Hmmmm....this reads like someone likes to hear themselves speak, and it isn't the ever witty, knowledgable and just darn brilliant Gail Collins. Maybe the other one just tries too hard...
Forgive my cynicism, but it seems that most Republicans only oppose regressive taxes when they are taxes on carbon.
As for "picking winners and losers," why not?
We've been subsidizing petroleum and coal for a century... most conservatives (and liberals too) had no problem making carbon fuel a winner.
Now carbon fuels are an obvious dead end and the way out is clear.
But when people propose a small percentage of our R&D goes to ensuring that America leads in the energy economy of the future, rather than China or India, everyone on the right becomes a market force purist.
How I long for the time when Republicans were rational, rather than merely strict small minded ideologues attempting to defeat any proposal they didn't think of, and even some, like Obamacare, that they did.
As for "picking winners and losers," why not?
We've been subsidizing petroleum and coal for a century... most conservatives (and liberals too) had no problem making carbon fuel a winner.
Now carbon fuels are an obvious dead end and the way out is clear.
But when people propose a small percentage of our R&D goes to ensuring that America leads in the energy economy of the future, rather than China or India, everyone on the right becomes a market force purist.
How I long for the time when Republicans were rational, rather than merely strict small minded ideologues attempting to defeat any proposal they didn't think of, and even some, like Obamacare, that they did.
2
What Trump did was wrong and a little bit right.
There are reasons that would have justified what he did.
Sadly he is withdrawing from the climate accord for the wrong reasons.
On the positive side withdrawing from the treaty seems to have one unintended result.
It appears because we are not leading China and India are taking the lead to reduce the pollutants that result in Global warming because
If true this is a good thing.
By withdrawing from the accord Trump has given the opportunity to them to lead.
It is better that they lead then to follow the USA.
By leading they set a better example to the world then we could not and also puts pressure on them to put into effect the things they have to do.
Both of these countries are becoming world powers.
It is not a bad thing that in addition to the wealth they create for their nations they also take on the responsibilities that comes with.
That being said we should not credit Trump as this is something he did not intend,.
There are reasons that would have justified what he did.
Sadly he is withdrawing from the climate accord for the wrong reasons.
On the positive side withdrawing from the treaty seems to have one unintended result.
It appears because we are not leading China and India are taking the lead to reduce the pollutants that result in Global warming because
If true this is a good thing.
By withdrawing from the accord Trump has given the opportunity to them to lead.
It is better that they lead then to follow the USA.
By leading they set a better example to the world then we could not and also puts pressure on them to put into effect the things they have to do.
Both of these countries are becoming world powers.
It is not a bad thing that in addition to the wealth they create for their nations they also take on the responsibilities that comes with.
That being said we should not credit Trump as this is something he did not intend,.
1
I like the format of this article. It's almost as much fun as Doctor Goose. But why the omnipresent resurrection of the "Pittsburg over Paris" crack? Fine if you are trying to point out yet another example of the orange one's ignorance, i.e. Pittsburg voted (and still remains) overwhelmingly anti-Trump and proud of its environmental cleanup. But please don't continue promoting Trump's cutesie alliteration as a sort of mantra for the dim witted. "Save the earth" is more valid, you have to admit.
4
Trump is prepping for an attack in NYC and what he will tweet about DeBlasio and Cuomo. If he can remember what to say and who they are. DeBlasio's wife and children are not white, so there's an opening. Cuomo is divorced but that's not the road to take. Gun control is available.
Don't look for him to stand on the debris with a bullhorn.
Don't look for him to stand on the debris with a bullhorn.
2
@Eileen: I agree, "tout a fait, " that it is crude and cruel to make light of the suffering of polar bears due to global warming, which both authors seem to be doing in the article. One should show compassion, build bridges of empathy with all of God's creatures, sentient beings whether on 2 legs or 4. Callousness of both authors is truly amazing. Since one can't mitigate all of the suffering, polar bears included, one should , like Candide , cultivate one's own garden, endeavor modestly to alleviate the misery of a few helpless creatures at the least, Even going out to feed stray cats at night or pitching in at local animal shelter are acts of supreme altruism. In Isla de Los Sotos in P.uerto Rico--"soto" in Spanish means dog--there are volunteers rescuing animals abandoned by their owners, and who then find good homes for them state side, a worthwhile cause for anyone devoted to aiding the helpless creatures. When one sees darkness, one should light a candle. But you are to be commended for drawing attention to the plight of the bears which both authors treat lightly. Collins is a very funny writer, gifted, but believe she got sidetracked last year when she began proselytizing for HRC during the campaign, but believe she will find her groove once again and fulfill her vocation of being a fine comedic writer.
1
Hot off the press response response to Trump from Canada's foreign policy Minister
https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2017/06/address_by_minister...
https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2017/06/address_by_minister...
A beautiful speech. Everyone should read it.
What more is there for any columnist to say about Trump?
Dust off your Gibbon. Unless we are blest with a focused and organized Social-Democratic alternative to Trumpism, America is headed for its decline and fall.
With Trump we already have a crazed and debauched would-be emperor.
How long before this mini-Caligula appoints his golf cart as Senator?
Dust off your Gibbon. Unless we are blest with a focused and organized Social-Democratic alternative to Trumpism, America is headed for its decline and fall.
With Trump we already have a crazed and debauched would-be emperor.
How long before this mini-Caligula appoints his golf cart as Senator?
2
"Borderline illiteracy," are you kidding? The 45th couldn't/shouldn't make it to 6th grade with his blather. So sad.
1
Donald's history of playing fast and loose with the truth began on a major scale more than 50 years ago. He had just finished military (high) school when he started to get letters from his draft board on Kissena Blvd. in Flushing, NY . (Note: this was also my draft board). They were enlisting him in our war against Vietnam, but the Donald didn't want to go, so his dad got a doctor to write a note stating that his "bad heel" rendered him unfit for duty. This happened not once, but at least five times. Donald REALLY didn't want to leave the comforts of home, where there were no minorities, and his father's money could make EVERYTHING nice again. Now he's got all the money, and he's learned how to use it to get what he wants.
He's a pathetic liar and user who will do anything to be at the top of the heap - number one - even if it means pushing 80 year-old, white haired grandfathers out of his way in order to get to the front of the line where nobody's waiting for him.
Surely this nightmare can't be happening. There must be some mistake! Saint Peter, where are you when we need you?
He's a pathetic liar and user who will do anything to be at the top of the heap - number one - even if it means pushing 80 year-old, white haired grandfathers out of his way in order to get to the front of the line where nobody's waiting for him.
Surely this nightmare can't be happening. There must be some mistake! Saint Peter, where are you when we need you?
3
Welcome Bret. Used to read you in the WSJ (when employer paid for the subscription). Now that I'm retired I'm happy to see you here. While there is much we won't agree on, I like having intelligent commentary from conservatives because I always learn something that I hadn't thought about before.
2
The regressiveness of a carbon tax can be simply and easily countered by refunding the revenue to Americans in the form of monthly carbon-dividend cheques. A study of this proposal, performed by Regional Economic Models, Inc. for the Citizens’ Climate Lobby, estimates that the economically lower two thirds of families would gain more from their carbon dividends than they would pay in price increases resulting from the carbon tax.
4
A carbon tax would not necessarily be the best method to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. It could punish people that need to use fossil fuels to produce what we need and would not be fair. Think about farmers harvesting crops…burning large amount of fuels is necessary.
A comprehensive energy program implemented over five plus decades with reasonable goals that are achievable is really what is required. An energy use and energy tax system needs to be spread out over as wide an economic base as possible with the revenue fed to the correct developers.
To replace fossil energy with alternative energy is going to be expensive and take a long time to implement. Infrastructure changes needed to the grid and storage systems are not going to be easy. Renewables have limits due to low energy density diffusing the power source over large areas of land and are not despatchable. the low levels of renewables have not required much in the way of grid changes yet. Energy storage is difficult and limited due to physics. Using natural gas as backup does not solve the CO2 problems.
Energy will get more expensive in the future as the free market does not create energy and we have used up the easy fossil fuels. Certain processes for renewables will become a bit cheaper, but the materials supporting these processes such as silver, neodymium etc. will remain expensive and require large mining efforts. Installing the infrastructure will be the most difficult and costly part.
A comprehensive energy program implemented over five plus decades with reasonable goals that are achievable is really what is required. An energy use and energy tax system needs to be spread out over as wide an economic base as possible with the revenue fed to the correct developers.
To replace fossil energy with alternative energy is going to be expensive and take a long time to implement. Infrastructure changes needed to the grid and storage systems are not going to be easy. Renewables have limits due to low energy density diffusing the power source over large areas of land and are not despatchable. the low levels of renewables have not required much in the way of grid changes yet. Energy storage is difficult and limited due to physics. Using natural gas as backup does not solve the CO2 problems.
Energy will get more expensive in the future as the free market does not create energy and we have used up the easy fossil fuels. Certain processes for renewables will become a bit cheaper, but the materials supporting these processes such as silver, neodymium etc. will remain expensive and require large mining efforts. Installing the infrastructure will be the most difficult and costly part.
glenmr -- you wander around and present no conclusion. Yes, our current agricultural methods use a lot of fossil fuel -- taxing CO2 would increase food costs unless farmers can learn to use less fossil fuel, and there are many reasons to think that this is possible.
Further, want to save money on the carbon tax fraction of food? Don't eat beef -- that simple.
But even if not, with the per capita rebate scheme the poor will receive more than enough to cover their increased food costs.
Further, want to save money on the carbon tax fraction of food? Don't eat beef -- that simple.
But even if not, with the per capita rebate scheme the poor will receive more than enough to cover their increased food costs.
4
I think I was reasonably clear that there needs to be long-term achievable goals, energy is going to get more expensive and that a carbon tax would not be fair to energy intense industries--farming was an example. I don't expect to see a solar or wind powered harvestor in the next few years. Similar for smelting operations, assembly lines, heavy construction equipment...etc.
A carbon tax system will that claims being revenue neutral is not going to accomplish anything without goals for replacing fossil fuels with alternative sources that can definitely be achieved and keep the economy viable. Heavy infrastructure changes are expensive, slow and difficult. That problem needs to be addressed with more than just "tax carbon."
"Further, want to save money on the carbon tax fraction of food? Don't eat beef -- that simple" Sorry, but nothing is that simple.
A carbon tax system will that claims being revenue neutral is not going to accomplish anything without goals for replacing fossil fuels with alternative sources that can definitely be achieved and keep the economy viable. Heavy infrastructure changes are expensive, slow and difficult. That problem needs to be addressed with more than just "tax carbon."
"Further, want to save money on the carbon tax fraction of food? Don't eat beef -- that simple" Sorry, but nothing is that simple.
Brilliant interplay. How refreshing to read discourse which involves some opposing views with no animosity nor jugular attacks. Good job y'all.
3
Sweden has a very very simple solution to taxing carbon. Tax on gas is very high. True. When I moved there I wondered how it's sustainable, especially for those who live out in the countryside. Then I found out that there is a very sweet deduction you take on your income tax based on necessary driving, whether directly for work or commuting in the absence of an easy public transit option. No receipts needed, just the number of days you work and the distance. The deduction is by distance not your actual usage so if you choose to drive a gas hog it hits you more, but you still get a deduction. So in effect, you pay for your personal driving at higher rates than driving you need to do. Very easy and simple and effective. That would be a palatable way to raise our gas tax.
4
Look, I accept that we can do everything we want/need to that is expressed in the Paris Accords, without actually being in the accord. And many cities and companies are committing to do just that.
Then we see what Trump priorities are, as made plain by his budget proposals. Cut everything, especially taxes for the wealthy and corporations, as well as EPA budget and priorities, R & D, etc., etc. and so on.
But because the Accord is voluntary - not binding - Trump could have remained in the accord and still done everything he's doing now. Staying in would have been a nod to international cooperation working toward solving a real and serious problem.
But no - he just HAD to flip the bird to everyone. There really seems to be no other explanation for such behavior. I mean, could he really believe all the non-sense reasons he gave for exiting the accords in his speech? Even Trump can't be THAT stupid ... or am I being to optimistic??
Then we see what Trump priorities are, as made plain by his budget proposals. Cut everything, especially taxes for the wealthy and corporations, as well as EPA budget and priorities, R & D, etc., etc. and so on.
But because the Accord is voluntary - not binding - Trump could have remained in the accord and still done everything he's doing now. Staying in would have been a nod to international cooperation working toward solving a real and serious problem.
But no - he just HAD to flip the bird to everyone. There really seems to be no other explanation for such behavior. I mean, could he really believe all the non-sense reasons he gave for exiting the accords in his speech? Even Trump can't be THAT stupid ... or am I being to optimistic??
12
Please refrain from publishing Mr. Stephens' comments about the causes of climate change. He doesn't understand what scientists understand and anyway why take an unnecessary risk with future generations' health and happiness.
My wife likes her subscription to the NYT so I still read along but really why support those who can not understand climate science or won't because they have vested interests. Maybe what Donald Trump is waiting for is an engineer to show him that operating costs of his properties will be lower if he relies on solar panels, windmills and advanced-technology batteries.
My wife likes her subscription to the NYT so I still read along but really why support those who can not understand climate science or won't because they have vested interests. Maybe what Donald Trump is waiting for is an engineer to show him that operating costs of his properties will be lower if he relies on solar panels, windmills and advanced-technology batteries.
7
After Trump's rejection of the Paris Climate Agreement, if you were not an American, living anywhere in the rest of the world, looking in on us instead of looking out, you would regard America and its citizens as the greatest threat to the future sustainability of life on planet Earth. And you would be correct.
After the financial crisis of 2008, when American banking executives committed the largest fraud in the history of the world and sold worthless mortgage backed securities to the rest of the globe, collapsing the world economy, you would say who needs a country that would do such a thing. And you would be correct.
And after George W. Bush waged war with Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack under the false pretense that they were harboring weapons of mass destruction, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people and destabilizing the Middle East for generations to come, you would wonder what kind of monstrous country would do such a thing. And you would be correct.
Tragically, the world would be far better off without America under Republican leadership. Yet Republican thought leaders like Bret Stephens just continue to perpetuate falsehoods and distort reality to pursue their perhaps well intentioned, but ultimately evil ends.
After the financial crisis of 2008, when American banking executives committed the largest fraud in the history of the world and sold worthless mortgage backed securities to the rest of the globe, collapsing the world economy, you would say who needs a country that would do such a thing. And you would be correct.
And after George W. Bush waged war with Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack under the false pretense that they were harboring weapons of mass destruction, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people and destabilizing the Middle East for generations to come, you would wonder what kind of monstrous country would do such a thing. And you would be correct.
Tragically, the world would be far better off without America under Republican leadership. Yet Republican thought leaders like Bret Stephens just continue to perpetuate falsehoods and distort reality to pursue their perhaps well intentioned, but ultimately evil ends.
41
"We are SYMBOLS and (we) inhabit SYMBOLS." (Emerson, 1844)
=================================================
Make with the "polar bear in the room". We need symbols to stay focused.
Without symbols, these discussions tend to go nowhere, nowhere, period.
Trump, with his cellphone Tweets is a symbol of deviance and it is still working. The endlessly verbal debates of Trump are not changing minds.
Stop the intellectual babble and bring on the symbols, please!
================================================
=================================================
Make with the "polar bear in the room". We need symbols to stay focused.
Without symbols, these discussions tend to go nowhere, nowhere, period.
Trump, with his cellphone Tweets is a symbol of deviance and it is still working. The endlessly verbal debates of Trump are not changing minds.
Stop the intellectual babble and bring on the symbols, please!
================================================
3
Let me add that James Comey is a symbol of defiance. I suspect that his testimony on Thursday will have great symbolic impact. I suspect that the Stock Market will dip, as a result.
Let's see what happens, Thursday ...
====================
Let's see what happens, Thursday ...
====================
3
We are in full process of becoming the incredible, diminishing, vanishing country. One day the history will be shown in a blockbuster movie produced for some intelligent life form that emerges from our own obtuse self-destruction.
I was about to write "Thank you, President Trump!" But I've thought twice and have decided to write instead "Thank you, United States of America!"
I was about to write "Thank you, President Trump!" But I've thought twice and have decided to write instead "Thank you, United States of America!"
2
A fine example of fiddling while Rome burns.
6
Anyone who is a supply sider obviously can't do arithmetic. Why should I listen to him?
3
"“Pittsburgh Over Paris” is a better political slogan than “Save the Earth.”"
Pittsburgh supports Paris.
From : http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/pittsburgh-mayor-donald-trump/ind...
""Pittsburgh is the example," Peduto said. "We were that city that China is like today where the smoke was so, filled the air so much, that the streetlights would stay on 24 hours."
Peduto told CNN he would issue an executive order Friday pledging Pittsburgh would follow through on carbon reduction goals.
Pittsburgh supports Paris.
From : http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/pittsburgh-mayor-donald-trump/ind...
""Pittsburgh is the example," Peduto said. "We were that city that China is like today where the smoke was so, filled the air so much, that the streetlights would stay on 24 hours."
Peduto told CNN he would issue an executive order Friday pledging Pittsburgh would follow through on carbon reduction goals.
7
In my other comment here I say IEA.gov. I meant EIA.gov. Here's Oklahoma's page. Let Senator "Snowball" Inhofe explain why there's so much clean wind power in his state.
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=OK
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=OK
1
No, Ms. Collins, this "conversation" won't do. You give legitimacy to someone who tries constantly to undermine science while pretending he doesn't. I remember Mr. Stephens saying that one should be open to discuss different opinions about the reality of climate change. Now, he insinuates that the Paris treaty is not sacred, and therefore can be questioned. Both positions are correct in absolute, but profoundly hypocritical in the current context. And yet context is essential, here, because this is a newspaper. As a columnist, Mr. Stephens does not really express a reasoned opinion: all he does is try to undermine reason.
I did not cancel my subsciption to the NYT when they hired Mr. Stephens, because of the paper's excellent reporters, and because of columnists such as Gail Collins. I find it profoundly disheartening, though, to see you tarnishing here your own record.
I did not cancel my subsciption to the NYT when they hired Mr. Stephens, because of the paper's excellent reporters, and because of columnists such as Gail Collins. I find it profoundly disheartening, though, to see you tarnishing here your own record.
4
Trump is an absurdity. The only thing I know is that he will do something absurd shortly but there will be no way to predict what it will be. This is not leadership. It's not even bad leadership. Trying to explain any of his actions or pronouncements in rational terms is to misunderstand the crisis. Everything he says, the opposite is true. It is no way to build a country let alone a civilization. And the rest of those republicans that support him - they are even more difficult to reconcile. Trump has some form of insanity and that is clear. But those republicans - those guys should be in a zoo - the reptile portion.
7
I disagree, Mr. Stephens. This decision does not and will not help Republicans now, in 2018, or 2020.
"Pittsburgh not Paris" sounded good, alliteration is a popular tool for speechwriters, but it became ridiculous and uninformed right after the Mayor of Pittsburgh said the President's policies were not at all popular in Pittsburgh. Oops! Another popular tool for speechwriters (columnists, too) is fact-checking. I believe the Vice-President has already rolled out "Des Moines not Denmark."
"Pittsburgh not Paris" sounded good, alliteration is a popular tool for speechwriters, but it became ridiculous and uninformed right after the Mayor of Pittsburgh said the President's policies were not at all popular in Pittsburgh. Oops! Another popular tool for speechwriters (columnists, too) is fact-checking. I believe the Vice-President has already rolled out "Des Moines not Denmark."
5
Pittsburg not Polluted has a better feel than Pittsburgh not Paris, too.
And Des Moines not Denmark? Let him roll that one out, but there is actually a pretty striking comparison to make between Denmark and Iowa:
Denmark - over 44% of electrical generation is wind
Iowa - almost 37% of electrical generation from wind (36.6% in 2016, up from 0% in 1999)
We really need to publicize the GOP's clean little secret - a lot of the real growth in renewables in America is on the Plains states, and most of the leaders in wind power are states that are pretty Red.
So let's out these closeted wind-power generators:
"Wind power provided about 30% of South Dakota’s total net electricity generation in 2016."
"In Kansas, wind energy has grown from less than 1% of net electricity generation in 2005 to 24% in 2015, making wind the state's second largest power provider, after coal."
"In 2015, Oklahoma ranked third in the nation in net electricity generation from wind, which provided about one-fourth of the state's net generation."
"Texas leads the nation in wind-powered generation capacity with more than 18,500 megawatts; in 2014 and 2015, Texas wind turbines produced more electricity than the state's two nuclear plants."
Quotes are from IEA.gov's state summary pages.
If Trump cared about jobs, infrastructure and clean air, we'd be putting HVDC lines where Pruitt would prefer oil pipelilnes.
And Des Moines not Denmark? Let him roll that one out, but there is actually a pretty striking comparison to make between Denmark and Iowa:
Denmark - over 44% of electrical generation is wind
Iowa - almost 37% of electrical generation from wind (36.6% in 2016, up from 0% in 1999)
We really need to publicize the GOP's clean little secret - a lot of the real growth in renewables in America is on the Plains states, and most of the leaders in wind power are states that are pretty Red.
So let's out these closeted wind-power generators:
"Wind power provided about 30% of South Dakota’s total net electricity generation in 2016."
"In Kansas, wind energy has grown from less than 1% of net electricity generation in 2005 to 24% in 2015, making wind the state's second largest power provider, after coal."
"In 2015, Oklahoma ranked third in the nation in net electricity generation from wind, which provided about one-fourth of the state's net generation."
"Texas leads the nation in wind-powered generation capacity with more than 18,500 megawatts; in 2014 and 2015, Texas wind turbines produced more electricity than the state's two nuclear plants."
Quotes are from IEA.gov's state summary pages.
If Trump cared about jobs, infrastructure and clean air, we'd be putting HVDC lines where Pruitt would prefer oil pipelilnes.
1
I honestly think, in general, this column is sexist with the woman (Gail) always deferring to the man (Bret). Come on, this is supposed to be 2017. I want to hear more of Gail's thoughts in these conversations.
By the way, there is tons more our government could be doing to incentivize businesses and consumers to use more green energy, to drive more fuel-efficient cars, be less consumerist, etc., etc. Countries like Germany and China will be eating our lunch on this front given the Republican Party's deep disdain of science and the environment. Oh, yes, let's not forget that the Republicans absolutely hate any efforts by government that might actually make life better for the average citizen of this country.
By the way, there is tons more our government could be doing to incentivize businesses and consumers to use more green energy, to drive more fuel-efficient cars, be less consumerist, etc., etc. Countries like Germany and China will be eating our lunch on this front given the Republican Party's deep disdain of science and the environment. Oh, yes, let's not forget that the Republicans absolutely hate any efforts by government that might actually make life better for the average citizen of this country.
3
I'm tired of Mr. Stephens "wit".
In the last episode of The Conversation, Mr. Stephens quoted John Yoo as just another legal expert when in fact Yoo is the man who gave all the arguments to develop the U.S. as a torture state. Nowhere was Yoo credited with his authorship of the torture memos in service of Cheney.
Trump certainly knew of Yoo's work on behalf of stress positions, slamming, sleep deprivation, the simulation of asphyxiation through drowning known as waterboarding etc etc tearing the Geneva Convention to shreds.
Trump the candidate promised far far worse than waterboarding and now Yoo is part of the administration with help from Stephens' normalization of Yoo.
Stephens used his platform in the NY Times of all papers to promote climate flexibility, ignoring the 2 degree Celsius limit.
Nothing mysterious about Stephens receiving accolades from the destroyers of the Paris Climate Accords.
Stephens grand coalition includes Syria, Nicaragua, and the U.S. He should have the guts and integrity to acknowledge his role in retrograde policies. Does he get any money from the Koch fronts?
How long will he be tolerated by the editorial board? His screeds are sufficient to spur subscription cancellations.
In the last episode of The Conversation, Mr. Stephens quoted John Yoo as just another legal expert when in fact Yoo is the man who gave all the arguments to develop the U.S. as a torture state. Nowhere was Yoo credited with his authorship of the torture memos in service of Cheney.
Trump certainly knew of Yoo's work on behalf of stress positions, slamming, sleep deprivation, the simulation of asphyxiation through drowning known as waterboarding etc etc tearing the Geneva Convention to shreds.
Trump the candidate promised far far worse than waterboarding and now Yoo is part of the administration with help from Stephens' normalization of Yoo.
Stephens used his platform in the NY Times of all papers to promote climate flexibility, ignoring the 2 degree Celsius limit.
Nothing mysterious about Stephens receiving accolades from the destroyers of the Paris Climate Accords.
Stephens grand coalition includes Syria, Nicaragua, and the U.S. He should have the guts and integrity to acknowledge his role in retrograde policies. Does he get any money from the Koch fronts?
How long will he be tolerated by the editorial board? His screeds are sufficient to spur subscription cancellations.
8
Mr. Stephens--can you expend a little less energy qualifying your climate-change-acceptance in order to try and maintain your "conservative" credentials, and instead see if you can bring a few more of your fellow "conservatives" over to the side of rational science? Maybe then we could start moving toward real solutions.
And BTW, your understanding of the topic has a ways to go if you think that the push for adding ethanol to gasoline had anything to do with concerns about climate change. The use of ethanol as a gas additive was meant to reduce air pollutants that remain close to the ground and are toxic to the human respiratory system. Ethanol is a pure hydrocarbon, and when it burns it produces CO2 and water--no nitrogenous or suffer-containing compounds, components of what used to be called "smog" and came to be referred to as "air pollution," way before anyone was thinking about greenhouse gases. It's real reason for existence is as a sop to midwest farmers, of course. Either way, it does in fact produce CO2 and as such is a contributor to greenhouse gases and global warming. So it is NOT a solution to AGW,
And BTW, your understanding of the topic has a ways to go if you think that the push for adding ethanol to gasoline had anything to do with concerns about climate change. The use of ethanol as a gas additive was meant to reduce air pollutants that remain close to the ground and are toxic to the human respiratory system. Ethanol is a pure hydrocarbon, and when it burns it produces CO2 and water--no nitrogenous or suffer-containing compounds, components of what used to be called "smog" and came to be referred to as "air pollution," way before anyone was thinking about greenhouse gases. It's real reason for existence is as a sop to midwest farmers, of course. Either way, it does in fact produce CO2 and as such is a contributor to greenhouse gases and global warming. So it is NOT a solution to AGW,
3
Why does the NSF and NOAA need more funding for climatic research?
President Obama said "The science is settled." Case closed. Is more money needed to make the science even more settled?
97% of all scientists report that the earth's climate is changing and that anthropogenic warming is the cause. What is the goal of spending more money? Does a unanimous consensus increase the validity of the science that has long been settled?
Ten of thousands of studies have already been conducted that come to the same conclusion. The earth is warming, greenhouse gases are the cause, and human's are responsible. The consequences of climate change have been well catalogued - increased droughts, increased flooding, bio-diversity collapse, famine, war and pestilence. What would more money do to change the overwhelming consensus of the causes and consequences?
Action, not research, is where the money should flow.
President Obama said "The science is settled." Case closed. Is more money needed to make the science even more settled?
97% of all scientists report that the earth's climate is changing and that anthropogenic warming is the cause. What is the goal of spending more money? Does a unanimous consensus increase the validity of the science that has long been settled?
Ten of thousands of studies have already been conducted that come to the same conclusion. The earth is warming, greenhouse gases are the cause, and human's are responsible. The consequences of climate change have been well catalogued - increased droughts, increased flooding, bio-diversity collapse, famine, war and pestilence. What would more money do to change the overwhelming consensus of the causes and consequences?
Action, not research, is where the money should flow.
3
"'Pittsburgh Over Paris' is a better political slogan than 'Save the Earth.'"
As Stephen Colbert noted last night, Trump mispronounced "Pittsburgh" last week; "the correct pronunciation is 'St. Petersburg.'"
As Stephen Colbert noted last night, Trump mispronounced "Pittsburgh" last week; "the correct pronunciation is 'St. Petersburg.'"
7
Gail and Bret you are a great double act. More!
3
Climate-change evangelists won’t be happy until everyone is as unhappy as they are.
I'm tired of Mr. Stephens "wit".
In the last episode of The Conversation, Mr. Stephens quoted John Yoo as just another legal expert when in fact Yoo is the man who gave all the arguments to develop the U.S. as a torture state. Nowhere was Yoo credited with his authorship of the torture memos in service of Cheney.
Trump certainly knew of Yoo's work on behalf of stress positions, slamming, sleep deprivation, the simulation of asphyxiation through drowning known as waterboarding etc etc tearing the Geneva Convention to shreds.
Trump the candidate promised far far worse than waterboarding and now Yoo is part of the administration with help from Stephens' normalization of Yoo.
Stephens used his platform in the NY Times of all papers to promote climate flexibility, ignoring the 2 degree Celsius limit.
Nothing mysterious about Stephens receiving accolades from the destroyers of the Paris Climate Accords.
Stephens grand coalition includes Syria, Nicaragua, and the U.S. He should have the guts and integrity to acknowledge his role in retrograde policies. Does he get any money from the Koch fronts?
How long will he be tolerated by the editorial board? His screeds are sufficient to spur subscription cancellatons.
In the last episode of The Conversation, Mr. Stephens quoted John Yoo as just another legal expert when in fact Yoo is the man who gave all the arguments to develop the U.S. as a torture state. Nowhere was Yoo credited with his authorship of the torture memos in service of Cheney.
Trump certainly knew of Yoo's work on behalf of stress positions, slamming, sleep deprivation, the simulation of asphyxiation through drowning known as waterboarding etc etc tearing the Geneva Convention to shreds.
Trump the candidate promised far far worse than waterboarding and now Yoo is part of the administration with help from Stephens' normalization of Yoo.
Stephens used his platform in the NY Times of all papers to promote climate flexibility, ignoring the 2 degree Celsius limit.
Nothing mysterious about Stephens receiving accolades from the destroyers of the Paris Climate Accords.
Stephens grand coalition includes Syria, Nicaragua, and the U.S. He should have the guts and integrity to acknowledge his role in retrograde policies. Does he get any money from the Koch fronts?
How long will he be tolerated by the editorial board? His screeds are sufficient to spur subscription cancellatons.
My memory reminds me that republicans have been a climate destroyer since their hero Reagan. He quickly turned up the Tstat in the White House and tossed the solar panels off the roof. Of course, we were paying his utility bill so he didn't care. And worse of all, he made fun of the sweater Jimmy Carter had to wear to keep warm.
I suggest that Brett. ( a really republican sounding name) ask his son how he feels about inheriting a larger desert to hike?
I suggest that Brett. ( a really republican sounding name) ask his son how he feels about inheriting a larger desert to hike?
Trump knows that nothing happens London, except great theatre.
Bret , you let Trump off easy by writing he misread what Sadiq Khan , he had the opportunity to reread it and apologize
I agree with your last comments about Trump , again , you might be letting Trump off easy
I agree with your last comments about Trump , again , you might be letting Trump off easy
1
"Pittsburgh vs Paris" is a lie. Pittsburgh and Paris are both embracing green technology specifically to fight climate change.
If facts matter as much as alliteration, reality is "Polluters vs Planet" or "Plutocrats vs People".
If facts matter as much as alliteration, reality is "Polluters vs Planet" or "Plutocrats vs People".
"It was about the perils of certitude in all things, not just climate but also political campaigning. "
But you said climate change deniers were reasonable/rational because the science is not absolutely--INFALLIBLY--certain. And thus not "imbeciles" to reject arguments based on "mere probability."
Well no one is infallible about anything; all knowledge, all evidence is a matter of probabilities--which are ranked from 0 to 1--thus an infinity of degrees--more vaguely ranked ordinally from low to high. And it IS imbecilic to reject climate change MERELY because the evidence is ONLY probable--although very high probability. That would make Santa believers (like you) reasonable/rational.
Now you deny responsibility for aiding and abetting climate change denial. You are just like them--IN DENIAL.
But you said climate change deniers were reasonable/rational because the science is not absolutely--INFALLIBLY--certain. And thus not "imbeciles" to reject arguments based on "mere probability."
Well no one is infallible about anything; all knowledge, all evidence is a matter of probabilities--which are ranked from 0 to 1--thus an infinity of degrees--more vaguely ranked ordinally from low to high. And it IS imbecilic to reject climate change MERELY because the evidence is ONLY probable--although very high probability. That would make Santa believers (like you) reasonable/rational.
Now you deny responsibility for aiding and abetting climate change denial. You are just like them--IN DENIAL.
3
Mr. Stephens calls the Paris agreement "an alibi for cynics" right after citing the mother of all alibis for cynics, supply-siders' fake concern for poor people's tax bills. And he doesn't even hide it, having already said he'd offset the "regressive" carbon tax with corporate or capital gains tax cuts.
1
Climate change should have nothing to do with politics. Mr. Stephens is given a platform to mislead readers. I understood this platform when the Wall Street Journal offered it to him. But not when the New York times does.
"....The irony is that Stephens himself seems to presume that climate science must be understood in political terms—as part of a larger struggle between liberals and conservatives. But the reality of climate change has nothing to do with politics: it's an atmospheric fact, not a political fact. And the whole idea of needing to keep “an open mind” to a legitimate “controversy” is the very essence of modern “soft” denialism...."
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/soft-climate-denial-at...
"....The irony is that Stephens himself seems to presume that climate science must be understood in political terms—as part of a larger struggle between liberals and conservatives. But the reality of climate change has nothing to do with politics: it's an atmospheric fact, not a political fact. And the whole idea of needing to keep “an open mind” to a legitimate “controversy” is the very essence of modern “soft” denialism...."
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/soft-climate-denial-at...
1
Bret: Hey Gail, how many polar bears are there right now?
Gail: Well, there's no actual count, because -
Bret: So, you don't know how many there are now. Great. Hey Gail, how many polar bears were there last year? How many were there 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 50 years ago?
Gail: Bret, you know we don't have ACTUAL counts going back -
Bret: So, you don't know how many polar bears there are now, and you don't know how many there were anytime before now, which means you have no way to tell whether their numbers are going up or down.
Gail: Bret, listen, stop thinking LOGICALLY about this. Think ENVIRONMENTALLY. Don't tell me to do MATH or SCIENCE. Just BELIEVE. BLINDLY!
Bret: Gail, did you ever take a science course that you could pass? Even junior high would count.
Gail: Well, there's no actual count, because -
Bret: So, you don't know how many there are now. Great. Hey Gail, how many polar bears were there last year? How many were there 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 50 years ago?
Gail: Bret, you know we don't have ACTUAL counts going back -
Bret: So, you don't know how many polar bears there are now, and you don't know how many there were anytime before now, which means you have no way to tell whether their numbers are going up or down.
Gail: Bret, listen, stop thinking LOGICALLY about this. Think ENVIRONMENTALLY. Don't tell me to do MATH or SCIENCE. Just BELIEVE. BLINDLY!
Bret: Gail, did you ever take a science course that you could pass? Even junior high would count.
1
Karlos -- I'd be happy to debate Bret, particularly in writing. I'm a PhD scientist, one of those people Bret called "a sick souled religion" and "closet Stalinists."
Bret is a right-wing self-entitled know-nothing, preaching standard right-wing economic dogma as "the answer" to issues he knows nothing about.
His "logic" goes like this:
Q. I have cancer, what will help me?
Bret: give the rich tax cuts, and support Netanyahu's expansionism.
Q. What is the age of the universe?
Bret: give the rich tax cuts, and support Netanyahu's expansionism.
Q. Is manmade global warming real?
Bret: Nothing is real so you can believe anything you want to. Give the rich tax cuts, and support Netanyahu's expansionism.
None of the newspapers, nor you, really want to see any sort of rational argument, do you?
Bret is a right-wing self-entitled know-nothing, preaching standard right-wing economic dogma as "the answer" to issues he knows nothing about.
His "logic" goes like this:
Q. I have cancer, what will help me?
Bret: give the rich tax cuts, and support Netanyahu's expansionism.
Q. What is the age of the universe?
Bret: give the rich tax cuts, and support Netanyahu's expansionism.
Q. Is manmade global warming real?
Bret: Nothing is real so you can believe anything you want to. Give the rich tax cuts, and support Netanyahu's expansionism.
None of the newspapers, nor you, really want to see any sort of rational argument, do you?
You win ... the 'ridiculous strawman' award, congrats. Even if were true that scientists are unsure how the polar bear population has changed over 50 years (which is likely untrue), the number of polar bears is such an incredibly small % of the total weight of HARD SCIENCE (and math) that go into the climate models to describe/predict what's happened/happening/will happen ... it's it's not even worth discussing.
IOW if you think the 'proof' of ACC is any more than a TINY TINY TINY part (like .000001) 'reliant' upon 'changes to the polar bear population' ... then you're completely clueless on the SCIENCE involved.
On top of that, the threat to their population is only just begun. The point is if ACC gets much worse, there's a strong likelihood that their numbers will, in the future, drastically dwindle ... not that we've already killed them all off.
IOW if you think the 'proof' of ACC is any more than a TINY TINY TINY part (like .000001) 'reliant' upon 'changes to the polar bear population' ... then you're completely clueless on the SCIENCE involved.
On top of that, the threat to their population is only just begun. The point is if ACC gets much worse, there's a strong likelihood that their numbers will, in the future, drastically dwindle ... not that we've already killed them all off.
Who needs the Paris Accords? The GOP elders, like "Snowball in the Senate Chamber" James Inhofe, are ever ready to assure us:
There is no global climate change.
Even if there were such change, it is not due to human activity; and even if it were due to human agency, there is nothing we now can do about it; and even if there was something we mere mortals could do about it, it would cost too much to intervene; and even if it would not cost too much to intervene, why should we bother? It costs us absolutely nothing to just sit here and be flooded, swelter and fry. It is far more cost effective just to sit here and endure the flooding, sweltering and frying as best and for as long as we can.
Be patient and the Almighties--Exxon, Shell, et al.--will attend to such global problems in due time.
Obviously, there is no need to pay any attention to those alarmist scientists and their rantings about some purported global climate change.
Besides, we are in the End Times anyway and we have known for millennia that the long scheduled Wrath would inevitably descend upon us.
Well, here and now it descends! Hence, all fears concerning what the future might bring are superfluous.
With respect to climate change, neither polar bears nor humans have a worry in the world.
There is no global climate change.
Even if there were such change, it is not due to human activity; and even if it were due to human agency, there is nothing we now can do about it; and even if there was something we mere mortals could do about it, it would cost too much to intervene; and even if it would not cost too much to intervene, why should we bother? It costs us absolutely nothing to just sit here and be flooded, swelter and fry. It is far more cost effective just to sit here and endure the flooding, sweltering and frying as best and for as long as we can.
Be patient and the Almighties--Exxon, Shell, et al.--will attend to such global problems in due time.
Obviously, there is no need to pay any attention to those alarmist scientists and their rantings about some purported global climate change.
Besides, we are in the End Times anyway and we have known for millennia that the long scheduled Wrath would inevitably descend upon us.
Well, here and now it descends! Hence, all fears concerning what the future might bring are superfluous.
With respect to climate change, neither polar bears nor humans have a worry in the world.
1
And on the other side, we have the deniers saying, "It's not NATURAL VARIATION. Nope. Not here. It's ONLY human-caused. Can NOT BE anything else."
With respect to climate change, polar bears have been around for several periods of glacial advance and retreat (estimates vary between 150K and 1.7M years, which suggests no one actually knows) and yet are still here with us.
With respect to Global Warming, ignore basic science (the kind where honest scientists publish not only their conclusions but also the uncertainties and the assumptions that led them to their conclusions). Because the audience who sat through "An Inconvenient Truth" isn't smart enough to ask questions about such things - they only need to hear the Message.
With respect to climate change, polar bears have been around for several periods of glacial advance and retreat (estimates vary between 150K and 1.7M years, which suggests no one actually knows) and yet are still here with us.
With respect to Global Warming, ignore basic science (the kind where honest scientists publish not only their conclusions but also the uncertainties and the assumptions that led them to their conclusions). Because the audience who sat through "An Inconvenient Truth" isn't smart enough to ask questions about such things - they only need to hear the Message.
Two things. The argument that Paris won't affect the progress of green energy is really an argument that policy doesn't matter. I think Bret would probably agree that policy does make a difference, and that is why Paris mattered.
Second, lets hope that his friend Jason Bordoff has the good sense to tell him about a revenue neutral carbon tax that refunds the money to American households equally. Doing that negates the regressive aspect of a carbon tax and actually ends up making most families come out ahead. For more information, see the conservative Climate Leadership Council's proposal, or check out the proposal by Citizen's Climate Lobby.
https://www.clcouncil.org/
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
Lets have a policy that leverages the free market, creates jobs, and improves the environment. Policy matters, and this is the policy that can get political support from the left and the right.
Second, lets hope that his friend Jason Bordoff has the good sense to tell him about a revenue neutral carbon tax that refunds the money to American households equally. Doing that negates the regressive aspect of a carbon tax and actually ends up making most families come out ahead. For more information, see the conservative Climate Leadership Council's proposal, or check out the proposal by Citizen's Climate Lobby.
https://www.clcouncil.org/
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
Lets have a policy that leverages the free market, creates jobs, and improves the environment. Policy matters, and this is the policy that can get political support from the left and the right.
4
Republicans have been reluctant for government to pick winners and losers in the past. Then the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on us leaving them no choice.
3
FDR - a Democrat - picked the Soviet Union to win World War 2 and most of Europe. Great choice.
It is noteworthy that just before the change of subject to Paris, Bret admits that he cannot agree with Gail because he is a bit of a jerk. If Paris is a lousy treaty, he should be agitating for a better, stronger treaty with enforcement powers rather than searching for objections to any large, expensive effort. If you cant decide where to go for night out on the town, you will wind up staying home seemingly without making any explicit decision to do so, which is actually a way of fooling yourself.
1
Our uncouth so-called president is making America Grate again. He's grating on lots of nations and people, the latest target being London's Mayor Sadiq Khan. With each tweet he makes America Less Great, and himself smaller - if that's possible.
4
I think "make america grope again" is more his metier.
As soon as someone identifies himself or herself as a “supply sider” the listener has the right and duty to roll eyes and shout, “Gimme a break!!”
4
Welcome, Bret, to the delights of Folie a Deux with Gail!
I want to say, Darn you two, for making some extremely dry and technical points almost digestible, between you! But thank goodness you came back to something I can understand. I think your equation, Bret, is spot on. Perhaps we can re-write it as "Make America Gag Again."
I want to say, Darn you two, for making some extremely dry and technical points almost digestible, between you! But thank goodness you came back to something I can understand. I think your equation, Bret, is spot on. Perhaps we can re-write it as "Make America Gag Again."
2
Gail: Let’s talk about the accord for a minute. You agree that the globe is warming and that the problem is to a large degree man-made, right?
Bret: Yes. Or rather, oui.
I'm sorry, that's not funny.
Bret: Yes. Or rather, oui.
I'm sorry, that's not funny.
It is a travel ban.
It is not a travel ban.
“New Shimmer. It’s a floor wax and a dessert topping.”
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/shimmer-floor-wax/n8625?snl=1
It is not a travel ban.
“New Shimmer. It’s a floor wax and a dessert topping.”
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/shimmer-floor-wax/n8625?snl=1
1
"Carbon taxes are regressive," Brett says, but says that he doesn't "have problems with it economically if we can offset it with tax cuts elsewhere, maybe corporate or capital gains, as part of a grand tax compromise," which steers the tax savings to the rich. That is just weird, as a proposed offset to a regressive, demand-constraining tax. Why not offset carbon taxes with a nakedly stimulative tax cut aimed at the broad bottom of the pyramid, like exempting the first X dollars of payroll income from payroll taxes?
6
Agree that Cap and Trade won't get it done. But you missed a huge element in the effort to put a price on Carbon: Revenue Neutral Carbon Fee and Dividend, as supported by many Rs as well as Ds. ("The newly formed Climate Leadership Council — which includes James A. Baker, Henry Paulson, George P. Shultz, Marty Feldstein and Greg Mankiw — is proposing elimination of nearly all of the Obama administration’s climate policies in exchange for a rising carbon tax that starts at $40 per ton, and is returned in the form of a quarterly check from the Social Security Administration to every American." - WP) see: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/
1
Mr. Stephens, you say "Carbon taxes are regressive. The poor spend a larger share of their income on energy, especially gas, than the better-off. There are ways in which you can cycle the money back to lower-income people, but that’s complex in its own right and defeats much of the original purpose of the tax."
Perhaps if you unsay "we can offset it with tax cuts elsewhere, maybe corporate or capital gains"?
Lower-income people typically don't have to offset corporate or capital gains. Giving the carbon tax money automatically to higher-income people is needlessly complicating the issue. Giving carbon tax money to fossil fuel corporations would absolutely be the wrong way to reduce emissions.
So - if you give the carbon tax money to the lower-income people first, your objection self-resolves.
I hope Jason Bordoff helps.
Perhaps if you unsay "we can offset it with tax cuts elsewhere, maybe corporate or capital gains"?
Lower-income people typically don't have to offset corporate or capital gains. Giving the carbon tax money automatically to higher-income people is needlessly complicating the issue. Giving carbon tax money to fossil fuel corporations would absolutely be the wrong way to reduce emissions.
So - if you give the carbon tax money to the lower-income people first, your objection self-resolves.
I hope Jason Bordoff helps.
7
Indeed -- Like many people I favor a broad (no exemptions, no "grandfathering!") revenue-neutral CO2 tax, with per-capita rebate to adult American citizens residing in the country.
The poor do very well under this scheme, particularly the urban poor.
My one reservation, and something i would be willing to see some form of temporary relief for, is that the rural lower income-but-not poor spend a disproportionate fraction of their income on transportation fuel. Some sort of adjustment/relief for this could be made, that goes away over a decade or so, to lessen the shock to rural communities.
The poor do very well under this scheme, particularly the urban poor.
My one reservation, and something i would be willing to see some form of temporary relief for, is that the rural lower income-but-not poor spend a disproportionate fraction of their income on transportation fuel. Some sort of adjustment/relief for this could be made, that goes away over a decade or so, to lessen the shock to rural communities.
7
Hi, Lee. Yes, I agree that adjustments like that matter. It's important when we decarbonize to remember how sparse the population is in a lot of the country.
Another issue I'd favor would be - when we do away with coal plants - that we make allowances for any of the power co-ops that went to the expense of building a coal plant back when the oil crisis turned coal into the default fuel choice.
Too bad someone wants to do away with the Clean Power Plan. States would have been able to each take a close look at circumstances like that when coming up with their plans.
Another issue I'd favor would be - when we do away with coal plants - that we make allowances for any of the power co-ops that went to the expense of building a coal plant back when the oil crisis turned coal into the default fuel choice.
Too bad someone wants to do away with the Clean Power Plan. States would have been able to each take a close look at circumstances like that when coming up with their plans.
1
Gail and Bret:
I like your column and will comment on one part of it.
Economics 101 states that raising the price of something tends to reduce purchases of it. This leads to the argument for a "carbon tax": a tax imposed on each fossil fuel, based on the amount of CO2 produced when the fuel is burned. Many have advocated this for decades.
The organization Citizens’ Climate Lobby is working with members of Congress to adopt legislation for what we call a system of Carbon Fee and Dividend or CFD. This will work like a carbon tax, except that the revenue collected will be returned to the public as “dividends.” All adults will receive equal shares, and there will be fractional shares for children.
CFD has many attractive features:
• The fees will rise gradually and give consumers and business people time to plan for the long term and act constructively.
• Billions of the purchase decisions, that will help drive the transition from fossil fuels, will be made by actors in the private economy.
• There will be less need for top down government regulations, less justification for government subsidies, and less government interference in private lives.
• The program will re-energize America with new technologies and new jobs. [I’m old enough to remember when the space program did this in the 60s and 70s.]
• We will slow global warming and help preserve a world where our children can survive and thrive and do the same for their children.
What’s not to like?
I like your column and will comment on one part of it.
Economics 101 states that raising the price of something tends to reduce purchases of it. This leads to the argument for a "carbon tax": a tax imposed on each fossil fuel, based on the amount of CO2 produced when the fuel is burned. Many have advocated this for decades.
The organization Citizens’ Climate Lobby is working with members of Congress to adopt legislation for what we call a system of Carbon Fee and Dividend or CFD. This will work like a carbon tax, except that the revenue collected will be returned to the public as “dividends.” All adults will receive equal shares, and there will be fractional shares for children.
CFD has many attractive features:
• The fees will rise gradually and give consumers and business people time to plan for the long term and act constructively.
• Billions of the purchase decisions, that will help drive the transition from fossil fuels, will be made by actors in the private economy.
• There will be less need for top down government regulations, less justification for government subsidies, and less government interference in private lives.
• The program will re-energize America with new technologies and new jobs. [I’m old enough to remember when the space program did this in the 60s and 70s.]
• We will slow global warming and help preserve a world where our children can survive and thrive and do the same for their children.
What’s not to like?
3
"What's not to like?"
The fact that believing we can control one insignificant aspect of the hundreds or thousands of parameters of Earth's climate will affect Earth's climate is ludicrous.
The fact that believing we can control one insignificant aspect of the hundreds or thousands of parameters of Earth's climate will affect Earth's climate is ludicrous.
Mr. Stephens tells us he was hiking with his son in Arizona when Scott Pruitt "dragged" him into a policy discussion. Why insert this aside if not to signal to us liberals that despite having his words picked up and used as a cudgel by the Trump team, he, too, appreciates the beauty of our planet.
Mr. Stephens needs to face the fact that whether he loves hiking or not, he can't step back from the column on climate change that he wrote. His column was on climate change, with some flicks made at political campaigning, and its emphasis on uncertainty and open-mindedness is an easy rationale for anyone who belongs to the "burn-baby-burn" club to use.
Mr. Stephens may argue his words have no business being dragged into policy discussions all he wants, but come on. They were out there in a very respected public forum, and Scott Pruitt used them correctly--i.e., they were not taken out of context. In my book, this means that his hiking notwithstanding, Mr. Stephens is squarely on the Trump side in all this.
Mr. Stephens needs to face the fact that whether he loves hiking or not, he can't step back from the column on climate change that he wrote. His column was on climate change, with some flicks made at political campaigning, and its emphasis on uncertainty and open-mindedness is an easy rationale for anyone who belongs to the "burn-baby-burn" club to use.
Mr. Stephens may argue his words have no business being dragged into policy discussions all he wants, but come on. They were out there in a very respected public forum, and Scott Pruitt used them correctly--i.e., they were not taken out of context. In my book, this means that his hiking notwithstanding, Mr. Stephens is squarely on the Trump side in all this.
1
I heard some grumbling from commenters here when Bret Stephens joined the NYT staff. However, I welcome him. One of the biggest problems the left has right now is we don't have enough sensible, intelligent conservatives telling us where we are wrong. What we have are nincompoops like Fox News, hate radio, and President Trump and his crew. Conservatives with a brain cell still pulsing have been paralyzed into some kind of zombie state by political coercion from billionaire zealots and the threats of being primaried.
Without intelligent debate, both sides devolve into their worst stereotypes. So, I hope Bret Stephens criticizes the left (and the right) good and hard. We need it.
Without intelligent debate, both sides devolve into their worst stereotypes. So, I hope Bret Stephens criticizes the left (and the right) good and hard. We need it.
7
Thw Governor of Washington State asks Trump to resign:
http://kuow.org/post/gov-inslee-trump-your-resignation-letter-would-be-g...
http://kuow.org/post/gov-inslee-trump-your-resignation-letter-would-be-g...
3
"Paris is a lousy treaty, voluntary, unenforceable and even unverifiable, and it won’t achieve the goals you mention."
Raising your voice and showing solidarity at least shows what you stand for. In the past, the USA was a leader in progress, locally and globally. And now the rest of the world thinks the USA is a selfish, narrow-minded, arrogant, backwards cretin. Trump.
Raising your voice and showing solidarity at least shows what you stand for. In the past, the USA was a leader in progress, locally and globally. And now the rest of the world thinks the USA is a selfish, narrow-minded, arrogant, backwards cretin. Trump.
73
Gail, you're slipping. You missed a chance at the end to bring up Seamus. But nice job holding Bret to account for his misguided column that Pruitt cited.
1
Impeach the traitors then prosecute them and send them to prison. PROSECUTE RUSSIAGATE!
1
"We disagree about a lot of things, Bret. But we’ll always have Trump." A good line that unintentionally serves as the new slogan for the New York Times. Not quite perfect since there's so little editorial disagreement--even Stephens and Douhat must subscribe to at least a bit of climate alarmism--but there's no question it's all about the paper's distaste for Trump and its dismay that non-readers brought us his election. Day after day, Trump, Trump, Trump, Russia, Russia, Russia... Good for newspaper sales, no doubt, terrible for the country. But thanks for delving at least for a moment into something more substantive.
Who flip flops more : Al Gore or Bret Stephens?
Not a word in your "conversation" about solar energy?? The photo accompanying a present article in your paper about China's burgeoning efforts in this field should be placed in the "a picture is worth a thousand words" archive: of a large, floating solar farm on the surface of a lake, formed when a coal mine collapsed. Wow! What ingenuity, and irony. China is cleaning our clock as the world's leader in solar power, creating enormous export potential for itself, while our Fake President pulls obsolete coal ever closer to himself.
4
Mansplaining. Yuck.
3
"Pittsburgh Over Paris." Are you referring to Pittsburgh, PA-- home of technology, Carnegie Mellon, University of Pittsburgh, world class restaurants, best sports teams (think Pittsburgh Penguins) ? The smoke stacks went away 30 years ago. Time to update your facts, Bret.
5
Could we please have a moratorium on that very tired conservative cliché about government picking winners and losers? Why does it only seem to appear in the context of clean energy research and development?
60
Yeah, in this era of making ignorance, lunacy and unethical behavior great again, I guess Stephens would rather be in Pittsburgh. Millions would definitely not, no slight to Pittsburgh.
Just shows what Americans have become; dumbed down, crude, rude, fat, angry, and just really unhappy without a clue why. And we have a leader who personifies all these ugly things. We have a GOP-dominated nation perpetuating these things and columnists like Stephens who believe Trump's a winner and the GOP will prevail with slogans “Pittsburgh Over Paris”.
Stephens wishes Mitt Romney had won in '12 "to spare us all this". Well, I wish Trump had never been born or the GOP had never been formed. Mitt would have had two terms before he was able to sufficiently loot the country and garbage it up in proper GOP style. I don't wish for Mitt and I don't prefer Pittsburgh. I wish for a president who is smart, sane, empathetic, and reserved. Thin would be good, too.
Stephens, like many on the right, wants more research, needs info from his renowned very good friend, drop name here. I guess we should be glad that he wants to appear to be open about sopping up more info about the things that he could see if he just opened his eyes. But then Stephens "is a bit of a jerk." We can agree on that.
Just shows what Americans have become; dumbed down, crude, rude, fat, angry, and just really unhappy without a clue why. And we have a leader who personifies all these ugly things. We have a GOP-dominated nation perpetuating these things and columnists like Stephens who believe Trump's a winner and the GOP will prevail with slogans “Pittsburgh Over Paris”.
Stephens wishes Mitt Romney had won in '12 "to spare us all this". Well, I wish Trump had never been born or the GOP had never been formed. Mitt would have had two terms before he was able to sufficiently loot the country and garbage it up in proper GOP style. I don't wish for Mitt and I don't prefer Pittsburgh. I wish for a president who is smart, sane, empathetic, and reserved. Thin would be good, too.
Stephens, like many on the right, wants more research, needs info from his renowned very good friend, drop name here. I guess we should be glad that he wants to appear to be open about sopping up more info about the things that he could see if he just opened his eyes. But then Stephens "is a bit of a jerk." We can agree on that.
2
In fairness to Stephens -- he has been a "neverTrumper."
2
This moronic, narcissistic, inexperienced, and practically illiterate president is not only an embarrassment to the office of the presidency and the world, but Trump et al, and his hoggish cabinet members have been given carte blanche by the GOP to change whatever laws they want so that their buddies can increase the corporate bottom line. It is sickening to watch, and I pray everyday that somewhere, somehow he and his evil companions will be removed from power. They say the smartest people are the children of immigrants, because they had the good sense to get out. God help America.
5
The Paris Agreement isn't binding nor is it the solution to Climate Change. The recognition that there is problem is what makes it important. Both China and India are going beyond the Agreement to push a cleaner agenda. States, cities and business leaders in the United States have given Trump the bird and proceeded to work on a solution in their communities.
Green tech is both big and small. There is funding for third world countries that will help to make a wide difference in the lives of people. Appropriate tech like windmills to bring clean water to villages can make a huge difference in these communities. An expensive nuclear plant or power grid isn't necessary. One light bulb in a village home from a solar panel can help a child read at night and get a better education. Solar cookers free people from using dung for fuel.
The content of the Paris agreement is flawed but it does signal a true works effort to cooperate.
Green tech is both big and small. There is funding for third world countries that will help to make a wide difference in the lives of people. Appropriate tech like windmills to bring clean water to villages can make a huge difference in these communities. An expensive nuclear plant or power grid isn't necessary. One light bulb in a village home from a solar panel can help a child read at night and get a better education. Solar cookers free people from using dung for fuel.
The content of the Paris agreement is flawed but it does signal a true works effort to cooperate.
56
Dear Gail and Brett (cc: Donald),
I am amused by the banter in your latest column about the Paris Accord - a consensus that for the first time (almost) universally recognizes my awesome power. I was flattered at even such a small step toward recognizing that there are consequences for fossil fuel extraction & for general disregard of science versus political ideology.
Let me assure you all that whether you think the Accord was useful or not and whether you think walking away from it was useful or not, I will continue undeterred to chart your course with no joy, no sorrow and no interest in your petty politics or greed. (I have neither love nor hate for your species anymore than for plant life or the bacteria or insects or birds or polar bears with whom you share your fragile and unique planet.)
Mother Nature
I am amused by the banter in your latest column about the Paris Accord - a consensus that for the first time (almost) universally recognizes my awesome power. I was flattered at even such a small step toward recognizing that there are consequences for fossil fuel extraction & for general disregard of science versus political ideology.
Let me assure you all that whether you think the Accord was useful or not and whether you think walking away from it was useful or not, I will continue undeterred to chart your course with no joy, no sorrow and no interest in your petty politics or greed. (I have neither love nor hate for your species anymore than for plant life or the bacteria or insects or birds or polar bears with whom you share your fragile and unique planet.)
Mother Nature
4
Put the London insults together with the Paris insults, the Pope insults, the coming (so I read) Cuba insults and things don't look exactly swell for the placid, innocent Trump administration. But they're consistent with nearly everything done by the Republican party since G.W. Bush came on the scene. Insult everyone is the standard M.O.
45
You can compare these to Bret Stephens bizarre ad hominems from his columns while he was at the WSJ; climate scientists where "a sick-souled religion" and "closet Stalinists."
According to Stephens the European cap and trade system "it led to a lot of offshoring of pollution to countries outside of Europe."
This strikes me as proof that it was effective.
This strikes me as proof that it was effective.
1
One point is that some biological sequestration schemes such as OTEC, littoral aeration, and restoration of kelp forests might be cost effective but themselves don't produce income (unlike alternative energy - except for OTEC), so that transfer payments are required. Cap and trade provides these payments.
For example the most cost effective carbon sink is probably Pacific kelp forests so we "otter" find a mechanism to pay for it.
For example the most cost effective carbon sink is probably Pacific kelp forests so we "otter" find a mechanism to pay for it.
Re; the carbon tax, Mr. Stephens complains such taxes are regressive, but he ignores the larger point: The effects of climate change are going to be much more regressive than any tax. It is the poor in this country unable to mitigate the impact of droughts, floods, heat waves, and superstorms who will suffer the most, not to mention the hundreds of millions of refugees-to-be in developing countries facing the prospect of mass starvation as crops fail and livestock perish. Taxes can be rebated. Replacing someone's house or his crops is a bit more complicated.
1
An long time fossil fuel industry shill, Pruitt has been on every talk show, bragging about the so-called "untold story" of how the United States has reduced its carbon output over the past twenty years due to "American innovation". Yes Mr. Pruitt, innovation thanks in large part to government sponsored research, government established fuel economy standards and government incentives for alternate energy. If not for these things, would car makers have invested billions in advanced engines and hybrid/electric drive technologies? Would solar and wind energy be growing at an explosive pace? You can't be against "government intervention" and brag about it's impact simultaneously Mr. Pruitt. Surveys clearly show that most of America is just not that gullible.
5
Always get a giggle when the slogan 'Save The Earth' comes up.
Um, the Earth is going to be just fine circling the Sun as she always does whether humans are on it or not.
Um, the Earth is going to be just fine circling the Sun as she always does whether humans are on it or not.
4
GP ... it's all a matter of one's perspective about time.
Sometime (thought to be 1 - 3 billion years from now) our sun will exhaust its hydrogen supply, go through the "helium flash," become a smallish red-giant and start "burning" helium to successive heavier elements .. carbon, neon, oxygen etc.
When this happens the earth may be consumed by the greatly expanded stellar envelope ... or perhaps not. Stars lose a lot of mass before this happens so the earth's orbit may have moved outward far enough ... but either way 'not as she always does.'
Sometime well before this our earth's core will have cooled enough so that plate tectonics turns off, ditto our magnetic field. Th earth will head down the path to being a warmer mars, as our atmosphere (and particularly water) are stripped.
Sometime (thought to be 1 - 3 billion years from now) our sun will exhaust its hydrogen supply, go through the "helium flash," become a smallish red-giant and start "burning" helium to successive heavier elements .. carbon, neon, oxygen etc.
When this happens the earth may be consumed by the greatly expanded stellar envelope ... or perhaps not. Stars lose a lot of mass before this happens so the earth's orbit may have moved outward far enough ... but either way 'not as she always does.'
Sometime well before this our earth's core will have cooled enough so that plate tectonics turns off, ditto our magnetic field. Th earth will head down the path to being a warmer mars, as our atmosphere (and particularly water) are stripped.
1
LeeH: So, we should devote our entire economy now to build the ArkShips?
1
Why give China and India a pass with our tax dollars? MAGA
Our tax dollars do not give anybody a "pass." Walking away from the Paris Accord does, to the extent that these nations reduce their efforts because we do.
Trump is not "making America great again" ... he is destroying many of the great things about America, and humiliating us before the world.
Unless of course you mean "make America grope again?"
Trump is not "making America great again" ... he is destroying many of the great things about America, and humiliating us before the world.
Unless of course you mean "make America grope again?"
1
As to Mr. Stephens' requirements for offsetting tax cuts to pay for carbon taxes, let us look instead into the money savings from health benefits resulting from less air and water pollution, and flooding and loss of land from rising seas.
Let me add that Mr. Stephens' Free Market seems utterly incapable of making that important economic connection, and that is why government should step in and take action. If we had a government right now, I believe they would do so.
Let me add that Mr. Stephens' Free Market seems utterly incapable of making that important economic connection, and that is why government should step in and take action. If we had a government right now, I believe they would do so.
1
Just watch how conservatives think:
"As a supply-sider, I don’t have problems with it (a carbon tax), economically if we can offset it with tax cuts elsewhere, maybe corporate or capital gains, as part of a grand tax compromise."
"Carbon taxes are regressive. The poor spend a larger share of their income on energy"
See? carbon taxes are regressive--they hurt the poor disproportionately. What to do? Along with a carbon taxes, cut other taxes, i.e. capital gains and corporate taxes. Doing so will help the poor. Right?
"As a supply-sider, I don’t have problems with it (a carbon tax), economically if we can offset it with tax cuts elsewhere, maybe corporate or capital gains, as part of a grand tax compromise."
"Carbon taxes are regressive. The poor spend a larger share of their income on energy"
See? carbon taxes are regressive--they hurt the poor disproportionately. What to do? Along with a carbon taxes, cut other taxes, i.e. capital gains and corporate taxes. Doing so will help the poor. Right?
5
"Paris is a lousy treaty, voluntary, unenforceable and even unverifiable, and it won’t achieve the goals you mention. It reminds me of another Paris Agreement — the 1928 Pact of Paris, better known as the Kellogg-Briand pact — that attempted to outlaw war. Nearly all countries signed it; none, alas, obeyed it. I think Paris is more of an alibi for cynics (Saudi Arabia signed it!) than a mechanism for action."
Happy to see Bret stand with Nicaragua!
Happy to see Bret stand with Nicaragua!
3
Without wishing to diminish the benefits of reducing our energy consumption in every form, I would caution you not to expect any change in the planet's climate whether or not we achieve the targets. We have developed something called "the scientific method" whereby in order to associate cause and effect, you MUST have two experiments, one with and one without the cause. This is impossible in the case of assessing cause and effect of global warming.
It is worth noting that the so called experts in the UK got the pollution levels of diesel engined cars wrong by a factor of five and are now panicking to reverse a trend, whereby they subsidized diesel vehicles, which resulted in lethal smog in London earlier this year.
It is worth noting that the so called experts in the UK got the pollution levels of diesel engined cars wrong by a factor of five and are now panicking to reverse a trend, whereby they subsidized diesel vehicles, which resulted in lethal smog in London earlier this year.
2
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning: the scientific method requires a control, therefore no matter what we do we can't affect the climate? Perhaps you mean that we can't know whether we're successful without a control?
But the scientific method does not require a control, and a lot of science is done without controls, resulting in much of what we know. For example, we don't have a control planet without evolution or gravity, but we still know a lot about both of those subjects. Just as we know a lot about climate science.
It would behoove us to act upon what we do know while increasing that knowledge base.
But the scientific method does not require a control, and a lot of science is done without controls, resulting in much of what we know. For example, we don't have a control planet without evolution or gravity, but we still know a lot about both of those subjects. Just as we know a lot about climate science.
It would behoove us to act upon what we do know while increasing that knowledge base.
3
So they did the experiment, and improved the science.
1
No, you over simplify; you give a high school example of the scientific method: the controlled experiment.
Our galaxy, is moving toward the Andromeda galaxy at 250,000 miles an hour. Precisely measured with the laws of motion. Those two galaxies will collide in about 4 billion years. If humans are still around, that will end that.
Not a shadow of a doubt this will happen; no controlled experiment done, none needed. Predictions can be near perfect when based on the laws of physics.
And climate change predictions are based on the laws of physics. Yes, there are always, always statistical odds for almost every event. But if you could bet a large sum on the idea that the sun would "rise" again tomorrow, I think you would take it because the probability is very, very high.
Climate change is occurring, it is largely man made and the probabilities of disaster are very, very high. No controlled experiment needed.
Our galaxy, is moving toward the Andromeda galaxy at 250,000 miles an hour. Precisely measured with the laws of motion. Those two galaxies will collide in about 4 billion years. If humans are still around, that will end that.
Not a shadow of a doubt this will happen; no controlled experiment done, none needed. Predictions can be near perfect when based on the laws of physics.
And climate change predictions are based on the laws of physics. Yes, there are always, always statistical odds for almost every event. But if you could bet a large sum on the idea that the sun would "rise" again tomorrow, I think you would take it because the probability is very, very high.
Climate change is occurring, it is largely man made and the probabilities of disaster are very, very high. No controlled experiment needed.
1
"But don’t you sometimes wish he had won in ’12 to spare us all this?" - nope - Obama was far better, thank you...
Now, if you were talking about 2016, well, Mitt wins. But the Republican agenda of tax cuts and health care changes would have been more sugar coated. Trump at least exposes the damages this agenda would create.
Now, if you were talking about 2016, well, Mitt wins. But the Republican agenda of tax cuts and health care changes would have been more sugar coated. Trump at least exposes the damages this agenda would create.
6
Stuck with Trump, Ryan and McConnell and being caught on the wrong side of history, conservative pundits like Bret Stephens twist themselves into pretzels. They go from not being scientists and flat out deniers, to "we need just a bit more research" to "it's not totally conclusive yet". As if they're waiting for Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to give them the ok and pronounce that climate change is Obama's fault and Republicans must fight it by giving tax breaks to Exxon and Koch for more research.
15
These dialogues are a very bright space in the internet.
4
Bret:You make an excellent point, which I would be strongly tempted to agree with, were it not for one thing: I’m a bit of a jerk."
There is much reason to accept that description as true, though arch and falsely humble. Readers of the Times don't need jerks' columns, thank heavens Time for Red Bret to surrender his barely-warmed seat at the table and catch a coal-fired steam train deep to West Virginny. Don't open the window - soot is bad for your white suit and living things.
There is much reason to accept that description as true, though arch and falsely humble. Readers of the Times don't need jerks' columns, thank heavens Time for Red Bret to surrender his barely-warmed seat at the table and catch a coal-fired steam train deep to West Virginny. Don't open the window - soot is bad for your white suit and living things.
8
Oh dear, back to GOP talking points again. An educated man who enjoys hiking with his son on the parts of the lovely planet that are left, yet finds every reason in the book to let the planet burn so as not to offend the really, really big GOP donors, of which the fossil fuel industry is a huge one--also the electricity utilities business, and the mining industry. see: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01
Unlike our dear leader, I get the feeling Bret does at least appreciate nature, but the poor man is hamstrung because his job depends on him sticking to the GOP party line of favoring pollution to please the big GOP donors over protecting clean air and water and the sustainability of the planet and living things, such as people.
Let's try an experiment so that the Republican Party and its politicians (as well as people working in supporting businesses in journalism, advertising, media, and PR, like Bret) could be freed to say what they really believe about issues such as the all-important issue of climate change.
Get rid of Citizens United, PACs, and all those laws and structures that allow wealthy individuals and corporations to buy their politicians and pundits to say and do what their obscene wealth legally permits—in other words, publicly funded elections, no bribery allowed.
We need to find out how advanced democratic countries regulate their political process, because we in the US are quickly heading for banana republic status.
Unlike our dear leader, I get the feeling Bret does at least appreciate nature, but the poor man is hamstrung because his job depends on him sticking to the GOP party line of favoring pollution to please the big GOP donors over protecting clean air and water and the sustainability of the planet and living things, such as people.
Let's try an experiment so that the Republican Party and its politicians (as well as people working in supporting businesses in journalism, advertising, media, and PR, like Bret) could be freed to say what they really believe about issues such as the all-important issue of climate change.
Get rid of Citizens United, PACs, and all those laws and structures that allow wealthy individuals and corporations to buy their politicians and pundits to say and do what their obscene wealth legally permits—in other words, publicly funded elections, no bribery allowed.
We need to find out how advanced democratic countries regulate their political process, because we in the US are quickly heading for banana republic status.
10
Getting out of the Paris Accord and TPP are the GOP and Trump looking ahead to the next two elections. In order to keep this incompetence, obstruction, and non-governance going they will have to hold their Congressional majorities and keep Trump or Pence in the White House. Also, Russia likes us ceding our leadership to Europe or China--makes us easier to handle and suppress.
4
Bret says "Paris is a lousy treaty ..." But what about the symbolic value of nearly every nation signing on, all of them probably knowing it didn't have a lot of teeth, but signaling their cooperative acknowledgement of climate change and desire to be in conversation and action together to do something about it? What about the symbolic value of President Trump pulling out--especially after his refusal to affirm Article 5 of NATO? If staying in meant voluntary and unverifiable participation, why not stay in just for the symbolic value? Why put your thumb in the world's eye over it?
14
Of all the conversations Gail has been forced into, this might be her most complete evisceration of a colleague. Thanks.
For Bret, things to consider:
1. If you are a communications professional, and your work can be, in your view, so thoroughly misinterpreted by agenda driven denier Scott Pruitt, you are doing a poor enough job to reconsider your profession...or you are being dishonest. Your choice.
2. "Continue to pursue & increase fundamental research & investment in green tech, at least if we can do it without the government picking winners & losers." Um, HOW? Isn't every investment or subsidy "picking a winner?" In what world does ANY Republican support that?
3. "Double the budgets of the NSF & NOAA?" Name a single Republican politician who supports THAT. Find some Republicans who believe in science as much as they do in a sky pilot.
4. Supply sider? Can we offset the carbon tax by cutting fossil fuel subsidies, such as below market leases on public land and shorelines, and eliminating the oil depletion allowance, to name just two? Yeah, right.
And how is it that now "supply side" creates an artificial ceiling on government revenue by requiring the Pope Grover the Norquist dictum that any tax increase be offset by a cut elsewhere?
Mr. Stephens, are you a Republican, or just pretending to be one? Your policy proposals are anathema to actual Congre$$ional Republicans. Why should we take you seriously?
For Bret, things to consider:
1. If you are a communications professional, and your work can be, in your view, so thoroughly misinterpreted by agenda driven denier Scott Pruitt, you are doing a poor enough job to reconsider your profession...or you are being dishonest. Your choice.
2. "Continue to pursue & increase fundamental research & investment in green tech, at least if we can do it without the government picking winners & losers." Um, HOW? Isn't every investment or subsidy "picking a winner?" In what world does ANY Republican support that?
3. "Double the budgets of the NSF & NOAA?" Name a single Republican politician who supports THAT. Find some Republicans who believe in science as much as they do in a sky pilot.
4. Supply sider? Can we offset the carbon tax by cutting fossil fuel subsidies, such as below market leases on public land and shorelines, and eliminating the oil depletion allowance, to name just two? Yeah, right.
And how is it that now "supply side" creates an artificial ceiling on government revenue by requiring the Pope Grover the Norquist dictum that any tax increase be offset by a cut elsewhere?
Mr. Stephens, are you a Republican, or just pretending to be one? Your policy proposals are anathema to actual Congre$$ional Republicans. Why should we take you seriously?
9
"But we’ll always have Trump."
Like a visible stain that will never fully come out in the wash.
Like a visible stain that will never fully come out in the wash.
12
As I commented elsewhere, appropriately: You can lead a President to knowledge, but you cannot make him think.......too bad it is too long and too serious for a tweet......
3
" don’t you sometimes wish he had won in ’12?"
I was one of many millions of Americans who would have gladly voted for Romney -- if only we could have him without his bone-headed, obstructionist, ideologically hidebound, racism-apologist, regressive-minded political party.
I was one of many millions of Americans who would have gladly voted for Romney -- if only we could have him without his bone-headed, obstructionist, ideologically hidebound, racism-apologist, regressive-minded political party.
Republicans are always claiming that any real attempt to rein in climate change will be a "job killer". This comes from the people who speak for the Koch's of the world, who actually care nothing about your, or my, well-being or standard of living. What they're really saying is that they stand to lose money from the dirty industries they own. They want to scare the public out of addressing a frightening problem, and appealing to fear has always been a winning approach for them.
11
Too much of him. Too little of her. This wasn't a conversation as much as an interview.
7
“Pittsburgh Over Paris” is a better political slogan than “Save the Earth.”
BUT PITTSBURGH, AS THE MAYOR OF PITTSBURGH POINTED OUT, VOTED FOR HILARY. Can we talk about that? Point that out? Make a campaign slogan out of that? Bring it up at every press briefing between now and the election of 2018? Can we make that not just another lie, another mis-statement, another mis-truth, another ________________(fill in the blank)?
BUT PITTSBURGH, AS THE MAYOR OF PITTSBURGH POINTED OUT, VOTED FOR HILARY. Can we talk about that? Point that out? Make a campaign slogan out of that? Bring it up at every press briefing between now and the election of 2018? Can we make that not just another lie, another mis-statement, another mis-truth, another ________________(fill in the blank)?
11
Trump is probably too vain to wear reading glasses. I wonder what he sees when he looks in the mirror.
1
So the Times designates two people to talk about climate change who know nothing about it. Would the Times choose someone who couldn't hear a note and had heard nothing of either Beck or Beethoven as a music reviewer? Yet, they choose government and political philosophy majors to write about global warming. Did all Times journalists find algebra and "rocks for jocks" too challenging? How about getting some writers involved who can understand that when more energy comes in then goes out the earth must warm?
7
Bret got this plum job because he is smart, knows and quotes historic facts, and has a nice way with words. But really, how smart? Anyone could see that the republicans would gleefully scoop up that climate column and start hysterically waving it around saying "see, even the NYT agrees with us" Did we really need another fence sitting but falling off to the right guy reinforcing the rights misguided direction? Maybe bob Herbert or frank rich want to come back.
5
What an injustice to polar bears.
7
A bit of a jerk? How much supply side nonsense adds up to complete mastery of the description?
6
Can we all agree that if global temp record is wrong, and CO2 record is wrong, then all bets are off re ACGW. Although Stephens says he believes the globe is warming. that sounds as somewhat of a polite concession to show he recognizes there is a problem. But what if there is no problem? Some quick facts.
1) Global temp record is based on incomplete data, estimates and extrapolations. We know much of the globe did not have ground temp stations until the 1950's or later (the Poles, Alaska, Africa, Amazon basin, etc.), & those areas are still sparsely covered and methods not always consistent. So instead of having a 140 year record for the globe, we have much less than that.
2) Conversely, the contiguous US has had an extensive network of ground weather stations since 1895 with common methodology -- as James Hansen notes -- showed nothing but normal variation during 20th century.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
-- so one data set with much greater integrity than another & shows no warming. Which do you trust?
3) Urban Heat Islands -- clearly identifiable in US temp data. We know global population is up 5x since 1900 & concentrated in urban areas, urban areas have expanded, towns and cities of large size (by 1900 standards) are common. Urban areas retain heat.
4) CO2 measures from 19th century,primarily Europe, show great variability and some higher than 400 ppm.
https://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/083/mwr-083-10-0225.pdf
1) Global temp record is based on incomplete data, estimates and extrapolations. We know much of the globe did not have ground temp stations until the 1950's or later (the Poles, Alaska, Africa, Amazon basin, etc.), & those areas are still sparsely covered and methods not always consistent. So instead of having a 140 year record for the globe, we have much less than that.
2) Conversely, the contiguous US has had an extensive network of ground weather stations since 1895 with common methodology -- as James Hansen notes -- showed nothing but normal variation during 20th century.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
-- so one data set with much greater integrity than another & shows no warming. Which do you trust?
3) Urban Heat Islands -- clearly identifiable in US temp data. We know global population is up 5x since 1900 & concentrated in urban areas, urban areas have expanded, towns and cities of large size (by 1900 standards) are common. Urban areas retain heat.
4) CO2 measures from 19th century,primarily Europe, show great variability and some higher than 400 ppm.
https://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/083/mwr-083-10-0225.pdf
I, for one, couldn't agree to your main premise at all.
Of course, we'd wish for a more extensive and reliable data set of temps and CO2 levels, at least 10,000 -100,000 years.
But what we've got is what we've got for now. Plain prudence dictates earlier rather than later response for our long term economic interests.
An incomplete or imperfect data set does not refute a preponderance of science-based observation & concern pointing in the direction of environmental and economic catastrophe.
Of course, we'd wish for a more extensive and reliable data set of temps and CO2 levels, at least 10,000 -100,000 years.
But what we've got is what we've got for now. Plain prudence dictates earlier rather than later response for our long term economic interests.
An incomplete or imperfect data set does not refute a preponderance of science-based observation & concern pointing in the direction of environmental and economic catastrophe.
No Ralphie, "we" cannot agree with any of your claims, at least for the purposes you make them.
1. If you don't like the global data, then go look at the satellite microwave sounder data, look here:
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
read the discussion, see figure 5. What's hilarious is that these data are what the climate deniers used to ballyhoo endlessly -- until the processing errors were fixed, and now you refuse to look at them eh ... now that they blow you out of the water? Now you claim the global surface data are "wrong" and that's it.
2. Read what Hansen himself says about this in his article. He doesn't support your claims.
3. see # 1, also the scientists who handle the data aren't dumb, and you are claiming they are, with no evidence
4. Sure! Measured in building in Paris etc! Some of those observations go over 1900 ppm. So what? You measure CO2 in Times Square and you can find crazy-high values ... also in the middle of a tropical forest at night, due to decay of the forest surface, no photosynthesis, and still air. None of this is relevant to the global mean CO2.
1. If you don't like the global data, then go look at the satellite microwave sounder data, look here:
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
read the discussion, see figure 5. What's hilarious is that these data are what the climate deniers used to ballyhoo endlessly -- until the processing errors were fixed, and now you refuse to look at them eh ... now that they blow you out of the water? Now you claim the global surface data are "wrong" and that's it.
2. Read what Hansen himself says about this in his article. He doesn't support your claims.
3. see # 1, also the scientists who handle the data aren't dumb, and you are claiming they are, with no evidence
4. Sure! Measured in building in Paris etc! Some of those observations go over 1900 ppm. So what? You measure CO2 in Times Square and you can find crazy-high values ... also in the middle of a tropical forest at night, due to decay of the forest surface, no photosynthesis, and still air. None of this is relevant to the global mean CO2.
1
Ted -- can't agree. We have a much less complete data set than alarmists advertise, and for a very short period of time. The US data, much more complete, shows normal variation around a mean. Period. And if the global temp data is full of data issues, then I can't get too excited. You wouldn't buy a stock based on a few hours of trading data that shows an upward trend, would you? You'd want more data and you'd want to know it was accurate, not adjusted, before you spend your money.
One thing that I am rather surprised that Mr. Stephens apparently doesn't recognize: participation in the Paris accords sent this strong signal to the private companies that will develop new technology to reduce carbon emissions:
--There will be a large market for the goods and services that you develop!
Very few companies will pour resources into developing goods and services for which there might be a market, or for a market whose size is very uncertain. So by pulling the US out of the Paris accords, Trump just reduced the probability that US-based companies will develop workable, cost-effective approaches to reducing carbon emissions.
More of that development will be done by companies in other countries. More of the profits from that development, and more of the new jobs from that development, will stay outside the US. China is probably the big winner here.
--There will be a large market for the goods and services that you develop!
Very few companies will pour resources into developing goods and services for which there might be a market, or for a market whose size is very uncertain. So by pulling the US out of the Paris accords, Trump just reduced the probability that US-based companies will develop workable, cost-effective approaches to reducing carbon emissions.
More of that development will be done by companies in other countries. More of the profits from that development, and more of the new jobs from that development, will stay outside the US. China is probably the big winner here.
15
Russ Douthat identified some major weaknesses in Stephens' luke-warm views on climate change and what to do about it: " . . . a clear Republican plan for how to “prepare for and adapt to whatever climate change brings” does not actually exist. In its absence, lukewarmism is a critique without an affirmative agenda, a theory of the case without a party that’s prepared to ever act on it. So its claim to offer a fully-credible policy alternative to climate alarmism awaits a different president, and a very different G.O.P.
5
I used to watch Crossfire on CNN - people with strongly opposing viewpoints talking past each other hoping to makes points with an audience and never, ever trying to reach consensus. That last bit, IMO, sort of ruined the show.
Here we have two people talking from different viewpoints that actually try to reach some consensus while still making their points. This is highly enjoyable stuff. We need to have more of it. Maybe they and the Times could agree to double the number of Stephens/Collins columns.
Here we have two people talking from different viewpoints that actually try to reach some consensus while still making their points. This is highly enjoyable stuff. We need to have more of it. Maybe they and the Times could agree to double the number of Stephens/Collins columns.
10
The Mayor of Pittsburgh begs to differ with Trump, says his city is a poster child for moving forward rather than backward.
"Pittsburgh mayor fires back at Trump: My city will follow Paris agreement"
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/335994-pittsburgh-mayor...
"Pittsburgh mayor fires back at Trump: My city will follow Paris agreement"
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/335994-pittsburgh-mayor...
19
Before one calls for more research on a topic, one should spend at least a little time understanding what the current state of research is.
See drawdown.org. There is much that can be done using the technology we currently have at our fingertips. Much of it has favorable economics behind it, and little of it depends on the beliefs of either the President or the Secretary of the EPA.
See drawdown.org. There is much that can be done using the technology we currently have at our fingertips. Much of it has favorable economics behind it, and little of it depends on the beliefs of either the President or the Secretary of the EPA.
6
Events will overcome opinions. Politics does not trump earth, and the evidence is piling up.
Unlike many of my friends and colleagues who follow science and evidence closely I rather like Bret, but he's all about in his head about the pace of things. The IPCC, for example, is by necessity a conservative document. I wish the NYTimes would have a regular daily report of world weather-related events.
As Heidi Cullen of ClimateCentral once said, climate is weather over space (earth and atmosphere) and time (longest measurable periods, but at least decades). The idea that some future stroke of genius is going to erase our polluting looting exploiting habits (which are actually getting worse and metastasizing over the whole globe) is pure magic thinking.
It's not going to be 2100 when the bill comes in, it's coming in now and will be bloody obvious in a couple of decades. Sad.
Unlike many of my friends and colleagues who follow science and evidence closely I rather like Bret, but he's all about in his head about the pace of things. The IPCC, for example, is by necessity a conservative document. I wish the NYTimes would have a regular daily report of world weather-related events.
As Heidi Cullen of ClimateCentral once said, climate is weather over space (earth and atmosphere) and time (longest measurable periods, but at least decades). The idea that some future stroke of genius is going to erase our polluting looting exploiting habits (which are actually getting worse and metastasizing over the whole globe) is pure magic thinking.
It's not going to be 2100 when the bill comes in, it's coming in now and will be bloody obvious in a couple of decades. Sad.
10
The answer is Carbon Fee and Dividend, as proposed by the Citizens" Climate Lobby.
4
From today’s Dallas Morning News:
“…Even in Texas, where oil and gas dominate, there's a growing appetite for renewable energy. Recent examples include General Motors in Arlington, Facebook in Fort Worth and hundreds of 7-Eleven stores throughout the state…
…Texas has an impressive record in the field. It was a pioneer in fracking and wind power, and has its own electric grid (ERCOT). More than any state, it has the expertise and technology to compete for clean energy business, said Michael Webber, Deputy Director of the Energy Institute at University of Texas - Austin…
…Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings was among more than 200 mayors who pledged to honor the climate commitments…
…Texas, best known for oil and gas, is easily the largest producer in the U.S. But it's also the leader in wind power, with three times the capacity of the next-closest state. And solar is coming on fast…
…Natural gas and renewables, including wind, provided 59 percent of ERCOT power last year, compared with 49 percent for the country. Texas also had a smaller share from coal than the U.S…
…Within 15 years, solar installations will increase over 20-fold, the report said. That makes the opposition to Paris even more confounding…"
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2017/06/06/oil-rich-texas-gm-...
EVEN in a Red state, opposing Trump's pulling out from the Paris Accord makes sense. Go figure?
“…Even in Texas, where oil and gas dominate, there's a growing appetite for renewable energy. Recent examples include General Motors in Arlington, Facebook in Fort Worth and hundreds of 7-Eleven stores throughout the state…
…Texas has an impressive record in the field. It was a pioneer in fracking and wind power, and has its own electric grid (ERCOT). More than any state, it has the expertise and technology to compete for clean energy business, said Michael Webber, Deputy Director of the Energy Institute at University of Texas - Austin…
…Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings was among more than 200 mayors who pledged to honor the climate commitments…
…Texas, best known for oil and gas, is easily the largest producer in the U.S. But it's also the leader in wind power, with three times the capacity of the next-closest state. And solar is coming on fast…
…Natural gas and renewables, including wind, provided 59 percent of ERCOT power last year, compared with 49 percent for the country. Texas also had a smaller share from coal than the U.S…
…Within 15 years, solar installations will increase over 20-fold, the report said. That makes the opposition to Paris even more confounding…"
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2017/06/06/oil-rich-texas-gm-...
EVEN in a Red state, opposing Trump's pulling out from the Paris Accord makes sense. Go figure?
24
Texas has excellent wind-power resource in the western parts of the state, had to build a reasonably-expensive transmission line to bring that power to the population to the east. By any measure, this has been a great success.
Texas generally has good solar resource, and it correlates reasonably well with summer peak demand (driven by air conditioning). There's the "duck curve" issue -- that can be dealt with three ways
* "storing coolth" -- lots of AC systems for large buildings are starting to do this: surplus electric power when available produces stored ice or cold water and rock; the AC taps that as needed. This technology can be scaled down.
* battery storage
* more transmission capacity from farther away
the US needs a true national electric grid, capable of moving power around the 48 states with HVDC lines.
Texas generally has good solar resource, and it correlates reasonably well with summer peak demand (driven by air conditioning). There's the "duck curve" issue -- that can be dealt with three ways
* "storing coolth" -- lots of AC systems for large buildings are starting to do this: surplus electric power when available produces stored ice or cold water and rock; the AC taps that as needed. This technology can be scaled down.
* battery storage
* more transmission capacity from farther away
the US needs a true national electric grid, capable of moving power around the 48 states with HVDC lines.
1
Re wind power: If a Cat 3 or higher hurricane makes landfall around Corpus Christi or South Padre heading northwest, those turbines would be spinning so fast Texas would glow light a neon light to those at the International Space Station.
Humorous -- but those turbines will feather to protect themselves. A cat 5 might take some of them down ... C'est la vie. (A cat 5 hitting that coast line is going to cause so much damage and pain that the loss of some wind turbines will be the least of it.)
Those south-coast wind turbines are a very interesting case however -- their mean output is not so great ... so why are they there?
When eastern Texas has a big high-pressure stagnation event, leading to low wind speeds generally, very high temperatures and very high air-conditioning demands, a good sea-breeze front develops along that coast. Those turbines spin when the citizens of Texas need that power most. That's why they are there....
A similar thing occurs along the north Jersey shore when NYC gets a heatwave.
Those south-coast wind turbines are a very interesting case however -- their mean output is not so great ... so why are they there?
When eastern Texas has a big high-pressure stagnation event, leading to low wind speeds generally, very high temperatures and very high air-conditioning demands, a good sea-breeze front develops along that coast. Those turbines spin when the citizens of Texas need that power most. That's why they are there....
A similar thing occurs along the north Jersey shore when NYC gets a heatwave.
This cute exchange disparages Trump sufficiently, so, you win. But you lose by picturing the polar bear icon. It's symbolizes victimhood in the "global warming" "climate change", (weather) argument. The fact that polar bears all over arctic zones are increasing in number belies your false icon. Stop with the polar bears!
And how did the PC culture switch from "global warming" to "climate change"?When it found out that the 98% of whomevers really didn't agree on what extent man contributes to our weather. It's raining today. Dry tomorrow, but there always will be Fake News.
And how did the PC culture switch from "global warming" to "climate change"?When it found out that the 98% of whomevers really didn't agree on what extent man contributes to our weather. It's raining today. Dry tomorrow, but there always will be Fake News.
3
Can you actually dispute the fact that 2016 was the warmest year on record and that the preceding winner was 2015 and the one before that 2014? Do you dispute the fact that glaciers everywhere are shrinking, sea levels rising, that the summer coverage of arctic ice has hit historic lows? Which brings us to polar bears. The solid ice that constitutes the habitat on which they hunt for seals is steadily dwindling. Any temporary boost in populations, for which there was never an authoritative measure, since the 1960s and 70s is due to such factors as prohibitions on hunting. In any event, due to a decrease in the food supply, their average size is shrinking, and fewer cubs are surviving to adulthood. Yes, it may be raining today--but 15" in the space of 24 hours as happened in Houston last April? Dry tomorrow? Yes, but the worst drought to hit Texas in 500 years that preceded that downpour? These are facts indicative of the extreme weather patterns that can collectively and accurately be termed "climate change." Reports about these alarming developments are anything but Fake News, my friend. They're the all too real deal.
18
"but there always will be Fake News"
and crummy "arguments" it looks like. Really- your hassle is with the polar bear suit.
and crummy "arguments" it looks like. Really- your hassle is with the polar bear suit.
2
When the right positioned 'global warming' as voodoo. Climate change is a more general term that appears to be slightly more palatable to scientific know-nothings.
This exchange should continue and be moved to the Florida coast, and Gail should keep asking Bret about potential policies to mitigate climate change and he should poo-poo them over and over and over until at last the water rises above their heads, and all is silence.
26
Well, we'd pull HER out...
5
Trump is holding all the cards because he knows there is no physical evidence for any of these so called Islamic Terror attacks.
2
Bret,
Your equation: personal nastiness borderline illiteracy diplomatic blundering = #MAGA would be better modified as:
(personal nastiness borderline illiteracy diplomatic blundering) x 63,000,000 voters x N = #MAGA!
Where "N" = the number of complicit Republicans in government.
Your equation: personal nastiness borderline illiteracy diplomatic blundering = #MAGA would be better modified as:
(personal nastiness borderline illiteracy diplomatic blundering) x 63,000,000 voters x N = #MAGA!
Where "N" = the number of complicit Republicans in government.
16
Pardon my ignorance, but what is #MAGA?
The Trump slogan he stole from Reagan: "Make America Great Again."
No president has ever been more destructive to American "greatness" in shorter order than Trump, with the possible exception of James Buchanan ... if you think he could have stopped the Civil War.
No president has ever been a bigger laughingstock, no administration has ever been so conspicuously incompetent.
when your press secretary hides in the bushes because he doesn't want to answer questions ... basta!
No president has ever been more destructive to American "greatness" in shorter order than Trump, with the possible exception of James Buchanan ... if you think he could have stopped the Civil War.
No president has ever been a bigger laughingstock, no administration has ever been so conspicuously incompetent.
when your press secretary hides in the bushes because he doesn't want to answer questions ... basta!
Thanks, Lee. I guess I simply forgot what MAGA means; now that I've been reminded, I'll have to try to forget it all over again.
"I’m a bit of a jerk."
Admitting your shortcomings is step 1 on the road to redemption.
Admitting your shortcomings is step 1 on the road to redemption.
20
At least Gail got to pick the topic.
4
If Bret Stephens thinks "Paris over Pittsburgh" is a politically winning campaign slogan, he hasn't been keeping up with the news from Pittsburgh. The day after Trump pulled out of the Paris agreement, Pittsburgh's mayor, Bill Peduto, said, "I have no idea why he chose Pittsburgh, but boy did he pick the wrong city." Peduto added, "Pittsburgh shows what the Paris agreement can do when you understand that your future is not vetted to your past," and issued an executive order committing the city to the Paris accord." A "terrible treaty?" Apparently not.
12
I love how for Bret, one of the downsides of a carbon tax is that it is regressive. One paragraph earlier he said he might favor such a tax if it could be offset with tax cuts for corporations and the rich. If it is a regressive tax, why wouldn't the offsets be ones that favor the poor and those who suffer more from a regressive tax? Oh, that's right, he's a Republican.
34
Mr. Stephens says a carbon tax is regressive. Others have commented that a carbon tax with dividend would eliminate that problem. If Mr. Stephens or your readers would like to read about that policy here is the place: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/
5
"It [Bret's column] was about our mentality. It was about the perils of certitude in all things, not just climate but also political campaigning."
That is putting lipstick on a pig. The column was not about the perils of certainty, but about the perils of letting sound argument into a discussion when it contradicts your prejudices.
That is putting lipstick on a pig. The column was not about the perils of certainty, but about the perils of letting sound argument into a discussion when it contradicts your prejudices.
13
I kind of like Stephens despite disagreeing with almost everything he says, largely because he's so articulate and has a sense of humor.
But then he said "supply-sider" .......
But then he said "supply-sider" .......
4
" a bit of a jerk". A masterpiece of understatement. Impressive, self-aware, and true. Kudos. You may become a worthy sparring partner, time will tell.
5
Since the Arctic is naturally a sea surrounded by land the fate of the Polar Bear misses the real danger. The Polar Bear is the most recently evolved member of the bear family that was enabled by a global warming that left seasonal frozen seas in the wake of the Ice Ages.
The Leopard Seal in the room is the really relevant threat. Antarctica is an ancient continental land mass with a significant impact on climate.
Based upon it's South Pole location including massive frozen glaciers and sea ice. Warming global temperatures have significant impact at the poles with melting ice predicting rising seas. Antarctica is a cold desert that is moving by plate tectonics with fertile zooplankton and phytoplankton filled seas. There are far more diverse forms of life in Antarctica. There are no Arctic penguins.
The Leopard Seal in the room is the really relevant threat. Antarctica is an ancient continental land mass with a significant impact on climate.
Based upon it's South Pole location including massive frozen glaciers and sea ice. Warming global temperatures have significant impact at the poles with melting ice predicting rising seas. Antarctica is a cold desert that is moving by plate tectonics with fertile zooplankton and phytoplankton filled seas. There are far more diverse forms of life in Antarctica. There are no Arctic penguins.
5
There is even some controversy over whether the polar bear is a species or a subtype of grizzly -- they do interbreed.
Nonetheless, they are a magnificent animal.
Nonetheless, they are a magnificent animal.
2
Go see Al Gore's new movie if you want solutions that are more than "one-liners." We must change our lifestyles and dependence on fossil fuels.
7
This clearly requires a follow-up next week.
Follow the money. The United States is a government run by plutocrats just as Saudi Arabia and Russia are. We are just as corrupt. We are trying to maximize the profit of the petroleum industry for the brief period left that they can still sell their product. Only money counts in the United States. Science, planning, and forethought are not allowed if they get in the way of oil profits.
Brett worked for the Wall Street Journal. He is paid to advocate for oil profits. He knows what he’s saying is false. He admits that in the article. People who say false things for profit are called liars. We might as well be blunt.
No sense to comment further
Brett worked for the Wall Street Journal. He is paid to advocate for oil profits. He knows what he’s saying is false. He admits that in the article. People who say false things for profit are called liars. We might as well be blunt.
No sense to comment further
10
@Eileen: Agree "tout a fait" that it is extremely insensitive and superficial to crack jokes about suffering polar bears as Ms. Collins and Mr. Stephens seem inclined to do in this column. There is more than enough suffering in this world of sentient beings, whether on 2 legs or 4 and it is both crude and cruel to make light of it. Only solution on a personal level is to cultivate, like Candide, your own garden, and volunteer at the local animal shelter, or if you have the stamina, go with other altruistic souls to rescue abandoned dogs in Isla de los Sotos in P.R.where owners have forsaken their pets.("Soto" means "dog"in Spanish.)Collins was once a very funny writer, but when she began to proselytize for HRC in last election, she appeared to lose her edge. Essence of comedy is to keep it light, but once readers sense you are trying to reorient their thinking,they lose interest.Comedians of past eras scrupulously avoided taking a political stance, and if they did make fun of politicians, they did so good naturedly, unlike today's "comics"who ridicule Trump but are so heavy handed only the least sophisticated would find them humorous.Was once a great fan of Collins's writing, and hope she gets her groove back, her spirituality that enables her to fulfill her vocation as a comedic writer. Meanwhile,check out if you wish, my video,"Krueger and my Dog" which you might find of interest.When there is darkness, light a candle.
I think that Bret as a lot of others missed what the Paris agreement was all about. It was the first time that every nation in the world agreed that we had to do something to reduce pollution. It was the basis to start addressing the pressing matter of our impact on the environment.
The US, who pollutes 4 times more per capita than China and eleven times more per capita than India, just pulled out because the agreement was not fair.
It took years of diplomacy and discussions and negotiating to set up this first step. It was destroyed in 140 characters.
The US, who pollutes 4 times more per capita than China and eleven times more per capita than India, just pulled out because the agreement was not fair.
It took years of diplomacy and discussions and negotiating to set up this first step. It was destroyed in 140 characters.
80
Those "petits" and "grands malins" who tried to sell us on the Paris Climate Accord are like street vendors who would sell you dozen eggs but with the yokes removed.0bama's signature on the Accord was the last leg in his 8 year apology tour for American exceptionalism. "Reflechissez: We would have allowed restrictions to be placed on our economic expansion which were not imposed on China or India, major polluters.We would have had to pay millions in reparations to both in the hope that they would turn over a new leaf in the long term. Role of man in pollution of the planet is still, in eyes of many "scientifiques," a matter of opinion.There is no unanimity.among members of this community. Those who arrived in Paris, as well as those who attended climate conference in Denmark years ago came in private jets and returned home in private jets. Don't do as I do but do as I say! Money that we would have donated to major polluters to bribe them into turning over a new leaf could be used to renovate our infrastructure at present "en desuetude!"The Donald made the right decision.
Montreal accord on Ozone-destroying gases preceded the Paris accord, and so far has been far more successful.
There are chemical substitutes for the worst of the CFC refrigerants. There's no way to produce energy from fossil fuels except oxidizing the carbon to CO2, and so far CO2 sequestration looks economically very unattractive for broad-scale power production (because wind and solar are so cheap now!)
Sadly, nuclear power ... held out as the great hope of mankind 30 years ago ... has turned into an economic fiasco. Nobody in the west can build a reactor and operate it at any feasible cost now. AREVA (the European reactor consortium) and Toshiba/Westinghouse (vendor of the 4 reactors under construction in the US) have both gone bankrupt due to enormous construction-cost overruns.
But amazingly, wind and solar power have become cheap. So cheap that when sited at places with favorable resource, they are cheaper than any other newly-constructed source of power: cheaper than coal by a large margin, cheaper than natural gas. This is amazing, and they are still getting cheaper.
There is a good reason that utilities are building nothing but wind, solar, and natural gas plants now. Trump isn't going to stop this reality.
There are chemical substitutes for the worst of the CFC refrigerants. There's no way to produce energy from fossil fuels except oxidizing the carbon to CO2, and so far CO2 sequestration looks economically very unattractive for broad-scale power production (because wind and solar are so cheap now!)
Sadly, nuclear power ... held out as the great hope of mankind 30 years ago ... has turned into an economic fiasco. Nobody in the west can build a reactor and operate it at any feasible cost now. AREVA (the European reactor consortium) and Toshiba/Westinghouse (vendor of the 4 reactors under construction in the US) have both gone bankrupt due to enormous construction-cost overruns.
But amazingly, wind and solar power have become cheap. So cheap that when sited at places with favorable resource, they are cheaper than any other newly-constructed source of power: cheaper than coal by a large margin, cheaper than natural gas. This is amazing, and they are still getting cheaper.
There is a good reason that utilities are building nothing but wind, solar, and natural gas plants now. Trump isn't going to stop this reality.
1
Good point about illiteracy. Has anyone here actually watched Trump deliver the “Pittsburgh Over Paris” line? He was reading from note cards. I'm officially convinced Trump has badly impaired vision or he is actually borderline illiterate. There's no other explanation.
I have to agree with most of Bret Stephens' talking points on climate change. I also have to agree that he's a bit of a jerk. The Paris Accord was always more diplomatic and symbolic than literal. The victory was getting the entire world to agree that climate change is a problem and we need to take steps to correct course. When the world's largest polluter, past and present, says no deal. The gesture is a pretty big nasty-gram to the rest of the world. The justification wasn't even coherent.
As even Stephens states here, part of the conservative criticism is that the Paris Accord isn't enforceable enough! Certain circles apparently find the agreement too weak on climate change. Give me a break. Skepticism is healthy and good but the right is mostly fishing for excuses to express dissatisfaction at another piece of the Obama legacy. If the Accord were enforceable, you'd complain that it was damaging our future economic adaptability. The idea is always dumb if conservatives can't take credit.
Of course, Trump doesn't even bother fishing for excuses. If not for 90 second speech writer and a painfully slow delivering, the announcement would have been one sentence: We're pulling out of the Paris Accord.
I have to agree with most of Bret Stephens' talking points on climate change. I also have to agree that he's a bit of a jerk. The Paris Accord was always more diplomatic and symbolic than literal. The victory was getting the entire world to agree that climate change is a problem and we need to take steps to correct course. When the world's largest polluter, past and present, says no deal. The gesture is a pretty big nasty-gram to the rest of the world. The justification wasn't even coherent.
As even Stephens states here, part of the conservative criticism is that the Paris Accord isn't enforceable enough! Certain circles apparently find the agreement too weak on climate change. Give me a break. Skepticism is healthy and good but the right is mostly fishing for excuses to express dissatisfaction at another piece of the Obama legacy. If the Accord were enforceable, you'd complain that it was damaging our future economic adaptability. The idea is always dumb if conservatives can't take credit.
Of course, Trump doesn't even bother fishing for excuses. If not for 90 second speech writer and a painfully slow delivering, the announcement would have been one sentence: We're pulling out of the Paris Accord.
32
Groper isn't illiterate, I think. He can sound out most of the words, but he doesn't do it often, so his conversational bellows lack a coherent structure and, because he doesn't and hasn't read (I wonder if his dad bought him into Wharton), he has no standards to identify good and bad, right and wrong, tasteful or coarse.
Second, Andy, I strongly object to your use of the word "conservative." The current regime isn't "conservative" in any understandable sense of the word. It's radically authoritarian, unlettered and unsavory. A conservative may have an admirable character; these people don't.
Second, Andy, I strongly object to your use of the word "conservative." The current regime isn't "conservative" in any understandable sense of the word. It's radically authoritarian, unlettered and unsavory. A conservative may have an admirable character; these people don't.
9
John Briggs:
I agree on both points. I was using the term conservative in reference to Bret Stephens and others in the right leaning sometimes intelligentsia. Not necessarily our current government. There a quite a few who bounce around even in the unforgiving ground of the New York Times opinion pages. Arthur C. Brooks jumps to mind but there are no shortage of examples.
I agree on both points. I was using the term conservative in reference to Bret Stephens and others in the right leaning sometimes intelligentsia. Not necessarily our current government. There a quite a few who bounce around even in the unforgiving ground of the New York Times opinion pages. Arthur C. Brooks jumps to mind but there are no shortage of examples.
I think Mr. Trump is in early dementia. His vocabulary and sentences, when he speaks/writes extemporaneously have all the hallmarks of this.
See here:
http://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2017/02/using-discourse-analysis-to-asse...
See here:
http://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2017/02/using-discourse-analysis-to-asse...
1
If the Paris accord is "lousy"...unenforceable, voluntary, unverifiable (not quite unverifiable...see terms of the accord), then where's the harm in letting it stand? Who knows, maybe some good would come of it viz a viz international relations, cooperation, and trust. And maybe even produce the desired effect of reducing CO2 emissions. Well, we all know the answer... political posturing, campaign promise fulfillment (regardless of the validity), and plain and simple self-aggrandizement and ego inflation.
13
Seems to me that, forgotten within all this hog swallow, is the ability to recognize and utilize common sense.
If you are trying to get out of a hole, the last thing to do is to keep digging deeper. Nope -- you simply stop digging.
If you are trying to get rid of air pollution (not to mention land and sea) then the last thing you want to do is to keep polluting (with CO2, methane, trash, industrial waste, etc). Nope -- you simply stop polluting.
The present conversations (as well as arguments) about all this totally exclude common sense -- which, it seems, has been relegated to the dust bin of political party history.
If you are trying to get out of a hole, the last thing to do is to keep digging deeper. Nope -- you simply stop digging.
If you are trying to get rid of air pollution (not to mention land and sea) then the last thing you want to do is to keep polluting (with CO2, methane, trash, industrial waste, etc). Nope -- you simply stop polluting.
The present conversations (as well as arguments) about all this totally exclude common sense -- which, it seems, has been relegated to the dust bin of political party history.
17
"Trump’s nasty tweet about Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, based on a misreading of what the mayor had said in response to the terror attack..."
That was no misreading, Mr. Stephens. That was intentional. Trump may not be the brightest, but he's smart enough to know exactly what he did -- which was to change the context of an actual quote for the purpose of polluting its meaning, and feed it to his easily-led, non-thinking base.
That was no misreading, Mr. Stephens. That was intentional. Trump may not be the brightest, but he's smart enough to know exactly what he did -- which was to change the context of an actual quote for the purpose of polluting its meaning, and feed it to his easily-led, non-thinking base.
30
Is there any way we can get a global consensus to declare climate change denial by politicians a crime against humanity? That way, when things get really bad (and the will to enforce such a crime rises as a result) we may be able to punish the leaders who are currently leading us astray. Freedom or speech and freedom of political ideology needs to have their limits. Climate change denial is like setting a fire on a crowded planet.
12
Mr. Stephens has the silly enthusiasm of the band leader getting picky about music on the Titanic. La La La. He seems to have no gravitas about the remaining iceberg ahead not caring about GOP folklore.
Gail I am glad you mentioned the Koch Bros. The New Yorker has a bit by Jane Mayer on their absolute control of the GOP legislature who no longer represent the majority of people in each state who want climate issues dealt with. Their dad did work for Stalin however - maybe it's in the blood.
Extra Question: when will the word "feckless" be retired in the GOP? almost as lame as "MAGA" while they sit silently by, feckless to the core.
Gail I am glad you mentioned the Koch Bros. The New Yorker has a bit by Jane Mayer on their absolute control of the GOP legislature who no longer represent the majority of people in each state who want climate issues dealt with. Their dad did work for Stalin however - maybe it's in the blood.
Extra Question: when will the word "feckless" be retired in the GOP? almost as lame as "MAGA" while they sit silently by, feckless to the core.
20
Bret Stephens gives himself away as the jerk he is (and proudly proclaims). Republicans started their dealing with the devil as long ago as the 1970's when they made a saint of a propped-up, ailing Ronald Reagan. Before that time, men like Barry Goldwater and Gerald Ford knew a thing or two about exorcism.
Hypocrisy being the devil's coin, Gingrich, Hyde, Hutchinson, Livingstone, et. al., ended any pretense of responsible governing during President Clinton's second term. And with W, I truly thought Republicans had hit their high note of irresponsibility and degradation of American values. (Torture, indeed!)
However, no one could have foreseen the complete abdication of the party to the devil in the era of Trump. At least the hypocrites of past decades gave lip service to American values and traditions, using their "legal means," gerrymandering, voter suppression, and blackmail to circumvent the law. Trump, bless his heart, is no hypocrite. He's a real thing--either a Republican criminal, a simpleton, or mad--no pretense necessary.
Now, men like Bret Stephens and Marc Thiessen manfully and creatively try to provide argument for Trump, Pruitt, Sessions, et. al., a Sisyphean Task, as Gail Collins so cleverly demonstrates in this Conversation.
Hypocrisy being the devil's coin, Gingrich, Hyde, Hutchinson, Livingstone, et. al., ended any pretense of responsible governing during President Clinton's second term. And with W, I truly thought Republicans had hit their high note of irresponsibility and degradation of American values. (Torture, indeed!)
However, no one could have foreseen the complete abdication of the party to the devil in the era of Trump. At least the hypocrites of past decades gave lip service to American values and traditions, using their "legal means," gerrymandering, voter suppression, and blackmail to circumvent the law. Trump, bless his heart, is no hypocrite. He's a real thing--either a Republican criminal, a simpleton, or mad--no pretense necessary.
Now, men like Bret Stephens and Marc Thiessen manfully and creatively try to provide argument for Trump, Pruitt, Sessions, et. al., a Sisyphean Task, as Gail Collins so cleverly demonstrates in this Conversation.
16
Absolutely, Rose. From Reagan on (who quadrupled the deficit), the supply siders are all about personal greed and their god, $ and power. There is NO concern for any other citizen in our nation. How any decent human being could vote republican is beyond my comprehension. Plus hypocrites all,
The Conversation floats gently downstream on polite currents and opposing eddies, the sun light dappling off the paddles of the two political enthusiasts, with alternate strokes they gently steer their craft toward center of the stream.
Beautiful; except for the Angel Falls they are rapidly coming up on.
Climate change is here. Humans have maybe, maybe twenty years to react.
Paddle that kayak all you want, the current is getting faster and we are headed for the fall.
Beautiful; except for the Angel Falls they are rapidly coming up on.
Climate change is here. Humans have maybe, maybe twenty years to react.
Paddle that kayak all you want, the current is getting faster and we are headed for the fall.
11
Kidding aside, a drastic carbon tax is required. We have to use one third less carbon. We know It will work and maybe most importantly, it is expedient and could reduce the CO2 emissions by one third--overnight. A rebate could be given to low-income. But to make this sacrifice, we have to acknowledge that the seas will rise if we don't--which they will.
8
Trump's tweets denigrating Kahn, the Mayor of London, have only one result. Those who believe Trump can do no wrong and agree with him on all his insults and lies, are happy.
The rest of the world is appalled that a president of a great country that claims the UK as "cousins" would stoop so low.
I'm embarrassed as an American citizen. I don't understand why every American isn't feeling the same way as the POTUS is supposed to speak for America's citizens in situations such as this.
The rest of the world is appalled that a president of a great country that claims the UK as "cousins" would stoop so low.
I'm embarrassed as an American citizen. I don't understand why every American isn't feeling the same way as the POTUS is supposed to speak for America's citizens in situations such as this.
16
I hope Jason Bordoff can be a good influence on Bret - there is a glimmer of hope for the possibility of converting him to the path of righteous. But "supply side?" C'mon, Bret, you have to be smarter than that!
7
I know who Gail Collins is - that's why I've come to this column. But who is Bret Stephens? Mr. Number Three paired with Gail. Just let her do her thing, please, no false equivalence.
16
The NYT forces Gail to play this make-nice game with it's current conservative columnists that the paper hires in it's desperation.
1
“Pittsburgh Over Paris” is a better political slogan than “Save the Earth.”
If this will help Trump and the Republicans than we are in big trouble. Oh, right. We are in big trouble!
If this will help Trump and the Republicans than we are in big trouble. Oh, right. We are in big trouble!
5
Very entertaining and a wee bit informative!
A recipe for 2 live frogs. Put them in a pot of cold water and slowly heat. This here was their last conversation.
3
The regressive nature of carbon taxes can be easily fixed by implementing a fee and dividend plan by which all revenues, after administrative costs, are returned equally to all American households. Economic modeling studies show that the policy benefits low income folks, who will gain more in dividend than they pay extra for carbon-intensive commodities.
This is the policy advocated by Citizens Climate Lobby for the past 10 years. Next week, 1000 of us will be in Washington DC, lobbying all members of Congress. Pay attention!
This is the policy advocated by Citizens Climate Lobby for the past 10 years. Next week, 1000 of us will be in Washington DC, lobbying all members of Congress. Pay attention!
5
The regressive nature of a carbon tax can be addressed very simply with an equal dividend to every resident. Which is exactly what the Climate Leadership Council, comprised of leading Republicans such as Henry Paulson, A. James Baker, and George Schultz, have proposed.
3
Brett Stephen's comments are worth reading: I fear dogmatic attitudes on both, or maybe all, sides.
Cap and trade, for instance, was essentially let's-make-a-deal, and he's right_ it involved offshoring of pollution. Developed countries used to steal resources from the undeveloped; this is the same attitude flipped. There was tremendous leverage on one side, and I don't know that there has been any evidence of it as improving the environment. ( open to any references here).
It couldn't be more clear that Stephens doesn't think Trump has the slightest bit of knowledge about the environmental changes we face. We should have stayed in the Paris Accord - to signal our direction - but it not carry force, and many of the signatories are not investing in achieving the goals set.
A good discussion, looking forward to part II.
Cap and trade, for instance, was essentially let's-make-a-deal, and he's right_ it involved offshoring of pollution. Developed countries used to steal resources from the undeveloped; this is the same attitude flipped. There was tremendous leverage on one side, and I don't know that there has been any evidence of it as improving the environment. ( open to any references here).
It couldn't be more clear that Stephens doesn't think Trump has the slightest bit of knowledge about the environmental changes we face. We should have stayed in the Paris Accord - to signal our direction - but it not carry force, and many of the signatories are not investing in achieving the goals set.
A good discussion, looking forward to part II.
2
"You tiny, tiny, tiny little man."
J.K. Rowling
Take
Refuge
Under a
Mendacious
Pompadour
Trump 2017
J.K. Rowling
Take
Refuge
Under a
Mendacious
Pompadour
Trump 2017
74
Great conversation! Right, we'll always have Paris, but Trump seems to be flustered the way Major Strasser was at Captain Renaut's inability to find anyone in rounding up the usual suspects. With Trump, everyone is suspect, which makes it really difficult to narrow down the party that is guilty in Trump's paranoia. Meanwhile, the rest of us are looking for those Letters of Transit to get us out of here.
It's not that Trump is against the Paris Accord, it's that he's dumb and against the Paris Accord. This makes it difficult for him to justify his position to intelligent people; only his glassy-eyed followers believe him. These are the ones who would vote for him even if he shot someone in the street. And it appears that Jeff Sessions just could be that someone.
It's hard to come up with climate policy. Climate is long-term and congress can't think past Summer. One of the serious issues is the social inertia associated with economic development. Everyone wants to the like the U.S. by driving around in SUVs with plenty of cheap gas. It's the definition of success.
It's also the environmental Titanic on its final cruise. No one could convince the ship's captain and its designers that the Titanic wasn't unsinkable or that there weren't enough lifeboats. Can the world really turn around the notion of vast growth based on unlimited carbon-based energy consumption?
That's what the Paris accord is attempting to achieve. Those Letters of Transit are in Sam's piano.
It's not that Trump is against the Paris Accord, it's that he's dumb and against the Paris Accord. This makes it difficult for him to justify his position to intelligent people; only his glassy-eyed followers believe him. These are the ones who would vote for him even if he shot someone in the street. And it appears that Jeff Sessions just could be that someone.
It's hard to come up with climate policy. Climate is long-term and congress can't think past Summer. One of the serious issues is the social inertia associated with economic development. Everyone wants to the like the U.S. by driving around in SUVs with plenty of cheap gas. It's the definition of success.
It's also the environmental Titanic on its final cruise. No one could convince the ship's captain and its designers that the Titanic wasn't unsinkable or that there weren't enough lifeboats. Can the world really turn around the notion of vast growth based on unlimited carbon-based energy consumption?
That's what the Paris accord is attempting to achieve. Those Letters of Transit are in Sam's piano.
9
Is Trump loathsome? Can't count the ways,
Politically it seems it pays,
Reviling, defiling,
And yet never smiling,
Concocting new lies that amaze!
Politically it seems it pays,
Reviling, defiling,
And yet never smiling,
Concocting new lies that amaze!
40
Is Trump insane? Oh please say no,
Republicans just cannot let him go.
Twits with their tweets
signal defeats
Stupid or crazy? It's tragically so.
Republicans just cannot let him go.
Twits with their tweets
signal defeats
Stupid or crazy? It's tragically so.
Stephens thinks pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord is a political winner for Trump? Polling shows otherwise.
23
Trump has given up on anything except playing to his "base." He has given up on getting reelected in 2020, and has given up on trying to maintain Republican majorities in 2018.
Trump has only one political strategy; "my base will primary you if I am impeached."
Trump has only one political strategy; "my base will primary you if I am impeached."
Stephens: "I keep reading that prices for clean energy are coming down... can’t we sit back and let it happen, Paris or no Paris?" Well, it looks like we are. But hopefully the history of clean energy will not forget the role that aggressive government action (also known as 'meddling') played in bringing prices down. I'm speaking specifically of the governments of Europe, Germany for solar power and Denmark for wind energy. And lately the government of China.
It's nice to think clean energy prices are coming down due to supply and demand. But a correct recording of history suggests that European and, lately, Asian, governments created that demand when it didn't otherwise exist, after which the suppliers found ways to cut their costs.
It's nice to think clean energy prices are coming down due to supply and demand. But a correct recording of history suggests that European and, lately, Asian, governments created that demand when it didn't otherwise exist, after which the suppliers found ways to cut their costs.
8
The short answer is no, we can't, because he is conflating two things ... probably intentionally.
1. The price of wind, solar, natural gas are now lower than any other new power additions. This is why these are all that the power industry is building. But they are not cheaper than running old amortized plants until they die as long as we allow them to keep polluting. We need to force the "clunkers' to be turned off.
2. Electricity is only about 1/3 of CO2 production. We need to force improvements in transportation (about 1/3) and building heating and cooling, industry etc.
1. The price of wind, solar, natural gas are now lower than any other new power additions. This is why these are all that the power industry is building. But they are not cheaper than running old amortized plants until they die as long as we allow them to keep polluting. We need to force the "clunkers' to be turned off.
2. Electricity is only about 1/3 of CO2 production. We need to force improvements in transportation (about 1/3) and building heating and cooling, industry etc.
Trump's outrageous and, frankly, insane attacks on the Mayor of London should be enough to finally get Republicans in Congress to do something about getting him out of office. Trump is, at best, an unwell person; or, at worst, a clear and present danger to our country. And, no, I don't wish Romney had won in 2012.
I'm confident the people of Pittsburgh are not enthused about the President using their city's name when seeking, with amateurish rhetoric, to justify such monumental ignorance and misrule. Trump lost Allegheny County, Pa., by a large margin.
20
I hope the EU makes US goods more expensive by adding carbon fees. If they lack the courage, private citizens should boykott. I don't care whether Trump retaliates. Bret Stephens and other GOPers who believe that the United States is somehow exempted from climate change will never get it.
13
The parsing of Sadiq Khan's words are the exact reason the elites do not get President Trump. Even his voters know that Sadiq Khan was saying not to be afraid of the heavily armed police but the populace understands that the reason for their presence is heavily armed terrorists in their midst. The elites normalize this "new normal" by not mingling with hoi polloi. The rest of us are told to run and hide when political correctness fails us. When politicians prove incapable of providing for the common defense the results may unnerve the elites.
1
Each time, each time we refer to each other with a convenient handle, e.g. "Elites", etc. we dig the divide between us a little deeper and play into the devious web of those who would profit mightily in the midst of that divide.
Time is now to recognize that disagreement does not equal anything more than itself. We are all citizens of our United States and this is not the first time that our foundations have been tested. It is on our watch to uphold the fabric we, our forebears and descendants rely on.
Time is now to recognize that disagreement does not equal anything more than itself. We are all citizens of our United States and this is not the first time that our foundations have been tested. It is on our watch to uphold the fabric we, our forebears and descendants rely on.
23
@!#$! I am not an elite. You do not have to be an elite ( what ever YOU mean by that) to find Trump's comments repellant and inhumane, and, as usual, stupid to boot. If by elite, you mean any person who reads and thinks, fine, count me in.
Dealing with this variety of terrorism will not be won by force: not unless you do want a dictatorship secured by the military and secret police. Which increasingly seems to be what Trump is fond of.
Dealing with this variety of terrorism will not be won by force: not unless you do want a dictatorship secured by the military and secret police. Which increasingly seems to be what Trump is fond of.
22
Your description, "heavily armed terrorists in their midst", is wildly incorrect as it concerns the London attack and any in the UK in general. Knives and automobiles are everyday accessible purchases, and nothing can be done to prevent anyone from using them in an attack. It is precisely the gun laws in the UK that make home grown terrorists resort to a knife or a truck. It is we in the US who should worry, as body armor, semi automatic attack rifles with multiple 30 round clips are common and easy to purchase. We have only had one "jihadist" attack in California. We've had many home grown white supremacist attacks whether with bomb, bullets or knives. Many more people are shot and killed in US cities in a given year than across all the countries of Europe. "The parsing of Sadiq Khan's words" and "political correctness" have nothing to do with "us". Mayor Khan's words are plain as day to anyone who has even a basic command of English, which Mr. Trump apparently does not.
8
The Paris Agreement was a world-wide acknowledgement that climate change and man's contribution to it are real. The Agreement stands as a platform for cooperation from which the world's countries can share and encourage strategies for achieving greener, cleaner energy and reducing pollution.
Trump's withdrawal was grandstanding stupidity.
In another display of stupidity, Trump insulted Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London. The mayor has suggested the British withdraw their invitation for Trump to visit England. He is right to do so and Theresa May should close the door to Trump. If only we could!
Trump's withdrawal was grandstanding stupidity.
In another display of stupidity, Trump insulted Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London. The mayor has suggested the British withdraw their invitation for Trump to visit England. He is right to do so and Theresa May should close the door to Trump. If only we could!
170
Bret, I'm tired of hearing about the government picking winners and losers. The thumb of government rests on the scale and it is one heavy thumb. That thumb is not fully aware of, and perhaps even indifferent to, the winners and losers it produces.
9
Really? Tell this to the billionaires who continue to get every tax break in the book.
I think Mother Nature is going to pick the winners and losers.
3
My takeaway from this: Collins yielded the floor and gave up her powerful voice in this piece to Stephens - so nobody went to battle for our planet.
8
Bret Stephens use of the cliché "without having the government pick winners and losers" elicits this response from me: If past American governments, at all levels, had not picked winners there would have been no interstate rail-roads, no automotive industry and no airlines. The massive land-grants and government bonds to collateralize private rail company debt during the 19th century come to mind. The automobile companies paved no roads, built no bridges or highways but without them would not have come to prominence. The airlines benefited from aerospace research and development grown out of government spending for World War Two and built no airports , nor air traffic control systems. If the State of New York had not spent million of dollars in the 19th Century to dig a canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson River it is quite unlikely that New York City would have become the financial capital of this nation etc. The national debate should be which "winners" we pick. Please save us from brain-dead ideological blather!
14
Funny column in places, but the two columnists ignore the giant polar bear in the room: free-flowing cash to incumbent members of Congress, almost all to Republicans, who have to agree, in order to receive the money, that they will NEVER support legislation that in any way limits the extraction and sale of fossil fuels.
Until voters wise up to this disgrace and elect lawmakers who want to limit anonymous cash donations to public officials, issues such as climate change will go nowhere at the federal level and in states controlled by Republicans. Too much cash to resist.
Until voters wise up to this disgrace and elect lawmakers who want to limit anonymous cash donations to public officials, issues such as climate change will go nowhere at the federal level and in states controlled by Republicans. Too much cash to resist.
19
I agree with one thing Stephens said:
"I am a bit of a jerk."
"I am a bit of a jerk."
19
understated
"My biggest regret about pulling out of Paris is that it is going to help Trump."
if that's it, no wonder so much of our climate change energy is diverted to petty political carping that keeps us yammering at each other as the planet is degraded.
paris is a sham, a show of "unity" that required nothing of its "pluribus"...if it benefits trump politically its because he said so.
now, could we address the issue which, on the grandscale requires research and regulation pending implementation of methods and practices that will at least slow, then stop and then reverse the damage we're doing?
what's missing, however, is the "can do" spirit that had everyone doing a bit for the ww2 war effort (you want some unity, start at home)...the regret here is over the failure to mount any common effort to make personal commitments, forthwith, to changing behaviors that contribute (lawn care chemicals washing into lakes/streams) or are solely responsible (the discarded plastic choking our oceans) for despoiling the planet.
small steps will do as we pursue larger ones, states that have outlawed plastic bags in grocery stores may not reverse the decline but have, at least, removed a factor...that all states or municipalities have not done so is, in essence, wilful and, so, a far more serious "withdrawal," if you will, from a necessary "accord."
so, who's walking more? using a bike? leaving the private jet in the hanger? what are we, including you who weep with the walruses, doing now?
if that's it, no wonder so much of our climate change energy is diverted to petty political carping that keeps us yammering at each other as the planet is degraded.
paris is a sham, a show of "unity" that required nothing of its "pluribus"...if it benefits trump politically its because he said so.
now, could we address the issue which, on the grandscale requires research and regulation pending implementation of methods and practices that will at least slow, then stop and then reverse the damage we're doing?
what's missing, however, is the "can do" spirit that had everyone doing a bit for the ww2 war effort (you want some unity, start at home)...the regret here is over the failure to mount any common effort to make personal commitments, forthwith, to changing behaviors that contribute (lawn care chemicals washing into lakes/streams) or are solely responsible (the discarded plastic choking our oceans) for despoiling the planet.
small steps will do as we pursue larger ones, states that have outlawed plastic bags in grocery stores may not reverse the decline but have, at least, removed a factor...that all states or municipalities have not done so is, in essence, wilful and, so, a far more serious "withdrawal," if you will, from a necessary "accord."
so, who's walking more? using a bike? leaving the private jet in the hanger? what are we, including you who weep with the walruses, doing now?
2
In the dust of the clever repartee, you guys whiffed on a couple of pretty central points.
It's not "carbon tax". It's "carbon fee and dividend". Return equal shares to every person. Highly progressive, in an era of galloping wealth concentration and soaking of the not-rich.
And, geez guys, the sole reason it's an agreement and not a treaty is the Republican party of the US. It was the only way to get the US to join the 190 instead of the new Syria-Nicaragua axis of evil. Ridiculous to blame that on Paris.
While you all (yinz in Pittsburgh, vous in Paris) take up the culminate change oxygen and column inches, Andrew Revkin has been gradually pushed first to the broom closet and, finally, out the door.
It's not "carbon tax". It's "carbon fee and dividend". Return equal shares to every person. Highly progressive, in an era of galloping wealth concentration and soaking of the not-rich.
And, geez guys, the sole reason it's an agreement and not a treaty is the Republican party of the US. It was the only way to get the US to join the 190 instead of the new Syria-Nicaragua axis of evil. Ridiculous to blame that on Paris.
While you all (yinz in Pittsburgh, vous in Paris) take up the culminate change oxygen and column inches, Andrew Revkin has been gradually pushed first to the broom closet and, finally, out the door.
4
Nicaragua is hardly in the same league as Syria. They didn't sign the agreement because it didn't go far enough, in their view.
6
Great discussion over environmental policies---now, does Mr. Stephens believe any of these conversations occurred in the Oval Office. No, what occurred in the Oval Office were Bannon one-liners about the effete Europeans and the need to make Pittsburg great again--that was the substance of the conversation. Trump and his band of incompetents just don't care about policy, or any substantive approach to national or international problems--it is always about sticking it to the elites---whether those elites are rich or intellectual. So, conservative pundits, those who desire to draw some distance from our beloved leader---can poke intellectual holes in strategies to solve real world problems--but at the end of the day, the guy who heads their party and now the nation won't read their analysis and cares less about solving a problem.
9
These constant negatives on Trump are sweet but no cigar. The Democrats had Hillary, also a capital disaster. Time to focus on America as a whole and can be compared with some strong believers drinking too much Kool-Aid and then beating themselves on the nose (by the name of Trump).
Grow up!
Grow up!
When the Antarctic ice cap melts, and the waves start to cover Mar-a-Largo, I guess that the climate deniers / skeptics will suddenly become converts. Of course, that will be a bit late.
More likely, the rest of the world will discover that an urgent solution is required, and they will enact binding limits, that because the US will not be a party to the negotiations will be very draconian on us. And they will enforce this by a ban on US trade until we agree.
Sic transit gloria America!
More likely, the rest of the world will discover that an urgent solution is required, and they will enact binding limits, that because the US will not be a party to the negotiations will be very draconian on us. And they will enforce this by a ban on US trade until we agree.
Sic transit gloria America!
6
"Protest too much?" C'mon, Mr. Stephens: Own it. You made this your very first column for the NY Times, and it was used as justification to pull out of the Paris treaty.
Now you want to say you didn't really mean it? "It was about mentality, not policy?" C'mon. You can't have it both ways. Own your words -- and their results.
Now you want to say you didn't really mean it? "It was about mentality, not policy?" C'mon. You can't have it both ways. Own your words -- and their results.
17
Often times the older homes the poor live in have inefficient heating elements that use too much energy. Companies installed the furnaces back when they thought more power was better. Many energy companies have programs to fix this issue, but we definitely need to make it more widely known. So, yes, energy is regressive, as we all see at the gas pump as well.
Side note: I really wish that Stephens, as an intelligent conservative (something I wish I could say more often) would not admit to be a supply-sider. That just makes him sound stupid.
Side note: I really wish that Stephens, as an intelligent conservative (something I wish I could say more often) would not admit to be a supply-sider. That just makes him sound stupid.
7
Stevens says he is a supply sider. That is clear evidence he is not worth reading.Just another Steve Moore!
3
I must admit that at the beginning of the current Trump Administration, I was appalled. Now, however, their constant buffoonery has become the best entertainment on TV and print. They have pretty much destroyed what good the Obamas created (Barack and Michelle {school lunches gone, no more healthy meals}. Now they have nowhere to go. Press conferences are the best. Even Spicer bails more and more often. And Kellyane's husband stepped in to cry "Halt!"
I'm recording ABC and CBS just so I can fast forward the commercials and see what foolishness they can create each day. As our former VP stated so precisely during the debates, "Malarkey!"
I'm recording ABC and CBS just so I can fast forward the commercials and see what foolishness they can create each day. As our former VP stated so precisely during the debates, "Malarkey!"
3
Not really all that amusing. Once again the real Polar Bear in the room is totally overlooked because no one ever wants to face up to the fact that the planet is way over populated with the human specie. Why is that ?
Well now, there are the religious fanatics that claim their bible tells them to "be fruitful and multiply". Of course that was several thousand years ago when the known world was confined to the area now known as the Middle East and the rest of the planet had yet to be discovered and people were discovering the art of mythology and propaganda.
If you don't mind I'll take a little from the NRA here and say; Coal & Oil do not make pollution, people make pollution. I don't think anyone can argue that if there were half the people on Earth we would have half the pollution or less.
Don't count on politicians to do anything about it. Those gutless wonders will never bring the subject up because they are afraid of the religious backlash. Also a reduction in population would cause a drop in the almighty economy and lord knows we can't have that.
You can dance with the Polar Bear all you want but eventually he will eat you.
Well now, there are the religious fanatics that claim their bible tells them to "be fruitful and multiply". Of course that was several thousand years ago when the known world was confined to the area now known as the Middle East and the rest of the planet had yet to be discovered and people were discovering the art of mythology and propaganda.
If you don't mind I'll take a little from the NRA here and say; Coal & Oil do not make pollution, people make pollution. I don't think anyone can argue that if there were half the people on Earth we would have half the pollution or less.
Don't count on politicians to do anything about it. Those gutless wonders will never bring the subject up because they are afraid of the religious backlash. Also a reduction in population would cause a drop in the almighty economy and lord knows we can't have that.
You can dance with the Polar Bear all you want but eventually he will eat you.
11
All depends which half you got rid of. The poor people of the earth in fact make very little pollution, so you sure would not halve the total pollution by getting rid of them. Getting rid of Americans on the other hand...
'The electricity bill nearly made me faint!' picked up by this young eavesdropper in Paris in the 50s. Now. The large cold apartment had a ballroom and enough space for a tricycle. My parent is about to learn about downsizing the hard way.
Her passion goes from painting to architecture. In 1962, after studying at the Beaux Arts, she builds a house in a Spanish village by the sea out of ruins left by the Civil War and starts carrying the banner for Solar Energy which is still slow-moving today.
Years later, her son and I are visiting her in Paris where it is sweltering. We are sitting outdoors and she suggests that her children now grown go to the Movies. 'Mother, we came to see you and not 'The Metal Plate', from her son who drags me off to the Amazon Jungle in the Luxembourg Gardens.
The last time I heard from my sibling is when I wrote to him caustically in The Big Apple, 'Remember We Will always have Paris', and by the way, if you are reading this exchange between Ms. Collins and Mr. Stephens by means of keeping up with Trump, known in polite society as 'L'Idiot', you were last seen in the Paris Metro.
Come back, dear 'Bear', it is not too late for you to explain to your mental junior more about Climate Change, the language of flowers in the garden here and whether America is indeed in retreat. For you, for us, I shall prepare a high tea with Eton pudding, while saluting Sadiq Khan, one of the finest British Mayors of London, in these troubled times.
Her passion goes from painting to architecture. In 1962, after studying at the Beaux Arts, she builds a house in a Spanish village by the sea out of ruins left by the Civil War and starts carrying the banner for Solar Energy which is still slow-moving today.
Years later, her son and I are visiting her in Paris where it is sweltering. We are sitting outdoors and she suggests that her children now grown go to the Movies. 'Mother, we came to see you and not 'The Metal Plate', from her son who drags me off to the Amazon Jungle in the Luxembourg Gardens.
The last time I heard from my sibling is when I wrote to him caustically in The Big Apple, 'Remember We Will always have Paris', and by the way, if you are reading this exchange between Ms. Collins and Mr. Stephens by means of keeping up with Trump, known in polite society as 'L'Idiot', you were last seen in the Paris Metro.
Come back, dear 'Bear', it is not too late for you to explain to your mental junior more about Climate Change, the language of flowers in the garden here and whether America is indeed in retreat. For you, for us, I shall prepare a high tea with Eton pudding, while saluting Sadiq Khan, one of the finest British Mayors of London, in these troubled times.
7
Why have a conversation with a supply-sider? It's a disproven theory!
3
Laugh it up, folks. Fiddling with puns and metaphors while Earth burns. Let's dress up the Climate Science Denier as just another regular guy with cute answers (or evasions) for everything. For the record, I'm done reading Gail Collins' footsy columns with the enemy. It's just not funny anymore.
3
I do not agree with his stand on climate change but it's better to read his opinions than those from Fox news.
Polls suggest that if Jesus came down and told trump 's hard core voters that fossil fuels were killing the planet they would go with whatever trump said instead.
Hence 'Pittsburg over Paris' would be all they needed to hear to re-elect him.
Jesus and the planet weep.
Hence 'Pittsburg over Paris' would be all they needed to hear to re-elect him.
Jesus and the planet weep.
3
Gail, you say " But we’ll always have Trump." Well, that's what scares the living daylights out of me. Emperor Trump. He's trying, you know. He's very trying. These at the times that try men's souls. Of course, he doesn't have to worry about that. His soul was sold long ago.
4
Whoever bought it was cheated. it never was worth a plugged nickel.
Excuse me Mr Stephens. "The peril of certitude?" Really?
That humans cause global warming is the position of the Academies of Science. From 80 countries. By 97% of highly trained climate researchers. Professionals who publish data around the world. Peer reviewed studies.
You still believe that climate change scientists would be more persuasive if they were less certain of their beliefs?
Your educational background is political philosophy and comparative politics.
Not climate science. You're making political opinions.
In your first column for the NY Times, the implication was you do not believe that evidence matters.
The sentiments of Upton Sinclair are worthy to include here: It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his grant depends on his not understanding it.
That humans cause global warming is the position of the Academies of Science. From 80 countries. By 97% of highly trained climate researchers. Professionals who publish data around the world. Peer reviewed studies.
You still believe that climate change scientists would be more persuasive if they were less certain of their beliefs?
Your educational background is political philosophy and comparative politics.
Not climate science. You're making political opinions.
In your first column for the NY Times, the implication was you do not believe that evidence matters.
The sentiments of Upton Sinclair are worthy to include here: It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his grant depends on his not understanding it.
14
This conversation, ostensibly about climate change, reminds me of fiddling while Rome burns. I think the time is right to stop debating and arguing over climate change and do something.
Which we are, quietly, away from the eyes of the madman in the White House who spurned Paris because it houses Emmanuel Macron. Yes, our fearless leader leads based on snubs and whims. And why not? He promised to govern by his gut.
So, the good news is that many states, governors, cities and businesses will act as if Paris were signed. And the bad news is that America is increasingly stepping off the world stage of reason. While this suits Trump just fine, outsider that he is, many citizens are outraged at our increasingly loss of leadership in the diplomatic world.
Of course, how can the undiplomatic, tell it like it is boorish Trump ever pick up the mantle of world leadership? It goes against his grain, and his speechwriter Steve Bannon. I wonder my self who removed that Article 5 line from Trump's speech in Europe: was it Trump alone or Bannon alone, or both?
Whatever. Mr. Stephens I'm still glad we don't have Mitt Romney. Because his attempting "reign" is exposing an awful lot of fault lines in our public and private discourse. Suddenly the underbelly of America has taken over the reins of state.
Which means we'll see how much America wants to keep its republic--and its democracy.
Which we are, quietly, away from the eyes of the madman in the White House who spurned Paris because it houses Emmanuel Macron. Yes, our fearless leader leads based on snubs and whims. And why not? He promised to govern by his gut.
So, the good news is that many states, governors, cities and businesses will act as if Paris were signed. And the bad news is that America is increasingly stepping off the world stage of reason. While this suits Trump just fine, outsider that he is, many citizens are outraged at our increasingly loss of leadership in the diplomatic world.
Of course, how can the undiplomatic, tell it like it is boorish Trump ever pick up the mantle of world leadership? It goes against his grain, and his speechwriter Steve Bannon. I wonder my self who removed that Article 5 line from Trump's speech in Europe: was it Trump alone or Bannon alone, or both?
Whatever. Mr. Stephens I'm still glad we don't have Mitt Romney. Because his attempting "reign" is exposing an awful lot of fault lines in our public and private discourse. Suddenly the underbelly of America has taken over the reins of state.
Which means we'll see how much America wants to keep its republic--and its democracy.
10
Bret is against cap & trade because existing efforts are imperfect. Bret cites an advocate of carbon taxes, & then opposes carbon taxes. His opposition to carbon tax is that like Norquist, Mr. Emoluments & Co, taxes on the wealthy must be offset & cut. Bret’s not opposed to $800 billion in Medicaid cuts for the needy to transfer hundreds of billions to the wealthy in the guise of “health care reform”. Oh, & Bret is of course, in support of doubling science research funding, while his compatriots in Congress, & the Mr. Emoluments admin would slash science research. No hypocricy here.
6
I agree with Stephens that the Paris Accord is an excuse for some countries to act well and still go on polluting, but the US still needs to lead the countries that are going to abide by policy. The US cannot account for all the bad actors.
1
"As a supply-sider, I don’t have problems with it economically if we can offset it with tax cuts elsewhere, maybe corporate or capital gains, as part of a grand tax compromise."
We have to come right out and say it, we've cut too much for too long for all the wrong people. We don't need more tax cuts.
We need tax increases. Yes, tax increases.
Then we need to spend that money on our own long term future, not more wars. Yes, tax and spend. And not for wars.
We have to come right out and say it, we've cut too much for too long for all the wrong people. We don't need more tax cuts.
We need tax increases. Yes, tax increases.
Then we need to spend that money on our own long term future, not more wars. Yes, tax and spend. And not for wars.
36
Trump is, perhaps unwittingly, proposing to use Dubya's brilliant solution (for cutting taxes AND spending on wars): Borrow And Spend.
"My friend Jason Bordoff, who founded Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, is having me up to Morningside Heights next week to talk my ear off on this and other climate-related subjects. So hopefully I’ll have more information — and less ambivalence — once I’ve heard him out."
Great idea Mr. Stephens! It´s fantastic to have a grip on this personal source including a full academic back-office on this issue.
But why did you write your first column whitout being fully informed on your issue before - to say it in an extremely diplomatic way?
Great idea Mr. Stephens! It´s fantastic to have a grip on this personal source including a full academic back-office on this issue.
But why did you write your first column whitout being fully informed on your issue before - to say it in an extremely diplomatic way?
24
Do you think because Bret Stephens does not agree with you he is uninformed? I am sure he could talk circles around you. His point was that very little about climate science is "settled." Some people still identify it as a change in the weather, harmful effects of pollution not withstanding,
1
The poor not only spend a larger share of their income on energy, they consume that energy inefficiently. Most homes and row houses used as apartments in this country lack proper insulation, have old, drafty windows, and other conservation measures. Insulation installation, is a rather cheap fix for property management. Will a carbon tax somehow push these property owners to do something for their tenants? Doubtful, but I do hope a carbon tax becomes reality.
12
A carbon fee coupled with a dividend going back to the people, would offset some of the extra cost. Studies done by independent firms find that over 50% of the population would get all or more than the extra money spent back from the dividend. The "YUGE" homes and businesses use more energy to heat and cool, the drivers of oversized cars and SUVs use more energy. Even if one has to buy an older car, s/he has some choices, there are older Civics as well as older Cadillacs.
Bret Stephens states that Paris is “even unverifiable”. The rest of us -- perhaps less charming and engaging -- can go to Wikipedia’s Paris Agreement entry and read “While each Party's NDC is not legally binding, the Parties are legally bound to have their progress tracked by technical expert review to assess achievement toward the NDC, and to determine ways to strengthen ambition.[48] Article 13 of the Paris Agreement articulates an "enhanced transparency framework for action and support" that establishes harmonized monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) requirements. Thus, both developed and developing nations must report every two years on their mitigation efforts, and all parties will be subject to both technical and peer review.[48]”.
Also, the Stockholm Environment Institute’s Policy Brief headlined “Putting the ‘enhanced transparency framework’ into action: Priorities for a key pillar of the Paris Agreement” states “The Paris Agreement and the accompanying Decision 1/CP.21 offer a fair amount of detail on the design and operation of the transparency framework, but they leave many important details to future negotiations.”
Also, the Stockholm Environment Institute’s Policy Brief headlined “Putting the ‘enhanced transparency framework’ into action: Priorities for a key pillar of the Paris Agreement” states “The Paris Agreement and the accompanying Decision 1/CP.21 offer a fair amount of detail on the design and operation of the transparency framework, but they leave many important details to future negotiations.”
22
I hardly think that we’ll “get more natural gas” if we take Andrew Cuomo seriously. Instead of challenging ExxonMobil to frack the Marcellus in demonstrably environment-friendly ways and regulate it to force compliance, he just closes the region to fracking and condemns the lower-tier of “upstate New York” to continued economic doldrums -- while saying nothing as NY’s AG, Eric Schneiderman, spends his time trying to make a name for himself by inventing pretexts to soak Exxon through lawsuits.
Bret is right on both major counts regarding Paris: it’s a bad, cynical, ineffective deal, and Republicans will romp on the president’s exit from it. The last time a deal was struck in Paris that benefited the U.S. was in 1783, at which Great Britain recognized the sovereignty of the United States, which successfully (for us) ended our revolution. Paris is a good place to shop for deals on clothes (twice a year), but a lousy place to strike sensible agreements. Obviously, it’s altogether too close to Brussels.
And, yes, Gail and Bret -- and David (squared) and Ross, and Paul and Charles and Roger, Maureen, Nick and Tom (oh, my!) -- always will have Trump. One wonders whether Bret, without his Trump-loathing, might have landed instead at Politico or the HuffPost as resident contrarian instead of at the Times.
Trump will go down in history for one thing if for no other: he has almost single-handedly saved the MSM from economic ruin. Good for him on that score, if not on any other.
Bret is right on both major counts regarding Paris: it’s a bad, cynical, ineffective deal, and Republicans will romp on the president’s exit from it. The last time a deal was struck in Paris that benefited the U.S. was in 1783, at which Great Britain recognized the sovereignty of the United States, which successfully (for us) ended our revolution. Paris is a good place to shop for deals on clothes (twice a year), but a lousy place to strike sensible agreements. Obviously, it’s altogether too close to Brussels.
And, yes, Gail and Bret -- and David (squared) and Ross, and Paul and Charles and Roger, Maureen, Nick and Tom (oh, my!) -- always will have Trump. One wonders whether Bret, without his Trump-loathing, might have landed instead at Politico or the HuffPost as resident contrarian instead of at the Times.
Trump will go down in history for one thing if for no other: he has almost single-handedly saved the MSM from economic ruin. Good for him on that score, if not on any other.
4
Friends don't let friends commit frackacide. Let the Sun and the Wind and the Tide and the River current soothe you and light the way. Breathe deep that carcinogenic-free air and sip from the cool clear stream. Prosper.
7
The political philosophy that government regulations are bad is enough reason to oppose fracking. When we get back to the point where we can trust government, however imperfect it may be, to try to regulate the many dangers that come from fracking, I'll be willing to say Cuomo ought to give up his NYS ban.
2
Trump apology # 10087
"he has almost single-handedly saved the MSM from economic ruin..."
Asserting isn't proving.
"he has almost single-handedly saved the MSM from economic ruin..."
Asserting isn't proving.
there is no reason that capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than any other income! and there should be a sales tax on all stock transactions money is money income is income
57
Every BTU released by burning fossil fuels is energy tens of millions of years in the making. Every BTU captured by a solar panel is energy available in real-time. Why would any rational person wait a hundred million years for energy that was available right now, without digging or drilling?
118
During the OPEC oil embargo in the 1970s, when everyone was waiting for 4-6 hours to purchase gas, you'd think that we'd have begun to invest money in solar energy. Forty years later, we are still a very long way from using the sun to power our homes and vehicles.
Too many politicians who are friends with the Saudis. Particularly the Bushes. Too many businesses that can't break from petroleum-based products. And too many Americans who can't think beyond their own immediate gratification.
Too many politicians who are friends with the Saudis. Particularly the Bushes. Too many businesses that can't break from petroleum-based products. And too many Americans who can't think beyond their own immediate gratification.
15
Jimmy Carter had solar panels erected on the White House; Ronald Reagan made a splashy photo-op of taking them down.
You left that out.
You left that out.
6
Oil is finite. Energy needs for 7 billion people, soon enough likely to be 10 billion people are not. The planet will need more energy, more food - and we cannot afford to lose land mass to the ocean.
And those who invent the technologies which create cheap clean energy will be economic powerhouses. That is why the GOP is leaving it all for the Chinese? Our policy is stupid and feckless, not to mention reckless.
I am not a big fan of symbolism, but the Paris accord had a large element of symbolism to it. To paraphrase George Bush, it was a kind of "you're either with us or agin' us." The US keeps showing over and over that they are against long terms goals if it appease short term billionaires. That they wrap their greed up in a banner of anti-intellectualism and tie the concept of climate change to God. Grit and the American Way, shows the true capacity for selfish greed that free market capitalism and pay to play politics can get you.
We may not have Paris, but we don't have helpful stewards either. Research? Clean Energy technology? Government investment to match the government investment that will foster Chinese primacy? Pshaw. That's socialism.
And those who invent the technologies which create cheap clean energy will be economic powerhouses. That is why the GOP is leaving it all for the Chinese? Our policy is stupid and feckless, not to mention reckless.
I am not a big fan of symbolism, but the Paris accord had a large element of symbolism to it. To paraphrase George Bush, it was a kind of "you're either with us or agin' us." The US keeps showing over and over that they are against long terms goals if it appease short term billionaires. That they wrap their greed up in a banner of anti-intellectualism and tie the concept of climate change to God. Grit and the American Way, shows the true capacity for selfish greed that free market capitalism and pay to play politics can get you.
We may not have Paris, but we don't have helpful stewards either. Research? Clean Energy technology? Government investment to match the government investment that will foster Chinese primacy? Pshaw. That's socialism.
39
Cathy- not only are we losing land mass to the ocean but as aggregate temperatures rise we also lose arable land to desertification. What happens when the bread basket is too hot or too drought ridden to grow crops. The ignorant joke that they can just start growing crops in Canada not knowing that fertile land, not tundra, is a major requirement.
“You’re in a position where the agricultural regions cannot migrate north,” Adam Scott, the climate and program manager for the environmental watchdog group Environmental Defence (EDF), said.
“The biggest limiting factor in the northern expansion of the agricultural zone is the lack of soil,” said Dr. Davidson. “We have great soil in the southern half of the prairies, and you don’t have to go too far north before you start hitting Canadian Shield, which basically has no soil at all.”
observer.com/2016/03/the-gentle-giants-climate-problem/
Scientists have found that trees are migrating north in the form of seeds and the native trees are slowly dying. Yet the scientifically ignorant among us don't know of the symbiotic relationships between flora and fauna and what happens when these ecosystems are endangered or altered. And their collective ignorance is literally killing us!
“You’re in a position where the agricultural regions cannot migrate north,” Adam Scott, the climate and program manager for the environmental watchdog group Environmental Defence (EDF), said.
“The biggest limiting factor in the northern expansion of the agricultural zone is the lack of soil,” said Dr. Davidson. “We have great soil in the southern half of the prairies, and you don’t have to go too far north before you start hitting Canadian Shield, which basically has no soil at all.”
observer.com/2016/03/the-gentle-giants-climate-problem/
Scientists have found that trees are migrating north in the form of seeds and the native trees are slowly dying. Yet the scientifically ignorant among us don't know of the symbiotic relationships between flora and fauna and what happens when these ecosystems are endangered or altered. And their collective ignorance is literally killing us!
3
I just deduced why Trump is so put off by the idea of global warming.
The Russian Bear is not the Polar type. It's one of the Asian Brown Bears. Trump wouldn't want to offend anyone, especially his bud Putsky!!!
The Russian Bear is not the Polar type. It's one of the Asian Brown Bears. Trump wouldn't want to offend anyone, especially his bud Putsky!!!
11
Is there a wart showing on America's hide or a problem or shortfall from perfection that Trump has not mentioned in either his rallies or since winning a rigged election, (i.e., an electoral scheme that backfired on the reasoning of the founders) that he has not made worse? Stephens is about in the same boat. Plus, he's just an unwanted distraction from enjoying Gail's wit or point of view.
And, if Trump keeps dissing on his three top advisers as he did in his NATO speech, hopefully they'll rally and under the 25th Amendment exercise their right to declare him incapable of fulfilling the duties of the President and get the all rolling....his Presidency is one sheer blunder after another
And, if Trump keeps dissing on his three top advisers as he did in his NATO speech, hopefully they'll rally and under the 25th Amendment exercise their right to declare him incapable of fulfilling the duties of the President and get the all rolling....his Presidency is one sheer blunder after another
9
Two pundits having literally nothing meaningful to say in the face of the planet's most pressing problem and in the face of Donald Trump's determination to do everything in his power to destroy human civilization. This is truly depressing.
Not that I expected much of Bret "I’m a bit of a jerk" Stephens. And Gail Collins doesn't even have anything witty to say but it's probably better that way. Trump's (and Stephens's) irresponsibility doesn't invite sarcasm any more, the joke has gotten old.
Not that I expected much of Bret "I’m a bit of a jerk" Stephens. And Gail Collins doesn't even have anything witty to say but it's probably better that way. Trump's (and Stephens's) irresponsibility doesn't invite sarcasm any more, the joke has gotten old.
29
"at least if we can do it without having the government pick winners and losers.”
Bret loves to verbally dance around the issues. Mr. Free Market pretends the government has no role in anything, except defense, but he refuses to assert this right wing mantra. Bad faith.
Bret loves to verbally dance around the issues. Mr. Free Market pretends the government has no role in anything, except defense, but he refuses to assert this right wing mantra. Bad faith.
14
Quite right. The federal government gives $4 billion a year of taxpayer money in subsidies to the oil and gas industry. If that's not picking winners, what is?
85
We also subsidize coal mining.
8
Right, NA, and then refer to poor people as the "welfare queens", the GOP philosophy since R Reagan. Pitiful and cruel.
I appreciate this article's intent and humorous aporoach, but when I read the jokes about animals who are dying because of global climate change and resulting melting glaciers I am completely saddened and appalled. We have a crisis happening on our planet in which not only beloved animals are dying horrific deaths. Famines and floods are causing babies to die too. Shall we joke about the babies who are starving and dying of thirst? Nothing about this is funny. Please have respect for these lives.
61
@Eileen Sullivan: Agree "tout a fait" that it is insensitive and completely inappropriate to attempt to be jokey, and make light of polar bears or of any other animal who is suffering, whether from global warming or simply neglect and indifference, which you see a great deal of if you have lived and worked in a developing nation, and even here at home. Suitable response is to, like Candide, cultivate your own garden, and make a contribution to alleviating the hardship by volunteering at the local animal shelter, or by joining those good hearted altruistic volunteers who make several annual treks to Isla de los Perros Abandonados in Puerto Rico to rescue pets left to die there by their owners. .Also agree that these dialogues that Ms. Collins engages in with other journos, her previous back and forth was with the conservative Arthur Brooks, are simply not funny, go up like a lead balloon.No disrespect intended, but there was a time that Ms. Collins, before she began proselytizing for HRC during the campaign , kept it light and was very funny indeed.Hard to recapture that "legerete" that spirituality which is the essence of good comedic writing once you have lost it.
Things to take away from today's column.
a. "I'm a bit of a jerk". (Bret)
b. "Paris is a lousy treaty" (Bret)
c. "Carbon taxes are regressive" (Bret)
d. "It almost makes one long for Mitt Romney" (Bret)
e. "the walruses...are weeping" (Gail).
Analysis of each comment:
a. No, you're really not just "a bit of a jerk" but are a fully grown version
b. Paris is a city, not a treaty (And the capitol of France)
c. You're a Republican; as a mongoose is to a cobra, a Republican is to "taxes" especially on the well off
d. You gotta' be kidding (Reference both item a. from the "Take away" column and item a. from the "Analysis" column)
e. We're ALL weeping with this buffoon as president and the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE in charge of all the other branches of government.
Can hardly wait for the next meeting of you two.
a. "I'm a bit of a jerk". (Bret)
b. "Paris is a lousy treaty" (Bret)
c. "Carbon taxes are regressive" (Bret)
d. "It almost makes one long for Mitt Romney" (Bret)
e. "the walruses...are weeping" (Gail).
Analysis of each comment:
a. No, you're really not just "a bit of a jerk" but are a fully grown version
b. Paris is a city, not a treaty (And the capitol of France)
c. You're a Republican; as a mongoose is to a cobra, a Republican is to "taxes" especially on the well off
d. You gotta' be kidding (Reference both item a. from the "Take away" column and item a. from the "Analysis" column)
e. We're ALL weeping with this buffoon as president and the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE in charge of all the other branches of government.
Can hardly wait for the next meeting of you two.
25
Brett Stephens, like David Brooks and Ross Douthat, is a thoughtful Republican. As such he is far outside of what passes for mainstream Republican thinking today. The Republican Party doesn't have thoughts or policies or values anymore, it simply panders to emotions of grievance while finding ways to line the pockets of its donor class. And Donald Trump is the avatar of its wildest dreams.
10
They are having dreams right now.....Crooked Donald is the subject, all right.
2
...and the one-eyed monster in the rest of the world's nightmare, since he can't see beyond his own needs.
1
Nothing like a little keyboard humor to start my day off the right way....after reading though...I went back to bed.
2
I would recommend the Times just take a recorder to diners across the country and report on the talk of perfect strangers talking about almost anything issue while they wait for their coffee and breakfast. They would be far more intelligent and interesting than any of the Conversations between Gail and her pals.
I know space on an internet page is free, but still the bar has got pretty low here at the Times.
I know space on an internet page is free, but still the bar has got pretty low here at the Times.
5
Hey Bret: Since climate change isn't occurring, then polar bears have nothing to worry about. Thing is they never did, as your creationist friends from your pseudoscience circle believe, since God takes care of everything and decides what goes extinct and what doesn't. Guess they won't make it to the Ark this next go-around.
17
Bret is part of the moving target of climate change denial. First off, they say it doesn't exist, then they say it's not caused by humans, and then they say it's not as bad as you "alarmists" want to believe, and then they say there's nothing we can do about it anyway. Classic merchant of doubt.
Cute and clever (or was it?), but leaves this reader wondering where we are headed. The subject is grim and pretty much clueless, and we have a "leader" ( I choke on the word) who seems content to take this country and world into oblivion. The Paris Accord is lousy and wouldn't we be so much better with Mitt Romney? It's time to put down your pens and take a long, long walk.
15
For me the big plus for the Paris Accord is/was the solidarity. When so many countries signed on was a truly optimistic moment that I think we all needed.
206
So why is it that conservatives are invariably in favor of flat income tax rates and in favor of consumption taxes BOTH of which are far more regressive in their impact than a carbon tax, and in the next breath oppose a carbon tax because it is too regressive? They must assume nobody tries to parse their words or follow their logic.
171
Excellent point. And let's not forget that so far, all proposed 'flat income tax' proposals have been on only 'earned' income -- it left unearned income completely untaxed!! So that 'flat' tax scenario cherished by conservatives is even far more regressive than implied in your comments.
7
Doublethink is the opposite of logic. They don't do logic. They do doublethink -- Orwell's word for two opposite things believed at the same time without even seeing the contradiction.
6
Taxes are for the little people....GOP mantra.
5
Hey Bret : To buffer the effects of the carbon tax regressiveness , how about a larger standard deduction since most of the non 1% don't itemize
22
interesting idea for a column as a way to de-antagonize anti-GOP-ers
1
Stephens: “Pittsburgh Over Paris” is a better political slogan than “Save the Earth.”
No, it's nonsense, because:
1. Pittsburgh voters overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton, and its mayor is an enthusiastic supporter of the Paris Accords.
2. The accords are named for the city where the signing too place, but have nothing to do with serving the people of Paris. It was a world-wide effort, led by America.
Maybe the slogan is good for Trump, but only to the extent it appeals to the ignorant.
No, it's nonsense, because:
1. Pittsburgh voters overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton, and its mayor is an enthusiastic supporter of the Paris Accords.
2. The accords are named for the city where the signing too place, but have nothing to do with serving the people of Paris. It was a world-wide effort, led by America.
Maybe the slogan is good for Trump, but only to the extent it appeals to the ignorant.
355
Alas, I'm afraid Stephen's is right about the slogan even though you are right about the facts. Facts have never mattered much to political sloganeering, and even less when it comes to Trump and many of his supporters. We have ample evidence -- facts, in fact! -- that in Trump world, reality matters little when it comes to either his words or his base's approval.
7
As if anyone believes Trump actually weighs out anything with postage stamp of a mind. In the end he will do what Bannon tells him to do.
3
and that includes Stephens
Stephens does what a lot of conservatives do when it comes to climate change, which is to say that it may or may not be happening, but nothing works to fix it. Here, he knocks cap and trade, saying that it has never worked, without providing any evidence for this conclusion.
Cap and trade has worked. An example is sulfur dioxide (SO2), for which a program was developed and implemented via the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. The goal was to reduce SO2 by 10 million tons relative to 1980 levels, to reduce acid rain. The statute capped the amount of SO2 emissions at a certain baseline and created a market for the trading of credits. Emitters were permitted to discharge a certain level of SO2, but above that had to buy credits. And if they.were able to reduce their emissions, they could sell credits in a market and reap the financial benefits. By 2007, SO2 emissions had declined by more than the goal, and yet electricity generation from coal fired power plants (the major source of SO2) had increased substantially.
The program has been very successful. And it allowed emitters to innovate to solve the problem, instead of government telling them what to do.
I have worked in the chemical industry for 25 years and am sick and tired of people like Stephens, who don't understand the engineering and operation of chemical and power plants and refineries, to make false conclusory statements. Do the research and look at the facts. And if you don't understand the issue, say nothing.
Cap and trade has worked. An example is sulfur dioxide (SO2), for which a program was developed and implemented via the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. The goal was to reduce SO2 by 10 million tons relative to 1980 levels, to reduce acid rain. The statute capped the amount of SO2 emissions at a certain baseline and created a market for the trading of credits. Emitters were permitted to discharge a certain level of SO2, but above that had to buy credits. And if they.were able to reduce their emissions, they could sell credits in a market and reap the financial benefits. By 2007, SO2 emissions had declined by more than the goal, and yet electricity generation from coal fired power plants (the major source of SO2) had increased substantially.
The program has been very successful. And it allowed emitters to innovate to solve the problem, instead of government telling them what to do.
I have worked in the chemical industry for 25 years and am sick and tired of people like Stephens, who don't understand the engineering and operation of chemical and power plants and refineries, to make false conclusory statements. Do the research and look at the facts. And if you don't understand the issue, say nothing.
555
No, no, no. "If you don't understand the issue, revert to Republican Party platforms...."
5
Jack -- you are right about the broad success of the cap+trade program for SO2. But as an atmospheric physicist/chemist who was involved in the "acid rain" science era, let me tell you what was wrong with the cap&trade program as established by the EPA: two things, "grandfathering" and "new source review."
in order to get the program established by the politicians favored big polluters were "grandfathered" -- not subject to the regulations at all until/unless they rebuilt their plants. This was grossly unfair because it gave old inefficient coal-fired plants what amounted to a monopoly to keep polluting, where new market entries could not compete with them (because pollution control does cost money).
And then worse, a succession of Republican administrations "interpreted" the EPA rules on new source review to mean that these plants could call anything "maintenance" and not become subject. One plant completely tore down everything old, installed new, tripled its power output (still with no SO2 removal) and was rubber-stamped as "maintenance.'
In the 2008 election the three contenders: HRC, Obama, AND MCaain (!!) all had a cap+trade platform for CO2 that specified "no grandfathering." The abuse was so egregious that everyone who saw it is revolted by it ... except the politicians of course.
This is one reason I favor a broad revenue-neutral CO2 tax with per-capita rebate to adult american citizens residing in the country -- much harder for the politicians to rig.
in order to get the program established by the politicians favored big polluters were "grandfathered" -- not subject to the regulations at all until/unless they rebuilt their plants. This was grossly unfair because it gave old inefficient coal-fired plants what amounted to a monopoly to keep polluting, where new market entries could not compete with them (because pollution control does cost money).
And then worse, a succession of Republican administrations "interpreted" the EPA rules on new source review to mean that these plants could call anything "maintenance" and not become subject. One plant completely tore down everything old, installed new, tripled its power output (still with no SO2 removal) and was rubber-stamped as "maintenance.'
In the 2008 election the three contenders: HRC, Obama, AND MCaain (!!) all had a cap+trade platform for CO2 that specified "no grandfathering." The abuse was so egregious that everyone who saw it is revolted by it ... except the politicians of course.
This is one reason I favor a broad revenue-neutral CO2 tax with per-capita rebate to adult american citizens residing in the country -- much harder for the politicians to rig.
Agree with you on the grandfathering fiasco, Lee--while the SO@ program was a success there are lessons to be learned , which could be applied here. I am not sure I am entirely with you on broad-based CO2 taxation, but I do think a CO2 cap and trade with declining baselines--like they are doing in Quebec and Ontario--will increase the cost of emissions over time and force innovation and/or reductions by emitters.
Thank you Gail for using your column to present a rational discussion about climate change. Too bad we won't be reading anything comparable coming out of the discourse in the halls of congress.
Which begs the question of why America became the only country on earth where the debate about climate change became an angry discussion of whether or not it was a hoax rather than about the rational course of action to deal with it?
Is it still another symptom of how money distorts our politics and perverts our politicians to be puppets of their donors instead of servants of the people? The behind the scenes manipulations of the likes of the Koch bros?
Or is it the consequence of a nation divided culturally and historically- especially between the south and the north. Certainly the economies of southern states tend to be more dependent on the commerce of carbon fuels.
Of course, neither explanation is mutually exclusive.
Which begs the question of why America became the only country on earth where the debate about climate change became an angry discussion of whether or not it was a hoax rather than about the rational course of action to deal with it?
Is it still another symptom of how money distorts our politics and perverts our politicians to be puppets of their donors instead of servants of the people? The behind the scenes manipulations of the likes of the Koch bros?
Or is it the consequence of a nation divided culturally and historically- especially between the south and the north. Certainly the economies of southern states tend to be more dependent on the commerce of carbon fuels.
Of course, neither explanation is mutually exclusive.
42
I think my operative take-away from this 'conversation' is Bret Stephens declaring he is sort of a jerk. Mostly I have found in life that people will just tell you who they are if you just listen. And to understand the need to act on climate change, one needs to not be a jerk, that is, to have sympathy and understanding for many 'others' than yourself - the people of the Jersey Shore, the coral reefs in Australia, the Moose in maine, the songbirds out of sync with their environments, the people of Tacloban in the Philppines. Bret's sentences cancel each other out, always. This is ok, he will say,, he believes this has worked, but not really, as only someone so intelligent as himself only can see. His condescension and superciliousness reminds me of good old William F. Buckley, that giant old phony.
Much of the rest of the world has empathy for others, and understanding of the need to act now. Sorry, Bret, you're case for inaction only relies on verbal tricks, and has neither heart nor mind on its side.
Much of the rest of the world has empathy for others, and understanding of the need to act now. Sorry, Bret, you're case for inaction only relies on verbal tricks, and has neither heart nor mind on its side.
222
I rather strongly dislike Mr. Stephens' views in general, but I think your remark is unfair. He does not suggest inaction; rather, in arguing for increased research he suggests doing the most effective thing our government can do right now, short of imposing a carbon tax that contains adjustments to avoid the regressiveness he mentions.
2
@Keithofrpi, 'lets study the issue' is just the same as let's do nothing, as far as I am concerned. I wasn't born yesterday.
5
You would be right if he was a gov't official, but not from his present position, where it's just an idea.
1
Sorry, Bret. I'm all in favor of the government picking winners and losers. Especially if the winners it picks are the planet and the people living on it, and the losers are the people willing to hasten its death from a few billion years to a few hundred for the sake of a quick buck. Besides, it's not like the government doesn't do that already (ag/fossil subsidies, anyone?).
454
Exactly. Why would we want to trust the "invisible hand of the market" to pick winners and losers?
1
Hopefully we won't ALWAYS have Trump. The sooner we get that creep out of the White House the safer the U.S. will be in every respect. After a slow start except for posturing he's managed in short order to alienate every friend and ally the U.S. used to have except Bibi and the Saudis, cozied up to every up to every dictator and scoundrel in the world outside Iran and North Korea and screwed up everything he touches.
71
Maybe government should not pick winners and losers. But if businesses pick winners and losers by competing and winning or losing, the business that wins is the business that is best at competing and that begins with the best position. American car companies competed, but not on quality, and got taken to the cleaners by the Japanese when their reliable cars invaded the American market.
In terms of saving the environment, the winners should be those that actually save the environment rather than those who can sell people on their environmental saving ability (or on persuading the public that the environment does not need to be saved). The best decisions will occur when they are guided by experts in environmental studies and not experts in gaining market share. Only those who believe the free market has miracle powers (or support the miracle of making things true by definition) hold that whatever comes out of competition is always the best result.
In terms of saving the environment, the winners should be those that actually save the environment rather than those who can sell people on their environmental saving ability (or on persuading the public that the environment does not need to be saved). The best decisions will occur when they are guided by experts in environmental studies and not experts in gaining market share. Only those who believe the free market has miracle powers (or support the miracle of making things true by definition) hold that whatever comes out of competition is always the best result.
19
Enjoyable as always But why is such a high proportion of the commentary about the Paris withdrawal, in the Times and elsewhere, focused on economic impacts, green energy, etc.? As an ecologist, I am not terrified about possible impacts of policy on GDP. I am alot more worried about evidence of rapidly accelerating changes in basic life-support systems. I applaud the suggestion of doubling NSF and NOAA research funding (disclosure: I have received NSF funding). All the news we get from the world itself is discouraging, not to say alarming. It's easy to joke about polar bears and walruses, but these are (if you will pardon my saying so) the tip of a scary iceberg of data.
219
I agree, but these columns are addressing the concerns of people who do not support making environmentally sound choices because they buy into the lies and misrepresentations of Trump, Pruitt and their ilk, and many who find the discussions of science boring at the least and, at the worst do not accept the science on its face. The only thing that perks up their interest is discussion about jobs and the economy. Those of us who are on the same page as you already get what you ar talking about, and also realize, of course, that moving to 21st century jobs and technology will only yield cleaner, safer work environments and better-paying jobs. This needs to be stressed much, much more - and the more statistics and concrete examples of places that have benefited (like, yes, Pittsburgh) the better.
9
Stephens comment, "Don't you wish Romney had won in 2012 to spare us all of this?" is as snide and nasty and underhanded in its uncited, implicit racism, its Tokyo Rose call to America's fighting spirit, posed as a clash of values, as any remark or tweet Trump has posted about London, inner cities or immigrants.
Simply more sophisticated by its ellipsis, it cages the unstated wish of white supremacists --from wealthy capitalists with a financial privilege to low income workers with a cultural bevy of insults, labels, and hate, to the middle class with a rational hate disguised as a logic of outcomes that debase America's values. Stephens offers wincing humor, tightly compressed, but unpacked, on close reading, its meaning emerges--here, Stephens is for silence rather than resistance; for surrender rather than human effort to build an inclusive, safe world; for acceptance and diminishing the struggles of history to accede to the easier path of tyranny and exploitation by wealth and power.
Words matter! They condense and release meanings and power. However their lightness or denial. I, for one, would not change the 2012 results and welcome the fight.
Simply more sophisticated by its ellipsis, it cages the unstated wish of white supremacists --from wealthy capitalists with a financial privilege to low income workers with a cultural bevy of insults, labels, and hate, to the middle class with a rational hate disguised as a logic of outcomes that debase America's values. Stephens offers wincing humor, tightly compressed, but unpacked, on close reading, its meaning emerges--here, Stephens is for silence rather than resistance; for surrender rather than human effort to build an inclusive, safe world; for acceptance and diminishing the struggles of history to accede to the easier path of tyranny and exploitation by wealth and power.
Words matter! They condense and release meanings and power. However their lightness or denial. I, for one, would not change the 2012 results and welcome the fight.
188
I agree. Is he suggesting that for the sake of (white) unity we never have black and female or any other non-white, non-god-fearing, non-Christian, non-straight president? Ever?
21
Very well said. I cringed when I read it, but read on and didn't really get into why I had cringed. He could have just said, "It would be so much better for everyone if those pesky people of color didn't go around showing their intelligence and education and just stayed in their place."
9
What in the world did Stephens say that was racist? He's a conservative, for crying out loud, and the comment had to do with Romney's political affiliation, not his race. This sort of over-the-top accusation just plays into the hands of those on the right who are always looking for liberals' illiberalism and progressives' prejudices.
I remember when "an inconvenient truth" came out for a brief moment people got the seriousness of Climate change. Those polar bears really tugged at your heart. But then the issue got politicized and the climate deniers started to push back and here we are. The Paris Climate agreement may not be perfect or binding but at least it was a start.
Green energy is performing well without the subsidises that the oil and gas industry enjoys. With the rest of the world pledging to remain in the Paris Climate agreement our choice to withdraw means a lost opportunity to make money. Eventually the rest of the world is going to pull ahead and we're going to be stuck playing catch-up.
Sadly, as his response to the London attack demonstrated our president isn't capable of thinking big. He's too busy holding onto childish grudges to be the visionary our country needs right now. So we will trudge on in continuous embarrassment.
Green energy is performing well without the subsidises that the oil and gas industry enjoys. With the rest of the world pledging to remain in the Paris Climate agreement our choice to withdraw means a lost opportunity to make money. Eventually the rest of the world is going to pull ahead and we're going to be stuck playing catch-up.
Sadly, as his response to the London attack demonstrated our president isn't capable of thinking big. He's too busy holding onto childish grudges to be the visionary our country needs right now. So we will trudge on in continuous embarrassment.
337
"Green energy is performing well without the subsidises that the oil and gas industry enjoys."
It wasn't always thus. Since you mention "An invonvenient Truth" (2006), we might look back to 1989 when Al Gore started to make flip-chart presentations, or 1981 when Reagan took down Carter's solar panels from the White House. For decades the research has been expensive, and the German Energiewende has costed the average consumer about Euro 80 per year.
Today the "renewable revolution" is almost cost-free. And still the United States under President Trump whines that it is too expensive?? Get real, folks, please.
It wasn't always thus. Since you mention "An invonvenient Truth" (2006), we might look back to 1989 when Al Gore started to make flip-chart presentations, or 1981 when Reagan took down Carter's solar panels from the White House. For decades the research has been expensive, and the German Energiewende has costed the average consumer about Euro 80 per year.
Today the "renewable revolution" is almost cost-free. And still the United States under President Trump whines that it is too expensive?? Get real, folks, please.
10
I disagree that Trump "isn't capable" of thinking - either big or small. Trump is totally determined to please Putin by tearing our role in the international community to shreds - and do the same here, within our boundaries. He has acted to disrupt our government -by attacking the free press, by undermining the separation of church and state, by attacking our intelligence services and our court system, not to mention how he pits us against each other. He even wants to sell off our national parks and treasures. He has done his best to undermine democracy and our national pride; furthermore the Republicans in Congress do nothing to stop him. Hopefully the Republican Party will go down in disgrace having given this country the S&L scandal, the Iraq War and the financial meltdown of the world in 2008. I wonder what we'll have left when we finally get Trump out of office - one way or another. I can't attribute all these attacks to his "inability" - that's wayyyy too generous. I give him credit of doing this on purpose; he has a very well developed ability to play shell games with those not educated enough to size him up. Remember what former May or NYC Bloomberg said at the Democratic Convention - " I'm a New Yorker and I know a con game when I see one."
Bret Stephens sums up with this phrase what many people find obnoxious about global-warming zealots:
"...the perils of certitude..."
There are many people who agree that the Earth is warming -- I do, for example, and Ross Douthat acknowledges in his latest column that he does too -- but don't agree that it's the world's most pressing issue. Different people give reasons for that, but nearly all agree that the point is always pressed too far.
The most common example is this:
The Earth is warming; therefore, the seas are rising, and ocean waves will soon inundate cornfields in Iowa.
Not so, at least not significantly. In the past 40 years, the average temperature in SF has risen 6 degrees. In my view, that's signifiant. It's global warming. But the consequences do not include the "usual suspect:" sea level rise. I've lived in SF 40 years, and sea level rise has not caused any coastline city resident or business to take any detectible action to protect against a rising sea (a breakwall, for example). At the turn of the century, I read predictions of sea level rise of 3 feet (never less) to 20 feet by century-end. We've got 1/6 of the century under our belts, and sea level has risen only 1 inch -- and only 1/3 inch just across the SF Bay Bridge in Alameda (showing to me that "sea level" is a "composite" measure of water level and land level; I'm aware of several other explanations for geographical variations, but they make no sense except as temporary explanations.)
"...the perils of certitude..."
There are many people who agree that the Earth is warming -- I do, for example, and Ross Douthat acknowledges in his latest column that he does too -- but don't agree that it's the world's most pressing issue. Different people give reasons for that, but nearly all agree that the point is always pressed too far.
The most common example is this:
The Earth is warming; therefore, the seas are rising, and ocean waves will soon inundate cornfields in Iowa.
Not so, at least not significantly. In the past 40 years, the average temperature in SF has risen 6 degrees. In my view, that's signifiant. It's global warming. But the consequences do not include the "usual suspect:" sea level rise. I've lived in SF 40 years, and sea level rise has not caused any coastline city resident or business to take any detectible action to protect against a rising sea (a breakwall, for example). At the turn of the century, I read predictions of sea level rise of 3 feet (never less) to 20 feet by century-end. We've got 1/6 of the century under our belts, and sea level has risen only 1 inch -- and only 1/3 inch just across the SF Bay Bridge in Alameda (showing to me that "sea level" is a "composite" measure of water level and land level; I'm aware of several other explanations for geographical variations, but they make no sense except as temporary explanations.)
Yet parts of Alaska are falling into the ocean and people are being forced to relocate. This isn't going to happen overnight but it is going to happen if we don't do anything.
90
In California the land falls steeply into the sea, as it does along many other earthquake-prone coasts, so sea-level rise doesn't cover a lot of land. But other parts of the world. including heavily populated places like Florida, the Netherlands and Bangladesh, have flat coastal plains next to shallow coastal waters. There a slight rise in sea level can bring ocean water miles inland. Think of the difference between low and high tide in Cape Cod Bay or at Mont Saint-Michel.
92
I haven't read any predictions of cornfield flooding. Temperature increases and sea rise are independently verifiable. I have read that Earth's oceans swell and pool due to wind and other causes, unlike the water in your bathtub which seeks a level mean. The lack of a dramatic increase in the sea around San Francisco does not mean it's not happening elsewhere. Good luck to us all.
28
An interesting conversation about which I only feel moved to comment on the fact that although Jeremy Corbyn is no Clement Attlee he is way better than Theresa May. Read the manifesto's if you haven't already.
17
Gail Collins' remark showed again that many Americans are clueless about Europe.
An idiotic man leading our country to an idiotic end.........
94
"Gail: We disagree about a lot of things, Bret. But we’ll always have Trump." A brilliant conclusion... if Trump proves to be an perfect example of how America's political system can be up-ended by a willfully incompetent man-child, and he is successfully and ignominiously ousted, what then? Did "we the people" learn anything after Nixon's Watergate, Johnson and W's wars, or Obama's 8 year attempt to add intellect, moderation, and logic to the way we do business here and around the world? If this "all works out without Trump" what will work for us after Trump?
50
We learned nothing. And what we might have learned from Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" was promptly forgotten because the powers that be didn't reinforce the message, but rather took advantage of our limited attention spans to deny and obfuscate it, substituting the mantra of "drill, baby, drill".
Bret's equation, "personal nastiness + borderline illiteracy + diplomatic blundering = #MAGA!" omits a few variables, most important being that our so-called leader belongs not in the white house but a secured psych ward. With scant staff, no qualified leaders and no plan whatsoever, what do you think will happen when our next disaster strikes? The answer, in short, is chaos. Whatever it is, when and wherever it happens, it will make Katrina look like a walk in the park on a very nice day. If it's political, i.e: terrorism, as opposed to a natural disaster, things will be even worse. Government will trip over it's own feet in a sickening display of incompetence and unpreparedness. It will be politicized to the advantage of Trumps agenda, and monetized if he can find a way, something he's actually good at. If only those poor folks at the Superdome had Ivanka branded raincoats, made in China under one of her many new patents. Maybe FEMA can be privatized, after the air traffic control system, and the post office.
This is how bad things are: we'd be better of with Sarah Palin as president.
Bret's equation, "personal nastiness + borderline illiteracy + diplomatic blundering = #MAGA!" omits a few variables, most important being that our so-called leader belongs not in the white house but a secured psych ward. With scant staff, no qualified leaders and no plan whatsoever, what do you think will happen when our next disaster strikes? The answer, in short, is chaos. Whatever it is, when and wherever it happens, it will make Katrina look like a walk in the park on a very nice day. If it's political, i.e: terrorism, as opposed to a natural disaster, things will be even worse. Government will trip over it's own feet in a sickening display of incompetence and unpreparedness. It will be politicized to the advantage of Trumps agenda, and monetized if he can find a way, something he's actually good at. If only those poor folks at the Superdome had Ivanka branded raincoats, made in China under one of her many new patents. Maybe FEMA can be privatized, after the air traffic control system, and the post office.
This is how bad things are: we'd be better of with Sarah Palin as president.
6
Mr. Stephens wrote, "Paris is a lousy treaty, voluntary, unenforceable and even unverifiable, and it won’t achieve the goals you mention." This passes for logic? It's a start, isn't it? Countries make pledges and reneging on them is uncool. See. TRUMP looks uncool. Do you really think that the Paris Treaty would have gotten Saudi Arabia to sign it if it were backed up with punishments like no more weapons deals if you peddle oil? The perfect is the enemy of ... etc.
"Carbon taxes are regressive." Yes they are. But who do you think suffers the most from the effects of global warming. Also, how can lowering the capital gains tax not be seen as regressive ...in that it only benefits those with capital gains. Isn't that fact that their capital is gaining enough of a benefit?