy and fossil fuels were to compete solely on their merits, with all costs (including environmental) and benefits known and understood by consumers, I have no doubt that the economy could be weaned off fossil fuels within a relatively short period of time. But that level playing doesn't exist.
5
At one point you say that a carbon tax won't accomplish anything because the reduction is all here in the US. Then you speak approvingly about a national innovation strategy that will reduce use of carbon in the US. So, is carbon reduction in the US important or not? The purpose of a carbon tax or fee is to correctly price carbon, which has real, measurable cost. Not pricing carbon is subsidizing fossil fuel and reducing incentive to innovate. The use of such a tax or fee - anywhere in the world - will spur the innovation you so ardently desire.
6
Carbon taxes will work to curtail fossil fuel use. They have to be high enough to get results. So far about $50 per ton seems to get attention. Most countries have tried at much lower rates.
Confused, David's own admission. Republican's lack clarity about understanding basic things like how one person's actions impact the whole planet.
1
The western industrialized nations can come together and impose tariffs on goods and services in proportion to their carbon costs - this can include outsourced labor. If we do, we will strip the developing world of its cost advantage and... either ensure compliance, or destroy their businesses. Cruel but there may be no other way.
1
The greatest explosion of natural gas is emanating from Republican presidential candidates. Two weeks ago they were hanging with the French, seconding their call for a war on terror, or whatever. You know, the label that President Obama simply refuses to utter.
Unlike Obama, whom Republicans tell us is leading from behind, GOP candidates lead from the hustings, far away and removed from the inner sanctum of decision-making authority. They wield no power. Thus they are able to spew forth the most preposterous ideas under a global warming sun. They connect terrorism to a religion practiced by a billion people. These fearless tough talkers have stupendous ideas, all of them guaranteed enormous success. Why won't people listen?
Two weeks later the Climate Change summit has convened in Paris, and Republicans have retreated to their same old tired positions. They yearn to return to the red meat: building walls, halting refugees from entry into the country, deporting "illegals", mocking people with challenges, making fun of those leftists who disagree with them. That's leading from the front, boy.
The only thing these young, scrappy Republicans are hungry for is gobbling up the Presidency, then turning back the clock. Hamilton was a hundred years of Republicans today. Green technology? Yeah, right. Going green means making more calls to gullible suckers to fund their campaigns. All except The Donald. He's simply insane. He calls just to annoy.
DD
Manhattan
Unlike Obama, whom Republicans tell us is leading from behind, GOP candidates lead from the hustings, far away and removed from the inner sanctum of decision-making authority. They wield no power. Thus they are able to spew forth the most preposterous ideas under a global warming sun. They connect terrorism to a religion practiced by a billion people. These fearless tough talkers have stupendous ideas, all of them guaranteed enormous success. Why won't people listen?
Two weeks later the Climate Change summit has convened in Paris, and Republicans have retreated to their same old tired positions. They yearn to return to the red meat: building walls, halting refugees from entry into the country, deporting "illegals", mocking people with challenges, making fun of those leftists who disagree with them. That's leading from the front, boy.
The only thing these young, scrappy Republicans are hungry for is gobbling up the Presidency, then turning back the clock. Hamilton was a hundred years of Republicans today. Green technology? Yeah, right. Going green means making more calls to gullible suckers to fund their campaigns. All except The Donald. He's simply insane. He calls just to annoy.
DD
Manhattan
Oh yes, the koch brothers and their republican boot lickers will simply embrace disruptive innovation and the world will be just, well, "beautiful". Get real!
1
Environment is everywhere, not just the sky and sea. Coal eats the air and ruins drinking water, deforests mountains and leaves arsenic-poisoned mines, some still burning after a century. So we add cleaning rivers, mountains, mines, valleys, buildings to the price of burning coal. Then we add the costs of new earthquake zones to fracking and the expense of cleaning water. The results are pretty stark: carbon-fuels cost like mad, while water, solar, and wind cost less to provide and clean up after. Now, today. Sorry, Koch Bros. and TPartiers, the writing's on the wall. Sorry, tar sands backers, the party's over.
So there is little need for seed money, and besides the GOP is impervious to the notions of climate change, data analysis, and science in general. David is left with backing the Democrats, who believe in science and our kids' rights to a viable planet. That's a conversion hinted at in some paragraphs of yours, and now implicit in a whole article. Go, boy, do it.
So there is little need for seed money, and besides the GOP is impervious to the notions of climate change, data analysis, and science in general. David is left with backing the Democrats, who believe in science and our kids' rights to a viable planet. That's a conversion hinted at in some paragraphs of yours, and now implicit in a whole article. Go, boy, do it.
1
There's an elephant (NOT the GOP!) in the room that's being ignored. And that is the number of people on planet Earth. Even if somehow the amount "bad stuff" produced by one individual is lowered as time marches on, when more and more people are contributing to the "bad stuff" there will likely be an increase in the total amount of that "bad stuff".
3
Putting major funding into infrastructure, including the electrical grid, research and development of new technologies, and other solutions require foresight and government action. Mr. Brooks says, "The larger lesson is that innovation is the key." True, but the largest obstacle was also described by Mr. Brooks:
"First, he [Hamilton] was struck by the fact that on this issue the G.O.P. has come to resemble a Soviet dictatorship — a vast majority of Republican politicians can’t publicly say what they know about the truth of climate change because they’re afraid the thought police will knock on their door and drag them off to an AM radio interrogation."
Mr. Brooks never mentions the political influence wielded by big oil, e.g. the Kochs, over the sameRepublican politicians. You could call it "denying for dollars."
While their is an economic cost associated with carbon reductions, there is a cost to failing to do it, and economic stimulus from the development of alternative energy methods and building infrastructure to support it.
I applaud Mr. Brooks for his relatively enlightened, out of the Republican mainstream views on combatting climate change. Now you just need to convince your fellow Republicans. Good luck.
"First, he [Hamilton] was struck by the fact that on this issue the G.O.P. has come to resemble a Soviet dictatorship — a vast majority of Republican politicians can’t publicly say what they know about the truth of climate change because they’re afraid the thought police will knock on their door and drag them off to an AM radio interrogation."
Mr. Brooks never mentions the political influence wielded by big oil, e.g. the Kochs, over the sameRepublican politicians. You could call it "denying for dollars."
While their is an economic cost associated with carbon reductions, there is a cost to failing to do it, and economic stimulus from the development of alternative energy methods and building infrastructure to support it.
I applaud Mr. Brooks for his relatively enlightened, out of the Republican mainstream views on combatting climate change. Now you just need to convince your fellow Republicans. Good luck.
I suspected that Mr. Brooks, a partisan hack in thinker's glasses, would have a hard time thinking through this issue clearly. His first few paragraphs were unexpectedly thoughtful. But then he says "even if the U.S. imposed [a carbon tax] on itself, it would have virtually no effect on the global climate".
This is a blatant falsehood presented as fact. A carbon tax would have a significant effect in reducing fossil fuel burning, which would alter the trajectory of atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels. This is the change that we can actually achieve today, so of course the partisan Republican has to reject it without thinking it through.
At some point the NY Times has to stop lending status to Mr. Brooks' nonsense.
This is a blatant falsehood presented as fact. A carbon tax would have a significant effect in reducing fossil fuel burning, which would alter the trajectory of atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels. This is the change that we can actually achieve today, so of course the partisan Republican has to reject it without thinking it through.
At some point the NY Times has to stop lending status to Mr. Brooks' nonsense.
3
What Brooks's imaginary friend fails to point out is that we can't do any of the things he suggests because the Republican congress will block each and every one of them.
5
So the build up of your piece, which began with a reasoned, enlightened air, led to an endorsement of fracking? A technology that causes earthquakes, pollutes groundwater with chemicals whose names the oil companies won't divulge, and can make fire shoot out of kitchen taps? That's what Hamilton would want?
1
I was struck by an article in November 16, 2015 Auto Week Magazine about the improvement in Porsche 911 horsepower and emissions:
"In 1975, the original 3.0-liter 911 Turbo generated 260 bhp and required 5.5 gallons of gasoline to cover 62 miles in the EU’s combined fuel-economy cycle. The 2017 3.0-liter Carrera makes 42 percent more horsepower and travels the same distance on a hair less than 2 gallons."
In the September 9, 2015 edition, the magazine says Porsche attributes the improvements in just part of its engineering to tighter emissions standards:
"Porsche cites ever-stricter emissions and fuel-economy standards as the motivators behind the shift to forced induction. Thankfully, forced induction allows a replacement for displacement -- with the new 3-liter churning out 370 hp in the Carrera and 420 hp in the Carrera S, both cars are up 20 hp on the 2015 models."
Does anyone seriously believe that the hedonists that buy Porsche 911s (i confess I am one of them) would voluntarily pay more for tighter emissions standards, or that Porsche would even make these kinds of improvements without those requirements? The idea that the free market will spawn "green initiatives" that would solve our pollution problems is nonsense.
To all Porsche enthusiasts and other hedonists: The EPA is your friend.
"In 1975, the original 3.0-liter 911 Turbo generated 260 bhp and required 5.5 gallons of gasoline to cover 62 miles in the EU’s combined fuel-economy cycle. The 2017 3.0-liter Carrera makes 42 percent more horsepower and travels the same distance on a hair less than 2 gallons."
In the September 9, 2015 edition, the magazine says Porsche attributes the improvements in just part of its engineering to tighter emissions standards:
"Porsche cites ever-stricter emissions and fuel-economy standards as the motivators behind the shift to forced induction. Thankfully, forced induction allows a replacement for displacement -- with the new 3-liter churning out 370 hp in the Carrera and 420 hp in the Carrera S, both cars are up 20 hp on the 2015 models."
Does anyone seriously believe that the hedonists that buy Porsche 911s (i confess I am one of them) would voluntarily pay more for tighter emissions standards, or that Porsche would even make these kinds of improvements without those requirements? The idea that the free market will spawn "green initiatives" that would solve our pollution problems is nonsense.
To all Porsche enthusiasts and other hedonists: The EPA is your friend.
3
To perform your comparison, your figures should include the development and production costs associated with such fuel savings. Moreover, why not just declare Porches of such horsepower and extravagance in violation of the limited resource budget that we all should subject ourselves to.
A parable for the twenty-first century.
There were two brothers who inherited a very large house and property from their ancestors. Both had very large families to support. Unfortunately, the shared house was inhospitable and uncomfortable. One brother decided to improve his life style and the side of the house he was living in. He developed techniques to produce a large amount of clothing, food and building materials to improve his living quarters. He also started producing other unnecessary stuff to entertain himself. The production of all the stuff was creating byproduct gases that could damage the roof but could be easily vented to the outside. The other brother lived off the land and was content until he saw his brother living a lot better than he was. The better off brother chided his poorer brother for not improving his lifestyle and improving his side of the house. The poor brother started producing some of the same stuff his brother was making. He also started producing a small amount of the poisonous gases.
Everything was OK until one day the waste gases from the production of all the unnecessary stuff was so much that it started making holes in the roof of the house. The richer brother was able to patch his side of the roof. The poorer brother was unable to afford repairs on his side. The rich brother started berating the poor brother for neglecting the urgently needed repairs until they started fighting and came close to destroying the entire house.
There were two brothers who inherited a very large house and property from their ancestors. Both had very large families to support. Unfortunately, the shared house was inhospitable and uncomfortable. One brother decided to improve his life style and the side of the house he was living in. He developed techniques to produce a large amount of clothing, food and building materials to improve his living quarters. He also started producing other unnecessary stuff to entertain himself. The production of all the stuff was creating byproduct gases that could damage the roof but could be easily vented to the outside. The other brother lived off the land and was content until he saw his brother living a lot better than he was. The better off brother chided his poorer brother for not improving his lifestyle and improving his side of the house. The poor brother started producing some of the same stuff his brother was making. He also started producing a small amount of the poisonous gases.
Everything was OK until one day the waste gases from the production of all the unnecessary stuff was so much that it started making holes in the roof of the house. The richer brother was able to patch his side of the roof. The poorer brother was unable to afford repairs on his side. The rich brother started berating the poor brother for neglecting the urgently needed repairs until they started fighting and came close to destroying the entire house.
1
Methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than is CO2. Low birth weights near tracking sites have been scientifically documented. Water contamination is real. There is no such thing as safe fracking. Fracking is not the answer.
1
David, if I proposed a program to end poverty and you said it would cost far, far too much, and I said, no problem, I am confident that innovation and technology will make it cost effective... eventually, would you buy it? That said, I am always skeptical when conservatives advocate a different solution for a problem I don't believe they really care about, like climate change, or low wages. It appears to me that most conservatives are quite willing to accept the consequences of climate change as long as it produces a world in which they are prosperous enough to personally avoid the "inconvenience" it causes, just as they hope we'll all accept low wages on the belief we might some day buy the company that keeps us from ever accumulating any wealth.
1
Mr. Brooks brushes off the one clear takeaway that any honest political columnist writing about climate change will reach: that Republicans are the enemy of our children on this issue. They are not simply cowards who cannot stand up to AM radio intimidation, as Mr. Brooks would attest. Perhaps that defines some. Others are fools, and others are truly evil people who know better but profit off of destruction. They are the intimidation.
All are unworthy of votes. Like with all of his apologies for Republicans, this column has too little bite and too much nuance. Climate change is real, it is a serious problem. It is solvable, but only if we keep Republicans out of power.
A vote for a Republican is a vote for more frequent hurricanes and droughts and eventual destruction of coastal cities. If Mr. Brooks can brush that off with an apologetic sentence then he's not paying enough attention. Only a renunciation of all the climate deniers can absolve him of his original sin: helping to elect Republicans over all these years.
All are unworthy of votes. Like with all of his apologies for Republicans, this column has too little bite and too much nuance. Climate change is real, it is a serious problem. It is solvable, but only if we keep Republicans out of power.
A vote for a Republican is a vote for more frequent hurricanes and droughts and eventual destruction of coastal cities. If Mr. Brooks can brush that off with an apologetic sentence then he's not paying enough attention. Only a renunciation of all the climate deniers can absolve him of his original sin: helping to elect Republicans over all these years.
3
Are we certain that Mr. Brooks reached Hamilton during his séance? I'm pretty sure Hamilton would've said that climate-change deniers' focus on "economic sense" is 'pennywise and pound foolish.'
"Solve problems before they become disasters." That's what the big boss used to tell us. He was a Republican, too.
Hamilton and his contemporaries put their lives on the line to defy the English monarchy and establish a new nation. That's a level of commitment to betterment of society that we don't see in either political party today. And let's not forget, corporations in Hamilton's time were the mere playthings of rich speculators eager to enrich themselves while legally keeping the creditors at arm's length.
Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson, Madison or Knox would have paid no more attention to what corporations "wanted" than they would to the baying of a hound. Their vision was truly visionary: independence, freedom, economic prosperity, and casting off the reactionary restraints of religious interference in the public affairs of a young nation. Can there be any question that Hamilton and his fellow travelers would have put the health of the environment at the top of their list, had they been confronted with such an issue? Consider Jefferson's Corps of Discovery, commissioned to walk across the continent to catalog Nature's treasures. And compare the Lewis & Clark Expedition and the later founding of the Smithsonian Institution with today's Republicans and their pitiful anti-scientific bent. Fracking? Surely you jest.
Notice Brooks' final reference to "not throw away your shot." Hamilton deliberately fired over Burr's head in their famous duel ("throwing away" his shot); Burr returned the chivalrous gesture by shooting Hamilton dead. So what are you telling us, David? Honor is dead?
Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson, Madison or Knox would have paid no more attention to what corporations "wanted" than they would to the baying of a hound. Their vision was truly visionary: independence, freedom, economic prosperity, and casting off the reactionary restraints of religious interference in the public affairs of a young nation. Can there be any question that Hamilton and his fellow travelers would have put the health of the environment at the top of their list, had they been confronted with such an issue? Consider Jefferson's Corps of Discovery, commissioned to walk across the continent to catalog Nature's treasures. And compare the Lewis & Clark Expedition and the later founding of the Smithsonian Institution with today's Republicans and their pitiful anti-scientific bent. Fracking? Surely you jest.
Notice Brooks' final reference to "not throw away your shot." Hamilton deliberately fired over Burr's head in their famous duel ("throwing away" his shot); Burr returned the chivalrous gesture by shooting Hamilton dead. So what are you telling us, David? Honor is dead?
2
After thinking about this problem for years, I have reached the following conclusions:
We can't control greenhouse gases without discussing population control.
Our economic system is so deep in debt there is no money to fund the massive amounts needed to convert our economy to renewal energy. We don't even know how we are going to fund Social Security or fix crumbling bridges.
We can't control greenhouse gases without changing our consumption based economy, and we can't change our consumer based economy without creating a deflationary 'death spiral' recession. More to the point, we are in a vicious cycle where we need more and more growth in spending to pay off more and more debt.
Therefore it is likely in my mind we will wind up doing what ever other species has done- wait for nature to solve the problem for us.
We can't control greenhouse gases without discussing population control.
Our economic system is so deep in debt there is no money to fund the massive amounts needed to convert our economy to renewal energy. We don't even know how we are going to fund Social Security or fix crumbling bridges.
We can't control greenhouse gases without changing our consumption based economy, and we can't change our consumer based economy without creating a deflationary 'death spiral' recession. More to the point, we are in a vicious cycle where we need more and more growth in spending to pay off more and more debt.
Therefore it is likely in my mind we will wind up doing what ever other species has done- wait for nature to solve the problem for us.
3
There is plenty of money available. Have you forgotten the surplus and debt reduction possibilities that Clinton left for Bush. But instead of solving problems Bush chose to give the money away to the wealthy who did not need more and to spread democracy by attacking Iraq. It's possible to return to the surplus and debt reduction days with the right policies.
No need to sugar-coat it like that.
1
Asking Hamilton about our modern world, then imagining his answers, is a stunt unworthy of a serious commentator.
1
It's nice to have a Republican willing to even acknowledge that humans are causing global warming, albeit he still seems to think there's no feasible solution. Mr. Brooks is far more progressive than his party.
Only a conservative would ask a 17th century mind to solve a 21st century problem, and then be proud of the 20th century solutions he arrives at (fracking?) Presenting the reduction of pollution and economic growth as diametrically opposed to each other is naive and frankly, wrong. Get on board with the economic opportunities afforded in saving our planet Brooks. You're part of the problem when you spout this conservative drivel.
6
Beat up David Brooks all you want (he deserved many of the beatings), but I see a conservative coming out of the dark into the light. Slowly, dragging his feet, but he's coming around. Today's Republicans embarrass him, they embarrass all of us.
He admits government can spur innovation, that "great" (his word not mine) government labs can work on geoengineering problems to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
If he keeps this up he'll lose his conservative credentials. Let's show him a little love this time.
He admits government can spur innovation, that "great" (his word not mine) government labs can work on geoengineering problems to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
If he keeps this up he'll lose his conservative credentials. Let's show him a little love this time.
3
The US was spoiled by the Manhattan Project. Send a bunch of scientists into the desert and a miracle solution will appear and solve your problem. Energy efficiency doesn't work that way. It is incremental and will be solved by EVERYONE doing a little, and unlike Brooks comment that the benefits are far off, the downside of doing nothing is much closer than anyone would like to think about. It is showing up in ocean temperatures and other places too numerous to mention. It will affect billions of people that are currently alive.
Beyond the environmental benefits, in the long term using less energy makes economic sense and will actually save money. Denmark is experiencing an issue with renewables driving power prices so low that the utilities are having difficulty operating.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/science/earth/denmark-aims-for-100-per...
That can be solved with proper system design and political willpower. Long term, it is a good problem to have as power will be inexpensive and non-polluting. A major issue is that the Koch brothers and their ilk have not figured out how to bill us for sunlight or wind resulting in their foot dragging. Instead of spending $800 million to try and implement a business model for their company that fits modern times, they are spending it to buy politicians and send our country backwards, resulting in the Soviet Dictatorship that Brooks currently defines as the Republican Party.
Beyond the environmental benefits, in the long term using less energy makes economic sense and will actually save money. Denmark is experiencing an issue with renewables driving power prices so low that the utilities are having difficulty operating.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/science/earth/denmark-aims-for-100-per...
That can be solved with proper system design and political willpower. Long term, it is a good problem to have as power will be inexpensive and non-polluting. A major issue is that the Koch brothers and their ilk have not figured out how to bill us for sunlight or wind resulting in their foot dragging. Instead of spending $800 million to try and implement a business model for their company that fits modern times, they are spending it to buy politicians and send our country backwards, resulting in the Soviet Dictatorship that Brooks currently defines as the Republican Party.
Alexander Hamilton would surely have recognized that inaction on climate change represents a foolish triumph of short-term thinking, over long-term thinking - and the term isn't very long, damage will come quickly.
'The expected economic costs of unaddressed global warming over the next century are expected to be to be about 3 percent of world gross domestic product' - tell that to the owners of New York City real estate near the city's shorelines, as rising seas submerge their ultra-expensive real estate; and to residents of Florida as half of Florida becomes submerged.
Cap-and-trade has not worked in Europe because the numbers chosen were too generous to industry. Cap-and-trade works.
There are lots of easy steps (not politically easy, they require eliminating subsidies to affluent constituencies) which need to be taken, before we think of giving government funding. Stop subsidizing US motorists, who currently pay ridiculously low gasoline taxes which fall over $100 billion annually short of paying for maintenance of the highways they drive on - and then use this subsidy to buy themselves big gas-guzzling vehicles, bigger than anywhere else in the world.
Hillary, whom I support otherwise, has just proposed a huge 'infrastructure' program' which would not cost the middle class anything, but be paid for by reforming corporate taxes (which should instead be used to cut the Federal deficit). This would, I fear, perpetuate present subsidies.
'The expected economic costs of unaddressed global warming over the next century are expected to be to be about 3 percent of world gross domestic product' - tell that to the owners of New York City real estate near the city's shorelines, as rising seas submerge their ultra-expensive real estate; and to residents of Florida as half of Florida becomes submerged.
Cap-and-trade has not worked in Europe because the numbers chosen were too generous to industry. Cap-and-trade works.
There are lots of easy steps (not politically easy, they require eliminating subsidies to affluent constituencies) which need to be taken, before we think of giving government funding. Stop subsidizing US motorists, who currently pay ridiculously low gasoline taxes which fall over $100 billion annually short of paying for maintenance of the highways they drive on - and then use this subsidy to buy themselves big gas-guzzling vehicles, bigger than anywhere else in the world.
Hillary, whom I support otherwise, has just proposed a huge 'infrastructure' program' which would not cost the middle class anything, but be paid for by reforming corporate taxes (which should instead be used to cut the Federal deficit). This would, I fear, perpetuate present subsidies.
1
We, as a nation are not as scrappy and young as we should be....taking baby steps instead of embracing forward movement. I was especially concerned about Mr. Brooks bringing up fracking ... natural gas IS a better choice than coal. However, fracking is like stabbing the body of our planet....disturbing unknown sublevels which cause man-made earthquakes & not a doesn't take us to a sustainable source of power. If the money and political capital is not used to shut down coal and move toward solar, wind and tidal power, we have sentenced our progeny to an unsustainable world. Already India is using the excuse that as an emerging nation, they should ignore air pollution so that they can reach the levels of commerce that more "advanced" nations enjoy.
As to the financial investment....I do empathize with the politicians and constituents who depend on the coal and petroleum (a source of pollution from finished products also) industries. However, if we subsidize the transition to a green industries (and education to move the populations affected to the jobs that would be produced), our national monies would have a much greater return. Kind of like how much it costs to educate a child vs. how much it costs to incarcerate them.
It is time to stop fiddling like the grasshopper in the fable, seeing only the present, and start putting some real muscle into the ant mentality where the future IS important. We might even be able to resurrect some human vs. money values along the way.
As to the financial investment....I do empathize with the politicians and constituents who depend on the coal and petroleum (a source of pollution from finished products also) industries. However, if we subsidize the transition to a green industries (and education to move the populations affected to the jobs that would be produced), our national monies would have a much greater return. Kind of like how much it costs to educate a child vs. how much it costs to incarcerate them.
It is time to stop fiddling like the grasshopper in the fable, seeing only the present, and start putting some real muscle into the ant mentality where the future IS important. We might even be able to resurrect some human vs. money values along the way.
1
"Over all, the Europeans have spent $280 billion on climate change with very little measurable impact on global temperatures."
This line wouldn't even make sense if the EU was one of the big actors, but primarily because a measurable impact on global temperatures due to carbon reduction is not something anyone is pretending to chart, not yet anyway.
This line wouldn't even make sense if the EU was one of the big actors, but primarily because a measurable impact on global temperatures due to carbon reduction is not something anyone is pretending to chart, not yet anyway.
1
Sounds like somebody went to a Broadway show. And had a column on the Paris conference to churn out.
The founding fathers of our country were great guys, for their times. But those were benighted times, and it has taken almost 250 years to remedy some of their most egregiously flawed and dysfunctional ideas. When I want advice about a problem that has cropped up in the last thirty years, the solution to which involves understanding of complex scientific concepts, I don't ask someone who would probably be incapable of comprehending the scope of the problem. Not to mention that he was a product of a slave-owning, misogynistic society and by today's standards was only marginally well educated. Oh, and did I mention he is dead?
I really think the "founding fathers" (note: no "founding mothers") have little to offer us today, no matter what a nice jumpstart they gave the country in the mid 1700s. Furthermore, probably even they would see the irony inherent in less than 100 dead white male landowners having such outsized influence in a country of 300 million which styles itself as a representative democracy. It's even worse when we tell each other we know what they would do.
The founding fathers of our country were great guys, for their times. But those were benighted times, and it has taken almost 250 years to remedy some of their most egregiously flawed and dysfunctional ideas. When I want advice about a problem that has cropped up in the last thirty years, the solution to which involves understanding of complex scientific concepts, I don't ask someone who would probably be incapable of comprehending the scope of the problem. Not to mention that he was a product of a slave-owning, misogynistic society and by today's standards was only marginally well educated. Oh, and did I mention he is dead?
I really think the "founding fathers" (note: no "founding mothers") have little to offer us today, no matter what a nice jumpstart they gave the country in the mid 1700s. Furthermore, probably even they would see the irony inherent in less than 100 dead white male landowners having such outsized influence in a country of 300 million which styles itself as a representative democracy. It's even worse when we tell each other we know what they would do.
4
Do not we still read and learn from Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Smith, and many others of earlier eras. To say we are "better educated" and "more enlightened" than those who lived in the past represents a fatal conceit. True, in the physicals sciences, our expertise has grown. But we still need philosophy, principles, and perspective that the leading thinkers from history have provided us to guide and inform debates and actions.
Mr. Brooks:
The government is never too big when it comes to providing business with incentives and eventually subsidies or corporate welfare. Now you advocate that the government needs to address a major problem that many in the Republican party say is a hoax. Aren't you a little late to this party?
What did Mr. Hamilton say when you you told him that fracking uses tremendous amounts of water and threatens the water table? You seem to have left that part of the discussion out. Did you tell him about the dire water shortage in California?
The use of Mr. Hamilton as a foil is a nifty rhetorical fantasy, but, of little use in addressing the problem. Also, you totally ignore the fact that it is the left that has proposed all of the impetus to address climate change. Now, you suggest that the only way to move forward on this issue is to create an "economic sense" for " entrepenuers".
Given the stakes in play here don't you find the profit motive a rather weak
excuse for inaction? If we could solve this problem would it matter how? Are you really waiting for the so-called free-market to come to the rescue? Does this mean the Koch bros. are actually the answer to our prayers, with proper incentives of course.?
Nice of you to admit we have a problem.
The government is never too big when it comes to providing business with incentives and eventually subsidies or corporate welfare. Now you advocate that the government needs to address a major problem that many in the Republican party say is a hoax. Aren't you a little late to this party?
What did Mr. Hamilton say when you you told him that fracking uses tremendous amounts of water and threatens the water table? You seem to have left that part of the discussion out. Did you tell him about the dire water shortage in California?
The use of Mr. Hamilton as a foil is a nifty rhetorical fantasy, but, of little use in addressing the problem. Also, you totally ignore the fact that it is the left that has proposed all of the impetus to address climate change. Now, you suggest that the only way to move forward on this issue is to create an "economic sense" for " entrepenuers".
Given the stakes in play here don't you find the profit motive a rather weak
excuse for inaction? If we could solve this problem would it matter how? Are you really waiting for the so-called free-market to come to the rescue? Does this mean the Koch bros. are actually the answer to our prayers, with proper incentives of course.?
Nice of you to admit we have a problem.
2
At Brooks acknowledges climate change. But,fracking far from solving the problem,worsens it by emitting large amounts of methane,which ,as a greenhouse gas is 20 times as powerful as carbon dioxide.It's more likely the U.S. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is because the vehicles growing numbers of Americans drive get more miles to the gallon of gas ,emitting less carbon dioxide as result.But because solar panels are now so efficient they provide an increasing share of electricity even in often cloudy Seattle,the ability to switch to all green,non fossil fuel energy already exists,but the fossil fuel industry uses Citizens United very effectively in paying off enough politicians to not sufficiently subsidize solar and wind power.Those payoffs are also the primary motivation with many politicians to continue denying the clear evidence of our warming climate.
So now I know what American Exceptionalism really means: it's everyone else in the world except America. Everyone else must clean up the messes that WE started and hoisted onto the world. Messes = environmental, political, humanitarian.
The progress that can be made in Paris may not, in itself, be enough. This is also true of virtually every struggle, whether it was civil rights or gay marriage. Progress in such difficult problems is usually slow and suffers setbacks till a critical point is reached, and then it becomes irreversible. What is now Obamacare could have been Nixoncare a few decades ago, if the left had not been so purist then. There is also a positive feedback loop between research investment, government subsidies, and private investments that can only be optimal when all three are working in concert. But really, David Brooks is just being disingenuous here, his party has no intention of doing anything, even just investing in scientific research. Just look at the gratuitous harassment unleashed by the Republicans in the House Science committee on climate researchers who took away their talking point about a "pause" in global rise in temperature.
1
Fixing the clear human problem of energy in general, pursuit of cleanest, most efficient energy to never even enter discussions such as whether humans are having an adverse effect on the planet, climate by the use of this or that type of energy?
The answer is obvious--the answer of how first to proceed. There must be a national project, the most important project of all and which nobody talks about. I mean a national pursuit of the best brains, the smartest children and a serious questioning in society of whether or not we are properly bringing up the best brains in our society (discussion of everything from diet, to entertainments such as television to educational system). In American society every single interest it seems, whether this minority group or that, this business or that, this religion or political party or that, gets all the attention when attention first and foremost and always must be centered on yes, the most important people of all (yes, most important, and I will never apologize for saying this): Those with really a chance of making all our lives better, those with genuine talent and discipline.
Any difficult problem begins with those capable of solving it. Instead of focusing on this particular problem or that (such as climate change or pollution or what have you) what you do is cultivate the best brains first and period) so you have an armed forces of intelligence ready to move rapidly with SEAL speed onto any potential problem.
Wake the eff up.
The answer is obvious--the answer of how first to proceed. There must be a national project, the most important project of all and which nobody talks about. I mean a national pursuit of the best brains, the smartest children and a serious questioning in society of whether or not we are properly bringing up the best brains in our society (discussion of everything from diet, to entertainments such as television to educational system). In American society every single interest it seems, whether this minority group or that, this business or that, this religion or political party or that, gets all the attention when attention first and foremost and always must be centered on yes, the most important people of all (yes, most important, and I will never apologize for saying this): Those with really a chance of making all our lives better, those with genuine talent and discipline.
Any difficult problem begins with those capable of solving it. Instead of focusing on this particular problem or that (such as climate change or pollution or what have you) what you do is cultivate the best brains first and period) so you have an armed forces of intelligence ready to move rapidly with SEAL speed onto any potential problem.
Wake the eff up.
We know what the problem is but selfishly want the other countries to shoulder the burden of reducing climate changing pollutants. Per Capita the USA is spewing more than others into the atmosphere. We must also take responsibility for a portion of the emissions coming from China and other nations who make our stuff. Those snowball juggling dunderheads on Capitol Hill that vow to resist any legislation to do something about the problem are in for a rude awakening. Mother Nature has already demonstrated some of the fixes in store for those who don't want to get with the program. It will not be pretty but it will be lethal without regard to ones political credentials once the natural systems get fully revved up! The USA is experiencing the results of a very strong El Nino right now as a result of the past abuse of our atmosphere. One cannot ignore the consequences of our inaction away.
Mr. Brooks failed to mention the extremely dangerous effects of the Fracking effects on the environment by which Methane escapes into the Atmosphere. While Methane has only a 25 year Life of existing in the atmosphere, it is far more dangerous than CO2 that exists forever.
My problem is that the Energy Industry involved in the Fracking Process is completely ignoring the simple fixes to prevent the escape of Fracking. That gas escapes due to leaking Valves on the Machinery involved. Those leaking Valves can be repaired quickly at very little Costs through the replacement of very simple O Rings, (or Washers). that deteriorate over time. It is now evident that many of those relatively new Rigs are leaking profusely with no Energy Companies directing their Field Contractors to repair those leaky valves.
I guess that Hamilton was not quite aware of the problem during his time in office.
Perhaps Mr. Brooks should take steps to bypass Hamilton, and suggest that
a simple and inexpensive fix would have an almost immediate impact to Methane Gas escape into our Atmosphere. But then again Mr. Brooks might
consider it a Granny State meddling!
My problem is that the Energy Industry involved in the Fracking Process is completely ignoring the simple fixes to prevent the escape of Fracking. That gas escapes due to leaking Valves on the Machinery involved. Those leaking Valves can be repaired quickly at very little Costs through the replacement of very simple O Rings, (or Washers). that deteriorate over time. It is now evident that many of those relatively new Rigs are leaking profusely with no Energy Companies directing their Field Contractors to repair those leaky valves.
I guess that Hamilton was not quite aware of the problem during his time in office.
Perhaps Mr. Brooks should take steps to bypass Hamilton, and suggest that
a simple and inexpensive fix would have an almost immediate impact to Methane Gas escape into our Atmosphere. But then again Mr. Brooks might
consider it a Granny State meddling!
Why is it editorial writers are so ill informed about environmental management? Mr Brooks, members of the Republican Party were largely responsible for putting in place a very effective cap and trade program that saw massive reductions in acid rain. (This was pre-TeaParty and pre-Koch Brothers.)
It's just a matter of upping participation and scale. It just works!
It's just a matter of upping participation and scale. It just works!
I eagerly await Mr. Hamilton's response to the above 34, well thought
responses.
responses.
" Unlike weight loss, the pain in reducing carbon emissions is individual but the good is only achieved collectively."
I must disagree. We sacrificed and did without a lot of things to put a photovoltaic system on the roof and EVs in the garage, and we love them more than we thought was possible. The sacrifices of clothes, vacations, iPhones is 100% worth it. Our gasoline cost went from 3k/year to zero; our electricity bill went from 1900/year to 400/year, and that is for a house and 2 EVs. Driving an EV is a flat-out blast, too, besides quiet and clean. It's been gain, not pain.
I must disagree. We sacrificed and did without a lot of things to put a photovoltaic system on the roof and EVs in the garage, and we love them more than we thought was possible. The sacrifices of clothes, vacations, iPhones is 100% worth it. Our gasoline cost went from 3k/year to zero; our electricity bill went from 1900/year to 400/year, and that is for a house and 2 EVs. Driving an EV is a flat-out blast, too, besides quiet and clean. It's been gain, not pain.
For Mr. Brooks to be channeling Hamilton when talking about the crisis of AGW trivializes the crisis at hand--actually, dismisses it, exactly the way good Republicans everywhere do.
That human beings are not willing to impose costs on themselves for a benefit they will never see isn't necessarily true. They do it all the time--when they pay taxes for roads, schools and other civic projects that take years to build and get running. And they certainly do it in times of war.
Waiting for technology to solve the problem of global warming is to wait until it is too late. What's needed is the political will to treat global warming as a war. Mr. Brooks ought to be backing that war, which is to say he should put aside his blathering about Hamilton long enough to get behind the climate talks.
That human beings are not willing to impose costs on themselves for a benefit they will never see isn't necessarily true. They do it all the time--when they pay taxes for roads, schools and other civic projects that take years to build and get running. And they certainly do it in times of war.
Waiting for technology to solve the problem of global warming is to wait until it is too late. What's needed is the political will to treat global warming as a war. Mr. Brooks ought to be backing that war, which is to say he should put aside his blathering about Hamilton long enough to get behind the climate talks.
1
"Or, with the right government boost, it presents an opportunity..."
Heh. By all means, continue the hand-wringing over which get-govt-out-of-the-way Republican you're going to vote for.
Heh. By all means, continue the hand-wringing over which get-govt-out-of-the-way Republican you're going to vote for.
The US has a very effective cap-and-trade program in sulfur dioxide. It has been running since 1995. Carbon taxes work. British Columbia's tax has been very effective. To say that a policy won't solve the entire global problem is disingenuous. There is not going to be one, single do-it-all solution, but when carbon taxes are combined with other incentives for efficiency and there is a real effort and investment for innovation as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg just announced, we have a chance to avoid the most dire impacts of climate change.
I am glad that Mr. Brooks admitted that the government needs to create incentives for innovation and private sector involvement. He downplays that role with his rhetoric, "with the right government boost". Unfortunately for Mr. Brooks and his conservative cronies, the only solution is lots of government or philanthropic investment at the beginning to get R&D to the point that the private sector can develop the results into marketable products.
Sadly, Mr. Brooks is little better than his Tea Party/Republican ostriches with heads in the sand. Writing off an agreement because of the possibility of cheating is a typical right-wing response to any governmental policy. It would be better to think about all the resources and effort that are being applied effectively to address the problem.
I am glad that Mr. Brooks admitted that the government needs to create incentives for innovation and private sector involvement. He downplays that role with his rhetoric, "with the right government boost". Unfortunately for Mr. Brooks and his conservative cronies, the only solution is lots of government or philanthropic investment at the beginning to get R&D to the point that the private sector can develop the results into marketable products.
Sadly, Mr. Brooks is little better than his Tea Party/Republican ostriches with heads in the sand. Writing off an agreement because of the possibility of cheating is a typical right-wing response to any governmental policy. It would be better to think about all the resources and effort that are being applied effectively to address the problem.
1
This column essentially recapitulates what Pres. Obama and others have been saying for years. Innovation will grow the economy and help reduce the danger to the planet. What rational person would oppose this agenda? None--that's why the opposition comes only from the ideologically driven, anti-science Republicans.
1
Solar, wind, better batteries and smart grids must be pursued, but if James Hansen is right, they won't be fast enough. This may NOT be a slow-motion problem at all. There could very well be a tipping point, and it may come much sooner than some suggest.
We need a crash program, Apollo-style, for the development of compact fusion. There are at least 4 or 5 designs that appear promising. They are seriously underfunded. The large fusion projects just won't work in time, if ever. Compact fusion reactors, such as the new MIT design with new, more powerful super-conducting magnets, would solve the entire problem. It's possible that this design, the Lockheed Skunkworks Fusion X design and several others, could be implemented before another decade is out (thank you JFK). The grid problem wouldn't exist, since these reactors could be widespread.
There's no time to waste. It may be necessary to bridge the timing with new fission designs, such as passive cooling and the molten salt reactor (designed in the 70s!). But, maybe not, if compact fusion can be commercialized in 10 years or a little longer. I would bet a bundle that compact fusion will beat ITER, if given the necessary funding. The Apollo program cost about $24B. With inflation based on 1970 as the starting point, that cost would rise about 6 fold or so. $150B to save the world. Let's get serious, and let's get going. Let's show everyone why the United States is and will remain the leader of the world.
We need a crash program, Apollo-style, for the development of compact fusion. There are at least 4 or 5 designs that appear promising. They are seriously underfunded. The large fusion projects just won't work in time, if ever. Compact fusion reactors, such as the new MIT design with new, more powerful super-conducting magnets, would solve the entire problem. It's possible that this design, the Lockheed Skunkworks Fusion X design and several others, could be implemented before another decade is out (thank you JFK). The grid problem wouldn't exist, since these reactors could be widespread.
There's no time to waste. It may be necessary to bridge the timing with new fission designs, such as passive cooling and the molten salt reactor (designed in the 70s!). But, maybe not, if compact fusion can be commercialized in 10 years or a little longer. I would bet a bundle that compact fusion will beat ITER, if given the necessary funding. The Apollo program cost about $24B. With inflation based on 1970 as the starting point, that cost would rise about 6 fold or so. $150B to save the world. Let's get serious, and let's get going. Let's show everyone why the United States is and will remain the leader of the world.
2
There is a "thought police" amongst the Republicans? Nice going Brooks. A vast majority is not afraid of Thought Police's interrogation. They are viciously cold and calculated minions of capitalism whose only raison d'etre is to make profit. Brooks is as usual disingenou and deceptive.
3
David,
Unfortunately your party is voting to cut 3 or 400 million dollars from the science budget at the same time you are here pushing government spending to develop solutions to a problem they deny exists. (Thereby making American politics a laughingstock around the world.) You really should look at and write about Citizens' Climate Lobby's proposal for a market based proposal that Republicans' could actually support. It would add 2.8 million jobs, increase GNP by 1.7 trillion, while reducing emissions by 50% over 20 years. It has support from George Shultz, and Greg Mankiw, names from your side of the aisle. No growth in government, no Solyndras... no brainer.
As to "no immediate threat", consider the 13,000 Americans who die annually from breathing coal plant emissions? Imagine the reaction and the investment if terrorists killed 13,000 Americans per year. Consider the metastasizing disaster from Syria, that the American DOD attributes to unprecedented draught, and that DOD calls Climate Change a threat multiplier that will create instability in governments worldwide. If you don't see an immediate threat, you should take up some other line of work. Because it is your job to alert society to the threats it faces.
And why ask Hamilton, who travelled by horse? Robert Rubin and Henry Paulsen both recommend a carbon tax, which would give every citizen and every business the immediate goal of using cheaper, cleaner energy, and less of it.
Unfortunately your party is voting to cut 3 or 400 million dollars from the science budget at the same time you are here pushing government spending to develop solutions to a problem they deny exists. (Thereby making American politics a laughingstock around the world.) You really should look at and write about Citizens' Climate Lobby's proposal for a market based proposal that Republicans' could actually support. It would add 2.8 million jobs, increase GNP by 1.7 trillion, while reducing emissions by 50% over 20 years. It has support from George Shultz, and Greg Mankiw, names from your side of the aisle. No growth in government, no Solyndras... no brainer.
As to "no immediate threat", consider the 13,000 Americans who die annually from breathing coal plant emissions? Imagine the reaction and the investment if terrorists killed 13,000 Americans per year. Consider the metastasizing disaster from Syria, that the American DOD attributes to unprecedented draught, and that DOD calls Climate Change a threat multiplier that will create instability in governments worldwide. If you don't see an immediate threat, you should take up some other line of work. Because it is your job to alert society to the threats it faces.
And why ask Hamilton, who travelled by horse? Robert Rubin and Henry Paulsen both recommend a carbon tax, which would give every citizen and every business the immediate goal of using cheaper, cleaner energy, and less of it.
3
I hope your friends in the GOP will stop trying to disrupt this very important meeting and its goals. They act like they dont have children or grandchildren that will have to deal with climate change down the road, only it will be much worse than it is today. Lately you have sounded pretty reasonable, must have taken off your blinders.
2
Brooks is spot on. The simplicity is perfect. Make green energy PROFITABLE! Bill Gates and other billionaires are also of this mindset.
1
Common sense on the one issue that moves the President to genuine feeling and inspires others to righteous fanaticism, and we have to go to a man from the 18th century for it.
Cap and trade with little impact on global temperatures? Of course it doesn't. Europe could go back to the stone age and it wouldn't have an immediate impact on global temperatures. I can't tell if Brooks knows this and just made a convenient straw man, or really has such a poor grasp of the subject.
The same goes for a carbon tax, of which one of the purposes is to pay for all the government green tech programs he proposes.
The same goes for a carbon tax, of which one of the purposes is to pay for all the government green tech programs he proposes.
Well, Brooks should be more optimist. Apart from Chinese communists leaders, who are probably atheists, all the leaders at the Paris meeting on global warming are religious people. How should they fail?
I don't get the argument here: "Europeans have spent $280 billion on climate change with very little measurable impact on global temperatures."
Why do you think that is, genius??? It's because the rest of the world has not taken similar steps.
"And as for carbon taxes, even if the U.S. imposed one on itself, it would have virtually no effect on the global climate." Great argument - if everybody adopts that tactic, nothing will EVER get done!
How about we clean up our OWN act, setting the standard and leading the way by example?
Why do you think that is, genius??? It's because the rest of the world has not taken similar steps.
"And as for carbon taxes, even if the U.S. imposed one on itself, it would have virtually no effect on the global climate." Great argument - if everybody adopts that tactic, nothing will EVER get done!
How about we clean up our OWN act, setting the standard and leading the way by example?
Well, don't sing Europe's praises too high ---- for I know of a French company burning coal on the Mississippi. I've never been able to understand why the French didn't want it on Seine?
This article reminds me of what the Luddites would have written about mechanization. Americans are used to long term planning, ask anyone who plants a tree or builds a school. Mr. brooks want to "aim" for the "fracking" solution, when a real,"long term thinking" planner/leader would "aim" for a fossil free economy using "fracking" as a short term solution and ending it before it destroys our clean water sources.
Our children and grandchildren demand a long term solution, anything less is selfish and unacceptable.
Our children and grandchildren demand a long term solution, anything less is selfish and unacceptable.
An international agreement that countries need to cut emissions is better than no-agreement. The fact that that agreement existed before the meeting began is not a reason to judge the Paris meeting as useless.
The mere fact of the meeting and the international attention to the matter is important to both domestic US politics and to global political culture. That is progress. Progress is rolled back, however, when supporters make inflated claims of either accomplishments, or of impending environmental disasters.
The movement needs to be reasonable, practical, and to appeal to common sense. Permit opponents to freely engage in extreme and unreasonable rhetoric. Don't interfere with them while they are actively confining themselves to the political fringes.
The mere fact of the meeting and the international attention to the matter is important to both domestic US politics and to global political culture. That is progress. Progress is rolled back, however, when supporters make inflated claims of either accomplishments, or of impending environmental disasters.
The movement needs to be reasonable, practical, and to appeal to common sense. Permit opponents to freely engage in extreme and unreasonable rhetoric. Don't interfere with them while they are actively confining themselves to the political fringes.
What is the point of summoning Alexander Hamilton from the mists of history? Can you not just use your own voice when you have totally reasonable things to say?
1
We're like speed addicts - yes, I know this will kill me long term, but if I quit now, I won't earn as much money today.
When we say that it isn't economically realistic to address this issue in the way that will yield a resultant biosphere similar to todays, we're admitting the failure in our monkey brains - we aren't capable of reacting with proper motivation to this threat that is existential but long term; there's no adrenaline rush for a risk that's 50 years off. Accepting the arguments that cost must override science accepts the nightmare world that we will create.
This is our last, best chance for the future of humanity to be a technologically advanced one. We can invent the technologies needed, but we need to invest in them - like the hundreds of billions we invested in fossil fuels.
We flew to the Moon with less computing power than the average teen stuffs into their back pocket, created the SR-71 with slide rules. We can figure out how to move forward without burning fossil fuels. There are so many ways to capture energy beyond static solar and wind. Ignite our energies as a species on the issue and we can succeed.
Solving this problem means moving forward into a bright future. Failing means falling into a brutish, short existence. The universe has given us 2 tremendous gifts, this beautiful little planet and sentience. It would be the grossest crime to waste them.
When we say that it isn't economically realistic to address this issue in the way that will yield a resultant biosphere similar to todays, we're admitting the failure in our monkey brains - we aren't capable of reacting with proper motivation to this threat that is existential but long term; there's no adrenaline rush for a risk that's 50 years off. Accepting the arguments that cost must override science accepts the nightmare world that we will create.
This is our last, best chance for the future of humanity to be a technologically advanced one. We can invent the technologies needed, but we need to invest in them - like the hundreds of billions we invested in fossil fuels.
We flew to the Moon with less computing power than the average teen stuffs into their back pocket, created the SR-71 with slide rules. We can figure out how to move forward without burning fossil fuels. There are so many ways to capture energy beyond static solar and wind. Ignite our energies as a species on the issue and we can succeed.
Solving this problem means moving forward into a bright future. Failing means falling into a brutish, short existence. The universe has given us 2 tremendous gifts, this beautiful little planet and sentience. It would be the grossest crime to waste them.
In his statements on a fee on carbon, David Brooks does not give his hero Alexander Hamilton as much credit as he deserves for his understanding of basic economics. A fee on carbon would be imposed at the source (i.e., at point of extraction). It would be reflected in the cost of goods that use fossil fuels, and would be rebated to the public in the form of monthly dividend checks, thus benefitting consumers who use less goods that use fossil fuels. The fee would also be imposed on import, so that foreign producers would not be advantaged relative to US producers, and the fee would be rebated on export, so that US producers would not be disadvantaged relative to foreign producers. Because the US is the largest economy in the world, the fee would have the effect of encouraging the development of energy technologies that do not rely on fossil fuels. Ultimately, this would give the US an advantage in the competitive market of developing alternative energy technologies, producing high paying jobs in the US, while also helping reduce climate change as other countries use these new technologies. Alexander Hamilton would have loved the idea.
2
Wait a minute. Is Mr. Free Market saying what I think he is?
"He used government to incite, arouse, energize and stir up great enterprise. ... Or, with the right government boost, it presents an opportunity to arouse and incite entrepreneurs, innovators and investors and foment a new technological revolution."
This sounds like Mr. Brooks wants the government to be involved in an important project--but I thought government was the problem, not the solution. And isn't this a lot like letting the bureaucrats "pick winners and losers"? What about Solyndra?
OMG. David has finally gone around the bend and is now a liberal.
"He used government to incite, arouse, energize and stir up great enterprise. ... Or, with the right government boost, it presents an opportunity to arouse and incite entrepreneurs, innovators and investors and foment a new technological revolution."
This sounds like Mr. Brooks wants the government to be involved in an important project--but I thought government was the problem, not the solution. And isn't this a lot like letting the bureaucrats "pick winners and losers"? What about Solyndra?
OMG. David has finally gone around the bend and is now a liberal.
2
Do you have young kids Mr. Brooks, the ones that will have to deal with this mess? What do you tell them without getting red in the face and being ashamed of yourself? To borrow from another fantasy: if you were Pinocchio your nose would now be so long you could drill oil with it.
1
The US has to lead the way and we should not transfer a dime to China or India for their supposed "reparations" when they are living with the choices they made over many decades. It won't make a bit of difference anyways and it's offensive they should ask for money for something that is good for them.
Instead we should use our money to subsidize solar panels and geo-thermal on our housing stock and pour money into research to disconnect from fossil fuels and the power grid. We need to lead by reforming and giving the rest of the world an example of what they should do rather than ship money around the world for unknown and random results.
These other countries will emulate our best practices and leverage our innovation at some point but they will do it quicker if we lead rather than send them money and hope they do something.
Instead we should use our money to subsidize solar panels and geo-thermal on our housing stock and pour money into research to disconnect from fossil fuels and the power grid. We need to lead by reforming and giving the rest of the world an example of what they should do rather than ship money around the world for unknown and random results.
These other countries will emulate our best practices and leverage our innovation at some point but they will do it quicker if we lead rather than send them money and hope they do something.
Our per capita annual CO2 emissions are almost ten Times that of India and more than twice that of China. Mr. Brooks obscures those facts (today's NYT) with the predictable blustering that we are reducing our emissions faster than any country. Maybe that. Is because Germany, France even Japan already have.
2
I can understand the source of Mr. Brooks' confusion. One could hope for no better example of what results when a dilettante applies himself for a good several minutes to a complex topic. With any number of deeply accomplished and serious minds a person of Mr. Brooks' stature could consult on these most serious of issues, he instead turns to a dead symbol of ideology. Why am I not surprised.
"The defeat of Keystone XL" is pointless, Mr. Brooks has previously told us. treating the accomplishment as an end rather than a beginning. He is similarly dismissive here of European efforts to curb emissions. "Don't bother enlisting," we can hear him telling Audie Murphy in 1941, "your presence in a war of millions can't possibly make a difference." He defines defeatism. No matter, I can barely see Mr. Brooks, and barely hear him, as he fades in the rearview mirror.
"The defeat of Keystone XL" is pointless, Mr. Brooks has previously told us. treating the accomplishment as an end rather than a beginning. He is similarly dismissive here of European efforts to curb emissions. "Don't bother enlisting," we can hear him telling Audie Murphy in 1941, "your presence in a war of millions can't possibly make a difference." He defines defeatism. No matter, I can barely see Mr. Brooks, and barely hear him, as he fades in the rearview mirror.
4
"G.O.P. has come to resemble a Soviet dictatorship"
So, finally a honest confession from Brooks. He supports Soviet dictatorship'
So, finally a honest confession from Brooks. He supports Soviet dictatorship'
4
"Over all, the Europeans have spent $280 billion on climate change with very little measurable impact on global temperatures. "
A handy dismissal of the most important thing in the world: actually trying to do things to make the world a better place even when it does not deliver immediate gratification in the form of stockholder dividends.
This is why we have a social contract for government; if we do not band together to avoid the tragedy of the commons, it will inevitably happen. And this is why we make long-term investments and delay gratification.
It is absurd to suggest the $280 billion dollars Europe has spent has gone no where (and to not recognize this amount is paltry compared to what we have emptied out of our war chest or handed out to big corporations). As if the massive investments in science and green technology from Europe have not already been benefitting the world for years, Mr. Brooks seems to prefer the myopic reasoning that "since the world-wide temp hasn't gone down yet, clearly these long-term investments at this critical early stage (where one shouldn't expect immediate payouts) are futile and will always be futile."
This sort of elementary logical fallacy is beyond me. It is people like Mr. Brooks that think falling solar and wind prices "just happen" because of "market forces" and have nothing to do with years of massive government investment to help create the foundation for the technology and to help create an initial scaffolding of a market.
A handy dismissal of the most important thing in the world: actually trying to do things to make the world a better place even when it does not deliver immediate gratification in the form of stockholder dividends.
This is why we have a social contract for government; if we do not band together to avoid the tragedy of the commons, it will inevitably happen. And this is why we make long-term investments and delay gratification.
It is absurd to suggest the $280 billion dollars Europe has spent has gone no where (and to not recognize this amount is paltry compared to what we have emptied out of our war chest or handed out to big corporations). As if the massive investments in science and green technology from Europe have not already been benefitting the world for years, Mr. Brooks seems to prefer the myopic reasoning that "since the world-wide temp hasn't gone down yet, clearly these long-term investments at this critical early stage (where one shouldn't expect immediate payouts) are futile and will always be futile."
This sort of elementary logical fallacy is beyond me. It is people like Mr. Brooks that think falling solar and wind prices "just happen" because of "market forces" and have nothing to do with years of massive government investment to help create the foundation for the technology and to help create an initial scaffolding of a market.
4
If it resembles a Soviet dictatorship, then it's not really a "G.O.P." anymore, is it?
Shouldn't a published writer take more care with the language?
Shouldn't a published writer take more care with the language?
Final thought: If India or any other nation really wants to move their populations forward, they will not accept that the only way is to build coal fired plants. They can do what the US should have done and still should be doing - start their own industry to build new generations of renewable power sources. Instead of a billion dollars in a coal plant, invest a billion in site generation solar systems. Spend a billion on public sanitation projects, get clean water and sewage systems into those slums. Educate your populations. Give them medical care. Give them contraceptives. Build tower farms.
"The only way to get ours is to follow the path you've taken for 100 years" is foolish - they can build on the history of our mistakes. They can learn from it. We know more now - we see what will happen. For everyone's sake, let's finally learn from our past!
"The only way to get ours is to follow the path you've taken for 100 years" is foolish - they can build on the history of our mistakes. They can learn from it. We know more now - we see what will happen. For everyone's sake, let's finally learn from our past!
2
I arise each morning with good intentions.
2
The Chinese deserve some thanks for having had their one child policy. Without it, an extra 300 million Chinese would be generating a lot of CO2.
1
It hasn't stopped them, even with one child. Now they want bigger better houses for their one child so they are out here shopping for real estate.
1
I maybe misreading Mr. Brook's comments but it seems to me that he is saying since we can't fix it all at once, why bother.
Much like the much vilified ACA, we have to start somewhere. It's much easier to eat the horse a hoof at a time then to try to consume it all at once.
Much like the much vilified ACA, we have to start somewhere. It's much easier to eat the horse a hoof at a time then to try to consume it all at once.
4
When one considers the costs of environmental degradation, and the enormous expense of maintaining a military to control the distribution of fossil fuels by the control of sea lanes, navigation choke points, and the monumental ongoing costs of acquiring land for gas pipeline transit; for example in Afghanistan, given the present state of technology: fossil fuel is already too expensive to make sense.
In addition, the true long term value of petroleum to generations yet unborn, is to be found in the fundamental reliance upon petrochemicals in nearly everything which is manufactured from chemicals to plastic and from roofing material to fertilizers. In this sense oil is too precious to burn as the chief source of power for either industry or in grossly inefficient internal combustion engines. Coal is too dirty to burn under any circumstances
All of these discreet costs are overlooked by media talents like Mr. Brooks, who dutifully play their role as shills for an energy industry where greed has warped every human, environmental or economic consideration.
By the time that we notice the true costs of continued dependence upon fossil fuels the American Empire may be in a shambles in much the same way, and for the same reasons that the Soviet Empire collapsed of its own weight...a terminal tendency to ignore costs.
In addition, the true long term value of petroleum to generations yet unborn, is to be found in the fundamental reliance upon petrochemicals in nearly everything which is manufactured from chemicals to plastic and from roofing material to fertilizers. In this sense oil is too precious to burn as the chief source of power for either industry or in grossly inefficient internal combustion engines. Coal is too dirty to burn under any circumstances
All of these discreet costs are overlooked by media talents like Mr. Brooks, who dutifully play their role as shills for an energy industry where greed has warped every human, environmental or economic consideration.
By the time that we notice the true costs of continued dependence upon fossil fuels the American Empire may be in a shambles in much the same way, and for the same reasons that the Soviet Empire collapsed of its own weight...a terminal tendency to ignore costs.
After making fun of government money for green energy in the past, now Brooks is making fun of the Paris talks. And what would Alexander Hamilton know about global warming? And what has hip hop to do with any of this ? If one is going to name drop a " founding father", I think I'd use Benjamin Franklin, who I think would be hopeful and active in Paris and in home solutions as well.
3
How can a political party whose energy platform is "deny, deny, deny" climate change science and "drill, baby drill" more oil and coal ever be taken seriously? Remember Jon Huntsman?
The stupidity and incompetence of many Republican leaders, like Senator James Inhofe, weakens us as a nation. You can't make this stuff up -- Inhofe, league-leading climate denier and failed businessman, is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
The stupidity and incompetence of many Republican leaders, like Senator James Inhofe, weakens us as a nation. You can't make this stuff up -- Inhofe, league-leading climate denier and failed businessman, is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
2
Nature, not man, will have the last word on this topic.
Doesn't sound like the Alexander Hamilton I know. David Brooks' Hamilton would have snorted at his countrymen's naievete, when they suggested that the thirteen colonies should work together as a single nation -- why should Virginians risk their lives and fortunes coming to the aid of Bostonians, or take orders from a New Yorker? He would, I am sure, scoff at the wild eyed idealists who thought they could make a new kind of nation without a king - I mean, puh-leeze. And he would, I'm sure, tell us to get real about our militias scrappy, yes, but no match for the most disciplined and well-equipped military on the planet! Yes, Brooks' sage and skeptical Hamilton would have pleaded with Franklin and Jefferson to pull their heads out of the clouds, accept the reality of British rule, and improve their lot by rational, not revolutionary means.
Whether or not the right wishes to accept it, climate change IS the central security/survival issue of our time. And this column touches on the reason why....the benefits to be achieved are largely to be enjoyed by future generations, while the pain and cost of behavior change is present.
I often think that comparing terrorism to climate change is like imagining you're at a bar and a drunk is threatening to punch your friend in the nose. It might seem as if that's his greatest personal threat, but you know it isn't because your friend is a three-pack-a-day smoker. The broken nose potential is not his biggest health issue, it's just his most apparent one.
I often think that comparing terrorism to climate change is like imagining you're at a bar and a drunk is threatening to punch your friend in the nose. It might seem as if that's his greatest personal threat, but you know it isn't because your friend is a three-pack-a-day smoker. The broken nose potential is not his biggest health issue, it's just his most apparent one.
2
If and or when we end life on earth with nuclear weapons, or in time make it uninhabitable for humans, at least the earth will continue to exist.
With this knowledge plans must be made to find another flat planet, just in case the worst happens, besides, where will the next GOP debate take place.
With this knowledge plans must be made to find another flat planet, just in case the worst happens, besides, where will the next GOP debate take place.
"You’re asking developing countries to forswear growth..." Nonsense. This is a typical 'zero sum' assumption about economic growth vs. conservation, and it has been proven to be wholly false. What if all of the coal, oil and gas power plants that India and China wants to build had the most modern pollution controls? Would that make them uneconomical? No.
Mr. Brooks says, "You’re asking people to impose costs on themselves today for some future benefit they will never see." With this statement, Mr. Brooks demonstrates how little he really understands about climate change. Perhaps people who are ancient (like Mr. Brooks and myself) won't "see" any future benefits, but how about people in their twenties and thirties? They're going to see plenty of changes long before they're done if we don't act immediately to curb climate change.
Dear Mr. Brooks,
Let's face it, the planet is, basically, cooked. As the environment reacts to climate change and each ton of pollutants dumped into the atmosphere creates exponentially effects we've not seen before, the debate over man generated or nature generated or combination of the two seems mute; the atmosphere is getting dirty, the population is rising and natural resources are dwindling.
The GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE's platform might as well endorse looking for a new, habitable planet as the Koch brothers and their like only see money being taken from their billions for, well, nothing profitable to them yet, the sort of "downside" to capitalism. Hence their reliance on the legislators they fund who claim to be "non scientists" but refute real "scientists" as cranks, muddying any true research on the man made part of the equation.
So, on to Paris with photo ops., hand shaking, sonorous pronouncements and some 120,000 police making sure nobody disturbs this august gathering from which, I assume, nothing will occur.
So you can channel Mr. Hamilton again and tell him to "rest easy" as the Republican controlled House and Senate have already started their objections to anything that may disturb the 1% concerning this "climate change nonsense".
But if you do talk to him again, ask him if he could do it again, would he duel Mr. Burr or, at least, take some target practice?
Let's face it, the planet is, basically, cooked. As the environment reacts to climate change and each ton of pollutants dumped into the atmosphere creates exponentially effects we've not seen before, the debate over man generated or nature generated or combination of the two seems mute; the atmosphere is getting dirty, the population is rising and natural resources are dwindling.
The GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE's platform might as well endorse looking for a new, habitable planet as the Koch brothers and their like only see money being taken from their billions for, well, nothing profitable to them yet, the sort of "downside" to capitalism. Hence their reliance on the legislators they fund who claim to be "non scientists" but refute real "scientists" as cranks, muddying any true research on the man made part of the equation.
So, on to Paris with photo ops., hand shaking, sonorous pronouncements and some 120,000 police making sure nobody disturbs this august gathering from which, I assume, nothing will occur.
So you can channel Mr. Hamilton again and tell him to "rest easy" as the Republican controlled House and Senate have already started their objections to anything that may disturb the 1% concerning this "climate change nonsense".
But if you do talk to him again, ask him if he could do it again, would he duel Mr. Burr or, at least, take some target practice?
1
As people age they have many regrets and fear death. Many turn to religion and faith to find solace with their rapidly approaching demise. Come on David, admit you are giving up on the right wing crack pots, just call yourself Independent! America needs to lead the world on this issue, your party is dead wrong and you know it.
1
It seems to me that Mr. Brooks does this on a lot of issues — belittles in a sort of half-hearted way GOP attitudes as if that somehow reduces the reality of those attitudes. It does not, obviously. The stance of most Republican lawmakers, and, as far as I can tell, all of the GOP presidential candidates, on climate change has been a disgrace, and an important obstacle to progress. We are talking about folks with an equal hand (at least) in where the U.S. government acts and doesn’t act. It’s about time they take responsibility for the power they hold. If not, I hope we as voters will make them wish they had.
We have many other problems whose solutions will substantially reduce atomspheric carbon. More balanced and natural farming methods cause the soil to take up more carbon. More carbon in the soil produces more productive soils. It also hold more moisture. We face a feeding problem because of carbon depleted soils; we face a feeding problem because of water shortage. More carbon in the soils produce a balance that holds more water. Plants can thrive on less rain if the soil has higher moisture retention.
We are not short of solutions, merely "vision" and willingness to not worship at the "ideal" of higher taxes and redistribution of that wealth of supposed/imagined bonanza of tax receipts.
We are not short of solutions, merely "vision" and willingness to not worship at the "ideal" of higher taxes and redistribution of that wealth of supposed/imagined bonanza of tax receipts.
1
What a disingenuous article.
The notion that carbon mitigation and economic growth are mutually exclusive is an outdated and misleading idea. The shift to a low-carbon economy, one that is both resilient and inclusive and is on the scale required to keep Earth under two degrees of warming beyond pre-industrial levels, is one that would, by definition, necessitate a massive economic mobilization. Mr. Brooks would have us believe that some technological solution we have yet to hear of us will be what saves us, when in reality innovation may have already saved us yet; the costs of solar and wind have fallen tremendously due to innovation and subsidies, despite the fact that they are forced to compete in an uneven playing field in which hundreds of billions of dollars are provided to fossil fuels (and this is not even mentioning the environmental and social externalities of their use) and in which the incentives for renewables are tenuous and must be approved by Congress regularly leading to a precarious market climate. And even then renewables continue to be much cheaper and more scalable than expected, every year and with every projection. No, climate change is not a technical problem; it is a political one.
The notion that carbon mitigation and economic growth are mutually exclusive is an outdated and misleading idea. The shift to a low-carbon economy, one that is both resilient and inclusive and is on the scale required to keep Earth under two degrees of warming beyond pre-industrial levels, is one that would, by definition, necessitate a massive economic mobilization. Mr. Brooks would have us believe that some technological solution we have yet to hear of us will be what saves us, when in reality innovation may have already saved us yet; the costs of solar and wind have fallen tremendously due to innovation and subsidies, despite the fact that they are forced to compete in an uneven playing field in which hundreds of billions of dollars are provided to fossil fuels (and this is not even mentioning the environmental and social externalities of their use) and in which the incentives for renewables are tenuous and must be approved by Congress regularly leading to a precarious market climate. And even then renewables continue to be much cheaper and more scalable than expected, every year and with every projection. No, climate change is not a technical problem; it is a political one.
2
Hey David,
What happens if the Earth doesn't wait around for Green Energy to become economically cost effective but instead becomes a polluted blast furnace incapable of Supporting complex life beause anti-scienfe ideologues like you and yours refuse to see global climate changes as the genuune threat to mankind it is?
What happens if the Earth doesn't wait around for Green Energy to become economically cost effective but instead becomes a polluted blast furnace incapable of Supporting complex life beause anti-scienfe ideologues like you and yours refuse to see global climate changes as the genuune threat to mankind it is?
3
Mr. Brooks, it's clear that you and your conservative colleagues are concerned about the economic impact of addressing climate change. But have you ever considered the fact that, in the long run, doing nothing to address climate change will cost more -- much, much more -- than doing nothing about it?
So, if you really want to whine about slower economic growth in the future, you should really be more concerned with fossil fuels than with solar power.
So, if you really want to whine about slower economic growth in the future, you should really be more concerned with fossil fuels than with solar power.
1
So, maybe the government does matter? Don't let your Republican buddies hear you talking like this.
3
From the article:
"Manzi and Wehner suggest that one of our great national science labs could work on geoengineering problems to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Another could investigate cogeneration and small-scale energy reduction systems."
Some of our most cutting-edge research and development goes toward making weapons. Billions and billions of dollars in R&D, much of it tax-supported. And we've developed incredible and awesome ways to kill large groups of people. Imagine if we put even half that energy into cleaning the planet instead?
"Manzi and Wehner suggest that one of our great national science labs could work on geoengineering problems to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Another could investigate cogeneration and small-scale energy reduction systems."
Some of our most cutting-edge research and development goes toward making weapons. Billions and billions of dollars in R&D, much of it tax-supported. And we've developed incredible and awesome ways to kill large groups of people. Imagine if we put even half that energy into cleaning the planet instead?
5
"On Saturday, July 25, Germany set a new national record for renewable energy by meeting 78 percent of the day’s electricity demand with renewables sources, exceeding the previous record of 74 percent set in May of 2014."
No new innovations, although welcome, are needed.
What is needed is decisive, clear eyed, political leadership in the US.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/29/3685555/germany-sets-new-ren...
No new innovations, although welcome, are needed.
What is needed is decisive, clear eyed, political leadership in the US.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/29/3685555/germany-sets-new-ren...
2
That is exactly right. The way to solve the carbon problem is to find non-carbon means of energy generation that are cheaper than carbon. Do that and India and China won't need persuasion. Don't do it and persuasion is difficult to impossible.
3
Another step along Brooks's path out of the GOTeaP. He has violated several principles of Holy Conservative Scripture. He has shown he actually accepts that climate change is real and declared his faith in science and technology rather than, umm, "faith". His worst sin, however, is to praise central governmental funding of basic research into (can you believe it?) "green" technology! He stands revealed as a stealth if not sneaky environmentalist. It won't save his reputation with the Tea Partiers, but he still dumps on international cooperation among governments. Even some of us on the left are skeptical. For ex., take any trade agreement you care to name, including the latest one. The same objections Hamilton/Brooks raise re the climate change conference and any agreement coming from it may be made, in spades, to trade agreements. Still, some agreements on environmental problems have been relatively successful, such as the various treaties to reduce ozone depletion, which is also a major climate change problem. I do agree that cost effective technological innovations will save us from the worst horrors of climate change, if anything can. That result will require rational governmental policies and laws, and if Brooks recognizes this fact, then he will complete his journey out of the fundamentally irrational conservative movement. I look forward to the cols. he will then write.
5
Unfortunately, Brooks is correct in his posture that no agreement to impose costs today for benefits tomorrow can be enforced. His view here is pragmatic and realistic, but to his credit, he does in fact acknowledge at least that there is a problem. I do in fact agree that the solution is in alternative energy sources, and that when they are economically feasible, they are most effective. That said, taxing carbon makes them more feasible.
Hamilton was one of the most influential and visionary Americans in government not elected president. Which is why he should stay on the ten dollar bill.
5
In order to have climate control ,you must have human control.The strongest driving force in humans is self preservation, religion, politics,or force cannot replace,this human instinct.As Mr. Brooks points out how can you expect people to agree to something that will not benefit them during their lifetime, & that is the crux of the problem.Mr.Brooks also commented on geotechnical approaches to the problem ,like reducing or eliminating carbon from the atmosphere, Impossible you say, so was landing on the Moon.People will not change, so we have to protect our environment Scientifically, in order to save our fragile Planet.But we must do this quickly before we blow ourselves apart
in a Nuclear War.
in a Nuclear War.
4
There's only one pragmatic argument that pretty much crosses all categories, namely that your children will have to cope with what you failed to do. Isn't that what Hamilton might have characterized as human nature's first interest?
48
Jeffrey,
Unfortunately, the answer to question,are our Children incentive enough
to control the pollution of our Planet. The answer unfortunately is no. if it was, we wouldn't have wars, & bigotry.
Unfortunately, the answer to question,are our Children incentive enough
to control the pollution of our Planet. The answer unfortunately is no. if it was, we wouldn't have wars, & bigotry.
"You’re asking people to impose costs on themselves today for some future benefit they will never see."
We are already seeing the destruction caused by climate change. Is that not enough?
We are already seeing the destruction caused by climate change. Is that not enough?
5
Curiously, that's also the main selling point of organized religion. Reward later, even though there's little evidence for it.
If religion sells, and it seems to, other rewards far down the pike might also. It just takes the right packaging.
If religion sells, and it seems to, other rewards far down the pike might also. It just takes the right packaging.
Our political leaders might focus on a concept called 'Passiv Haus' (google it). Apparently, people in buildings built to these standards in Europe save as much as 80% on shelter (home and business) heating / cooling costs. Think how much less coal or oil or gas or any other source of energy might be used if all human shelter was built to these standards ! It costs approximately 30% extra to build a new structure to these standards - but the payback / savings are forever ! US building standards (for new construction) should be improved to require Passiv Haus level of energy use. Unfortunately, retrofitting existing buildings is still far more expensive. I suggest that some of our research dollars be spent on this.
3
My once quiet and somewhat bucolic neighborhood has become a major construction zone. There is no way to get away from the dust and noise of all the tear downs and rebuilds in the form of McMansions. One might think that these new places would at least have solar panels and other carbon neutral energy. Of course not!
All are standard buildings that use gas and electricity for all power. And, they consume a lot of power. The style also includes many roof angles and heights, and many jigs and jogs in the outer footprint. This is known as a big energy sink. Any New Englander can tell you that the most energy efficient building is compact and has a simple rectangular footprint.
The first thing cities, counties, and states (especially in areas that receive a lot of sunlight) could do is insist that all new construction follow energy conservation guidelines and use alternative sources of energy to provide electricity for heat and light. The second necessary item is to cover all parking lots and public buildings with solar panels.
There are many ways to start the process of a switch to solar and heat pumps, but local governments that establish building codes do not require them.
All are standard buildings that use gas and electricity for all power. And, they consume a lot of power. The style also includes many roof angles and heights, and many jigs and jogs in the outer footprint. This is known as a big energy sink. Any New Englander can tell you that the most energy efficient building is compact and has a simple rectangular footprint.
The first thing cities, counties, and states (especially in areas that receive a lot of sunlight) could do is insist that all new construction follow energy conservation guidelines and use alternative sources of energy to provide electricity for heat and light. The second necessary item is to cover all parking lots and public buildings with solar panels.
There are many ways to start the process of a switch to solar and heat pumps, but local governments that establish building codes do not require them.
I can appreciate the effort in this one, but it still doesn't hold water. "...the Europeans have spent $280 billion on climate change with very little measurable impact on global temperatures. And as for carbon taxes, even if the U.S. imposed one on itself, it would have virtually no effect on the global climate." That's a silly argument against pricing carbon, given that no policy that is confined entirely to the US and W. Europe can be expected to have any effect. Even the reductions in US CO2 emissions he sites a bit further down has negligible impact, and is in fact due as much to the recession as to the fracking technology.
All serious economists agree that pricing carbon is exactly what would spur the innovation that Brooks is calling for, and it's a much smarter, more efficient, and effective approach than what appears to be Brooks' preferred alternative of subsidizing certain technologies that he thinks merit them.
All serious economists agree that pricing carbon is exactly what would spur the innovation that Brooks is calling for, and it's a much smarter, more efficient, and effective approach than what appears to be Brooks' preferred alternative of subsidizing certain technologies that he thinks merit them.
2
Brooks writes: "Green energy will beat dirty energy only when it makes technical and economic sense."
The question is, how do you define "economic sense". Since the beginning on the industrial revolution we have been permitting ourselves, as corporations, individuals, and governments, to use our precious atmosphere as a free garbage dump. It has become patently clear that that does NOT make economic sense in any but a short-term frame of reference.
As to making technical sense? We're already there. See the papers of Mark Z. Jacobson and his colleagues. And continuing and better-funded research will bring us even "more there". https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/
The question is, how do you define "economic sense". Since the beginning on the industrial revolution we have been permitting ourselves, as corporations, individuals, and governments, to use our precious atmosphere as a free garbage dump. It has become patently clear that that does NOT make economic sense in any but a short-term frame of reference.
As to making technical sense? We're already there. See the papers of Mark Z. Jacobson and his colleagues. And continuing and better-funded research will bring us even "more there". https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/
5
An import tax on goods scaled to the level of carbon created in the country of origine -- so jobs would not go to the cheapest production country ignoring carbon pollution.
4
Chris Christie just said on Morning Joe that climate change is just not a problem. It's not a problem because the climate has always been changing and men and women are not affecting it. He said it several times when pressed and accompanied his statements with a shrug of his shoulders as if it's just not a problem, why is everybody (the Democrats) getting so upset about it, there are more problems to deal with.
This from the man that continues to hurt New Jersey in the long aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. How many people lost their homes and still don't have them back and rebuilt?
This man has no business being on the national stage. Neither does any other Republican climate change denier. None of them (the Republicans) are capable of leading this country because of this one issue alone. Our military and the all powerful CIA both think climate change is a major, major issue. And the Republicans, I thought, always listen to these people. Why aren't they listening now?
If a Republican wins, the leadership needed to save our warming planet's inhabitants - us and all the flora and fauna - will not be there. It truly frightens me.
This from the man that continues to hurt New Jersey in the long aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. How many people lost their homes and still don't have them back and rebuilt?
This man has no business being on the national stage. Neither does any other Republican climate change denier. None of them (the Republicans) are capable of leading this country because of this one issue alone. Our military and the all powerful CIA both think climate change is a major, major issue. And the Republicans, I thought, always listen to these people. Why aren't they listening now?
If a Republican wins, the leadership needed to save our warming planet's inhabitants - us and all the flora and fauna - will not be there. It truly frightens me.
8
GREED IS GREAT!!! Its what makes the world go round and alternately DOWN.
1
Brooks says green will make sense only when it is affordable. OK, then drop subsidies for *all* power sources and include *all* their externalities such as nuclear waste storage/reprocessing energy/$ costs and we'll see who comes out on top. In this calculation, include their cost ramps over the next 30 years as natural gas displaces heavier carbon fuels. 'Biophysical economics' provides an excellent foundation for these calculations.
81
You can also include all the cost of cleaning up the mess left by coal companies--from the mine trailing slides to cleaning up the area after strip mining. Then charge the companies that still use coal as an energy source for the cost of all the carbon particles and CO2 let into the atmosphere by burning coal. There are scrubbers available that could be used to remove most of this, but the companies are too cheap to care about us; they only want to keep their big bonuses.
We must also include the costs of our Navy protecting the sea lanes for the oil tankers. If we add that cost, I have heard that the price of gasoline would be over $10 per gallon.
What makes you think these externalities are not now proceed in? The nuclear power industry has paid many billions of dollars as a federal tax for nuclear waste disposal.
I totally agree. Paris is a huge joke, primarily on us the taxpayers. Brooks' suggestions of government investment in better energy sources are spot on. But I doubt he will convince his Republican friends anytime soon.
Wait a second - Mr. Brooks says:
1. "as for carbon taxes, even if the U.S. imposed one on itself, it would have virtually no effect on the global climate."
2. "The U.S. has the fastest rate of reduction of CO2 emissions of any major nation on earth, back to pre-1996 levels. That’s in part because of fracking."
It would appear that the reader is supposed to conclude that fracking is MUCH more effective than a carbon tax would be at reducing CO2 levels. To this one must ask:
1. Is Mr. Brooks saying that the RATE of reduction has been reduced to pre-1966 levels, or is he saying that the level of CO2 has been reduced to pre-1966 levels?
2. Exactly (or even approximately) what percentage of the reduction is due to fracking?
3. A carbon tax has not even been attempted in the US, so what basis is there for the conclusion that a carbon tax would be useless?
1. "as for carbon taxes, even if the U.S. imposed one on itself, it would have virtually no effect on the global climate."
2. "The U.S. has the fastest rate of reduction of CO2 emissions of any major nation on earth, back to pre-1996 levels. That’s in part because of fracking."
It would appear that the reader is supposed to conclude that fracking is MUCH more effective than a carbon tax would be at reducing CO2 levels. To this one must ask:
1. Is Mr. Brooks saying that the RATE of reduction has been reduced to pre-1966 levels, or is he saying that the level of CO2 has been reduced to pre-1966 levels?
2. Exactly (or even approximately) what percentage of the reduction is due to fracking?
3. A carbon tax has not even been attempted in the US, so what basis is there for the conclusion that a carbon tax would be useless?
1
CA has a carbon tax and it seems to be working pretty well. We are part of the US,, though sometimes it feels like we are a separate nation-- looking forward, not in the rearview mirror.
I ask, no, I beg to all readers of this article that agree with its content to email it to all their friends and relatives. Rarely an article in the NYT is more clear, concise and correct than this one
Brooks, you got this half right. "The larger lesson is that innovation is the key. Green energy will beat dirty energy only when it makes technical and economic sense."
Yes, we need further innovation. We're only halfway down the cost curve for clean energy.
You have to add "when it makes political sense", because the biggest barriers to clean energy are politicians, and those who pay them. The entrenched coal, oil, gas, and power companies (grid) are fighting tooth and claw to prevent the implementation of clean energy.
There are barriers to technology implementation. The "thought police and AM radio interrogation", and well heeled think tanks, and ALEC, and political issue groups who spend billions to erect unnecessary barriers. Those barriers mainly serve to keep the carbon barons safe in their billions.
Yes, we need further innovation. We're only halfway down the cost curve for clean energy.
You have to add "when it makes political sense", because the biggest barriers to clean energy are politicians, and those who pay them. The entrenched coal, oil, gas, and power companies (grid) are fighting tooth and claw to prevent the implementation of clean energy.
There are barriers to technology implementation. The "thought police and AM radio interrogation", and well heeled think tanks, and ALEC, and political issue groups who spend billions to erect unnecessary barriers. Those barriers mainly serve to keep the carbon barons safe in their billions.
1
There were many who scoffed at the Philadelphia Convention that produced the U.S. Constitution. It will never work, they said. The States will cheat. Some of the States will break away. Only the rich will ever benefit.
All highly likely, and Hamilton would have seen this clearly at the time. Why else would he have devoted so much time and energy to the Federalist Papers and his vision of a strong central government? For all its faults, the United States has been a remarkable human achievement. The naysayers are largely forgotten.
The Alexander Hamilton of sustainability has yet to emerge. But I suspect that he or she is alive now, and may draw on this part of American history that inspires both perseverance and optimism.
All highly likely, and Hamilton would have seen this clearly at the time. Why else would he have devoted so much time and energy to the Federalist Papers and his vision of a strong central government? For all its faults, the United States has been a remarkable human achievement. The naysayers are largely forgotten.
The Alexander Hamilton of sustainability has yet to emerge. But I suspect that he or she is alive now, and may draw on this part of American history that inspires both perseverance and optimism.
1
As much as the GOP has opposed "Big Government"--but only when they were not running the show, mind you--many of our countries greatest innovations have, indeed, comes from government funding. Just consider: the trans-continental railroad, the Federal Highway Act, the general-purpose computer, the internet, much of our medical advances, etc.
As usual, this is another great column by Mr. Brooks. He generally has a most direct approach in what can be quite complicated matters.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
As usual, this is another great column by Mr. Brooks. He generally has a most direct approach in what can be quite complicated matters.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
So first the was no problem and nothing needed to be done.
Then humans didn't cause the problem and nothing could be done.
Now the problem is so big, we can do nothing right now, but we'll be developing technologies to deploy early in the next century.
Extraordinary how completely different analysis of the same issue can lead one to exactly the same policy prescription....
Then humans didn't cause the problem and nothing could be done.
Now the problem is so big, we can do nothing right now, but we'll be developing technologies to deploy early in the next century.
Extraordinary how completely different analysis of the same issue can lead one to exactly the same policy prescription....
Fracking is the answer to climate problems?
Only if you seek more methane leaks into the air, more water contamination, more earthquakes and other collateral damage (see: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-environ-031113-144051).
And one must forget social costs: the psychic damage to children and families living in fear of earthquakes, the astounding increase in rape and violence against women in oil field areas (especially high against native American women), the fear felt by those living next to our crumbling infrastructure of railroad lines and pipelines which are unsafe transportation systems and lethal accidents just waiting to happen.
But, in some alternate universe in which a dead Founding Father gives advice to a New York Times columnist, fracking is a great thing for our environment so ... all is good. On the other hand, in this universe, fracking being good for the environment is not a sound conclusion.
Only if you seek more methane leaks into the air, more water contamination, more earthquakes and other collateral damage (see: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-environ-031113-144051).
And one must forget social costs: the psychic damage to children and families living in fear of earthquakes, the astounding increase in rape and violence against women in oil field areas (especially high against native American women), the fear felt by those living next to our crumbling infrastructure of railroad lines and pipelines which are unsafe transportation systems and lethal accidents just waiting to happen.
But, in some alternate universe in which a dead Founding Father gives advice to a New York Times columnist, fracking is a great thing for our environment so ... all is good. On the other hand, in this universe, fracking being good for the environment is not a sound conclusion.
9
Lord Brooks...I also had a séance with Lord Hamilton and he said something different to me.
He said there were just one billion people on the planet at the time of his 1804 death and he said some other things:
"Has modern humanity lost its reproductive mind with 7.3 billion and counting ?"
"Have you no modern birth control ?"
"Have you no self-control as a species ?"
"Have you no public sex education ?"
"I played a 'Christian' for political purposes too during my career, but this archaic 'be fruitful and multiply' biblical nonsense is simply an environmental catastrophe."
'You can't just breed like rabbits - just ask your Pope for Christsake !"
"And what's with the Republican War on science, reality, women and contraception while we're at ?"
"Solar panels are lovely for reducing carbon emissions, but how about a prophylactic panel between a man's testes and a woman's uterus to defuse your human overpopulation time bomb emissions ?"
"Do you really think the Earth will thank you with a warm hug at 10 billion humans ?"
"Why not hand out free vasectomies and IUD implants instead of clinging to religious overpopulation and recklessness....after all it's 2015, not 1804....surely you must've learned something in 211 years besides 'be fruitful and multiply."
"Well, maybe humans haven't learned anything; at least you'll always have guns and wars to destroy each other if common sense fails, as it often does."
"Trust me, I know...both my son and I were killed by guns..."
He said there were just one billion people on the planet at the time of his 1804 death and he said some other things:
"Has modern humanity lost its reproductive mind with 7.3 billion and counting ?"
"Have you no modern birth control ?"
"Have you no self-control as a species ?"
"Have you no public sex education ?"
"I played a 'Christian' for political purposes too during my career, but this archaic 'be fruitful and multiply' biblical nonsense is simply an environmental catastrophe."
'You can't just breed like rabbits - just ask your Pope for Christsake !"
"And what's with the Republican War on science, reality, women and contraception while we're at ?"
"Solar panels are lovely for reducing carbon emissions, but how about a prophylactic panel between a man's testes and a woman's uterus to defuse your human overpopulation time bomb emissions ?"
"Do you really think the Earth will thank you with a warm hug at 10 billion humans ?"
"Why not hand out free vasectomies and IUD implants instead of clinging to religious overpopulation and recklessness....after all it's 2015, not 1804....surely you must've learned something in 211 years besides 'be fruitful and multiply."
"Well, maybe humans haven't learned anything; at least you'll always have guns and wars to destroy each other if common sense fails, as it often does."
"Trust me, I know...both my son and I were killed by guns..."
286
Malthusian thinking, which has been wrong for nearly 200 years. The NY Times itself has published an interesting film retrospective on the Paul Ehrlich "population explosion" mania of the 1970's. Ehrlich himself is not contrite, but none of his predictions have come to pass.
The flaw in the Malthus/Ehrlich logic is that people, unlike Ehrlich's butterflies, can act in their own self-interest and have rapidly reduced their fertility, while technology advanced produce more food.
The flaw in the Malthus/Ehrlich logic is that people, unlike Ehrlich's butterflies, can act in their own self-interest and have rapidly reduced their fertility, while technology advanced produce more food.
Having spent several years working in Asia, I would not believe anything promised by the Chinese government.
4
Ask the people of the Bay Area endorse your statement-- our politicians bought Chinese steel for the new Bay Bridge and now they are trying to cover their tracks on this inept-- and dare I say unpatriotic-- purchase.
Free trade and environmental protection are fundamentally at odds with each other. As long as we open our doors to tariff-free imports from countries that pollute the air we breathe and the water we drink, our environment will continue to deteriorate. Our only real weapon to force other countries to achieve environmental improvements is to bar imports from those countries.
7
Acknowledging the obvious about the Republican's Soviet dictatorship, Brooks repeats his simpler times remedies, when capitalists provided the requisite salvation in creed and faith provided the insurance. We're supposed to accept that the holy entrepreneurial spirit will provide---made all the more nostalgic with the Hamilton gimmick substituting for God the Father. But our capitalist theology was never in fact meant to save the community---no matter which version of Buckley's Nicene Creed is invoked. We have learned that their salvation is only another means for profit and exploitation. Thiis time humanity's collective fate is more likely truly in "God's hands." Countries are not individuals with interests competing in a marketplace for salvation. More likely, the truths of selection will prevail: we are virus the earth can no longer sustain. The issue isn't what will not be accomplished either in Paris or by the next savior who redeems capitalist civilization by innovation but just how long we still have. Electing a Republican President Rubio would be our best hope of expediting The End, content as Wonder Boy Second Coming of Reagan is to advance the Brooks soteriology. Noah should have left us out. The rest of the nature would have been grateful.
40
David Brooks starts out with "I've been confused..." and that pretty much sums up David Brooks...
10
Ultra-conservatism will ultimately ruin the world for everyone. Their anti-government, self-reliant screed while their states take in more gov't money than they put in, is the unsurpassable zenith of hypocrisy. Facts don't matter. The all about us, US, with its exceptional ignorance, breathtaking self-importance and propagandized public has become morbidly obese, gobbling up resources and discharging its fetid flatulence as if the world was its latrine. Other big countries are following our lead. The privy economy won't solve this one alone David.
5
"The expected economic costs of unaddressed global warming over the next century are likely to be about 3 percent of world gross domestic product." Wow. Hard to believe that line appears in the same Manzi / Wehner piece David cited as this one: "By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position", as if the significance of losing 100,000 species to extinction every year -- 10,000 times as many per year as normal -- which is just one of the sobering facts of climate change, can be described in accounting terms and measured as a fraction of GDP. And what's up with the offhanded dismissal of carbon pricing? Don't we need to do that to "arouse, energize and stir up enterprise"?
We need a hip hop version of Henry V's unto the breech speech, not mailed in columns by smug journalists.
We need a hip hop version of Henry V's unto the breech speech, not mailed in columns by smug journalists.
3
Mr. Brooks appears to be slowly coming around to the idea that we have a big problem on our hands, a point made by climate advocates since the 1990's. International Treaties are difficult because countries can cheat and there will be winners and losers. Technology will not be developed fast enough unless we have laws and incentives in place that drive innovation at a highly disruptive pace. Addressing this problem requires vision and leadership, two qualities Mr. Brooks continues to lack and demonstrated again in this milk toast editorial.
His characterization of the Republican Party falls far short of the truth, which includes unforgiving levels of evil intent. He must know that the Republican Party is not acting out of fear, but rather active participants in a money making scheme that will result in the death of many innocent people.
His characterization of the Republican Party falls far short of the truth, which includes unforgiving levels of evil intent. He must know that the Republican Party is not acting out of fear, but rather active participants in a money making scheme that will result in the death of many innocent people.
The difficulty for most people is individually most have very little control over anything that might bring real reductions in carbon or increases in energy efficiency. I have lobbied for my home heating oil supplier to begin blending biodiesel but they won't. Now I have an opportunity to switch to natural gas which would very dramatically reduce my carbon emissions over the winter season but I have to wait for the water and gas companies to work together to install the infrastructure. Meanwhile, RGGI proponents want to "count" my carbon reduction and have me pay for the privilege so they can sell the credits and make money off my investment. Absurd!
Embrace both. Ask the world to be adult, make some tough decisions, try to adhere to as much as possible but also invest in newer more efficient technologies.
Given the tremendous risks posed by climate change we should also provide abundant funds for research in order to improve the efficiency, safety and operations of nuclear plants as well as sustainable management of nuclear waste.
Green tech-- or less humans? .......why is 7.3 billion better than one billion. And if it is better, why not 100 billion? ...... why not a world-wide, one child policy by financial incentives.
Brooks looks to governments to lead the research essential for the development and wide adoption of green energy technology. Sounds good to me, but weird coming from a Republican. His party, following the ideology of Saint Reagan (scariest words..."I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you"), views government as the problem and paying taxes as foolish, not as the price of civilization. With the money amassed in large part from the oil and gas industry, Republicans have spent decades undermining the legitimacy of the federal government and starving it of the resources needed to fund the national labs David envisions coming to our rescue. With "leaders" like James Inhofe, what are the chances Congress will provide the funding needed for national labs? Instead, we'll spend more on the military, hoping to keep Middle East oil flowiing. And if one of the Republican hopefuls winds up in the Oval Office, the U.S. leadership in the battle for the future of the planet will dissolve, along with the world's chances for a viable future.
106
This statement is profoundly erroneous: "And as for carbon taxes, even if the U.S. imposed one on itself, it would have virtually no effect on the global climate." A carbon tax is essential to pay for the damage of carbon pollution now. But more significantly, and the reason the author is in error, a carbon tax would make solar cheaper than carbon pollution today. This would have a huge impact on carbon pollution. Further, a carbon tax would increase future investment in solar innovations for both future cost reduction and future massive deployment. Looked at appropriately, carbon pollution is not competitive with solar today and is rapidly becoming less competitive.
2
Natural selection has hard wired Homo sapiens to not worry about what is likely to happen in 100 years even If it’s likely to create a catastrophe. This evolutionary process took hundreds of thousands of years, and we are not going to reverse it any time soon. People in the US are not going to give up their huge homes and giant pickup trucks to ward off the collapse of the polar ice caps that could take in several hundred years. Actually, when you think about it, we should probably change the name of our species which comes from Latin and translates as "wise preson" to sometning more appropriate like "Homo stultus".
26
Conservatives cannot acknowledge climate change because they fear the solutions. They know the solution will involve government so they deny the problem. Perhaps they need to propose market solutions. Of course they would then be afoul of their political benefactors like the Koch brothers.
Most conservatives view the world in a self centered or tribal manner, good for me or bad for me. They will only get on board about climate change until there cottage by the shore is under water. The only solution is to make climate change pay. If conservatives can make money saving the environment they will be all over it.
Most conservatives view the world in a self centered or tribal manner, good for me or bad for me. They will only get on board about climate change until there cottage by the shore is under water. The only solution is to make climate change pay. If conservatives can make money saving the environment they will be all over it.
83
Fracking was developed with little government support. Yet, as Brooks notes, the development of fracking has been the single biggest reason why US greenhouse gas emissions are dropping.
Lets see what foreswear growth means. Mcmega mansions that need gigantic amounts of cooling and heating, sprawling yards with chemical lawns, swimming pools in yards that need gallons and gallons of water, chemicals, maintenance, 2-3 vehicles per family, plastic colored toys filling up children's play room from floor to ceiling, mudrooms and closets full of shoes, flip flops, slippers and boots to match every outfit, sweaters and clothes spilling off closets that you can't even shut the closet door so why bother, refrigerators and freezers stuffed with food (from BJs and Costcos) till they rot beyond expiry and get thrown out anyway, garages and basements stuffed with "stuff", lawn mowers, riding mowers, snow blowers, leaf blowers, bbq grills, fire pits, basketball courts, tennis courts...yay baby, its the American Dream.
1
You don't need to go back so far in order to ask Hamilton. NIH funding in the biomedical sciences starting in the 60's and 70's led to major advances in our understanding of disease as well as the development of new therapeutic strategies. As a further benefit to the US, those technological advances funded by the US government led to American dominance in the biotechnology area resulting in the creation of many high paying jobs and stimulus to the economy. Furthermore, it should be noted that the original funding in molecular biology was made without the foggiest notion how that research would translate into medical practice and commercialization. It is also important to realize that not every research project supported by NIH was successful. Similarly, Federal support in the IT field (mainly DARPA) also led to US domination in the computer and information technology fields. Given those success stories of government funding to support innovation, it is striking that there has been so little federal funding in the renewable energy field. It is also noteworthy that the renewable energy field is not dominated by American companies and start-ups.
3
Regarding the thought that we could put our great national labs to work on geoengineering problems to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, to improve co-generation, to research improved battery and smart-grid technology, etc. -- we already do. The Department of Energy's national labs already conduct substantial research in these areas. But instead of receiving increased support and priority for this research, DOE constantly faces the threat of funding cuts and even outright elimination. In the 2012 presidential campaign, Republican candidates Ron Paul and Rick Perry called for the total elimination of DOE, while in the current campaign, Ted Cruz has similarly called for its abolition.
2
So, your argument is based on the happy fact that the economic costs of unaddressed climate change are only "likely to be about 3 percent of world gross domestic product." ". . . not the sort of cataclysmic immediate threat. . ."
As Alfred E. Newman famously said, "What, me worry?" So now our environmental ethics are just an economic issue. I suppose the cost of unaddressed climate change is low because poor people are so inexpensive to bury and because the extinction of species is cost-free!
It is uniquely conservative to take climate change advice from an 18th century banker.
As Alfred E. Newman famously said, "What, me worry?" So now our environmental ethics are just an economic issue. I suppose the cost of unaddressed climate change is low because poor people are so inexpensive to bury and because the extinction of species is cost-free!
It is uniquely conservative to take climate change advice from an 18th century banker.
1
" The U.S. has the fastest rate of reduction of CO2 emissions of any major nation on earth, back to pre-1996 levels.
That’s in part because of fracking. Natural gas is replacing coal, and natural gas emits about half as much carbon dioxide."
Mr Brooks, you left out how fast of an INCREASE the US has regarding emission of methane, which is a tad worse for the climate and temperature than is carbon dioxide. Nice try.
That’s in part because of fracking. Natural gas is replacing coal, and natural gas emits about half as much carbon dioxide."
Mr Brooks, you left out how fast of an INCREASE the US has regarding emission of methane, which is a tad worse for the climate and temperature than is carbon dioxide. Nice try.
1
David Brooks (2015) writes, "Or, with the right government boost, it presents an opportunity to arouse and incite entrepreneurs, innovators and investors and foment a new technological revolution."
David Brooks (2012) writes, "But he who lives by the subsidy dies by the subsidy. Government planners should not be betting on what technologies will develop fastest."
Which David Brooks should we believe? The one who in 2012 decried government intervention or the one in 2015 who supports a government boost?
David Brooks (2012) writes, "But he who lives by the subsidy dies by the subsidy. Government planners should not be betting on what technologies will develop fastest."
Which David Brooks should we believe? The one who in 2012 decried government intervention or the one in 2015 who supports a government boost?
2
I think David is rightfully seeing how far the US drops in the world with every dollar we do not spend on innovation and every step we take to belittle brain power. In other words, the right wing nonsense has taken hold and it frightens David to see the outcomes-- outcomes which we on the progressive side predicted would happen.
The present....so-called GOP...(which isn't the GOP of Eisenhower era ; but
the usurped GOP...according to the one-percent who control the campaign
funds...yes David this new age GOP...is far afield of the new age GOP
which is manipulated by the self-serving PAC masters...like KOCH..
come on David...this is a FACT !!!)
Well...dictatorships...vis a vis KOCH...well ...yes...that is what this MASQUERADE
of GOP...is now...and ...your head is intentionally or not intentionally
buried in the nice old days of people who worked hard and played fair.
Well...that is not the case ...The new GOP masqueraders are the dictators
or puppets of the Wizards of OZ...like Koch or Adelson..and they are far
from the nice guys like you...Time to wake up Brooks...and be a real GOP.
the usurped GOP...according to the one-percent who control the campaign
funds...yes David this new age GOP...is far afield of the new age GOP
which is manipulated by the self-serving PAC masters...like KOCH..
come on David...this is a FACT !!!)
Well...dictatorships...vis a vis KOCH...well ...yes...that is what this MASQUERADE
of GOP...is now...and ...your head is intentionally or not intentionally
buried in the nice old days of people who worked hard and played fair.
Well...that is not the case ...The new GOP masqueraders are the dictators
or puppets of the Wizards of OZ...like Koch or Adelson..and they are far
from the nice guys like you...Time to wake up Brooks...and be a real GOP.
Conservative Christians simply deny evolution because they see, correctly, that it's an existential threat to Christianity. Conservative Republicans simply deny climate change because they see, correctly, that it's an existential threat to an Ayn Rand-like, laissez-faire capitalism. They're aided in their denial by...evolution. We evolved to see threats such as saber-toothed tigers at 200 yards right away. We're not as good about invisible viruses or bacteria or 'distant' slow moving amorphous threats like a warming planet.
3
For the slippery slick not-totally-crazy Republicans (Brooks included) China bashing has replaced patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel.
This latest sleigh-of-hand is a lesson in eating the cake and having it too (which, by the way is the original formulation of the famous saying -- Krugman docet.)
On the one hand, with a nice kick in the shin, Brooks tosses out the embarrassing know-nothing science deniers, and tries to restore the virginity of the Very Serious Republicans who, of course, know the truth on climate change but use the alibi of the hyper conservative vote as an excuse for their silence, when in reality they are simply paying their dues to the fossil-fuel cartel.
On the other Brooks goes on a rampage about those awful cheating nations like China (surprise he didn't mention Germany and VW) -- with the implicit assertion that WE are pure and candid like driven snow. And to top it off, he slams an elbow in the rib cage of Europe declaring that their efforts and 280B dollars to reduce pollution had no effect -- the very kind of argument Dick Cheney made when he ridiculed grass root, local, individual and community projects to switch to green energy.
As they say in Paris, plus ca change ... [how do you type a cedille and accent aigue in the NYT comment boxes?}
This latest sleigh-of-hand is a lesson in eating the cake and having it too (which, by the way is the original formulation of the famous saying -- Krugman docet.)
On the one hand, with a nice kick in the shin, Brooks tosses out the embarrassing know-nothing science deniers, and tries to restore the virginity of the Very Serious Republicans who, of course, know the truth on climate change but use the alibi of the hyper conservative vote as an excuse for their silence, when in reality they are simply paying their dues to the fossil-fuel cartel.
On the other Brooks goes on a rampage about those awful cheating nations like China (surprise he didn't mention Germany and VW) -- with the implicit assertion that WE are pure and candid like driven snow. And to top it off, he slams an elbow in the rib cage of Europe declaring that their efforts and 280B dollars to reduce pollution had no effect -- the very kind of argument Dick Cheney made when he ridiculed grass root, local, individual and community projects to switch to green energy.
As they say in Paris, plus ca change ... [how do you type a cedille and accent aigue in the NYT comment boxes?}
So founding fathers would just do nothing but make excuses until we invent something we do not yet have. Using a similar approach, they would have never started a revolution, but would have simply waited.
1
The problem with climate change policy is pressure from ideologues on the one side and financially interested parties on the other. The ideologues brook no compromise! They demand wind water and solar tomorrow! No pragmatic compromise gets past this bunch-nuclear? No way-too dangerous. Gas instead of coal, at least for a while? No way-polluting and fracking spoils the water-damn all the studies that says it doesn't, if done carefully. Pipelines to carry Alberta oil? No way-don't build them, an environmental triumph, so the oil moves by railroad tank cars, which crash periodically. Etc. Etc. On the other side, the "War on Coal" prevents a rigorous regulatory approach from more quickly eliminating this obviously polluting source of energy. What to do?
What about economic incentives and the price mechanism? Get energy prices as right as they can be and let the cleaner sources gradually come in as they out compete the alternatives. What then about the "externalities"-the dirtier sources will always be cheaper by dodging the true environmental costs. Is the only possible answer: intelligent regulation and limited subsidization possible at all in this battle of dug-in positions? Will the establishment press, which is completely committed to the ideologue environmentalist position chose balance instead? Tune in later for an answer!
What about economic incentives and the price mechanism? Get energy prices as right as they can be and let the cleaner sources gradually come in as they out compete the alternatives. What then about the "externalities"-the dirtier sources will always be cheaper by dodging the true environmental costs. Is the only possible answer: intelligent regulation and limited subsidization possible at all in this battle of dug-in positions? Will the establishment press, which is completely committed to the ideologue environmentalist position chose balance instead? Tune in later for an answer!
Fascinating - if superficial - take on history and technology. Green energy will replace dirty energy only when it makes technical and economic sense? Well the technology is there; it's the economic side that needs work.
The efforts of the carbon cabal to derail incentives to move away from their carbon cash cow show that economics can be a useful lever. It comes down to the most basic of all questions: who pays for it, and who profits?
The carbon cabal, in the simplest terms, is profiting from polluting and cooking the planet - the rest of us are paying, both for their dirty energy and the consequences of it. Shifting to green energy (and natural gas is only a stop-gap. Want earthquakes with your fracking?) at anything less than the maximum practical rate simply prolongs the unfair shifting of costs onto those least able to pay, and racks up an ever bigger cost from the damage carbon fuels do.
It's not a hard sell once you clear away the literal and figurative smoke.
The efforts of the carbon cabal to derail incentives to move away from their carbon cash cow show that economics can be a useful lever. It comes down to the most basic of all questions: who pays for it, and who profits?
The carbon cabal, in the simplest terms, is profiting from polluting and cooking the planet - the rest of us are paying, both for their dirty energy and the consequences of it. Shifting to green energy (and natural gas is only a stop-gap. Want earthquakes with your fracking?) at anything less than the maximum practical rate simply prolongs the unfair shifting of costs onto those least able to pay, and racks up an ever bigger cost from the damage carbon fuels do.
It's not a hard sell once you clear away the literal and figurative smoke.
Dear Mr Brooks, I get the feeling that you were not 100% vested in this piece. You are holding back. Afraid. Knowing that the whole modern GOP thing is intellectual suicide.
America can play an important role in helping future generations survive and adapt to the changes to our little blue marble. But the world community is not going abide the insanity of our infantile politic much longer.
We need to embrace science and engineering and humanism. The world needs to help China clean its soil, water and air to prevent a societal meltdown. The world needs a similar effort to help India clean itself of pollution that creates "superbugs" that threaten the rest of the world. The world needs to extend that effort to every nook and cranny of our planet.
And we need new Founding Fathers, unafraid of the truth.
America can play an important role in helping future generations survive and adapt to the changes to our little blue marble. But the world community is not going abide the insanity of our infantile politic much longer.
We need to embrace science and engineering and humanism. The world needs to help China clean its soil, water and air to prevent a societal meltdown. The world needs a similar effort to help India clean itself of pollution that creates "superbugs" that threaten the rest of the world. The world needs to extend that effort to every nook and cranny of our planet.
And we need new Founding Fathers, unafraid of the truth.
4
Hmmmm......"according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the expected economic costs of unaddressed global warming over the next century are likely to be about 3 percent of world gross domestic product. "
The above percentage seems low, but it also seems incomplete. How much does it cost to make a tree? Or fresh water? Or viable non-acidic sea water? Or the air we breathe? How much does all that we take as a given, as "free," truly cost? If we attached the true costs of all that we do to our products, of all the resources we consumer, and we eliminate the subsidies supporting all that fall under the broad category of non-renewables, the fossils, et.al., we may just find that focusing on renewables along with cutting back on our rapacious, locust-like, consumption of the Earth, might sharpen our focus (as a species) on that which can truly sustain us longer term...
Folks, the Earth is our Commons. The question is can we discipline ourselves sufficiently so to not (yet again) enact a Tragedy of the Commons? The choice is ours.
John~
American Net'Zen
The above percentage seems low, but it also seems incomplete. How much does it cost to make a tree? Or fresh water? Or viable non-acidic sea water? Or the air we breathe? How much does all that we take as a given, as "free," truly cost? If we attached the true costs of all that we do to our products, of all the resources we consumer, and we eliminate the subsidies supporting all that fall under the broad category of non-renewables, the fossils, et.al., we may just find that focusing on renewables along with cutting back on our rapacious, locust-like, consumption of the Earth, might sharpen our focus (as a species) on that which can truly sustain us longer term...
Folks, the Earth is our Commons. The question is can we discipline ourselves sufficiently so to not (yet again) enact a Tragedy of the Commons? The choice is ours.
John~
American Net'Zen
75
Or, as someone put it, if you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding you breath while you count your money.
1
Actually, as Americans, we have chosen and are largely successful in improving out carb on footprint. No, the choice is not ours, it is "theirs".
There is a disconcerting irony to the climate control gathering in Paris. It is not that it is doomed to fail because we are too self-interested to do what is best for the many at the expense of the individual. It is not that our energy industries will subvert whatever accords are reached by their ruthless survival instinct. It is not that people don’t care about the long-term viability of the planet to sustain life. It is that the same group of leaders who want to trust each other to save the planet are also building ever more potent military machines to supposedly protect their nation from the other nations. So imagine if instead of just trying to agree on ways to slow climate change, they said, “Hey, if we think we can trust each other to slow climate change, why don’t we consider saying that we won’t invade one another and will respect each others sovereignty. After all, what good is saving the planet if we end up killing each other." Then maybe they can also talk about a peace dividend that might allow us to reduce or redirect our military budgets by even a small percentage and invest that money in technologies that reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. The irony is that we are so scared and distrustful of each other that we spend untold trillions to “defend” against each other, but are now making noises as if we want to save each other. Maybe it all makes sense, but not much.
39
Wow, sounds like Alexander Hamilton would never get elected in a GOP primary. Mr. Brooks, you are clearly an admirer of Hamilton, so can you explain when The Alexander Hamilton society clearly does not understand his legacy. The Alexander Hamilton Society has a Statement of Principles that includes the following "A measured pride in the success of the American experiment; an understanding that America’s greatness is the result of its commitment to individual liberty, limited government, economic freedom, the rule of law, human dignity, and democracy" - How does collective action fit with these stated principles?
1
Perhaps if Republicans would focus less on the occasional failure like
Solyndra and more on the many successes derived from government investment in technology we could make some progress along the lines Mr. Brooks proposes. Perhaps if we stopped subsidizing corn ethanol and started subsidizing economically significant renewables we would make even more progress. Once again Mr. Brooks focuses on what he doesn't like about President Obama and fails to identify the destructive behavior of Republicans.
Solyndra and more on the many successes derived from government investment in technology we could make some progress along the lines Mr. Brooks proposes. Perhaps if we stopped subsidizing corn ethanol and started subsidizing economically significant renewables we would make even more progress. Once again Mr. Brooks focuses on what he doesn't like about President Obama and fails to identify the destructive behavior of Republicans.
Cleaner air today won't buy food. To make any of these efforts work, it is all or none and all isn't very interested.
Hamilton has long since departed and now we have Trump and Cruz, et al, and a bevy of other Republican leaders waiting to take up the call.
Hamilton has long since departed and now we have Trump and Cruz, et al, and a bevy of other Republican leaders waiting to take up the call.
1
If the Republicans had not been pumping fantasy into debate since 1980, and administrations such as Clinton's not dismantled the few remaining restraints to runaway predatory post-capitalism, we might be in a position to do something collectively. Putting a man on the Moon was the last time the country actually trusted government to reach for the then impossible. Now its is somehow the enemy, that erstwhile government of the people that once shone brightly.
Let's change the culture a tad by refusing to watch TV and movies that depict speech involving science as babble to be dismissed. This culture of might makes right is dooming itself to being neither right nor mighty. Great comedy watching the tragic decline, though. One benefit to the ascendancy of the Tea Party mindset is that popcorn sales must be going through the roof, worldwide.
Let's change the culture a tad by refusing to watch TV and movies that depict speech involving science as babble to be dismissed. This culture of might makes right is dooming itself to being neither right nor mighty. Great comedy watching the tragic decline, though. One benefit to the ascendancy of the Tea Party mindset is that popcorn sales must be going through the roof, worldwide.
A number of good ideas near the end. The challenge lies in having anything like Hamilton's practical view and societal / governmental encouragement of innovation. Most dogmatic conservatives seem intentionally ignorant of the concept of public goods and free-rider effects (except when applied to national defense, perhaps). Almost as much as they are intentionally ignorant or in denial about climate change.
"Green energy will beat dirty energy only when it makes technical and economic sense."
We did not wait to make a quarter million bombers to win WWII until it made technical and economic sense, to stop the Nazis and the Holocaust of the Jews. We tried and found that in less than 4 years we could manufacture the million turbines needed for the four propeller aircraft. This catapulted our economy and our technology to make us the greatest superpower in the history of mankind.
Now Mr Brooks is urging us to wait to stop our Planet's Holocaust until it makes economic and technological sense. He is playing the violin praising fossil fuel gas while our planet is heating up.
But in a recent study by researchers from the University of California, Irvine; Stanford University; and the nonprofit organization Near Zero—examined varying combinations of natural gas supply and climate policies. In some scenarios, they found that use of natural gas would actually boost emissions from the power sector by up to 5 percent. It is not just the CO2 from burning fossil fuels but unburned gases escaping fracking.
We need to kick the fossil fuel habit in less than ten years to stop this greater threat of Holocaust to our Planet, our Home.
Whoever leads the way their economy and technology will launch them into an even greater economic and technological superpower dwarfing the previous one. Will it be the Chinese? or the Europeans? or will the US wake up from our stupor and take the lead?
We did not wait to make a quarter million bombers to win WWII until it made technical and economic sense, to stop the Nazis and the Holocaust of the Jews. We tried and found that in less than 4 years we could manufacture the million turbines needed for the four propeller aircraft. This catapulted our economy and our technology to make us the greatest superpower in the history of mankind.
Now Mr Brooks is urging us to wait to stop our Planet's Holocaust until it makes economic and technological sense. He is playing the violin praising fossil fuel gas while our planet is heating up.
But in a recent study by researchers from the University of California, Irvine; Stanford University; and the nonprofit organization Near Zero—examined varying combinations of natural gas supply and climate policies. In some scenarios, they found that use of natural gas would actually boost emissions from the power sector by up to 5 percent. It is not just the CO2 from burning fossil fuels but unburned gases escaping fracking.
We need to kick the fossil fuel habit in less than ten years to stop this greater threat of Holocaust to our Planet, our Home.
Whoever leads the way their economy and technology will launch them into an even greater economic and technological superpower dwarfing the previous one. Will it be the Chinese? or the Europeans? or will the US wake up from our stupor and take the lead?
1
Brooks must fear the thought police, too, if he needs to summon up the ghost of Alexander Hamilton to talk about energy and environment.
We can put our efforts into energy the way we did space - or frankly we can watch China do it. Both of our nations have huge, growing energy needs, which will continue as long as we have populations.
The country that finds the way to produce renewable energy efficiently, or finds a way to reduce atmospheric carbon, will be the nation with the robust economy. Focused on drowning our government in a bathtub, the Wizards in Washington appear comfortable with letting that nation not be the US.
We can put our efforts into energy the way we did space - or frankly we can watch China do it. Both of our nations have huge, growing energy needs, which will continue as long as we have populations.
The country that finds the way to produce renewable energy efficiently, or finds a way to reduce atmospheric carbon, will be the nation with the robust economy. Focused on drowning our government in a bathtub, the Wizards in Washington appear comfortable with letting that nation not be the US.
2
"Overall, the Europeans have spent $280 billion on [combatting] climate change with very little measurable impact on global temperatures."
David, I'm not seeing your point, here. The top three polluters are China, the U.S., and India. Without the cooperation of the biggest polluters, how much can we reasonably expect the EU to significantly lower global temperatures on its own?
David, I'm not seeing your point, here. The top three polluters are China, the U.S., and India. Without the cooperation of the biggest polluters, how much can we reasonably expect the EU to significantly lower global temperatures on its own?
3
As the bloggers hypocritically moaned and groaned over the destructive effects of global warming and climate change I'm willing to wager that none of them are going to give up their creature comforts anytime soon. The bloggers would be totally lost without their cars and I bet not one of them has solar panels on the roofs of their homes. Shame on all of you for leaving such a huge carbon foot print. (In the interest of full disclosure I don't have a car)
1
Amen.
1
US emissions of CO2 per dollar of GDP are now half of what they were in 1996. However, our GDP is now well over twice as large as it was in 1996. As far as the climate system is concerned, this is not progress.
1
Perhaps Mr. Brooks in his séances with the 18th century Mr. Hamilton should ask him why is it that humankind has an inexorable propensity to experiment on itself without knowing its outcome? Specifically with climate, we know that all life depends on climate, we know that we are causing climate change, but when it comes to solutions, the right-wing in particular, prefers relying on more experimentation on fanciful and untried technology to fix the problem in the future rather than simply taking action now. Now that is a worthwhile question to Mr. Hamilton.
2
Just seems there are too many humans on our planet.
Mother Nature will correct that.
Mother Nature will correct that.
7
David,
Absolutely excellent article. I like the way you have weighed in under the name of one of the founding fathers, but, injected your own perspective. Even though I am aware of the fake handoff, it worked. Your thoughts seemed to carry more weight coming from a ghost. This might be because I am aware of your 20 year love affair for Republicans, and, most of the time think you might be lying too.
And, your complete understanding of what drives Republicans, three hours of pure insanity on AM radio every day, is great to see.
For more than 20, maybe 30 years, Rush Limbaugh has contorted himself and the Republican Party with good verbal skills (brought on by the Oxycontin) and split apart the country with ravings of a lunatic (brought on by the Oxycontin).
As your awakening continues, please accept my congratulations on coming to understand your former love. It is not easy ditching a beautiful woman, on the outside, that lies, cheats, steals, and kills her husbands.
Absolutely excellent article. I like the way you have weighed in under the name of one of the founding fathers, but, injected your own perspective. Even though I am aware of the fake handoff, it worked. Your thoughts seemed to carry more weight coming from a ghost. This might be because I am aware of your 20 year love affair for Republicans, and, most of the time think you might be lying too.
And, your complete understanding of what drives Republicans, three hours of pure insanity on AM radio every day, is great to see.
For more than 20, maybe 30 years, Rush Limbaugh has contorted himself and the Republican Party with good verbal skills (brought on by the Oxycontin) and split apart the country with ravings of a lunatic (brought on by the Oxycontin).
As your awakening continues, please accept my congratulations on coming to understand your former love. It is not easy ditching a beautiful woman, on the outside, that lies, cheats, steals, and kills her husbands.
3
We are already at the tipping point where people can get off the grid, but they are being frustrated by laws that make them pay utilities and local governments for the right to have free energy. Green energy will be a reality by the end of this century because it is in your near term interest to get free energy (low cost when you factor in buying the equipment to get it).
With regard to "denying" climate change, it certainly appears to be happening but nobody can explain the "models" to the masses. If Republicans get beat up over climate change it is justified. At some point some politician will get that pollution and high cost of energy are immediate problems that green tech solves - and they will win.
With regard to "denying" climate change, it certainly appears to be happening but nobody can explain the "models" to the masses. If Republicans get beat up over climate change it is justified. At some point some politician will get that pollution and high cost of energy are immediate problems that green tech solves - and they will win.
4
Here's the answer, tele-communicated from Hamilton through Brooks:
"The larger lesson is that innovation is the key. Green energy will beat dirty energy only when it makes technical and economic sense."
Haute cuisine in Paris a la carbon footprints everywhere is not the answer. The answer is here at home, staring you in the face, Mr. President.
"The larger lesson is that innovation is the key. Green energy will beat dirty energy only when it makes technical and economic sense."
Haute cuisine in Paris a la carbon footprints everywhere is not the answer. The answer is here at home, staring you in the face, Mr. President.
3
"[A] vast majority of Republican politicians can’t publicly say what they know about the truth of climate change because they’re afraid the thought police will knock on their door and drag them off to an AM radio interrogation."
Aha! And pray tell, what other truths do Republican politicians know that they cannot say out loud? We have our suspicions, of course. We are generally torn between thinking they are just lying -- as Mr Brooks says, because of the thought police -- and that they really believe the stuff they say because they are that stupid. I'm not sure which is worse.
Aha! And pray tell, what other truths do Republican politicians know that they cannot say out loud? We have our suspicions, of course. We are generally torn between thinking they are just lying -- as Mr Brooks says, because of the thought police -- and that they really believe the stuff they say because they are that stupid. I'm not sure which is worse.
10
Unfortunately, every solution mentioned in this column has its own long-term problems. Some, such as carbon sequestration and natural gas from fracking, are much worse than others. But no where did I see any mention of the only source of energy that approaches being clean: nuclear fusion. Quite simply, this makes it impossible for me to take you seriously.
1
Keeping with the partially-baked Hamilton theme, I'd suggest that Alex would be pretty quick to grasp the idea of 'the same energy that powers the Sun'.
I half agree - nuclear power is the only proven, on-the-shelf technology that can provide baseline power when windmills aren't spinning and the sun is not shining on solar panels.
I would push for thorium based reactors myself - very hard to weaponize the breakdown products, which have much shorter half-lives. Certainly research into fusion must continue, but nuclear fusion has been on the horizon since I was a kid (don't ask, just substitute 'decades'.
But yeah, avoiding nuclear power is avoiding tough choices and reality. Odd that Brooks can see Republican denial on climate change but not his own, or the Democrats.
Oh well - the seas will rise, millions will die from famine and flood, but Yucca Mountain will remain pristine. Thanks you, Messrs. Obama and Reid.
I would push for thorium based reactors myself - very hard to weaponize the breakdown products, which have much shorter half-lives. Certainly research into fusion must continue, but nuclear fusion has been on the horizon since I was a kid (don't ask, just substitute 'decades'.
But yeah, avoiding nuclear power is avoiding tough choices and reality. Odd that Brooks can see Republican denial on climate change but not his own, or the Democrats.
Oh well - the seas will rise, millions will die from famine and flood, but Yucca Mountain will remain pristine. Thanks you, Messrs. Obama and Reid.
Behavioral economist Dan Ariely has interesting things to say about what a tough issue climate change is, due to irrational human behavior. Very similar to the list of hurdles David Brooks offers here. Even Brooks' solution sounds a lot like the "behavior substitution" mentioned by Ariely in this interview: http://www.conversationearth.org/predictably-irrational/
1
Whatever Mr. Hamilton would say, it is clear that the current GOP leadership opposes government funding to battle climate change. They seem blind to the concept of climate change as a man cause problem. They continue to support government funding to the coal and oil industries.
They pooh-pooh the massive decline in glaciation world wide, suggesting that a warmer world might be a better place. Just think, they say, a Northwest Passage might finally exist!! They cite past warming periods in the earth's history as evidence that our burning of fossils fuels cannot be the source of this problem. No, they are not convinced, and will never be convince. Oil and coal are cheap and easy, and are the way things are meant to be. There is too much money in it to be wrong.
These people are idiots, and they are the voice of America. How would Mr. Hamilton consider them? I think he would weep.
They pooh-pooh the massive decline in glaciation world wide, suggesting that a warmer world might be a better place. Just think, they say, a Northwest Passage might finally exist!! They cite past warming periods in the earth's history as evidence that our burning of fossils fuels cannot be the source of this problem. No, they are not convinced, and will never be convince. Oil and coal are cheap and easy, and are the way things are meant to be. There is too much money in it to be wrong.
These people are idiots, and they are the voice of America. How would Mr. Hamilton consider them? I think he would weep.
3
If "climate change", defined as a move away from carbon-based energy sources, is to begin, it will occur because the switching costs into other energy forms are achievable. In that sense, government has a role: promote forms of energy that, at the margin, can be substituted over time while being mindful of the economic havoc that will result from either radical decrees or wasteful subsidies that are propping up untested alternatives before their time.
Just screaming, incessantly, about the climate does not create solutions. And screaming about "warming" does not somehow mean the global temperature is rising faster or slower. We are in the midst of temperature change, some human-inflicted and some probably not, that has been underway for a century (back to the beginning of climate records). What we do not have are comprehensive studies of climate going back thousands of years, so hyperventilating, as we have for the past ten years, will not improve our thinking or our approach to dealing with this issue.
Fact: there are a lot of us, and we engage in climate and environment "unfriendly" behavior.
Fact: when confronted with a problem requiring personal sacrifice, we will usually wait until absolutely required to comply, watching our neighbors' compliance, first.
Fact: it took decades to adopt our fossil-based energy structure, and it will take decades to unhook...like it or not.
Save the screaming. Start talking about nuclear. If it's good enough for Iran...
Just screaming, incessantly, about the climate does not create solutions. And screaming about "warming" does not somehow mean the global temperature is rising faster or slower. We are in the midst of temperature change, some human-inflicted and some probably not, that has been underway for a century (back to the beginning of climate records). What we do not have are comprehensive studies of climate going back thousands of years, so hyperventilating, as we have for the past ten years, will not improve our thinking or our approach to dealing with this issue.
Fact: there are a lot of us, and we engage in climate and environment "unfriendly" behavior.
Fact: when confronted with a problem requiring personal sacrifice, we will usually wait until absolutely required to comply, watching our neighbors' compliance, first.
Fact: it took decades to adopt our fossil-based energy structure, and it will take decades to unhook...like it or not.
Save the screaming. Start talking about nuclear. If it's good enough for Iran...
3
So, Mr. Brooks, do you mean that investing in Solyndra was the kind of effort that government should make? If these efforts fail, should government continue to invest in new ideas? If that is what you are saying here, then how do you explain to those on the right that government does have a role in supporting new ideas and that many of them will fail? I'm all for this kind of investment, but am certainly aware that these investments have, at best, a 50% chance of success.
With regard to developed countries providing aid to developing countries, in recognition that our development is the reason for most of the CO2, we should look to "Defense" as a model. Today, we often hear of "foreign aid" programs, that when peeled back, reveal that the U.S. pays for a bunch of equipment and munitions, produced by U.S. manufacturers, and gives them to a "friendly". Using that model, why not start subsidizing those U.S. "green" manufacturers and provide those solutions to the developing countries? It solves a truly universal problem, pays back for the junk we've spewed all over the planet, builds and industry, and spreads good will. But, we'd have to stop subsidizing fossil fuels and the military/industrial complex. Win. win, win!
152
Governments and private sector companies increased their investments in clean energy by 17% to $270B in 2015. This includes $38B from the US. The point Paris makes is that this is not enough. Not enough total investment, not enough expected return, and not enough global governance to ensure enough countries follow the rules. But the ball is already rolling. Only in the right-wing of the Republican Party is denying climate change politically advantageous. The rest of the world has moved on years ago. What this says about mainstream Republicans? Unfortunately, they have not been heard from since president Obama took office.
3
Hamilton suggests that carbon taxes will have no effect on the global climate. Maybe not, but we should still try them because they are a way to show the rest of the world that we're willing to sacrifice to reduce carbon emissions. Only by actually sacrificing to combat global warming will we convince the rest of the world that they also need to make sacrifices in order to save the planet.
1
How can any of this happen when so much of the country wants to "drown government in a bathtub"? Apparently the days of government directed research and development are over since no one wants to pay taxes and so many Americans hate government.
5
Mr. Brooks and Mr. Hamiliton's faith in technology and the marketplace is the basis for the positions taken by "the thought police" who govern the politics of the Republican party. The Republican candidates think the global warming is either a hoax dreamed up by the "liberal media" or no big deal because it can be mitigated by technological advances or market forces…. which is not all that different from Brooks' conclusion. Solving this problem might require collaboration and compromise among nations in the world instead of the reliance on the competition of the marketplace.
1
Hate to break it to you, Mr. Brooks, but the main reason the US rate of CO2 emissions has gone down is because we sent a good chunk of our manufacturing industries and the jobs that went with them to China, India, and other third world countries. Oh, and there was that little thing called government regulation that forced the remaining ones to lower their emissions.
But, please, don't let facts or reality get in the way of your made-up conversation with a guy whose been dead for two hundred years and wouldn't know the first thing about CO2 emissions even if he were alive.
But, please, don't let facts or reality get in the way of your made-up conversation with a guy whose been dead for two hundred years and wouldn't know the first thing about CO2 emissions even if he were alive.
11
It is amazing how green a closed factory is. And how progressive and responsible it is for the unemployed not having to use their cars anymore.
Or how patriotic it is for those business owners to send the jobs, investment, knowhow and technology to other countries just so they can make a few more dollars of profit.
1
But we are filling up land fills with $1 goods from China and India, many of these land in the bottom of the ocean, so much that there's an island of plastics forming somewhere in our oceans (the earth's not your mine ocean of human drawn synthetic lines).
1
Your article reminds me of my children when they recite the Jim Carrey line, "So, you're telling me, I've got a chance!"
So, what if the Chinese fall short, we might, too, but if we all keep at it, we'll leave our kids with a cleaner planet - that is, if we make it.
So, what if the Chinese fall short, we might, too, but if we all keep at it, we'll leave our kids with a cleaner planet - that is, if we make it.
1
You can't ignore India if China falls short she is right behind as 3rd largest polluter.
2
The essay is correct - when it comes to climate change solutions, the sacrifice is individual and the payback is for a future generations. This is not only true at a national level, but it at an individual human level. The pensioner in Britain depended on BP Oil stock dividends gets lower dividends and sees no personal gain. The anti-nuclear activist from New York has to live near a new nuclear power plant with what is probably constant fear and no personal gain. The guy from West Virginia who has worked in the coal mines for his entire life looses that job and is ill prepared for another.
On the flip side, cheating against any possible agreements provide immediate dividends for countries, corporations and individuals. The people they hurt are mostly people who haven't been born yet or at worst, some statistical person. It is very tempting, just ask Volkswagen.
On the flip side, cheating against any possible agreements provide immediate dividends for countries, corporations and individuals. The people they hurt are mostly people who haven't been born yet or at worst, some statistical person. It is very tempting, just ask Volkswagen.
Hamilton did talk in hop hop:
"AH! whither, whither, am I flown,
A wandering guest in worlds unknown?
What is that I see and hear?
What heav’nly music fills mine ear?
Etherial glories shine around;
More than Arabias sweets abound."
Hamilton had rhymes, poems and a pithy pen. After surviving a hurricane, Hamilton wrote:
"Look around thee and shudder at the view. See desolation and ruin where’er thou turnest thine eye! See thy fellow-creatures pale and lifeless; their bodies mangled, their souls snatched into eternity, unexpecting. Alas! perhaps unprepared! Hark the bitter groans of distress. See sickness and infirmities exposed to the inclemencies of wind and water! See tender infancy pinched with hunger and hanging on the mothers knee for food! See the unhappy mothers anxiety. Her poverty denies relief, her breast heaves with pangs of maternal pity, her heart is bursting, the tears gush down her cheeks. Oh sights of woe! Oh distress unspeakable!"
Hamilton would later risk his life, revolt against his government, and help build another. I doubt he'd have time for the tepid incrementalism of Brooks.
"AH! whither, whither, am I flown,
A wandering guest in worlds unknown?
What is that I see and hear?
What heav’nly music fills mine ear?
Etherial glories shine around;
More than Arabias sweets abound."
Hamilton had rhymes, poems and a pithy pen. After surviving a hurricane, Hamilton wrote:
"Look around thee and shudder at the view. See desolation and ruin where’er thou turnest thine eye! See thy fellow-creatures pale and lifeless; their bodies mangled, their souls snatched into eternity, unexpecting. Alas! perhaps unprepared! Hark the bitter groans of distress. See sickness and infirmities exposed to the inclemencies of wind and water! See tender infancy pinched with hunger and hanging on the mothers knee for food! See the unhappy mothers anxiety. Her poverty denies relief, her breast heaves with pangs of maternal pity, her heart is bursting, the tears gush down her cheeks. Oh sights of woe! Oh distress unspeakable!"
Hamilton would later risk his life, revolt against his government, and help build another. I doubt he'd have time for the tepid incrementalism of Brooks.
1
I would hardly equate Hamilton's poetry and prose to "hip hop."
Another thing Hamilton advocated was deficit spending in order to increase national power even if it meant reducing the power of states as others like Jefferson championed. He was the original founder of 'big government' in our country.
I agree, Hamilton would have advocated innovation and contrary to republicans denying science and some pretending that climate change isn't an issue due to fear from the likes of AM radio hosts, he would have eagerly pushed policies aimed at improving, not ignoring climate science.
I agree, Hamilton would have advocated innovation and contrary to republicans denying science and some pretending that climate change isn't an issue due to fear from the likes of AM radio hosts, he would have eagerly pushed policies aimed at improving, not ignoring climate science.
1
Ok, for the millionth time, let's go back to basic 3rd grade science: CO2 is NOT a pollutant. We expel it. Trees need it to make this thingy called "oxygen"...which I'm told is really important for us humans and other living things. I believe the word is "photosynthesis".
The globalist Marxists, with their lies and phony science, seeking to regulate CO2 are really seeking to control us. Unless we all wake up, they will succeed.
The globalist Marxists, with their lies and phony science, seeking to regulate CO2 are really seeking to control us. Unless we all wake up, they will succeed.
3
I hate it when he tries to be cute and funny. Yuck.
1
Agreed. But the flip side is that when he's trying to be serious, it can be pretty funny.
1
Ben Franklin on the need for collective action: "We must all hang together, or we shall hang separately."
2
Unwilling to totally call out his free market friends on climate change, David throws them a bone in the form of a plug for fracking. Of course what this column really points out is the failure of the market to deal with the mother of all externalities. Soft-pedallng his real solution, David then proceeds to tell us that "innovation is the key. Green energy will beat dirty energy only when it makes technical and economic sense." I assume this provides a free market veneer over what he knows to be the real solution. In the next sentence David comes - more or less directly - to the point. "Hamilton reminded me that he often used government money to stoke innovation."
Nice try, David, but I have no doubt that your GOP buddies and the vested interests that finance them will not be persuaded. They are likely to disparage Mr. Hamilton's government subsidy idea as they always do (regardless of the fact that it is precisely how their own industries came to dominance) : "the government has no right picking winners and losers."
Nice try, David, but I have no doubt that your GOP buddies and the vested interests that finance them will not be persuaded. They are likely to disparage Mr. Hamilton's government subsidy idea as they always do (regardless of the fact that it is precisely how their own industries came to dominance) : "the government has no right picking winners and losers."
3
"But but but...wont't someone think of the poor coal miners? What will they do when government forces them into a line of work that doesn't destroy their health and bodies for minimal pay, gradually poisoning their lungs and turning their hearts black? Please think of the poor coal miners!"
2
If our ingenious capitalist entrepreneurs could see a way to make money on this, then tackling the problem of climate change, and solving it, would be a no-brainer.
But no one sees it as a financial opportunity, and billions are invested instead in digital gadgets and esoteric technology that merely complicate our lives. That's another form of pollution....but it's invisible, and it pays off.
But no one sees it as a financial opportunity, and billions are invested instead in digital gadgets and esoteric technology that merely complicate our lives. That's another form of pollution....but it's invisible, and it pays off.
1
Excellent deduction....The Big Guys will cut carbon emissions by eating less!!!
As for the Chinese government and their grandiose climate change announcement, C'est Vrai! China's super rich have already started investing in American properties. Escaping China's faltering stock market was not the only reason. It's recently been broadcast that Bejing's pollution has reached hazardous levels, and that is not their worst city!
As for the Chinese government and their grandiose climate change announcement, C'est Vrai! China's super rich have already started investing in American properties. Escaping China's faltering stock market was not the only reason. It's recently been broadcast that Bejing's pollution has reached hazardous levels, and that is not their worst city!
3
Brooks, for someone so fond of writing about character and morality, one wishes that you would hold your fellow Conservatives feet to the fire for their monstrous abdication of their responsibilities to their children and grandchildren. When you have half of congress istill proudly proclaiming that they will resist all environmental regulations imposed by Obama and that they should have the freedom to burn as much coal and gasoline as they like, and to hell with the consequences on anyone else or even their own children, it isn't difficult to see what the problem is here.
275
You misquote people who are skeptical of the issue of global warming. Few of those are saying that the situation doesn't exist, but rather that the progress of warming is not predictive enough to set policy that may or not be needed or work. Although more study and more time is needed to develop the correct answers, it certainly is correct to try new methods of energy production. It is distressing to environmentalists like myself to see how little progress the world has made in properly evaluating the issue and its solutions.
Sorry Mr. Brooks.
The coolest founding father was Benjamin Franklin. And he was all about invention and innovation. He was intensely curious and creative as well as a proponent of the scientific method.
Not only would Franklin accept the reality of climate change, he'd be at the forefront of technical solutions to combat it whilst not sacrificing our quality of life one bit.
Let Hamilton handle fiscal policy and leave the practical visionary Franklin to lead the way in combatting climate change.
The coolest founding father was Benjamin Franklin. And he was all about invention and innovation. He was intensely curious and creative as well as a proponent of the scientific method.
Not only would Franklin accept the reality of climate change, he'd be at the forefront of technical solutions to combat it whilst not sacrificing our quality of life one bit.
Let Hamilton handle fiscal policy and leave the practical visionary Franklin to lead the way in combatting climate change.
2
Mr Brooks, you speak of the economic costs of global warming if that were the only issue. What about the human costs; the starvation and upheaval of populations brought on by drought, the potential for wars over water and food resources, the health effects of populations living in hotter climates, the increased risk of insect borne diseases in areas previously unaffected, the blights and deforestation from insect and microbes moving into regions where they did not previously survive. Maybe as a Republican you consider economic cost the only relevant consideration but many believe that is not the most important one.
2
Yes we should be young and scrappy again. At the same time we should go through the process of the Paris meetings and do what we can there. In short, we should carry the banner of climate change control and the energy production revolution wherever and whenever we can regardless of the difficulties.
This effort, as Brooks points out, holds the potential for true revolution, economically, socially and politically. A whole new economic and commercial infrastructure similar to the automotive model awaits. And happily for those of us who won't benefit directly from participation in the resulting economic boom, we will glimpse a future with hope and a clear, "clean" conscience.
This effort, as Brooks points out, holds the potential for true revolution, economically, socially and politically. A whole new economic and commercial infrastructure similar to the automotive model awaits. And happily for those of us who won't benefit directly from participation in the resulting economic boom, we will glimpse a future with hope and a clear, "clean" conscience.
Excellent article, David Brooks - I wish you further such hallucinations as the conjuring up of Alexander Hamilton. I wish that by some magic he could come back in the flesh.
Would that the Soviet-style repression you so well describe be lifted long enough, for your solution to gain any ears with our Congressional majorities. Because "the right government boost" has already been tarred with the phrases "crony capitalism" and "Solyndra!". Youth and scrappiness is purported to be attributes only of "we built that!" red state business owners and managers.
What is your proposal to create the glasnost so desperately needed in your own party??
Would that the Soviet-style repression you so well describe be lifted long enough, for your solution to gain any ears with our Congressional majorities. Because "the right government boost" has already been tarred with the phrases "crony capitalism" and "Solyndra!". Youth and scrappiness is purported to be attributes only of "we built that!" red state business owners and managers.
What is your proposal to create the glasnost so desperately needed in your own party??
12
The answer is "nothing". I once had a philosophy professor say that philosophy is what you can do from an armchair. If you actually go out and do something, it's called sociology, psychology or anthropology. Mr. Brooks just likes to make sweeping statements and loves the sound of his own voice.
David has two valid points: "Natural gas is replacing coal" and green energy will beat dirty energy only when it makes technical and economic sense. The problem is the dirty energy producing states that produce coal are fighting the inevitable tide of economics but the representatives and senators of coal states are continuing to vote for coal. This year, nat. gas overtook coal as a the largest producer of electricity. Those who support coal are fighting a losing fight. As to green energy versus dirty energy, look at the data. The unsubsidized cost of green energy per megawatt is continuing to decline, is already approaching the cost of dirty energy while the cost per megawatt of coal will never get lower. I am sure the usual comments will come that you can't rely on green energy for all electricity but I know of very few that propose complete replacement but that is not the point. The point is to replace dirty energy with green energy for a majority of our electricity needs.
24
"the pain in reducing carbon emissions is individual but the good is only achieved collectively"
That is not true. It is not all-or-nothing. Every little bit helps, helps us. More CO2 in our air is bad for us, less is good for us. Even a bit warmer is a problem for our farmers.
Yes, it would be good for us if other people would do things too. That is not an excuse for us to sit around doing nothing until everyone else goes first.
That is not true. It is not all-or-nothing. Every little bit helps, helps us. More CO2 in our air is bad for us, less is good for us. Even a bit warmer is a problem for our farmers.
Yes, it would be good for us if other people would do things too. That is not an excuse for us to sit around doing nothing until everyone else goes first.
69
Granted, there are great challenges in developing and enforcing a global climate change regimen. But inaction is dangerous and any progress is better than none.
The point about Europe's carbon reduction spending for "little measurable impact on global temperatures" is specious. The EU cannot reduce CO2 emissions in the U.S., China and India. The appropriate metric is whether the EU has managed to reduce its own emissions.
It is also worth underscoring the point that reducing greenhouse gas emissions creates jobs. The solar industry now employs more workers in the U.S. than does the coal industry, and solar jobs are increasing as solar equipment installations grow. Similarly, retrofitting buildings and power generation facilities to be energy smart creates domestic construction jobs that can't be shipped overseas.
The point about Europe's carbon reduction spending for "little measurable impact on global temperatures" is specious. The EU cannot reduce CO2 emissions in the U.S., China and India. The appropriate metric is whether the EU has managed to reduce its own emissions.
It is also worth underscoring the point that reducing greenhouse gas emissions creates jobs. The solar industry now employs more workers in the U.S. than does the coal industry, and solar jobs are increasing as solar equipment installations grow. Similarly, retrofitting buildings and power generation facilities to be energy smart creates domestic construction jobs that can't be shipped overseas.
72
Oh fracking's the answer all right
To poison ground water, a blight,
Meanwhile market free
The Repub coterie
Heads for a soon stygian night.
To poison ground water, a blight,
Meanwhile market free
The Repub coterie
Heads for a soon stygian night.
91
"Over all, the Europeans have spent $280 billion on climate change with very little measurable impact on global temperatures".
The CO2 emissions per capita as of 2014 was 6.7 tons for Europe, compared to 7.6 for China and 16.5 for the US, so its not clear what you mean by impact?
The EU and China have high speed rail, we have F150 pickup trucks as the #1 selling commuter vehicle. Cars in the US use about twice as much gas per mile as the world and EU average. The EU is far ahead on energy efficient residential heating and the Chinese barely turn the heat on in the winter.
The EPA projects the cost of the Clean Power rules as initially costing 3% to 4% more but then actually resulting in future savings due to conversion to alternative sources and energy efficiency..
The new EPA CAFE standards agreed to by automakers double gas mileage to 54.5 mpg by 2025.
Bill Gates is initiating a $1 billion fund for green energy technology R&D. There are huge opportunities to return carbon to depleted soils simply by changing to more sustainable agriculture practices.
But the GOP has been fighting all climate change initiatives just as fiercely as on the health care front. They are the dinosaurs, grazing happily on ignorance and Big Energy, while the world is rapidly changing all around them.
The CO2 emissions per capita as of 2014 was 6.7 tons for Europe, compared to 7.6 for China and 16.5 for the US, so its not clear what you mean by impact?
The EU and China have high speed rail, we have F150 pickup trucks as the #1 selling commuter vehicle. Cars in the US use about twice as much gas per mile as the world and EU average. The EU is far ahead on energy efficient residential heating and the Chinese barely turn the heat on in the winter.
The EPA projects the cost of the Clean Power rules as initially costing 3% to 4% more but then actually resulting in future savings due to conversion to alternative sources and energy efficiency..
The new EPA CAFE standards agreed to by automakers double gas mileage to 54.5 mpg by 2025.
Bill Gates is initiating a $1 billion fund for green energy technology R&D. There are huge opportunities to return carbon to depleted soils simply by changing to more sustainable agriculture practices.
But the GOP has been fighting all climate change initiatives just as fiercely as on the health care front. They are the dinosaurs, grazing happily on ignorance and Big Energy, while the world is rapidly changing all around them.
357
Last week, I had my roofers inside for a rest and I showed them pictures of my trip to Paris. I wanted to show them the vehicles that the people of France drive.
These roofers all had the biggest crew cabs out here and “averaged” 10 mpg. I showed them how my hatchback second generation Prius had as much cargo room as some of their short bed crew cabs.
They were dumbstruck. Picture after picture showing small trucks and smaller sedans doing all the work. I also showed them that petrol (unleaded gas for instance) was 1,45 per liter. I said $8/gallon.
I pointed out that Europe leads in solar energy and wind turbines. Now these are “good ole boys” in Georgia. They were plainly upset. “Why don’t we do something in America like this?” I said “Why do you support Republicans?” Every worker said “We always had jobs before under a Democrat.”
And I told them that there are jobs ready..RIGHT NOW for them and their friends--rebuilding roads, bridges, airports; we’re 30 miles away from the busiest airpot in the world--Atlanta...and the runways need fixing.
“You want jobs? Vote Democratic!” Then I was asked where they could buy such trucks as they saw in my pictures of Paris. I said..”the USA doesn’t sell them. Auto makers get a LOT more money building and selling your big ole super trucks!”
They were very quiet. Americans are ready for alternative energy. Just because these “blue collar workers” work with their hands doesn’t mean they aren’t very smart! They are!
These roofers all had the biggest crew cabs out here and “averaged” 10 mpg. I showed them how my hatchback second generation Prius had as much cargo room as some of their short bed crew cabs.
They were dumbstruck. Picture after picture showing small trucks and smaller sedans doing all the work. I also showed them that petrol (unleaded gas for instance) was 1,45 per liter. I said $8/gallon.
I pointed out that Europe leads in solar energy and wind turbines. Now these are “good ole boys” in Georgia. They were plainly upset. “Why don’t we do something in America like this?” I said “Why do you support Republicans?” Every worker said “We always had jobs before under a Democrat.”
And I told them that there are jobs ready..RIGHT NOW for them and their friends--rebuilding roads, bridges, airports; we’re 30 miles away from the busiest airpot in the world--Atlanta...and the runways need fixing.
“You want jobs? Vote Democratic!” Then I was asked where they could buy such trucks as they saw in my pictures of Paris. I said..”the USA doesn’t sell them. Auto makers get a LOT more money building and selling your big ole super trucks!”
They were very quiet. Americans are ready for alternative energy. Just because these “blue collar workers” work with their hands doesn’t mean they aren’t very smart! They are!
2
I think we got ourselves into this predicament through what I would file under "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." I think when our knowledge is primarily based on human cognitive thought influenced by fairly immediate self-interest and greed, the results are not going to support the greater good for the long run. But I also don't hear much that sounds as though we are using an improved method for figuring out what we should be doing when it comes to trying to do something helpful about global warming -- some of the innovations already have exacted costs that I would have thought would have been avoided had people been planning better (the killing of eagles by wind turbines comes to mind) -- so it seems to me that there's trial and error in our method for combating climate change, just as there has been in the activity that produced it.
When I was a child, people shopped locally. Then came malls, requiring much more driving. Then came catalog and internet shopping, requiring (mostly) home delivery. How is this a helpful trend, in terms of our use of energy? We've discussed eating locally-grown food, but we don't talk about walking back other sectors of our economy that seem to me to exchange prudent use of resources for convenience and pleasure.
My worry is that we are trying to put a small sticky bandage on a much larger problem. Gemli is putting his money on religion, I am putting my faith in the Earth and the laws of the universe to deal with us humans.
When I was a child, people shopped locally. Then came malls, requiring much more driving. Then came catalog and internet shopping, requiring (mostly) home delivery. How is this a helpful trend, in terms of our use of energy? We've discussed eating locally-grown food, but we don't talk about walking back other sectors of our economy that seem to me to exchange prudent use of resources for convenience and pleasure.
My worry is that we are trying to put a small sticky bandage on a much larger problem. Gemli is putting his money on religion, I am putting my faith in the Earth and the laws of the universe to deal with us humans.
33
Green tech solutions to climate change problems sound convincing but only when they make economic and technical sense for all the stakeholders. Are the developed nations prepared to share the burden involved with the developing nations and correct the past wrongs of polluting the planet?
7
The developed countries finished screwing the environment. Now they cry foul (fowl post Thanksgiving, sic). They have build a bubble of comfort and convenience around themselves, which they want no one or no thing to take it away from them, at any cost. No one wants to down size or down live their lifestyle, just because the rest of the non developed world wants to get a chance to live their lives in style, comfort, convenience, modernity, civilized high living. Why should the developed countries give an inch away....they don't mind setting up funds and non profits in the name of good deeds, community service, selfless service etc etc, but that's all so they can feel good about themselves, at the cost of the other fellow human beings who happen to live in hot, tropics, dusty, smelly, poor and energy starving parts of the world.
2
It's amusing to read predictions about behavioral 'rules' affecting climate change. One analogy that works for me is of an ant colony (us) going about its business (following strict behavioral rules) while a large man with a big can of gasoline is about to pour the contents on the colony and drop a lit match right after. Nature doesn't give one whit about the rules of human behavior in addressing (or more correctly, not addressing) climate change. The consequences will follow regardless of whether we "can't possibly" do this or that about it.
1
Common but differentiated responsibility for nations appears to be the judicious principle while meeting the climate change challenge.
1
"the G.O.P. has come to resemble a Soviet dictatorship — a vast majority of Republican politicians can’t publicly say what they know about the truth of climate change because they’re afraid the thought police will knock on their door and drag them off to an AM radio interrogation."
And yet funny how *that* is never called "political correctness".
Even though it's political. and an enforcement of what a political party deems correct thought.
You won't hear anyone, even David Brooks, who even acknowledges it, call it political correctness. That term is only used to refer to something enforced on the left -- and interestingly, usually it's not actually a dictate by a political party in those cases, certainly the Democratic Party isn't fanatical or monolithic enough to be going around insisting on lefty terms -- but is usually an example taken from something students are pushing on campuses and so on.
This is the doublespeak we've become accustomed to hearing from Republicans like Brooks. They'll even acknowledge that a Soviet-style political enforcement system has grown around the Republican party and the vast right wing propaganda network surrounding it, and yet the very term inspired by such systems, they'll only use that when referring to the left.
And yet funny how *that* is never called "political correctness".
Even though it's political. and an enforcement of what a political party deems correct thought.
You won't hear anyone, even David Brooks, who even acknowledges it, call it political correctness. That term is only used to refer to something enforced on the left -- and interestingly, usually it's not actually a dictate by a political party in those cases, certainly the Democratic Party isn't fanatical or monolithic enough to be going around insisting on lefty terms -- but is usually an example taken from something students are pushing on campuses and so on.
This is the doublespeak we've become accustomed to hearing from Republicans like Brooks. They'll even acknowledge that a Soviet-style political enforcement system has grown around the Republican party and the vast right wing propaganda network surrounding it, and yet the very term inspired by such systems, they'll only use that when referring to the left.
369
@Jeo
How can you even use "vast right wing propaganda network" with a straight face? If we want to hear more of that tripe, elect Hillary.
The "vast right wing network" is merely a reaction to the ocean of thought-production and monitoring enforced by the larger media to which we have become so accustomed.
I try to wake up everyday and remember the First Amendment. I am constantly amazed at how Liberals scoff at dissenters; they, the very people who believe that "anything goes".
Calm down with conpiracy theories or I am going to show you pictures of this UFO that keeps hovering over my town.
How can you even use "vast right wing propaganda network" with a straight face? If we want to hear more of that tripe, elect Hillary.
The "vast right wing network" is merely a reaction to the ocean of thought-production and monitoring enforced by the larger media to which we have become so accustomed.
I try to wake up everyday and remember the First Amendment. I am constantly amazed at how Liberals scoff at dissenters; they, the very people who believe that "anything goes".
Calm down with conpiracy theories or I am going to show you pictures of this UFO that keeps hovering over my town.
1
Perhaps for the GOP the term should be enforcement of political incorrectness! I would cringe at hearing "correct" and "climate change denial" in the same sentence. Look at other pieces of the core GOP platform: austerity is shown by economists to be a 180º backwards policy during a recession, data shows gun control saves lives in countries that enact it, healthcare reform is working fine (again, according to the data...), the list goes on.
1
Well said, well said!
Consider how the conservative wing of the party forced Boehner out of the Speaker position for not being conservative enough--but, as you say, no one points out that is political correctness,
Consider how the conservative wing of the party forced Boehner out of the Speaker position for not being conservative enough--but, as you say, no one points out that is political correctness,
3
At the Paris summit, world leaders are spending at least as much time strategizing over wars in Syria and elsewhere as they are over climate change amelioration. While they're all preening for their photo-ops and spouting their platitudes, another group of global bigwigs is gathering in Brussels to plot the secretive Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP).
According to documents obtained by the Guardian, climate change cover-up artist Exxon Mobil has been given "unique access" to the sessions. The company is providing input on how to circumvent/repeal US law, establish ties with cooperative US government officials, and hoodwink the public and environmental groups so as to grease the skids for the now-banned export of US fossil fuels to Europe.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/26/ttip-talks-eu-alleged...
Should the TTIP pass, the ensuing liberalization of oil and gas trade would dramatically spike global emissions and feed Big Oil's profits to even more grotesque proportions. Some of these profits, as we well know, go into the campaign coffers of the American congress critters who do industry's bidding and vote against legislation and treaties attempting to halt climate change.
He wasn't a founding father, but I'll go with Abraham Lincoln:
"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity."
http://kmgarcia2000.blogspot.com/
According to documents obtained by the Guardian, climate change cover-up artist Exxon Mobil has been given "unique access" to the sessions. The company is providing input on how to circumvent/repeal US law, establish ties with cooperative US government officials, and hoodwink the public and environmental groups so as to grease the skids for the now-banned export of US fossil fuels to Europe.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/26/ttip-talks-eu-alleged...
Should the TTIP pass, the ensuing liberalization of oil and gas trade would dramatically spike global emissions and feed Big Oil's profits to even more grotesque proportions. Some of these profits, as we well know, go into the campaign coffers of the American congress critters who do industry's bidding and vote against legislation and treaties attempting to halt climate change.
He wasn't a founding father, but I'll go with Abraham Lincoln:
"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity."
http://kmgarcia2000.blogspot.com/
160
Thanks Karen for this. In Pa. and NJ we've been fighting a pipeline bringing Marcellus tracked gas to the ports of NJ. Penn East has continually said it will be only for local use, even as there's a glut now. We've always known this was their ultimate plan, now we have evidence.
2
David, there was a story that I came across not too long ago (perhaps in The Times) citing how the Koch Brothers had become concerned about potential losses to their interests from solar power working too well - and specifically about the ability of home owners who virtuously invested in solar panels to contribute power that they generate but don't need back to their local utilities. According to the article, the Kochs were seeking to use ALEC to seed legislation that would frustrate this development - and make it much harder, if not impossible, for these virtuous individuals to profit from their investment in green technology.
What this demonstrates to me is that the market dynamics already exist to make green energy economically viable - but that no dynamics currently exist to make entrenched, ultimately despotic economic interests ethically viable.
What this demonstrates to me is that the market dynamics already exist to make green energy economically viable - but that no dynamics currently exist to make entrenched, ultimately despotic economic interests ethically viable.
556
And here's the story that I was referencing, which was not only in The Times, it was a Times editorial:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/the-koch-attack-on-sola...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/opinion/sunday/the-koch-attack-on-sola...
10
@Matthew
Please cite the publication and the source. My guess is that the article was written by Bill McKibben or Mother Jones until I hear otherwise.
There is propaganda everywhere. One thing that does not hold are people shunning self-interest, and solar will have its time WHEN it's time arrives.
Not before.
Those are just facts, sir.
We are making great progress. Stop all the screaming and save your vocal chords for singing. We lived in the greatest country, flaws and all, that history created. That is, until our POTUS convinced us of the gross error in that judgment.
I will believe people care when Liberal Bostonians stop building 6,000 square foot homes for families of four while dropping their children off at grammar school in Cadillac Escalades.
Until then, I will let the market move us to the right answers. The "market", as I define it, is the collective awareness of ALL the people. Not just the ones with the microphone.
Please cite the publication and the source. My guess is that the article was written by Bill McKibben or Mother Jones until I hear otherwise.
There is propaganda everywhere. One thing that does not hold are people shunning self-interest, and solar will have its time WHEN it's time arrives.
Not before.
Those are just facts, sir.
We are making great progress. Stop all the screaming and save your vocal chords for singing. We lived in the greatest country, flaws and all, that history created. That is, until our POTUS convinced us of the gross error in that judgment.
I will believe people care when Liberal Bostonians stop building 6,000 square foot homes for families of four while dropping their children off at grammar school in Cadillac Escalades.
Until then, I will let the market move us to the right answers. The "market", as I define it, is the collective awareness of ALL the people. Not just the ones with the microphone.
1
I think this happened also when car manufacturers and oil companies worked to keep new rail lines from being built.
1
Poor Alexander Hamilton; what did he say when Brooks told him about the banking industry having run the country (planet ?) over a cliff in 2008, prompting the ultimate Ayn Rand-er Alan Greenspan to be agog in ' shocked disbelief ' that bankers would act in ways destroying their own institutions ?
Surely Hamilton wouldn't be surprised that basic human nature run amok is still the same, after all these years, and that nothing gets better without rules and regulations to bring about order; weren't Hamilton's ideas about finance based on bringing order (rules/regulations) to the government's business ?
Surely Hamilton wouldn't be surprised that basic human nature run amok is still the same, after all these years, and that nothing gets better without rules and regulations to bring about order; weren't Hamilton's ideas about finance based on bringing order (rules/regulations) to the government's business ?
219
Why must everything be looked at through the prism of industry? Why is it not possible to do things through government, which is not so scary if we realize the government is actually, the collective US, the people? We could empower individuals to rehab their homes and install geothermal and solar. There are small wind turbines that do not have giant wings, and are very efficient (Archimedes for instance). Larry Lundgren in other commentaries has written repeatedly about geothermal and zero emission waste plants in Sweden that produce heat and energy for entire Swedish towns. What could be cheaper than zero cost energy after a system has been built? Now we have expensive plants being built, that require endless supplies of coal, oil and gas? Why have giant and at risk energy systems of solar and wind that could easily be attacked? Individually powered homes and businesses perhaps connected with a compuerized grid is the way to go for safety's sake. And in case of attack, the individuals could easily switch off the grid to keep producing life protecting power individually. Power availability should be individual and democratic. Giant utilities are not.
88
Carolyn--you live in a nice Maryland suburb. That means you are totally dependent on your car as your primary source of transportation. I also sincerely doubt that you have solar panels on the roof of your home or a wind turbine among your rose bushes. You always talk so big about dependence on fossil fuels but it's unlikely that you practice what you preach. You're also responsible for leaving a huge carbon footprint. Like it or not we're going to need those fossil fuels for a long time to come. It's time to put up or shut up.
1
Let's not forget that conservative politicians have spent the last forty years toeing the party line that government is always wrong and business is always correct. How could anyone in the Republican party expect to set even a toe across this line of political correctness and survive?
1
Even if the promise of individual or even local alternative energy was fulfilled, whatever we do cannot catch up with population growth, either here or elsewhere. In the US, we could back down our personal energy budgets to that of the EU (now there's a fantasy for you!) but when we add new people, the overall benefit vanishes.
Moot, anyway, since the technical suggestions you make faded sometime around the end of the first oil crisis of 1973, and no significant work has been done since. Significant means installed base and cost, by the way.
Moot, anyway, since the technical suggestions you make faded sometime around the end of the first oil crisis of 1973, and no significant work has been done since. Significant means installed base and cost, by the way.
The national labs are already spending money in the areas mentioned and more. If they received more support from Congress they could no doubt do more.
Two points on cheating: First see The Tragety of the Commons. Second, is Mr.Brooks laying the groundwork for a global enforcement agency or world government?
Two points on cheating: First see The Tragety of the Commons. Second, is Mr.Brooks laying the groundwork for a global enforcement agency or world government?
8
One of the mythologies about America is the founding fathers knew it all. But were they really?
People who live in places like Beijing and Mumbai can literally touch and taste pollution everyday. Still, there is some truth about people prefer economics to long term health. Decades ago, when GE decided to pull out of Pittsfield MA, some town folks were upset more about losing their jobs than about the legacy of the lead battery factory.
However, jobs and pollution are a false dichotomy perpetuated by some clever MBA spreadsheet pushers who are eager more to advance their career at some distant headquarter than to worry about some local power plant. Did the top Chinese executives live near the Tianjin Port where the explosions occurred?
People growing up in places like Pittsburgh PA or Gary IN in the last Century should know what pollution means. Calling it by other names like climate change or global warming doesn't change the essential character. There is no free lunch. You pay for it one way or another, whether it be taking shortcut to a nuclear power plant or the residual coal ash from Duke Energy. Love Canal may be out of sight therefore out of mind. But they were not some past happenstance. You are still dealing with them. Just like to litigation against GE with regard to dredging the Hudson River.
Same with global warming and green house gas. The longer one denies their existence, the more you have to pay
People who live in places like Beijing and Mumbai can literally touch and taste pollution everyday. Still, there is some truth about people prefer economics to long term health. Decades ago, when GE decided to pull out of Pittsfield MA, some town folks were upset more about losing their jobs than about the legacy of the lead battery factory.
However, jobs and pollution are a false dichotomy perpetuated by some clever MBA spreadsheet pushers who are eager more to advance their career at some distant headquarter than to worry about some local power plant. Did the top Chinese executives live near the Tianjin Port where the explosions occurred?
People growing up in places like Pittsburgh PA or Gary IN in the last Century should know what pollution means. Calling it by other names like climate change or global warming doesn't change the essential character. There is no free lunch. You pay for it one way or another, whether it be taking shortcut to a nuclear power plant or the residual coal ash from Duke Energy. Love Canal may be out of sight therefore out of mind. But they were not some past happenstance. You are still dealing with them. Just like to litigation against GE with regard to dredging the Hudson River.
Same with global warming and green house gas. The longer one denies their existence, the more you have to pay
37
What if all of technological innovation is the "free lunch" we will have to pay for, not just the parts that some of us are willing at this point to consider to be its excesses and detritus?
2
In 1971 my elementary class took a bus ride past the electricity generating plant in Cleveland and had to close the windows on a warm May day because of the stench. This was about the time that pollution on the Cuyahoga River actually caught fire.
Fair enough and well stated through the eyes os a man long dead. Of course it played to the tune of the 18th century small scale everyman has his factory narrative which we know is a joke. But I digress. David writes this article as if it is 1980. I remember sitting in an office hearing the Bear Sterns equity analyst(yes that Bear Sterns) discuss the viability of the solar panel. He was not sanguine. Only in places like Sahara Africa were they cost effective. No longer true. Same with wind turbines. Biogas was a pipe dream. Now we talk about recapture. But David writes as if we are still there in 1980. He quotes two discredited scribes as to what we should be doing. Were our state universities not being starved of grant money by Dave's boys and their paymasters we might already be there. Qui bono, the industrialist who own assets in the oil based world. They are squeezing the last buck out of us as long as they can. With propagandists/apologists like Dave they will probably succeed and in the end destroy mankind. Oh by the way, the planet will still be here, sans opinion writers and people too.
133
A DIET WHICH MUST LAST WAY PAST OUR OWN LIVES . . .
...compared to an immediate schedule of reinforcement ... (see B. F. Skinner's operant conditioning):
We could do whatever can be done to halt and/or reverse climate warming ... if only we would get instant gratification. But, no! Only about 99% of people now alive will see significant results ... only future generations.
As our religious morality was Judeo Christian ... and original sin does exist literally or only as a metaphor ... Materialistic Greedism has usurped other faiths especially in the Western nations ... so no one cares about anything other than stock prices and the next quarter. And the NFL, Inc. and shopping consume the regular folks
So, as the Koch bro's, Exxon/Mobil and their friends at fox just pray to Ayn Rand ... as they ignore the future and prey on the Earth and the ecological system which permits the survival of future humanity.
But, don't worry my friends ... for its already far too late to begin anything meaningful ... and no one will remember the work of Al Gore ... because no one will be here anymore.
...compared to an immediate schedule of reinforcement ... (see B. F. Skinner's operant conditioning):
We could do whatever can be done to halt and/or reverse climate warming ... if only we would get instant gratification. But, no! Only about 99% of people now alive will see significant results ... only future generations.
As our religious morality was Judeo Christian ... and original sin does exist literally or only as a metaphor ... Materialistic Greedism has usurped other faiths especially in the Western nations ... so no one cares about anything other than stock prices and the next quarter. And the NFL, Inc. and shopping consume the regular folks
So, as the Koch bro's, Exxon/Mobil and their friends at fox just pray to Ayn Rand ... as they ignore the future and prey on the Earth and the ecological system which permits the survival of future humanity.
But, don't worry my friends ... for its already far too late to begin anything meaningful ... and no one will remember the work of Al Gore ... because no one will be here anymore.
21
You don't mention that the U.S. has the highest rate of per capita carbon emissions in the world. And in dismissing the European investment in addressing climate change, you vaguely refer to its overall effect on carbon emissions as "very little" without defining what that means. You also fail to acknowledge that the European research investment promises the very innovation that you find so important.
To address climate change, every nation will need to do many things over a period of time, in order to make the difference between a viable planet and one that is no longer liveable. There's a humility required to see that this is a collective problem with a collective solution. So far the U.S. has not shown the leadership one would expect from a proud developed nation because it has been held back by special interests.
To address climate change, every nation will need to do many things over a period of time, in order to make the difference between a viable planet and one that is no longer liveable. There's a humility required to see that this is a collective problem with a collective solution. So far the U.S. has not shown the leadership one would expect from a proud developed nation because it has been held back by special interests.
69
In the Times Sunday Magazine of 15 November, Jon Gertner and Otto Becker wrote about ice sheets. The answer is that there isn't an answer.
Right now, the ice sheets are melting at a rate that will raise sea level by about one foot per century. Rich countries will have no trouble with such a rise. Poor countries will not have the resources to avoid flooding, but they're poor, so they don't count.
But I had a friend from China sent to a village in the mountains during the Cultural Revolution. Through the village ran a white-water river. Every winter, the river gradually froze solid. And every spring, in one instant, it went from solid ice to white-water rapids.
Of course, the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are not on such a steep slope, so the answer is, we just don't know!
They might continue to thaw at a rate that will cause seas to rise one foot a century, or huge amounts of ice could slide off all at once.
But no matter. Our lifestyles depend on using fossil fuels, so we'll let our grandchildren and great-grandchildren worry about global warming.
If they can.
Right now, the ice sheets are melting at a rate that will raise sea level by about one foot per century. Rich countries will have no trouble with such a rise. Poor countries will not have the resources to avoid flooding, but they're poor, so they don't count.
But I had a friend from China sent to a village in the mountains during the Cultural Revolution. Through the village ran a white-water river. Every winter, the river gradually froze solid. And every spring, in one instant, it went from solid ice to white-water rapids.
Of course, the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are not on such a steep slope, so the answer is, we just don't know!
They might continue to thaw at a rate that will cause seas to rise one foot a century, or huge amounts of ice could slide off all at once.
But no matter. Our lifestyles depend on using fossil fuels, so we'll let our grandchildren and great-grandchildren worry about global warming.
If they can.
15
If we are to save our civilization through a series of technological breakthroughs, then we will have to be willing to share the fruits of those innovations. The longterm nature of the required investments means governments will have underwrite much of the research, giving them considerable control over the new technology. Since poorer countries cannot afford to develop or buy this technology, governments in the industrialized countries will have to subsidize them (to preserve the fig leaf of capitalism).
Taxpayers in the rich countries will thus have to bear a double burden in order for this approach to work. They will have to pay to create the technology, and they will also bear the cost of the transfer. If the switch to alternate fuels and parallel innovations create the large number of new jobs promised by advocates of clean technology, the immediate benefits to the taxpayer may outweigh the cost. And this quite apart from the enormous benefit of preserving the viability of our way of life.
The key point is that no technological fix can work unless everybody adopts it. Even Alexander Hamilton might approve of a resort to socialist methods to achieve this vital goal.
Taxpayers in the rich countries will thus have to bear a double burden in order for this approach to work. They will have to pay to create the technology, and they will also bear the cost of the transfer. If the switch to alternate fuels and parallel innovations create the large number of new jobs promised by advocates of clean technology, the immediate benefits to the taxpayer may outweigh the cost. And this quite apart from the enormous benefit of preserving the viability of our way of life.
The key point is that no technological fix can work unless everybody adopts it. Even Alexander Hamilton might approve of a resort to socialist methods to achieve this vital goal.
7
Yes, natural gas emits much less carbon than coal does when burnt. It is not clear, though, that the entire gas lifecycle, including exploration, extraction, processing, transport, and burning, is cleaner than the coal lifecycle. And, as we know, coal represents a major part of the problem.
We need to look at technology and alternative energy, but more urgently, we need to consume less. Changing behaviors takes generations; if we don't start now, when do we plan to get around to it?
We need to look at technology and alternative energy, but more urgently, we need to consume less. Changing behaviors takes generations; if we don't start now, when do we plan to get around to it?
30
Behavior helps, but it's not enough. Behavior would in the more optimistic scenarios cut our carbon emissions maybe 30%. We need to convert to a clean energy system. We have the technology, but the political barriers to rapid change are formidable.
David is right to be cynical about voluntary compliance agreements at the Climate Change conference in Paris. We have collectively run up a bill on our environmental credit card that is long past due.Nature is dunning us.The invoice includes melting polar ice caps, disappearing coral reefs, extreme drought, and increasingly volatile weather. The opportunity cost of decades of relatively cheap carbon based fuels is the debt of Global Warming.The promissory note that must be paid involves carbon emission regulations that will cost jobs and reduce corporate profits.These restrictions are not some insidious Liberal plot to eliminate jobs and destroy corporate competitiveness, they are necessary to prevent environmental bankruptcy.
16
The G.O.P. has come to resemble a Soviet dictatorship on most subjects, including climate change, raising taxes, and government regulation. And this has happened in a decentralized manner, without secret police or concentration camps or a central authority to issue marching orders. The dictatorship is not something imposed on party sympathizers, but rather something they have imposed on themselves. In fact, the existence of this decentralized dictatorship is a very good example of the dangers of democracy, as the Republican establishment knows very well but cannot say.
50
It's actually not terribly decentralized — the people who are giving the marching orders are the giant economic powers: Exxon, Beatrice Foods, Koch Industries. Thanks to Citizens United, big money dictates the Republican agenda (and dilutes the Democratic agenda). The failure of democracy here is the failure of SCOTUS to recognize one of the crucial functions of government: to serve as a check on the power of monopolistic capitalism, and to ensure that the interests of ordinary people are given weight even when they are not profitable.
4
Europe has spent $280 billion on climate change to little effect David Brooks tells us.
What he does not mention is that in the 20 years of disasters, self defeating debacles and war crimes of ReaganBushBush the US has spent nearly $10 TRILLION on war in the Middle East.
Each and every year the US Navy, alone, burns more oil than Sweden.
Largely to keep the world safe, and mind bogglingly profitable, for the Exxon Valdez's and the Chevron tanker Condoleeza Rice.
Now imagine those $10 trillion and thirty five years spent on non polluting renewables, storage technology and an upgraded national electricity grid.
What he does not mention is that in the 20 years of disasters, self defeating debacles and war crimes of ReaganBushBush the US has spent nearly $10 TRILLION on war in the Middle East.
Each and every year the US Navy, alone, burns more oil than Sweden.
Largely to keep the world safe, and mind bogglingly profitable, for the Exxon Valdez's and the Chevron tanker Condoleeza Rice.
Now imagine those $10 trillion and thirty five years spent on non polluting renewables, storage technology and an upgraded national electricity grid.
505
@craig geary
Where does the electricity running on your grid come from? Pixie dust?
Where does the electricity running on your grid come from? Pixie dust?
1
And over the last 35 years the US government has spent over $20 TRILLION on poverty programs with little or no effect. Now imagine the $20 trillion and 35 years spent on non polluting renewables, storage, and an upgraded national electricity grid. Two can play that game.
2
The navy probably has one hundred nuclear power plants driving their ships, and has a record that we as civilians should try to emulate in using clean power to fulfill its mission.
"— a vast majority of Republican politicians can’t publicly say what they know about the truth of climate change because they’re afraid the thought police will knock on their door and drag them off to an AM radio interrogation."
How courageous, how patriotic. And how far we could have come, how far we could progress toward a more rational existence on this earth but for Republican refusal to publicly accept what the rest of the world acknowledges to be true. On this issue, among others, there is a dark corner in my heart for Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell. the capitol bagman for Big Coal.
We don't need to wait for the rest of the world. We can capitalize on what needs to be done and be better off for it, but government has to be a partner in the endeavor. I wish I were more optimistic.
How courageous, how patriotic. And how far we could have come, how far we could progress toward a more rational existence on this earth but for Republican refusal to publicly accept what the rest of the world acknowledges to be true. On this issue, among others, there is a dark corner in my heart for Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell. the capitol bagman for Big Coal.
We don't need to wait for the rest of the world. We can capitalize on what needs to be done and be better off for it, but government has to be a partner in the endeavor. I wish I were more optimistic.
87
The US can choose to lead, follow, or erect barriers.
Have we chosen only to lead in being the global police, waging war endlessly, and abandoned the lead in science and technology?
Have we chosen only to lead in being the global police, waging war endlessly, and abandoned the lead in science and technology?
2
All the GOPs horses and all of its men can never put the planet back together again. Next to the great escape orchestrated for the big six banks to take over the failed investment banks in 2008, the GOP malfeasance with respect to Big Energy and the environment ranks as the 2nd largest scam in history. Except for this, there is no bailout.
Good thing we have Brooks making clever remarks why the GOP can't tell the truth. What a hoot!
Good thing we have Brooks making clever remarks why the GOP can't tell the truth. What a hoot!
Now, you see, this is the big advantage to occasionally being dissed in the WSJ community for being a RINO – I couldn’t possibly care less what people dramatically more conservative than I think about me, any more than I care what people WAY more liberal than I in this community think about me. So I can afford to admit that as a Republican I accept that human activity has had some effect on climate and possibly a lot. But whether a little or lot, what’s the difference? Before Pacific island dwellers feel seawater rising to the level of their noses or we need to scoop out New York City and transplant it to the High Plains, we’d better start thinking seriously about how to live WITH climate change. And Paris doesn’t get us there, does it?
I didn’t resort to interpretive wisdom from Alex Hamilton because I almost never speak to him without also summoning the shade of Aaron Burr; and Burr spends too much time cavorting shamelessly with young women, even in the afterlife, to be available much to counter Hamilton for my benefit. Even with a pistol on the Heights of Weehawken.
But I’m liking Hamilton’s advice to David because I respect Manzi’s and Wehner’s work to do just what I think we SHOULD be doing, and what Paris certainly won’t – figuring out how to live with climate change just as we seek to intelligently and sustainably lessen its effects; and possibly using government to spark innovation instead of so predictably reducing its incentives.
I didn’t resort to interpretive wisdom from Alex Hamilton because I almost never speak to him without also summoning the shade of Aaron Burr; and Burr spends too much time cavorting shamelessly with young women, even in the afterlife, to be available much to counter Hamilton for my benefit. Even with a pistol on the Heights of Weehawken.
But I’m liking Hamilton’s advice to David because I respect Manzi’s and Wehner’s work to do just what I think we SHOULD be doing, and what Paris certainly won’t – figuring out how to live with climate change just as we seek to intelligently and sustainably lessen its effects; and possibly using government to spark innovation instead of so predictably reducing its incentives.
11
I think we're stuck with figuring out how to live with these changes, and the people who've been making a LOT of money in the fossil fuels business are putting serious, enthusiastic drag on plans for cutting emissions from their product. Why they don't make a proactive effort to fashion a clean energy business plan and corner the market is beyond me.
There's always the Sloane maxim: (paraphrased) "Rather than the first, I want to be the second player in an emerging innovation"
I guess this is part of the inherent self-interest of business. Wait for the goodies to come to you.
There's always the Sloane maxim: (paraphrased) "Rather than the first, I want to be the second player in an emerging innovation"
I guess this is part of the inherent self-interest of business. Wait for the goodies to come to you.
2
I'm with Mom. Trading safe drinking water for cleaner air doesn't sound like an appealing deal to me. Keep thinking, Mr. Hamilton!
16
Of course the "global communiques" are not the whole solution. They're not even the best part of the solution. If you think that in pointing this out you're telling us anything that anyone paying attention doesn't already know full well, you're kidding yourself, David.
At the same time, none of this means that the Paris meeting isn't important. It's critically important! Governments can't begin to do the right things without first having begin to *say* the right things. The Paris Accord--if it comes to fruition--will be small, but absolutely necessary, step in the right direction.
Of course, climate change cannot be halted without technical innovation on a massive scale. Both as individuals and as groups, Homo sapiens' capacity for economic self-sacrifice is severely limited. But as you yourself suggest, such innovations will never occur fast enough without strong governmental drivers, and Paris is a way to get the governments on board.
So, David, maybe you tell your ghostly pal Alexander H to stick to subjects he knows something about: governing frontier republics with total populations of 4 or 5 million and--er--defending his personal honor in duels.
At the same time, none of this means that the Paris meeting isn't important. It's critically important! Governments can't begin to do the right things without first having begin to *say* the right things. The Paris Accord--if it comes to fruition--will be small, but absolutely necessary, step in the right direction.
Of course, climate change cannot be halted without technical innovation on a massive scale. Both as individuals and as groups, Homo sapiens' capacity for economic self-sacrifice is severely limited. But as you yourself suggest, such innovations will never occur fast enough without strong governmental drivers, and Paris is a way to get the governments on board.
So, David, maybe you tell your ghostly pal Alexander H to stick to subjects he knows something about: governing frontier republics with total populations of 4 or 5 million and--er--defending his personal honor in duels.
25
Funny thing I consulted my hero of the revolution a man of uncompromising ideals. A man who believed in an end to slavery and universal suffrage a man who believed in female equality. A man whose principles often put him in opposition to pragmatists like Washington, Hamilton and Jefferson and on this issue he was in agreement. Aaron Burr the uncompromising idealist always listened to his angel of righteous action and told me we have a planet to save.
16
Now I understand--Fracking is the capitalist solution in the US after climate denial no longer works. America will be beautiful in the 1% of land that remains unpolluted.
123
Not to mention, human induced earthquakes. Mother earth literally shakes and trembles in fear.
6
Except that the 0.1% will have bought it and put up a fence
5
And I am confused by this op-ed:
The Alexander Hamilton thing is cute, but inappropriate. If I understand correctly, Mr. Brooks seems to indicate that the conference is a waste of time ("it can be addressed ineffectively, by global communiques"), and that the solution is "with the right government boost" ..."to arouse and incite entrepreneurs, innovators and investors and foment a new technological revolution".
Are they not in it for the money? Their money and profit? Does Mr. Brooks think they are in for the greater good of humanity?
"Young, scrappy and hungry" does not seem to me to be a solution here. And maybe Hamilton did "throw away" his shot after all.
The Alexander Hamilton thing is cute, but inappropriate. If I understand correctly, Mr. Brooks seems to indicate that the conference is a waste of time ("it can be addressed ineffectively, by global communiques"), and that the solution is "with the right government boost" ..."to arouse and incite entrepreneurs, innovators and investors and foment a new technological revolution".
Are they not in it for the money? Their money and profit? Does Mr. Brooks think they are in for the greater good of humanity?
"Young, scrappy and hungry" does not seem to me to be a solution here. And maybe Hamilton did "throw away" his shot after all.
44
@Joshua Schwartz
I think they should have either cancelled the conference or moved it to a different city.
Paris, and the rest of Europe, is tying up its leaders on something a little less pressing than terrorism and the refugee crisis. The next time people are slaughtered in Paris, or another European city, I am going to remember all of the effort that went into this latest episode of political grandstanding.
There are real problems, in the present, that are too big for Obama's capacity or preparaction for the office. So he turns to more public-shaming about something that will beset the world, maybe, in a few centuries.
When you have run out of ideas in foreign policy and you have started all of the racist and gender-based wars you can find, head to Paris and talk about the distant future.
No one can challenge you, except for the people who are desperate for leaderhship right now. And they should.
I think they should have either cancelled the conference or moved it to a different city.
Paris, and the rest of Europe, is tying up its leaders on something a little less pressing than terrorism and the refugee crisis. The next time people are slaughtered in Paris, or another European city, I am going to remember all of the effort that went into this latest episode of political grandstanding.
There are real problems, in the present, that are too big for Obama's capacity or preparaction for the office. So he turns to more public-shaming about something that will beset the world, maybe, in a few centuries.
When you have run out of ideas in foreign policy and you have started all of the racist and gender-based wars you can find, head to Paris and talk about the distant future.
No one can challenge you, except for the people who are desperate for leaderhship right now. And they should.
1
The bad news is that we're asking governments to spend billions on a project that may not show benefits for a century. The good news is that we may not have a century.
We've been looking for a way to commit mass suicide for quite a while. Religion was right up there, and has been the method of choice for some time. It may still may be a contender, but considering how many times I've heard the news talk about unprecedented record rainfall, ruinous droughts, unstoppable forest fires, vanishing glaciers and melting icecaps, I'm not so sure. A "storm of the century" is happening every few months. South Carolina experienced almost Katrina-like destruction not from a massive hurricane abetted by poorly maintained levees, but from a rainstorm. People are drowning in their cars. That's not supposed to happen.
It's hard to gauge just how much time we have, but I've got a feeling that when climates go bad they go bad very quickly. It's like tipping back in your chair a little too far. Everything's find for a while, and then you're windmilling your arms like crazy, trying to stop the inevitable fall.
So whatever comes out of the Paris conference may be moot, but it seems like we ought to do something. At the very least we might want to stop dismissing climate scientists as left-wing tools. Or maybe we should start heeding those religious nuts who stand on street corners yelling "the end is near."
My money's still on religion.
We've been looking for a way to commit mass suicide for quite a while. Religion was right up there, and has been the method of choice for some time. It may still may be a contender, but considering how many times I've heard the news talk about unprecedented record rainfall, ruinous droughts, unstoppable forest fires, vanishing glaciers and melting icecaps, I'm not so sure. A "storm of the century" is happening every few months. South Carolina experienced almost Katrina-like destruction not from a massive hurricane abetted by poorly maintained levees, but from a rainstorm. People are drowning in their cars. That's not supposed to happen.
It's hard to gauge just how much time we have, but I've got a feeling that when climates go bad they go bad very quickly. It's like tipping back in your chair a little too far. Everything's find for a while, and then you're windmilling your arms like crazy, trying to stop the inevitable fall.
So whatever comes out of the Paris conference may be moot, but it seems like we ought to do something. At the very least we might want to stop dismissing climate scientists as left-wing tools. Or maybe we should start heeding those religious nuts who stand on street corners yelling "the end is near."
My money's still on religion.
286
Last year my niece married a man from Tamil Nadu, India. I am hearing from over there about 100-year flooding, making the streets impassable and knocking out electricity in Chennai, a city of 9 million people. I have been to Chennai, and I can't even begin to imagine the chaos! Meanwhile, David Brooks writes a cute editorial with Alexander Hamilton's views on the subject......
12
tliberal, thanks so much for your comment...its the same from folks in Bangladesh, each year they have floods with their house possessions floating away. Each time the floods recede, they start over. We all heard about the epic 2010 floods in Pakistan, "The floods in Pakistan began in late July 2010, resulting from heavy monsoon rains in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh, Punjab and, Balochistan regions of Pakistan, which affected the Indus River basin. Approximately one-fifth of Pakistan's total land area was underwater, approximately 796,095 square kilometres (307,374 sq mi). According to Pakistani government data, the floods directly affected about 20 million people, mostly by destruction of property, livelihood and infrastructure, with a death toll of close to 2,000." Meanwhile we all know about the Himalayan glaciers retreat at an alarming rate unfathomable by human beings http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912125826.htm
The subcontinent is in peril. These glaciers feed most of the major rivers in the subcontinent. Without rivers, without water, accompanying rising temperatures would only mean -- wastelands, vermin, disease, perhaps the scale of wiping out the Indus Valley Civilizations of 2600-1900 BCE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization
The subcontinent is in peril. These glaciers feed most of the major rivers in the subcontinent. Without rivers, without water, accompanying rising temperatures would only mean -- wastelands, vermin, disease, perhaps the scale of wiping out the Indus Valley Civilizations of 2600-1900 BCE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization
5