Denying legitimate science? What would you expect from a party that is seriously contemplating ending public education throughout the country?
10
Mike Pence seems very fixated on the FEMA map, while 45* attempts to relax his eyes and says “I don’t see anything pop out at me, yet...!”
2
Krugman knows absolutely nothing about climate or meteorology or Physics. He knows almost nothing about economics . Taking advice from Krugman about scientific matters is just lunacy because he understands nothing about historical climate trends, the chemistry behind CO2 or other negligible green house gasses, nor how to read satellite data showing real earth temps. How the NYT allows Krugman to publish this garbage is beyond rational thought.
4
@James
Krugman has won a Nobel, among other prizes -- how many of those things have you collected? But of course when rational argument fails you, there is the ad hominem sort, the method of choice for the dinosaurs of denial on the right.
30
We baby boomers have failed to honor and protect our living earth, ultimately regarding the admonitions in songs like After the Gold Rush by Neil Young, and When the Music's Over by The Doors, merely as entertainment rather than accepting such artistic visions for the truth they really are. In the words of Jackson Browne, we "started out so young and strong only to surrender."
5
Quick! Who thinks mankind will roll back the ravages from Global Heating? Yep. I vote No, as well.
+++++
See: Capitalism stopped mankind in its slave traces.
This isn't that complicated:
1. They hate you and want to hurt you. That is why they say and do the things they do.
2. They hate you and want to hurt you because you represent an existential threat to them: you ask them to *pay for what they get*.
Think about the things that most trigger the Trump voter:
1. White dominance. They didn't pay for or earn their whiteness, yet it gives them incredible power and freedom in the world. When you ask that other skin colors be allow access to the same privileges: Trump.
2, Male dominance. They didn't pay to be male, and yet being male gives them great power over women. They don't want to lose that power.
3. US Citizenship. Don't wanna pay for it. Hate you when you tell them they didn't earn it.
4. Inheritance. See above.
5. Climate change. Burning fossil fuels burdens the public the same way dumping your garbage on the street does. You should pay to dispose of your garbage. But these people do not wish to pay for what they get.
Not paying for what you get has another name: STEALING.
6
Trump represents a rebellion of middle America against people like Paul Krugman: smart, rich, and totally out of touch. The various panics—Russiagate, Sexgate, Climategate—represent increasingly desperate efforts by this elite to reestablilsh itself. Don't fall for it.
3
Climate denialism isn't about science. It's about tribalism, and more to the point, it's a serious psychological defect. Here we have a near-unanimous opinion of experts armed with facts that we've got a big problem, and many would just blow that off. What's going through their skulls? A decision-making process that ignores facts and experts is not one in the interest of the nation, and sure not in the interest of me. I don't want a doctor to treat me who feels that way about experts and facts. I don't want someone to save me from my buringing house who doesn't believe experts and facts, and I sure don't want to be in a foxhole in a battle with someone like that. Such people are mentally faulty, and of little use to society.
Time to stop arguing with them, and time to look into getting them some mental help.
7
My advice: Point science-deniers to the woods, or better yet, the High Plains ... "Turn in your cell phone, your computer, your car, your electrified home ... here's a stick. No more fruits of science & technology for deniers!"
5
I can't fathom why climate change brings such vitriol in opposition. Everyone likes clean air and water. And even if it's not a top priority for everyone, surely they can at least agree protection is important. Maybe disagree on the how and what to do but overall if anything seemed to be logically bipartisan, it's climate protection.
So it must be follow the money. Regulations do cost corporations and as non-human entities their job is to stay in business and profit. Rain forests are not profit turners. Maybe it's corporations that profit off the fires and hurricanes, as rebuilding begins. Coal is important in some areas for economic survival but even with all that it's the conspiracy theorists that make no sense at all. So they spread disinformation to keep their place in the economic line?
There are good jobs in climate control. Coal miners can install solar panels, an entirely new field of science brings ancillary jobs, building mass transit keeps construction unions happy. Why the anger? It makes no sense.
8
I think that birtherism was more of a crucible for Trumpism than climate change denial. It was how Trump learned how gullible a segment of the American public is.
11
Many different paths can lead to climate denial. My grandfather was a neurochemist and now is a climate denier. My best guess is that a long standing feud with the head of NITA about the chemical theories of brain reinforcement soured him on all of science. But, despite the disagreement, his research was always funded. How can intelligent people fall into this doubt? The sky is so big, the oceans are so deep, and we are so small. How can we affect them? It seems not possible. But when you see the earth from the space station or from Apollo, you see that the sky is but a thin sheen and that the oceans are shallow. My grandfather goes to the doctor though. Climate deniers would at least be more consistent if they did not believe in medical science…but forget that! I try to tell my grandfather that the human body is exponential orders of magnitude more complex and more incomprehensible than the Earth's climate systems, which are simplistic by comparison. A cup of fluid dynamics anyone? Medical science is much more likely to be wrong. “I don’t believe in the Big Bang!” he asseverated over cigars one night. “It’s all math!” In junior high I watched “Chariots of the Gods,” and went on and on to him, then an active neurochemist, about ancient aliens! He quickly nipped that silliness in the bud for me. Now it is reversed, and he watches all the shows on Discovery about the ancient astronauts, and tells me about it, as if he forgot what he said when I was twelve.
5
It didn't start with Climategate. Trump is a disciple of Roy Cohn who cut his teeth during the McCarthy era and went on to defend all people unsavory in the following decades. Of course, neither were these tactics invented by Roy Cohn. Wealthy economic interests have been creating smoke screens and preying on the emotional vulnerabilities of others since time immemorial.
5
Paul,
Please come right out and say it, "Trump is evil". He is willing to accelerate the demise of the inhabitants of the earth for $$ and power.
5
Just look at the game plan for the PRI political party in Mexico over the past century to understand how the GOP sees itself today; the PRI held power for 75 self-serving years.
And if you think the murder rate is higher in Mexican political circles, you're not looking close enough at what is going on in America around the GOP over recent decades.
So where does the GOP want to take things, what is the GOP endgame; you need look no farther than...al sur de la frontera. Our southern neighbors and friends in Mexico have endured for decades, gangsters like Trump and far worse, at all all levels of "elected governance".
So just give the GOP another 12yrs to ramp-up the self-serving corruption, the real terror is to come I expect.
1
"The Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in the history of mankind." said Noam Chomsky. Largely but not entirely due to their anti science stand on global warming.
4
To all science deniers:
- Stop going to your physician.
- Take no medications or supplements.
- When you become ill, pray.
- Throw away your satellite-based cellphones.
- Toss your GPS devices in the garbage.
- Ignore weather forecasts.
- Don't bother sending your children to college.
- Invest in 'guts' instead.
I welcome any more suggestions to bury science once and for all.
-
10
Climate denial is only one aspect of Trumpism. They deny everything that is based on scientific knowledge, probably including the spherical Earth and its turning around the Sun.
1
“People, I mean the average person, the great majority of people, the enormous majority of people — are woefully, pitifully, absolutely ignorant of the science of the world that they live in.” Richard Feynman
The scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is truly overwhelming considering how far the data and analysis has advanced. People with STEM based educations will still abandon all AGW analysis if it flies in the face of their political slant. The science is not that difficult.
There are anti-science biases across the political spectrum however. The Dems have a tendency to be anti-vaxers…and the evidence for vaccine efficacy is very robust.
A fairly large percentage number of people believe aliens have visited or are here abducting and experimenting on us. A NYT column awhile ago had large numbers of people commenting that such was true. The actual evidence is ZERO, yet people ignored logical presentations of such.
With climate change, many people consider renewables as the ultimate energy source. Although they have their place, renewables are not renewable. The materials required are multiple times more intense due to low energy return/density…that is always ignore by proponents. And nuclear is considered the devil.
The real fringe types are the" Apollo was a hoax" crowd…and other such niches…they are the super entrenched.
Well, gotta go read my astrology thingy for today…just kidding...but everyone has their weakness.
3
I have a friend who says that a way to foil the climate change deniers would be to change the approach to "fighting pollution." Really, no one can seriously claim to be on the side of pollution, right?
Well, it turns out that there is now a faction claiming that because carbon dioxide is a "naturally occurring" gas, people who claim it's a pollutant are just plain alarmists. Someone in my extended family even made this argument to me. Carbon dioxide doesn't influence temperature! It's an exaggeration! Or an alarmist lie!
The greediest and most shortsighted among us will always find a new lie to spin. And they have the gullible and equally shortsighted among us to help them.
Only laws can fix this. I'm not sitting on my hands waiting, though. Maybe in 2021.
1
I fail to see what Republicans stand to gain by climate change denial and the trashing of science. In fact I don't understand why Republicans don't seem to stand for much these days or take action on anything other than saying "No". They seem to be suffering decision paralysis.
1
@Steve, they stand to gain millions and millions of dollars in campaign contribution from industries that profit by polluting our atmosphere. And when they leave office, some of them can be lobbyists or consultants for same.
2
@Valerie, That is only interim and very short term. What of the futures of their own children and grandchildren, oh i forgot they only care about fetuses.
1
Professor, please stand back and look at the historical picture. Climate change denial isn't the crucible for Trumpism. Trumpism under other names is as old as the Republic, as any grad student there can explain to you.
Tactical anti-empiricism is the basis for the privilege of a few to nullify reality case by case, as it serves them. It has been so since the debate over the text of the Declaration when Jefferson was required to remove language about slavery. It was used to justify 250 years of owning people by denying them the empirical reality of their own humanity. It was used again against women, for prohibition, against abortion, against gays, and to tilt any election in any state.
Trumpism is a symptom, not the illness, and it is not new or recent. The real question is why it reemerges now, and the answer is, as we enter a new age of distributed technology for empiricism, anti-empiricism wants one last dance. It reacts as always to the imminent threat only when it understand that it is surrounded. Trump is a nostalgia act for a disappearing mindset of willful stupidity by the powerful. As always they go down to defeat with the maximum collateral damage.
5
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/09/climate-change-may-expensive-think.html
I am struck by the costs of climate change suggested in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, hardly a source of denialism. Its cost estimate — “1 to 5% of GDP for 4°C of warming” — is relatively reassuring. After all, global GDP is right now growing at more than 4 percent a year. If climate change cost “only” 4 percent of GDP on a one-time basis, then the world economy could make up those costs with less than a year’s worth of economic growth. In essence, the world economy would arrive at a given level of wealth about a year later than otherwise would have been the case. That sounds expensive but not tragic.
Unfortunately, that is not the right way to conceptualize the problem. Think of the 4 percent hit to GDP, if indeed that is the right number, as a highly unevenly distributed opening shot. That’s round one, and from that point on we are going to react with our human foibles and emotions, and with our
highly imperfect and sometimes corrupt political institutions. (Libertarians, who are typically most skeptical of political solutions, should be the most worried.)
Considering how the Syrian crisis has fragmented the EU as well as internal German politics, is it so crazy to think that climate change might erode international cooperation all the more? The true potential costs of climate change are just beginning to come into view.
1
Climate scientists believe the national climate report is bunk:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/11/24/embarrassing-climate-expert-explains-whats-wrong-with-the-white-houses-new-climate-report/
1
I wish Mr. Krugman had delved into the links between government and the fossil fuel industry. Perhaps the single greatest force behind this anti-science crusade of willful ignorance is that industry and its mania for short-term profits.
It would also be useful to illumine how the gullible anti-science mentality of fundamentalist Christians, exploited by right-wing politicians, serves the agenda of the fossil fuel industry.
Putin's alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church parallels the GOP's alliance with evangelicals in the US. The exploitation of anti-science religious sentiments isn't merely an American phenomenon.
The story of the most massive drilling contract in history between Russian oil giant Rosneft and ExxonMobil has pretty much dropped from discussion. That deal is frozen by the sanctions that Flynn promised the Kremlin would be eliminated. It's been said that the ExxonMobil-Rosneft deal will "reshape global oil markets" if it goes through -- it's that big of a deal.
Maybe we need to see the bigger picture, where the cyber warfare of the FSB and the alt-right isn't only about destabilizing democracies; the paranoid mindset it promotes also serves the oil industry's anti-science agenda.
Ironically, if there's a real conspiracy it's the proliferation of "deep state" anti-science conspiracy theories promoted by a ruthless obsolescent industry that's undermining democracy and destroying the planet.
"The love of money is the root of all evil." Yes, indeed.
3
The partisans of government view it as the solution to the problem of negative externalities. Yet, in 2018, decades after scientists sounded the alarm, greenhouse gases in the air continue to increase, and those who put the carbon in the air are not required to remove it and compensate fully their victims.
Here is a WP article that broaches the possibility that we are too late to avoid horrific harm. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-kind-of-dark-realism-why-the-climate-change-problem-is-starting-to-look-too-big-to-solve/2018/12/03/378e49e4-e75d-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html?utm_term=.bc92990ec257
So why does reality fail to match the partisans' theory?
Paul Krugman blames the rot and depravity of Republicans. If we were to accept Krugman's assertion, that would push back the question a step -- why doesn't government overcome Republican rot and depravity? Furthermore, Krugman's theory can't explain its record when Republicans are not in control. Nor does it explicate the behavior of other governments not infested by Republican rot and depravity, for example, the Chinese government and the EU.
Contrary to the partisan's theory, government is a major source of negative externalities with the bulk of the cost imposed on the politically weak.
1
Recently I fly up the coast of California and could see some things from the sky. In certain places you could see where the “turf meets the surf” the effects of watershed run off occurred. In some of the jettys and marinas areas, as well as heavy population, were some dark plumes while other areas had a healthy blue or green.
One thing caught my eye a week earlier in the parking lot of an In-and-Out when I noticed a floor cleaning crew dump their waste near a drain adjacent to the buildings they just cleaned. One of my neighbors also runs a carpet cleaning business and was caught by neighbors dumping his waste into the gutter. I am not certain if he changed his practice or is just using a less conspicuous location. This his bigger implications if this is the general practice of others in the same business or if they were just a few bad apples.
Additionally, the new low maintainence front and back artificial turf lawns made from re-ground tires and plastics break down over time into plastic pellets that get washed and run off into the street drains. Also moving downstream, without treatment, into storm drains, rivers and eventually the waterways. I am sure some Nerds may have studied these issues. I am just not sure if it is being overlooked...!
No. Climate change - both the reality and myth of it - is largely irrelevant to Trump voters. They care about jobs, wages, the preservation of their culture and identity and thus immigration (and not necessarily in a racist manner - just in the not liking change manner), the general growth of government, and the feeling that Washington and global elites just don't care about them (they don't).
Mr. Krugman's attribution of climate change as a relevant consideration to the typical Trump voter - or rural American for that matter - speaks yet again to his utterly clueless approach and understanding of the people occupying the bulk of the geographical area of the United States.
1
Dec. 6, 2009, Trump and his whole family signed a letter to Obama and Congress and it was published in the N Y Times. The letter called for passage of U.S. climate legislation, investment in the clean energy economy, and leadership to inspire the rest of the world to join the fight against climate change...“We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today,” the letter tells the president and Congress. “Please allow us, the United States of America, to serve in modeling the change necessary to protect humanity and our planet.”
How many time has Trump claimed that the "world is laughing at us". (when really they are only laughing at him)?
Victimhood is a big part of the Christian persecution myth and of Trump's claim that America is a victim of 195 other nations.
I recently had a conversation with my youngest son who is about to graduate from university in Engineering. At 22, he knows full well that any of his yet unborn children likely won't live to old age due to climate change and everything that comes with it.
What a sad state of affairs when affluent countries like the U.S. vote in people who can only see their bank accounts and investments in the short term, and deny our children and grandchildren the right to live.
3
@Abruptly Biff Biff - ridiculous. Grow up. The world is not going to fall apart.
1
Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say that in 1980 scientists began to suggest that the atmosphere was COOLING and that the consequences were potentially disastrous.
What if they said our best hope was to increase greenhouse gasses - burn more fossil fuel, encourage use of CFCs, and maybe cut down more rain forests?
What would the Republican party have done? How would they have sorted out the conflict between the anti-intellectual populists and the needs of big oil?
@Dave Scientists would've been wrong. Republicans would haven't a clue, either way, just like today.
2
“The Insect Apocalypse Is Here” is a lengthy and well researched article appearing in the NY Times, Nov. 27. There are numerous examples of how life is affected by the loss of insects. “Half of all farmland birds in Europe disappeared in just three decades. At first, many scientists assumed the familiar culprit of habitat destruction was at work, but then they began to wonder if the birds might simply be starving.” No insects, no food, no birds and life on our planet is quickly changing. The control and influence of the Republican Party whether affecting our response to gun violence (more guns, rather that fewer; NRA support – incredible), health care (an important subject of Dr. Krugman) or the environment may not be legally criminal, but the robbery of our healthy lives is insane. The direction of the GOP must end. “We’ve begun to talk about living in the Anthropocene, a world shaped by humans. But E.O. Wilson, the naturalist and prophet of environmental degradation, has suggested another name: the Eremocine, the age of loneliness.” The decimation of life will lead to a lonely world. We must change direction and become better caretakers of the creation.
4
@Rev Wayne: Rachel Carlson published "Silent Spring" anticipating all this back in 1962.
2
While correct as far as he goes, I think Dr. Krugman has not looked far enough into the heart of Republican environmental denialism. Decades before they were denying climate science, Republicans were refusing to accept evidence of environmental degradation of the air and water, or argued for cost-benefit analyses that balanced profit against ecology. Long before saying that global warming was a hoax because the winters are colder, an Alaskan senator asked how salmon could be endangered if she could buy canned salmon in the stores.
Willful ignorance in the service of corporate greed has a long, and mostly bipartisan history.
3
The risk for catastrophic events don't have to be 100%--they have to be non-zero.
If the probability of a house burning down is "only" 5%, that should be enough to warrant the purchase of insurance. So why do conservatives seem to require a 100% certainty of human-caused climate change before they will act? It's a risk assessment strategy that would never be used in other aspects of life. Would they get on a plane that had a 10% probability of crashing?
The position of a zero chance of human-caused warming is not rational, and thus there is some degree of risk. There is also the risk that the technology used to combat climate change will pass the US by and be dominated by those countries that take advantage.
In the end, I believe that the real reason people deny climate change is not their risk assessment, but rather their desire to assuage the guilt they would otherwise have to feel from their lifestyle. Naturally a president that has his own airliner doesn't want to feel guilty about his lifestyle, but neither do people who love their trucks, RVs, planes, boats, large houses, or even leaf blowers.
2
@Scott Cole: That is bad enough without wanting to have seven sons to beget seven sons ad infinitum too.
If Krugman and other NYT columnists/ writers were really, really concerned about climate change, they would write about the closing of nuclear power plants (NPP)s across the nation, including in NYS and CA.
Trump wants to keep the nation's NPPs open and thus his policy is a pro-green policy.
Yet, NYS Gov. Cuomo wants *to close* the Indian Point NPP which produces 1/4 the electricity of NYC and Westchester County (total pop about 10 million) and replace it with greenhouse gas generating power plants.
In CA, the government already closed one NPP a few years ago and is due to close its final NPP in a few years which of course, ultimately means that more greenhouse gas will be generated instead.
Throughout the nation, a number of NPPs are due to close, which only means more greenhouse gas being generated.
Instead of closing NPPs we should be closing those power plants that generate the most pollution / green house gas.
NYS Gov. Cuomo should take the lead and instead of closing the Indian Point NPP should instead close the power equivalent of coal powered and other greenhouse generating power plants.
Yet Krugman and other NYT writers have yet to criticize Gov. Cuomo's backwards policy of closing green power plants only to be replaced with air pollution power. If they were truly, truly concerned with greenhouse gas and climate change they would write against Cuomo's and CA's anti-green moves.
5
@David MD
In real life, everybody knows that nuclear energy is unsafe and as a consequence, not a long term solution.
So supporting it all while withdrawing from the Paris Climate agreement and passing one polluting rule or bill after the other is not exactly what you can call a "green policy", remember?
What we need is SUSTAINABLE zero carbon energy consumption.
Nuclear energy isn't part of that equation.
@Ana Luisa
"What we need is SUSTAINABLE zero carbon energy consumption"
Current "renewables" in the form of wind and solar are less renewable than nuclear in many ways. The mining and material requirements for solar and wind power are 10 to 50 times more than rankine cycle planets...including nuclear. That is not sustainable since silver, cement, neodymium, dysprosium, steel, copper, etc. are finite and renewables need so much more of all of them. And recycling is not possible because of the entropy increase.
But ideologies against nuclear are very strong...just like people that reject AGW.
1
@Ana Luisa
Nuclear power is safe, so I'm afraid everyone doesn't know that it is unsafe.
In France to the south of your country, about 75% of the electricity is generated by nuclear power.
Taking nuclear power off-line is unsafe for both people with asthma and for the elderly, particularly women.
Adverse effects of outdoor pollution in the elderly
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311079/
2
Denial was the crucible of traitor Trumpism.
There are literally millions of Americans who dismiss out of whole-cloth anything Paul Krugman says or anything published in The New York Times. Therefore, Mr. Krugman has effectively become like the preacher delivering cogent prose to the members of his own choir.
If you listen to thinking conservatives about climate change their thoughts are essentially: humans can adapt to any environment, using government to solve our problems represents too great a moral hazard, life is and always has been unfair and replete with suffering, correlation doesn't imply causality, we have seen warming before, it'll be too costly to fix, etc . . .
The Wall Street Journal ran an optimistic piece last week about how agricultural lands in Canada that were once too cold and thus not-suitable for farming are now becoming suitable due to warming. They cheer the lack of arctic sea ice because new shipping lanes are open. More commerce, more business opportunities, more wealth, true, but at what cost, conservatives? They love that the US in now a petro state due to the fracking revolution, again at what cost?
Yet, these are the same people who supposedly are all about families and family values. Are they so obtuse to not see the peril their future DNA will be in while they get they are theirs while the going is good, their environment be damned? Is the thinking that they can parlay their wealth into habitats and firearm stores in order to survive the end of civilization they precipitated?
4
@C. M. Jones: Nobody is more fake than people who purport to speak for an immortal all-powerful all-knowing being responsible for the existence of the universe.
1
Yes, Dr. Paul, climate-warming denial and racism -- the moral rot of "some people" and Trumpism in America today -- go together like peas and carrots. No point spraying the blame all over the place for the dissolution of our democracy these days, and for the stark contrast shown today between our 41st President, George H.W. Bush, who lies in hallowed state in our Capitol today -- the last President of The Greatest Generation -- and our 45th president, Donald Trump, who has led us in two years of infamy and has catastrophically divided America since 2016. Whomever and whatever deserves the credit or blame for America's nationalistic, misogynistic, racist, bigoted bent isn't relevant. What has been done by man on earth won't be soon undone. We all still need daily bread on our tables. Conspiracy theorists and flat-earthers -- wrecking balls --aren't going to do diddly for suffering Planet Earth and mankind that is decimating the planet beyond all hopes of repair.
The kooky libertarians will be the end of us all.
1
Yes! Read the Lewis Powell Memorandum and then note that months later Nixon appointed Powell to the Supreme Court. See https://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/
1
Climate change has more to do with religion. The Republican party has become a fanatic religious party no different than Taliban is tied to Islam; hence, they both have to reject science. Science is a threat to their religion. The media never brings this up, ever.
6
@Jay Oza: Science leaves no doubt that anybody who claims that nature has an emotional personality responsive to prayer is a fake.
1
December 4, 201
When your hot your hot – and so goes the melt down -
"We become strong, I feel, when we have no friends upon whom to lean, or to look to for moral guidance."
Benito Mussolini
"Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy."
Benito Mussolini
brainyquote.com/authors/benito_mussolini
JJA Manhattan, N.Y.
2
It is doubtful that congressional science deniers lack the intellectual capacity to consider the dreadful legacy they will leave.......but, then again, what do scientists know?.....never underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate and the representatives it elects
1
I've come to the conclusion that the Republican Party is the party of Satan. I didn't even really believe in Satan until Trump was elected. I guess I'm a convert now.
6
These people who are running (ruining) the country are right-wingers who worship Fox News, whose main goal is to lie as much as they can. These republicans want to steal as much money as they can from American citizens (remember the tax cut they got)? They are as depraved as the fake president they elected. George W Bush voted for Hillary.
1
Thanks, Paul, for continuing to highlight Global Warming as an issue that is woefully under appreciated and reported. It is, by far, the most important thing happening in the world right now. Yet most Americans still have their heads stuck in the sand. The prime question that future generations will have about us is, "Why, oh why, were they so stupid and uncaring about the very planet home we live on?"
1
Brilliant professorial analysis but what’s the remedy? Before Americans have a chance to end the regime, Trump and his corrupt camarilla can end civilization as we know it.
1
Like it or not, the US is presently under the command of a collection of millenarian religious fanatics who believe that God will save the day and their children by sending in Jesus II to delay the Apocalypse another millennium.
4
That's a pretty clean desk in the photo. Doesn't look like a lot of work being done there.
Way to keep those pencils sharpened, Mr. President.
1
Trump is the perfection of Republicanism. He is proudly ignorant, willing to lie about facts, racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, selfish, greedy, lazy and foolish. Every Trump supporter is perfectly happy to share this moral corruption.
Of the Republicans who claim to be Christian, every one of them has made it clear by their works that they serve mammon, that they reject what Jesus taught.
2
The issue of probability needs to be part of the debate. If 97% of scientists agree on global warming, or even 57% agree, then that degree of probability is so ominous that it alone justifies corrective action. FDR did not wait for Hitler's Polish invasion to begin preparing for a coming war, he foresaw its probability and acted accordingly. He was not a fool.
We create the economy that we want through tax and regulatory policies, fiscal and monetary decisions - always have, always will. Past time to do so with global warming.
2
Oh Joy,
We've morphed from Global Warming to Climate Change to Climate Denial, as if denying there is a climate is a real thing?
CO2 has not turned out to be the bogeyman Dr. Mann and Al Gore wanted it to be, or Miami would already be under 10' of water.
See...when you make predictions and they don't materialize, you're given a second chance to try again. After a dozen times, people simply tune you out as an ignorant know-it-all who actually knows little.
Maybe next time they can build models that actually incorporate water vapor AND solar flares into the impact on our global climate instead of building models where they won't even share them for peer review outside of another Al Gore movie premiere in Hollywood.
Are we warming as a planet? You betcha.
We've been warming the last 10,000 years.
Otherwise I'd be sitting on a mile thick sheet of ice under my feet where I live.
Krugman has NO authoritative voice on this topic so why does they NYT continue to push this bile?
For starters..the same government types who are saying the earth's temp is going to raise 14 degrees Celsius by 2100 are the same types that said if you kill every human on earth..the earth's temps would only cool by .1 degree by 2100.
This lack of old time religion by Lefties is what's going to destroy this world. Next thing you know they'll want to shoot ash soot into the atmosphere to absorb the CO2...then harvest it into Yucca Mountain where they can use it to help nourish the Vortex.
3
When are we, the majority of the population, whose children face the possibility of a catastrophic future, going to rise up against these "leaders" of our world. They are a bunch of stooges of the corporate criminals who now rule the world
Some 190 countries agree that climate change is a threat requiring a global response. What is it about America that such a large swath of the population keep drinking the Kool Aid? We are so tired of hearing the Republican vs. Democrat excuse.
3
What you are doing, pK, is reminding us that a considerable number of us are pleased to have a lout in the WH.
Truth Denial Was the Crucible for Trumpism
2
Let's also remember that North Carolina passed laws in 2011 limiting what types of curves you could fit to a temperature graph!
Any of you republican shills want to defend this egregious misuse of legistlative authority?
2
In Pelosi we trust.... and in the American people....
…. let us hope our trust is not in vain....
1
The lead article in the July 1959 issue of Scientific American, "Carbon Dioxide and Climate" by Gilbert N. Plass, described the greenhouse effect and predicted that the developed world would test the hypothesis of man-made global warming on a vast scale in the coming decades.
July 1959!
The explanation for this is obvious: those liberal elitists invented a time machine, maybe even paid for by George Soros, then went back to 1959 and planted the article. Just ask Donald Trump or Alex Jones.
5
Get right with the 2nd law (thermodynamics) and deafen your ears to the false prophets. See: Trump; Gore; Krugman; et al.
+++++
She isn't called MOTHER Nature for nothing.
@HLB Engineering
The second law of thermodynamics says that heat cannot flow from a cooler to a warmer material.
Climate science liars use people's ignorance to try to make them believe that that means that global warming is logically impossible.
They claim that greenhouse gasses cannot warm the earth because the air is cooler than the earth's surface.
Of course, greenhouse gasses don't send cool air to warmer regions all while warming up those regions. They rather act as a blanket, making it impossible for the heat radiated by the sun and then captured and reflected by by the earth's surface and oceans, to "escape" back into space. And THAT is how they warm the planet. They trap the heat in our atmosphere, whereas without them, it would disappear into space and as such cool the earth, you see?
If this isn't clear enough for you, or you want more technical details, see:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm
1
and just what kind of depravity, is it that refuses to talk about the human population explosion and how it is the real cause of climate change and the greatest mass extinction on the diversity of life on the planet in over 65 million years.
the kind of depravity that masquerades as being holier than thou, while keeping intelligent animals penned up and raising them without ever allowing them to see the sun until the day they are led to slaughter in order to feed the 350 million people and growing in this country.
the kind of science deniers that ignores the huge population increases that lead to civil strife, massive emigration and the plundering of the earth in some kind of bizarre economic ponzi scheme -
who never dare to utter the words because of a cowering fear they will be labeled the most feared words in the english language -racist' -
check population then talk about climate change and maybe you'll convince the skeptics your serious not delirious
1
Oh hi, head of nail that resembles Trump's / GOP's grand denial of reality strategy; meet hammer shaped like Paul Krugman's opinion piece.
Perhaps Trump is Nature's way of killing off mankind so Mother Earth can heal herself?
1
Depravity indeed!
Nailed it.
1
Even if you don't believe in climate change, I don't get who would want pollution? What citizen would want smog in their air or pollution in the rivers where they swim and fish?
3
There are three reasons I believe in human caused global warming.
First, I believe that on most issues the consensus of the experts is more likely to be right than wrong.
Second, during my lifetime I have noticed hotter summers and milder winters.
Third, hundreds of millions of years ago the climate of the earth was warmer. Much of what is now the United States was under water. Plants removed carbon from carbon oxide by photosynthesis. When the plants died, most decayed, releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere.
Nevertheless, in much of the world, before the dead plant matter could decay, it was covered by more dead plant matter. Over time this became coal, petroleum, and natural gas.
As the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere declined, the planet cooled. By consuming fossil fuels we are reversing in a few decades a natural process that took hundreds of thousands of years.
3
@John Engelman Your first reason is the only one that has a smell of rationality. Your last is non-science pretending to be science.
I'm on-board with climate change, but I still wonder about the 97% statistic. Is it completely true, half-true, somewhat false, or misleading?
Not a scientist of any stripe, but, like most everyone here, I have dug into a lot of the endless commentaries on this critical subject. One feud I have yet to resolve is, as stated, over the 97% statement.
Here's one representative comment that createss my confusion: "What you'll find is that people don't want to define what 97% agree on--because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.
It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.
If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause--that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/
Yes, it's from "Forbes," a pro-business magazine, but I've read similar statements on other sites, and it has me wondering. Maybe somebody here can help me resolve the contention over the 97% claim. I just want the truth, which will indeed set me free in this context anyway.
Thanks in advance.
1
@Jim Muncy google 'skeptical science 97% consensus'. In seven studies, that percentage varies from 91% to 100%. It's not just scientists, when economists were surveyed, 50% said climate action should be 'immediate and drastic', while 43% said 'some (but not drastic) action' is needed immediately (google 'expert consensus on the economics of climate change').
1
@Jim Muncy
Here is perhaps a better site, from NASA and linking to a more complex statistical study.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Linking to, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
As for the why, I would invite you to dig into the second page for the details. Depending on the year and the person, the miss 3% range from "we don't know enough" (a standard scientist response given the ever-improving nature of scientific study) to "it's all a natural cycle" (which is a true position that is disputed by the vast majority of research).
The authors of the IOP site make a good point at the end, however. Even if we state it as 90-100% consensus, that is an overwhelmingly large majority in consensus that a) there is a problem, b) it is human caused, and c) that it needs to be fixed.
1
@Phil
Thanks, Phil. I did as bid: Yeah, the evidence for 97% is pretty convincing, although the nay-sayers have an argument that seems to carry some weight, too, at least as one reads it. Finally, though, the important point is that humans are contributing in a big way to climate change.
If you, for the moment, ignore the paid, professional climate deniers, at the core of the Republicans' anti-science you will find crude, fundamentalist Christianity.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-TX), is my "poster boy" for that group.
Shimkus is, for the moment, Chair of the Subcommittee on Environment and Economy and sits on the subcommittees of Communications & Technology, Energy & Power, and Health.
During a 2009 congressional hearing, Shimkus dismissed climate change by quoting from the Bible. In 2010, it was reported that he said "climate change shouldn't concern us since God has already promised not to destroy the Earth."
If Shimkus were simply one, outlying zealot it wouldn't be so bad -- but he is not.
If one looks carefully at the Republicans (and their published biographies) that make up the Committee on Energy and Commerce, whether as minority or majority members, you quickly realize the Shimkus is NOT an outlier but the norm. These are the men and women who have influenced and controlled Congressional science policy for the last decade. Actually, their influence stretches even farther back in time. (See, for example, Joe Barton, R-TX.)
It is a tedious but enlightening exercise to page through the Republicans' biographies. I've done it more than once. Wish I could say, "Have fun!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Energy_and_Commerce
1
@Fred
Apologies to Rep. Shimkus, he is from Illinois.
Dr. Krugman -- Looking back a few years, we see that think tanks discovered that a general science denialism was a good way to make money. Big Oil needed it, but so did Big Tobacco and a few other industries. So discrediting science more broadly became a high-paying job for a bunch of smart, self-interested people. George Monbiot wrote about it here:
The denial industry, September 2006
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
Look back even farther, to 1959, and we see the great R.A. Fisher being paid by Big Tobacco to inform us all that correlation does not prove causation and we can't be sure that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. These industries love uncertainty and they'll pay a lot to get it.
Yes, Dr. Paul, climate-warming denial and racism -- the moral rot of Trumpism in America today -- go together like Frank Sinatra's cheerful song "Love and Marriage" from 1955 (pre-women's lib and pre-Vietnam and pre-1968). No point spraying the blame all over the place for the dissolution of our democracy these days, and for the stark contrast shown today between our 41st President, George H.W. Bush, who lies in hallowed state in our Capitol today -- the last President of The Greatest Generation -- and our 45th president, Donald Trump, who has led us in two years of infamy and has catastrophically divided America since 2016. Whomever and whatever deserves the credit or blame for America's nationalistic, misogynistic, racist, bigoted bent today isn't relevant. What has been done won't be undone soon. We all still need our daily bread on our tables. Planet Earth and humankind are suffering. And we don't have "horses and carriages" any longer.
https://youtu.be/xtS46Wfsxnw
"Ignorance is bliss" might serve as the official campaign slogan of Republicans. What a disgraceful evasion of adult responsibility, what a betrayal of future generations -- the contempt for environmental concerns and general hostility to matters of science and expertise should be enough to disqualify any political party from serious consideration. Alas, millions of Americans will go on supporting the GOP and its fraud President, and that's the real disgrace. It's one thing when people don't have the wherewithal to appreciate a serious issue, when they lack the information, but to knowingly deny the obvious evidence for reasons of selfishness and/or laziness is utterly shameful. I suppose it doesn't matter to the Trump mob and its financiers that it's been four full decades since Exxon was informed of the problem by its own scientists:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
2
The DNA is overwhelmingly distinct.
The average republican displays strong convictions in notions that climate science is a hoax, the deep state exists to enable a takeover by non-white hostiles, all Hispanics are MS13, cops can shoot whom they want as long as they are blacks, Fox news is balanced, Limbaugh is puppy dog, and white supremacists are decent people. Average republicans want everyone but them gone from here, after doing all the work and feeding their subsidy and loopholes.
Democrats have two interrelated convictions: I.e., nothing should be done until every sorry sad sack cause is addressed fully at once - by taxing the rich (class envy). Democrats want someone pristine as a six year old, and as incapable as a dead person - to be in charge. They will settle for the English prof who knows nothing beyond 16th century lit.
Every issue is equivocated: "on the one hand this, and on the other hand that." Both sides have valuable points to make. He is above politics. He wants to reach out to the MAGA set, the supremacists, the Limbaughs - because he has infinite hubris about his capability. He is looking for a reason to disconnect, disengage, not show up, not vote.
The midterms were rare; white women voted democrat because Trump reminds them of the boorish boss they once worked for. They will vote republican next. Democrats think they are riding a wave; they are clueless about its momentariness.
Climate science deniers, for above reasons, win.
Climate change and whether or not we have control is an argument that seriously misses a crucial point in our ensuing environmental dilemma.
Our fossil fuel reserves are rapidly depleting and I have yet to hear any scientist, geologist or oilman or politician deny that yet.
The lack of serious preparation for this inevitable event in lieu of an intractable argument regarding cause is counterproductive. If we can agree that there is only so much oil in the ground we may be able to agree to proactive solutions to replace fossil fuel energy.
Hey, what's ecosystemic collapse and, probably, thousands of lives compared with a few more votes, a few more bucks.
4
Most Republicans are anti-evolutionist young earth creationists. They have been taught their entire lives (by their parents and their pastors) that science is a fraud. Period. So climate change denial is nothing new.
4
@Gene Eplee: Yet none of these people are able to make anything happen by prayer themselves.
You ignore that most of the global warming harumphing is paid for by bankers who are looking to skim off cap and trade.
3
@John: Bankers dove deep into loans to build coal burning electric generating plants in Asia, which are expected to run for 40 years or more to be adequately profitable.
4
Those who didn't work on refining their mind hate those who did.
4
A major part of the problem, frankly, are Evangelical Christians. Not only are they a dominant voice in the republican primary electorate, and a major part of the Republican base in General Electionss, BUT they actually believe that God makes the weather. They actually believe they can pray about it. Out in Lancaster County 10 years ago or so, there was a long drought ne summer. Christian Farmers not all of them Amish by any means, had a mass prayer meeting to pray for Ian.
Of course, these guys also believe that Christians should rule even if they cannot win elections and that Jesus will come back just as soon as Israe reaches its “...Biblical Borders....”.
So, I ask you, how are we supposed to run a civilized country with tens of millions of them in our midst.
2
@Lefthalfbach: The present US Energy Secretary held a prayer session to break a drought in Texas. Maybe he got God to send in Hurricane Harvey.
1
Superstition and lust for power reigns in this Republican Party. And evangelicals are largely to blame.
Maybe America needs to start thinking like it is 2018 and not 1518.
3
Trump is essentially a lazy individual. He avoids any situation that would involve real work---whether physical or intellectual. Pick a subject---health care, taxes, climate, education,--- to comment and legislate on these issues requires doing some homework---which, Trump is incapable of doing. So, what is left---he either denies a problem exist or he offers up a 1950's GOP solution. Trump is most comfortable at night sitting his bed, with a burger, his phone and Fox news---Large briefing looseleafs are for sissies.
5
The rejection of science goes back at least to the Reagan administration. Science at the EPA was either cut or buried. Administrators wrote executive summaries that were in opposition to the body of reports on pollution and effects of WIC program and so on. Never let scientific facts get in the way of your idiotic notions has been SOP for the GOP for decades.
3
@Profbam: Reagan killed the conversion to the Metric System initiated by Carter. The US clings to measurement units that make it harder to learn physics.
2
It makes no difference to most congressional (ex) repbulicans who view low income people as weeds in “their garden” and middle income as subjects who should shut up and consume. For trump supporters, its revenge against liberals who enabled US citizens historically denied their Constitutional rights to exercise those rights at the expense of “their birthright to a white society” and there can be no punishment enough for the “despicable liberals” who enabled a non white person to be president of “their country.”
For most of these science is just a fake liberal ideology; for congressional (ex) republicans science is fake until they get into the operating room, enabled by their bloated medical benefits they have voted in for themselves, paid for by tax payers, and which they are constantly trying to deny to other US citizens.
3
@steven: Their belief in afterlife seems only to intensify their fears of death.
Note to the US (and China). You two are the worst polluters on the planet. Exceeding the rest of us combined.
You are killing us (and yourselves). You must stop.
I propose a new import duty (got your attention Donald?) related directly to the difference between your actual pollution levels and what they could be if you applied some common sense*. Any country that exceed the objective would receive discounts or credits from the importing countries.
2
They have children too.
1
Having shredded climate science, economics and the rule of law, where will Mr. Trump and the Republican party next turn?
Is the Germ Theory up for discussion? The theory of evolution is on the ropes. Is a Flat Earth in our future? A Non-Moon Landing? Holocaust Denial?
When wild conspiracies are repeated often enough, they lose their effect and only become part of the background noise of our world. The confidence men who lead us to our peril as they fleece us need to move on to more eye-popping claims.
If they cannot keep us transfixed as deer in the headlights, we will jump away from them to a place of safety (and truth).
Oh, Please! Let is be soon.
3
@Douglas McNeill: It astounds me that anyone disbelieves in evolution now that CRISPR technology exploits the extreme malleability of genomes.
1
We are finally seeing reporting in a reputable publication the fact that the modern republican party is a criminal enterprise.
4
The Nile is the river than runs through Egypt but denial is what courses through Corporate America.
When the Surgeon General said smoking causes cancer, big tobacco hired scientists who said their studies proved otherwise, allowing addicted smokers a fig leaf to ignore health warnings.
When Big Lumber destroyed forests by clear-cutting, they invented Smokey The Bear to blame forest loss on fires caused by careless people: "Only you can prevent a forest fire."
When dirty industry excreted toxic pollution, they hired an Italian-American actor to play a crocodile-teared Indian chief on a horse ("Iron Eyes Cody") to exhort Americans to "Keep America Beautiful" by not littering.
When Nader attacked the auto giants with "Unsafe at any Speed," the Big 3 pushed seat belts and driver education because there are no bad cars, just bad drivers.
When kids got obese and hyped on sugar, junk food purveyors blamed parents for bad eating habits.
When the American family -- church, flag, mom and apple-pie -- began to change, Christian extremists took their cue from Genesis and blamed "loose women" for godless sexual freedom, defying patriarchy and demanding equality that was unnatural and against god's plan. Thus their war on abortion, contraception and women who say no.
Blaming the victim breeds helplessness and helplessness is father to denial.
Blame everyone for climate change, which is a corporate crime against nature, and we all drown in denial.
That's how they stay rich.
6
Paul Krugman, you note that "There are three important morals to this story." Let me add a seemingly off topic 4th moral.
This newspaper, filled with climate change articles every week, studiously avoids telling its readers that there is a technology that uses a fuel alternative to fossil fuel available, so to speak, in our own back yard, to heat whole cities.
The fuel: Municipal solid waste after recycling.
The technology: Advanced solid-waste incineration.
Consider these words in a 2006 report from a conference in Florida: "Comparison of Air Emissions from
Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Facilities to Fossil Fuel Power Plants"
"Based on this data, the EPA has concluded that WTE power plants produce electricity 'with less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity.'"
Quite an irony don't you think, EPA in 2006? Here is an even better irony. The only modern WTE facility in the USA is in West Palm Beach FL, built by Danish Babcock & Wilcox, just a stone's throw away from you know who.
Total NYT reporting on WTE. Elisabeth Rosenthal, 2013, reporting from Denmark.
Photographs available at
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Writing from Linköping SE heated entirely by the most advanced WTE in the world, also by Babcock & Wilcox.
3
@Larry Lundgren: The US lacks the district heating systems of Sweden which utilize the waste heat of WTE plants.
Depravity is right. On balance, I prefer it to"deplorables." The Republican Party as it exists today is the party of depravity, and it has contributed to the corruption of a significant part of the electorate.
Denial of facts, to be most convincing, must be based on beliefs, because hypocrisy is too easy to spot. So persuasive people preach fact denial among the willing doubters, those who seek not truth but confirmation bias. Just say what we want to believe in a fresh way and we will strengthen our own beliefs based not on new facts but on what 'people are saying'. Fox News.
That is the politics of denial. For the preachers it is hypocrisy, but for the faithful it is True Belief, stronger with each repetition. There is nothing to it - fake news. Puerto Rico, Houston, SC, NC, will all dry out soon. CA's problem is just (federal) forests that need raking. Environmentalists are just lib wimps. Everything is fine, nothing to see here. Oooohh! He just tweeted again ...
2
Who benefits from the climate denials of the GOP.....well those
corporations who pollute the water and the air and the deregulation of the GOP in Congress who legislate to benefit those
corporations who pollute and get richer and support these
GOP legislators...
Its a quid pro quo in the GOP Congress: We the big corporations
will fund your re elections; if you pass laws which allow us to
pollute and get richer doing so...
I would say these swamp masters and swamp dwellers are really
////FILTHY RICH....and I hope the new Democratic House will
clean 'house'....and ….air the place out.
2
Looks line the midterms have begun to demonize the politicians.
1
The man doesn't read.
Wants a "great climate!" (What???)
Trusts his gut over the brains of other people.
Thinks raking the California forest floors would have ameliorated the devastating wildfires.
Our commander in chief, and leader of the free world!
This is the man that the GOP and lots of Americans stand behind, out of ignorance, delusion, corrupt and selfish intent, or all of the above.
God (?) help us all.
1
Your column reminds me of how grateful I am that you have a professional interest in the global warming issue. In the end, the public policy response will be generated by economists with your experience.
I am confident that there will be a U.S. policy response as we have demonstrated throughout the history of the democratic republic: I recall Lincoln and his decision to end the economics of slavery, his decision to strengthen the U.S. economy by singling up on a standard rail gauge and paving the policy way to the Transcontinental railway, Teddy Roosevelt and completion of the Panama Canal, Franklin Roosevelt's secret authorization of the Manhattan Project, complementing the national highway system and Interstate Highway System by Republican Dwight Eisenhower, JFK's Apollo program and the Defense Departments Internet.
The U.S. people and its people's government have a good successful history of adapting to the challenge of the time. It is clearly the basis for our success, domestically and internationally.
We just need to realize that a policy response that will improve the human condition must be enacted. Mr. Trump might not be able to do it, but there will be a policy response that will address global warming and the potential dislocation of the investment in fossil fuels and workforce reemployment as fossil fuels wind down.
Think of John Maynard Keynes and his role in the Bretton Woods agreement. If I had my way we would invest in very cheap electricity R&D.
2
Conservatives and liberals deny science when it suits their purposes.
Conservatives deny man made climate change.
Liberals maintain that IQ tests measure nothing of importance, and that the races are intrinsically equal.
Oh PLEASE all of you. The centrist democrats...Clinton, Hickenlooper, all of the corporatists....have been selling fracking around the world like it is sliced bread. Think methane, the most powerful climate violator as well as air and water pollution. YES the Republicans are stark ravingly ugly. But until the Democrats take a look in the mirror, they remain vile hypocrites and we remain doomed. You too Krugman.
1
@corrina Actually, carbon emissions in the U.S. have declined almost entirely because of the growth of fracking, which has led to natural gas displacing coal to some extent. In the long run, natural gas has to make way for renewables and (IMO) nuclear, but so far it's been a good thing for reducing carbon emissions.
2
@corrina
In real life, it's Democrats who obtained the very first and global Paris Climate Accord, signed by ALL of the world's countries.
That's a complete U-turn compared to the past, when it comes to international climate summits.
Obama also doubled solar energy jobs, installed lots of important regulations, and never stopped focusing on getting the next step done.
Yes, part of the Democrats support continuing fossil fuel energy consumption today, but they do so for an obvious reason: you cannot possibly eliminate this overnight.
Conclusion: not moving as fast as we would ideally like is one thing. Being the only country to withdraw from the Paris climate accord and to start massively spreading fake conspiracy theories about something as crucial as the climate, all while massively investing in fossil fuel and destroying all crucial regulations, is a totally different thing.
In a democracy, ALL progress is step by step progress, after lots of debating and compromising. To reject this as "hypocrisy", however, is to not understand how ALL real, radical, lasting, non-violent change has ever been achieved ... and THAT is a huge problem among America's progressives today, which is de facto needlessly slowing down change rather than speeding it up.
"No end to depravity in sight"
True.
Call everyone who disagrees as depraved. Sickening hubris and incivility. And you applaud it. There’s the problem in a nutshell. It’s now a moral failure to disagree with computer models. You and Krugman are shameful.
1
I suppose dr. Atkins was also depraved when he disputed scientific consensus and said that low fat diets were killing people. He was also vilified.
Of all the heinous and horrible things that Trump has done, unquestionably the worst is his anti-climate actions - pulling us out of the Paris accord, eliminating so many of the EPA environmental regulations, putting a climate change denier in place of the agency, pushing coal (God the list is long!).
This lunacy will take down not just the US but the entire world for our children and our children’s children unless we somehow reverse it. But it feels like just another bit in a daily mosaic of insanity coming from this administration.
Even if you don’t believe in climate change, why would you play Russian roulette with future generations?
"What was the evidence for this vast conspiracy? A lot of it rested on, you guessed it, hacked emails. The credulousness of all too many journalists about the supposed misconduct revealed by “Climategate,” a pseudo-scandal that relied on selective, out-of-context quotes from emails at a British university, prefigured the disastrous media handling of hacked Democratic emails in 2016."
No, Krugman PhD the misconstrued climate emails from East Anglia University are NOT the equivalent to the leaked (not hacked) DNC emails, which were complete, not taken out of context, and made very clear that the DNC broke its charter to nominate Hillary.
While the phished (not hacked) emails form Podesta make plain Hillary's commitment to big banks and war (Libya). Nor is it at all clear that these phished emails were phished by Russians of any sort. And then it's not clear that the phisher is the Wikileaks source for the Podesta emails.
Yet again a Nobelist has grossly misrepresented fact. Does he take Times readers for fools?
Not a single question on climate change in the 2016 Presidential debates.
1
Some may be genuinely confused about the facts. On a talk show last weekend Danielle Pletka honestly seemed to believe that a cold snap in NY meant that global warming wasn't real.
This is a scope error. At the shore individual waves still advance and recede even as the tide comes in. The tide itself operates at a different scale than ocean level rise.
So specific weather events push temperatures one way or another, but seasons still exist. Seasons themselves come and go while climate exists, shifting on an even longer scale.
Some changes are beyond the range of individual human observation. That is why we use science to find patterns in large numbers of measurements over time and build predictive models to confirm our understanding. These models are challenged and fiercely debated for decades before any part of their conclusions makes it to the status of an accepted explanation for facts. Elements of these past debates taken out of their original context confuse the scientifically illiterate. When this topic is to be discussed at least one member of the panel should be familiar with the literature or else Ms. Pletka gets to walk away thinking she was right.
1
All the global warming evangelists should look at the graph below:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series/110/tmax/12/12/1895-2017?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000
This is from NOAA for the contiguous US. What you don't see is a warming trend. What you do see are year to year variation and some longer term trends up and down (up from the 1900's to mid 1930's, down to mid 1990's, then up again. Certainly not anything that --if this were a stock -- that you'd go out and buy as a certainty to go up.
Now, yes, the CONTIG US is only 5% of the global land mass -- BUt - it has and has had the most complete and accurate temp record. Most of the rest of the world has had only limited networks and in 1900 had but a handful of stations (Africa had 40) and most were on the coast. The polar regions -- nothing. The global record is based on estimates and adjustments for most areas. From a sampling/survey standpoint it is a joke. If you told anyone that we need to make huge policy changes based on some data we have that has a lot of issues, they'd think you were crazy. But not warming, because why?
And note -- many areas of the US don't show any warming (about half). The ones that do have undergone heavy urbanization. And if you don't think there has been heavy urbanization across the US, look at a nighttime photo from the ISS and look at the density of lights -- even in smaller cities.
There is reason for skepticism.
2
@Ralphie
Except that you're writing this for months already now, without ever trying to refute the many arguments debunking this kind of interpretation/conspiracy theories.
So here they are again, hoping that this time you do will engage in a real debate:
1. GLOBAL warming means that over the decades, the GLOBAL average temperatures are going up. No local graph can ever prove or refute that fact, because ... it's local.
2. Temperatures are known for millions of years ago already, through studying rocks and ice layers. Thermometers are only a small tool in the overall temperature assessments.
3. Adjustments are necessary in ANY scientific treatment of data. They INCREASE reliability, rather than decreasing it, as you seem to imagine.
4. Real skepticism means not believing anything just because you trust the person that tells you that this or that is true, and actively investigating and questioning yourself - and doing so for what you yourself hold to be evidently true, to start with.
It's because scientists know how to cultivate skepticism that scientific results are so incomparably more reliable than any other "truth" source that human beings have at their disposal.
Simply stating false and debunked arguments as if they're true, as you're doing here, is NOT being skeptical, it means confounding science and sticking to entirely subjective personal opinions.
3
@Ralphie
I played with that data. Whether you look at average temp. or maximum temps, the trend is plus 0.15 percent F degrees/decade from 1900 to now. Over the whole period, the rise has been in the neighborhood of 2 degrees F. That's in line what climate scientists say. The increases have been much larger at the poles, and we're early on in the process of climate change.
Remember, that data comes from an agency that concludes that climate change is a very large problem.
As for instrumentation, we don't have direct observations of the distance to the sun or Jupiter, the age of the pyramids or dinosaur bones, the arrangement of atoms in DNA, or lots of other things in science. Direct observations are great to have, but their absence doesn't mean scientists can't figure stuff out. Scientists tend to be very conservative with their conclusions, and that applies to most of the scientists I've met who study any aspect of climate change.
6
@Ralphie
“The global record is based on estimates and adjustments for most areas. From a sampling/survey standpoint it is a joke.”
The above statement is 100% incorrect. The global record is based on actual temp. measurements with reasonable uncertainty included. The data for the last 100 years are robust even if you don’t like it. Adjustments are not wrong…it is called analysis. But the raw data indicates more warming around the planet.
When the temperature records eliminate the urban heat islands, the global temperature actually shows MORE warming. The urban areas are warmer, but the differential temps actually have a cooling bias.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
And you are still showing cherry picked data from a few month only over the US….that is just anti-science.
If you don’t like the temp record, look at sea levels rising. Sea level increases at 1.5mm/yr rate for most of the last 100 years. Since the 90s, sea levels have increased at about 3 mm/yr. The dominant causes for sea levels rising are thermal expansion and land ice melting. So, every year a block of ice of about 8 miles tall, covering Manhattan has to melt to raise sea levels about 2 mm. The other one mm is due to thermal expansion. The data is based on satellite and 2000 insitu gauges
The above is direct evidence of the planet warming. The current forcing for WMGHG warming is +2.9W/m2 relative to the base date. And the sun has been cooling for decades.
5
If the GOP would start cultivating science as a value (not merely by talking about it (after all, they claim that climate science showing global warming is fake science, rather than claiming to reject valuing science as a human activity) but also by proposing science-based policies rather than trying to make their voters believe that climate science is fake), then what would happen?
1. If you take scientific studies into account, you cannot possibly claim that having a white skin or belonging to a "white culture" somehow makes you superior to others.
2. If you take science into account, you cannot possibly claim that there's a higher crime rate among immigrants than among US-born citizens - nor that immigration and asylum seeking numbers are at record highs, or too high for the US administration to handle in a normal way.
In other words, once you take science into account, you can't deny climate science and the urgency to do something about it, but you also can't cultivate White Nationalism and racism anymore.
Now let's imagine for a moment that the GOP would indeed stop cultivating both myths. What would happen?
They could still try to fire up their base taking extremist government intervention positions on social issues (but studies show that 80% of 18 to 40-year old conservatives reject that idea), and that's it.
In other words, people would SEE how once in DC they only pass bills that put their wealthiest donors rather than America first. So they'd lose their jobs.
1
I'm sure Paul, that those two don't even understand the pretty colors on the map. Besides that, it is all California's fault.
Climate denial by Republicans, Emigration denial by Venezuela's regime, Khashoggi denial by Saudi Arabia, Guns Control denial, again, by Republicans. Those guys are not in the right side of history. They are a minority. In a few years they will be a small segment of the political marketplace. Sorry, the good guys will take control again. It's just a matter of time. A couple of years, plus one month, we think.
Ironically, tunnel-vision of short term economic prosperity will be the downfall of the human race. If you haven't made the connection that water and natural resources are the only reason we get to live on this beautiful planet, you will die blind to an essential truth.
I've lost a whole lot of faith that I used to have. Praying climate denialism will as hard as flat-earth syndrome, for my children's sake.
1
When one is:
1. Poor and/or unemployed or
2. Rich and intent on getting richer
One is all too willing to disbelieve long-term scientific projections and all to willing to believe short-term promises made by an expert liar.
2
We are just steps away from Trump declaring that scientists, especially climate scientists, are "enemies of the people". Welcome to the dark ages.
2
When Reagan said "It's Morning in America" he was facing the wrong way and to demonstrate his fealty to the "Church of Fossil Fuels," he removed Carter's White House Solar Panels; proclaimed Carter's "Malaise Speech" an act of "heresy."
Since St. Ronald declared Carter as a danger to the "Church of Fossil Fuels," Carter has been publicly castigated and thrust to the "winds of public ridicule" by the "Church Elders" and now anointed "Donald, as the New Duke of Ignorance."
2
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
- Dr. Asimov
The ignorance is fostered because it behooves the rich to limit/eliminate progressive taxation and protect oil money. We don't need complicated explanations.
It's no secret complete transition to renewables; geothermal heating, Solar PV and Wind Turbines will be better for America and the world as opposed to continuing the world's fossil fuel economy. You
The richest country in the history of the world with the greatest income and wealth inequality. Will the "richest of the rich" have their "come to Jesus moment?" Doubt it, but hope springs eternal.
3
y'know why economists are often so wrong in their predictions, (and krugman is actually worse than most)?
its not science. why? it cant be tested in a controlled manner. period.
same thing with climate. it cannot be tested in a controlled manner. period. its a good guess, an educated guess, but not science.
climate is the most complicated thing in the universe, and the human input is even more so. climate changed pre-human. to suggest we know with reasonable certainty that the climate change we have now is due to human, is pure hubris, and it aint science. not even close.
y'know why scientists have been wrong for decades about low fat diets? answer- 1. very hard to do controlled experiments, and 2. herd mentality/groupthink. everyone said its so, and everyone was afraid to resist. when dr. atkins suggested high fat diet, he was vilified. turns out he was correct.
climate debate is now pure religion, pure herd mentality, and is not science. not even close. im not saying its bad science since its not accurate. im saying its bad science since it cant possibly be tested. its that simple.
scientists wrong about diet, worldwide famine, overpopulation etc etc--anytime scientists rely on "consensus", then it is NOT science, and they often make mistakes like the rest of us, due to herd mentality/groupthink.
i cant PROVE gravity, but we can make PREDICTIONS about it and TEST it. THATS the difference, kids. think about it
Before climate denial, there was anti-evolutionism. I think that was the actual serpent's egg. Or, if you prefer, the embrace of religious anti-scientism to pander to Fundamentalist Evangelicals in the Ronald Reagan era.
1
As a former IRS agent, I see a familiar pattern. Aggressive tax avoidance promoters attack the agent for being first biased and if that does not work incompetent. They file numerous FOIA requests to get our records and emails, they look for that one phrase which they say proves bias or incompetence. They use this to say our final report is all wrong, ignoring that it is based upon the law, carefully researched and supported, not upon emails exchanges. They take us to court to get our personnel records, causing all of you as taxpayer to defend these baseless attacks. They go to congress telling all sorts of outrageous stories about us which we cannot respond to due to nondisclosure rules. Funny how parsing emails has become a powerful tool to distort the truth. But at least for me it was just taxes, not a threat to life itself.
1
https://nypost.com/2018/11/28/the-media-got-it-all-wrong-on-the-new-us-climate-report/
Even more dramatic was CNN’s headline, screaming that “climate change will shrink [US] economy” by 10 percent, a figure also repeated on The New York Times front page.
Actually, the UN’s climate scenarios envision US GDP per capita will more than triple by the end of this century, so this 10 percent reduction would come from an economy 300 percent larger than it is today. A slightly smaller bonanza, in other words.
But the 10 percent figure is itself dodgy. It assumes that temperatures will increase about 14 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. This is unlikely. The US climate assessment itself estimates that, with no significant climate action, American temperatures will increase by between 5 and 8.7 degrees. Using the high estimate of 8.7 degrees, the damage would be only half as big, at 5 percent.
But even the 8.7-degree warming estimate is unrealistically pessimistic. This stems from an extreme high-emission scenario that expects almost the entire world to revert to using massive amounts of coal: a five-fold increase from today.
That, in turn, assumes a much higher amount of fossil fuels than are plausibly available for use, according to one study. Another study likewise found the scenario “exceptionally unlikely.”
So, even a 5 percent reduction in the size of the American economy only follows from picking unlikely worst-case scenarios.
I don't agree that climate change was pivotal to trumpism. He had ample conspiracies with which to recruit his paranoid MAGA movement, none of them requiring knowledge of statistics.
1
Climate change denial was NOT the "crucible of Trumpism" - a thesis that is wishful thinking as much as it denies the damage that identity politics did to American political life. Trumpism is a pushback to the perception that Democrats stereotype people based on race and sex, and reward them accordingly.
So what do we do about it? I'm not asking in despair. I genuinely want to know what I can do to combat the "broader moral rot" you describe.
The Republicans are behaving like this in ALL spheres of public discourse. Underlying this seemingly irrational behavior is a frantic effort to shore up the sinking fortunes of the White Race in the face of the inevitable browning of this country and the rise of non-white powers such as China and India. It's a form of hysteria.
Climate change denial is a Republican platform issue. But, the problem is not just science, it's education! There has been a systematic effort to destroy the integrity of our school curriculum. Notably, creationism over evolution. Republicans have worked at the state and community level to equate creationism to the science of evolution. Once that was achieved, it wasn't long before they went after anything based on science. Climate change was an easy target because weather from day to day can be 'normal'. However, take a trip to Icefields Parkway in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada to see the markers of glacial recession and you will be alarmed at the acceleration of glacial melting.
Keeping children ignorant is one thing, creating stupid adults who vote is another. Looks like they got what they wanted.
1
It's easy to understand why Republican officials deny the settled science of climate: they're being paid to do so, and at this point in the devolution of the GOP into a white nationalist authoritarian tribe, deviating in any way from the tribal catechism would risk one's future in the GOP.
What's more interesting is how Republican voters continue to fall for this malarkey while the weather becomes ever more extreme and harder to predict, and the steady warming trends is more and more obvious, and America's rejection of climate science makes it more and more isolated in the community of nations.
Yet they persist, and do so with complete self-confidence, coupled with concomitant disdain for science, scientists, and reason itself. Wny?
One factor is Dunning-Kruger syndrome: this stems from some people of low ability lacking the self-awareness needed to objectively assess their competence (which also renders unable to improve their competence).
A study of employee self-evaluations found that the lousiest ones almost always rated themselfs as God's Gift to the corporation, while the best usually doubted that they were as good as others knew them to be (the complement to the Dunning-Kruger effect). The good news is that people exhibiting Dunning-Kruger syndrome can sometimes be trained to think more objectively and become better humans beings. So maybe our approach with denialists we know should be to help them develop better metacognitive skills (don't use that word though).
1
The opposition to “scientific” research into global warming, as opposed to its predecessor crisis, an impending ice age, has been around for almost 30 years.
The reason conservatives oppose it is coming alive in the growing movement known as Degrowth. European economists are promoting the idea the planet resort to economic degrowth. Their idea is to plummet America to a 60s level of production to reverse global warming. With a population larger than then scarcity will be serious for every kind of product. Global warming promoters seem to really dislike America though we have brought our levels of air pollution down far more than any other nation already. But they really are envious of our economic capacity. What better way to bring us down several notches.
Suspicious data has been pointed out consistently since the 90s by at least one physicist with glowing environmental/atmospheric credentials. Of course that scientist has been ostracized for his critiques of such data. I was taught that this was part of the scientific method. But when we understand all these studies are funded by governments not independent groups we realize big bucks are involved in grants to folks who want to be lionized for their uncommon intelligence.
Global warming advocates have made predictions of calamitous worldwide events for decades. Each fearful point of no return has never materialized.
Of course Krugman has no regard for objective analysis. He is a political shill with a clear agenda.
Contemplating the apocalyptic forecasts of climate change is bound to frighten many into a defensive position like denial. Our society will cope better when surrounded by positive action, jobs, new technologies and hope for at least being able to handle what is ahead. Keep pushing on solar, wind and CO2 recapture technologies along with electric vehicles and mass transit. That's the way to diminish the voices of foolish denial. You can already feel it happening, just keep pushing. The midterms show what a motivated public can do, so let's all get on board the energy transition movement and eventually we'll see even Trumpistas asking about those new solar energy tech jobs.
2
The Roman empire owed much of its success to a belief in rationalism, and what we would call 'science' today. Then the world fell into a long period of anti-science in what we now call the dark ages. Trump may be the beginning of a new dark age, where the American empire crumbles and is followed by centuries of humans without civilization as we know it. A lost modernity unable to assist them because of the ravages of climate change.
2
This editorial goes right off the deep end by mischaracterizing arguments and evidence. The email controversy at the University of East Anglia was far from trivial and misunderstood. As a publishing researcher, I well understand the consequences of two editors of the most prestigious climate science journals discussing blackballing researchers whose papers don't reach the "correct" conclusions. The implications are huge and Michael Mann should be both chagrined and ashamed of his actions. He has done more to damage the public's acceptance of climate science than maybe any other person what with his expressions of non-scientific bias and politicking. The climate science community has overly engaged in the political debate to the point of even unethical behavior that damaged trust in their "consensus" for some in the public.
So even though there's ample evidence of human-induced global warming, we're still having this debate because the left insists on a "trust the consensus" approach while the right insists that incidents of overly political behavior by scientists means that none of their conclusions may be trusted. The way out of this morass is for scientists to work with journalists to more fully present the evidence to the public. Think about it: when was the last time you read an article about climate change that actually discussed the evidence? Every article I've seen only notes the consensus.
1
@terrance savitsky
I was in southern Germany at a conference about 30 years ago when I overheard a conversation concerning a particular theory that was clearly on its way out because it was felt that the preponderance of the evidence was pointing to a newer theory. It had nothing to do with climate change but about electron transfer reactions. At one point one guy says to the other "So, we agree that we are no longer funding studies of .." the older theory. Now, these two guys alone did not have the power to determine the status of all investigations in the field but it was their feeling that this matter was settled and it was a waste of scant resources to continue the scientific discussion. So if they were reviewing a grant or a paper they were done with this theory. No political agenda. I am not saying that this never happens for personal or less than noble reasons but it does seem that this is how how science moves on.
The term, "conservative," no longer should be granted to these people, as it implies conserving something. Such as the environment and climate. I suggest a new term for this pox on our country and planet: "selfservative."
2
Fox News is mostly to blame. They gave 70 percent of airtime on climate change to science deniers. No wonder Republicans don't believe it. As long as Fox News is on the air and Republicans are watching our attempt to create an educated and responsible society that rises to true challenges and threats will fail.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/23/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
1
Like the Flat Earthers and Know Nothings of yore, book burners, science deniers and those who sneer at educated "elites" are headed for the dustbin of history. Which is why the GOP is rapidly becoming irrelevant, and why we must get rid of Trump before he makes Washington irrelevant on the global stage. Wasn't it Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge who tried to kill off all Cambodians with an education? Where are they now? Either dead on on trial for genocide.
can't agree more with your take on the Republicans and their top predator, President Trump.
but you didn't mention the secret sauce of the GOP's unlikely electoral successes: groveling before the evangelical Christian block that makes their winning possible. and from the belief in intelligent design ( not that monkey business about evolution!), to intractible opposition to abortion, to their insistence that America is a "Christian nation", evangelical fundamentalists are staunchy anti-science and pro-superstition.
ergo, the GOP must be anti-science.
1
The Republican party is completely under the thrall of oil and gas money. Where else would they get funds to go into politics from their mostly poor states? The sad fact is that the well-being of their voters matters little. Show them the money and they bark like the best of trained dogs.
1
I don’t believe in gravity because I can’t see it.
1
From a medicine/mental health background, it is fairly easy to see how incredibly impaired Trump is with respect to intellect, personality, emotion, not to mention that his psyche makes no distinction between truth and fiction. Nor does he have any respect for science, data, evidence-based thinking. And don't forget all the parties that manipulate this primitive psyche as their "useful idiot". The depth of this dysfunction and the damage that it is doing to our country, our relationships, and the planet, is immeasurable.
1
"The G.O.P. wasn’t always an anti-environment, anti-science party. George H.W. Bush introduced the cap-and-trade program that largely controlled the problem of acid rain"
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, signed by Bush 41, among other things, called for substantial reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen from “major stationary sources", i.e. coal-fired power plants. Once this program geared up, coal-fired plants peaked in number in 2004, and have been declining ever since.
Does that mean that GHWB started "The War on Coal"?
Quick! Someone tell the Fox News Ministry!
Then again, what do facts have to do with it.
"Moral rot" describes today's GOP pretty well. The people who speak for the party are as corrupt and dishonest as anybody anywhere in the world. They are very quick to accuse anyone who questions them of their own egregious sins. Why do republican politicians deny the human causes of climate change? Because the fossil fuel industry pays them to protect the industry's fat profit margins.
1
You think the French are depraved, Paul? We haven't seen anything like this since 1789, when the plebs rose up against those other out-of-touch turbo-taxing elites. A carbon tax revolt in Paris-- a full scale Revolution of Climate Denial. The horror, the horror. Now if this happened in the US heartland the mainstream media would cover it non-stop. These aren't Bible-belters, Paul. The French are borderline atheists. An elitist nightmare. No wonder Krugman is depressed. The Program (the 2Coast/UN/EU hydra) was on the threshold of irreversibly with the anointing of Queen Hillary, when, out of nowhere, the bricks began raining down in Babel, and once again the common man was delivered from the curse of elitism. The working man can name a hundred more pressing concerns than this latest charade of tax-hungry tyrants. From Bernie to Beto, Democratic candidates know this--is their silence depravity? Most galling of all is this: Elites only want what's best for the peasantry. Two hundred years from now (after untold wars, disasters, earthquakes, etc), the world will thank them. Alas, the working man despairs of making it to the end of the month, and Krugman wants him to hand over his last shilling for this latest fool's errand?
@shreir
In real life, 4 out of 5 French citizens support taking action against global warming.
And if you would have paid attention, you would have known that the carbon tax revolt was a revolt against taxing the poor and middle class more, NOT against the idea of a carbon tax in itself - let alone against the idea of taking proven global arming seriously.
As to the Democrats: they never even proposed to increase gas taxes. And the Recovery Act contained LOTS of tax cuts and tax credits for the middle class. Guess who refused to extend them when they were about to expire? Those who constantly betray the middle class: the GOP.
In the meanwhile, Obamacare - another middle class tax credit program - is saving an additional half a million American lives a decade, and guess who wants to destroy it? The GOP.
And so on and so forth ...
1
Thanks again Paul, for stating the obvious. What took you so long?
1
The other part of why the Republican party is compelled to deny
science is their reliance on their religious fundamentalist base.
If science is right, religion is wrong.
2
Bribery and greed, the deadly duo. There is not a snowball's chance in the senate of convincing the republican base that reality is not just a liberal plot. Winter is here, it's cold outside, and that's all the proof that they need.
Donald is, as anyone who can read knows, a climate change denier - strike one. He is also (as anyone who was alive during the Vietnam War era knows) a cowardly draft dodger - strike two. And he, as anyone who has ears to hear and eyes to see, has always been a man who has a very hard time telling the truth and doesn't care who knows it - strike three. However, the politicians and reporters who are close to him on an almost daily basis and don't have the courage to speak truth to his lies are also cowards.
If I had the chance, I would tell him in person what I write in my letters to the NYT.
1
Thanks for keeping the end in sight with your columns. It's not the law. It's the ballot.
What is your carbon footprint Krugman? Fly anywhere? Eat meat or imported food? What is the thermostat on?
Robber baron-esque Republicans do not give a hoot about the planet or the adverse effects on future generations unless they can profit from it today.
1
Bravo!
The professor is right "It's specifically a problem of the Republican Party". Documenting "legal" landmarks it goes back to Nixon. See
https://www.legalreader.com/50-years-of-legal-climate-change/
The call for action to mitigate our changing climate is based on a scientific foundation for understanding the key role of carbon dioxide in controlling Earth's surface and atmospheric temperatures that is over 200 years old. The connection between burning of fossil fuels and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide was proposed over 100 years ago and confirmed by direct measurement in the 1950's.
The science is real. The evidence is incontrovertible. It is past time to address this existential crisis. And yet, the Republican party does everything in its power to resist concrete actions. Fortunately, we are alone, some would say a pariah, among nations in this opposition.
1
Climate denial has been going on for decades, but it only became virulent in the last 10 years, The Republican Party has much to answer for. In 50 years, when sea levels rise, warmer temperatures, and extreme weather are obvious and undeniable, no one will remember why we didn't take action, and Republicans (if they're still around) won't get the blame.
1
Jesus will Save the Planet!
You just gotta have faith.
1
Trump is the culmination of every racist, misogynist, ignorant, and hateful republican idea since the 60's. Conservatives are romantics who have no desire to engage facts. Their fantasy lives always have them in control, with the end of self aggrandizement.
2
@tbs: Trumpism boils down to being such a skunk that people will pay them to go away.
1
Republican-made global warming is genocide. It should be prosecuted as such today.
2
@Zachary Burton
Exactly. It's a crime against humanity.
I am in my late twenties, climate change has been the number one topic of debate and concern since the time I began learning more about the world. Now, I'm working toward my Ph.D. in Engineering, hoping to understand and contribute to human safety in aviation structural analysis while paying off my student loan debt and working as an Engineer to support my family.
I've recently started to think only three things matter for the continued survival of our species-- 1- a revolution in the way farmers grow sustainable, organic food crops. 2- a massive change in global trade system by weaning from fossil fuel dependency. If the global economy takes a beating in the short term because of heavy investment in carbon-neutral energy technology, so be it. We need it urgently. If we can't see beyond the next financial quarter results, we deserve to go extinct. 3- a viable and ubiquitous alternative for consumer and commercial grade plastic that would not be derived from fossil fuel sources.
It's neither alarmism nor hysterical if it's true. I sometimes think these climate change naysayers have an end-of-the-world survival plan that they don't want to let anyone in on. Truly pathetic. I weep for the future generation(s). This is the definition of shirking from responsibility. If they can't solve (or even acknowledge) the imminent climate disaster, they need to step aside and let the concerned among us takes the reins. But, I guess it's just wishful thinking on my part.
1
@SK: Getting carbon out of aviation is one of the toughest challenges.
@Steve Bolger
Absolutely agree with you. My second point refers to that. Aviation and Shipping are the biggest contributors. Developing carbon-neutral solutions for these fields requires a lot of investment and effort and doesn't necessarily translate to a big ROI but definitely benefits our collective karma. These are more pressing problems than self-driving cars.
The bull in the china shop does not realize he is made of the same stuff the china is. When spaceship Earth goes, so does all of the life forms it created go. It was nice while it lasted.
Republicans deny science because to do otherwise would mean facing the need to regulate industries that despoil the environment. That would enrage wealthy donors who profit from those industries and those who believe any form of bisiness regulation is bad.
5
One thing worth pointing out is that the climate denialism playbook has its origins in the tobacco industry, which employed these same techniques in their fight against regulating tobacco products.
They hired people with dubious credentials to raise questions, making it appear as though there was serious disagreement among scientists studying the problem, when there wasn't.
They launched PR campaigns and lawsuits against scientists in an attempt to smear their motivations and stifle their voices. (Watch "The Insider", starring Russell Crowe for a fascinating look at their tactics against insiders who defect.)
They created fake "astro-turf" groups with patriotic-sounding names to disseminate their poisonous rhetoric and give cover to the politicians they paid off.
We've seen this movie before and know how it will (or, at least, should) end.
Then, it had to do with the health and lives of millions of smokers.
Now, it has to do with the possibility that civilization, as we know it, may be destroyed.
4
@Bob: There are probably more frivolous lawsuits filed solely to extort and intimidate than legitimate ones here in the US
It is my belief that if corporate America hadn’t first moved manufacturing to southern, union free states and then in the 80’s abroad, we wouldn’t be in this pickle.
If we were making things on a broad scale, we would notice factors like the effect of weather on manufacturing.
Hurricane Agnes in June 1972 was one of the first probably affected by climate. It caused severe damage as it stalled its way up the Susquehanna and Chemung rivers. Seemed like a fluke then, but more likely was a harbinger of bad times to come.
1
To gain the support that will be needed for effective policies against global warming, we must distinguish between those who perpetuate falsehoods concerning greenhouse gases and those who believe the falsehoods. In other words, we must distinguish between the sellers and the buyers of climate-change denial. The sellers are lying for their own perceived benefits; they are thereby committing a vast crime against humanity. Most of the buyers, on the other hand, are not benefiting from their beliefs in the lies; indeed, many of them will suffer the most from the consequences of global warming.
What to do? My advice is to combine any proposal for greenhouse gas mitigation with a proposal that will provide an immediate benefit for ordinary people—and one which they will value. My impression is that better jobs are at the top of this list. Next on the list might be lowering the per-unit costs of health-care. Advocate policies that people want. If federal funding is needed, ensure that it is not provided by ordinary people but by wealthy people, either directly through increases in their taxes or indirectly through decreases in their income from large corporations. Do not advocate a policy that people will fear. Weigh their support at least as much as the chance of enactment of the policy.
1
Where I live in Silicon Valley, SUVs are a growing trend and are unnecessarily increasing CO2 emissions. So while most people here vote for climate protection, their personal consumption patterns are quite to the contrary.
4
@Rational
How can you write something like that and then call yourself "rational"?
This argument has been invented by climate science deniers in order to make people believe that those who want science-based policies actually would KNOW that climate science that shows anthropogenic, dangerous global warming is fake science, but they want to transition to a clean energy politics anyhow, JUST because they'd personally benefit from it.
However, there are NO studies proving the claim that people who support climate science policies somehow would be driving more SUVs than those who reject them, so taking over this claim isn't rational at all.
And secondly and most importantly, exactly HOW would people supporting climate policies BENEFIT from having to replace their SUV with an electric car ... ?
Conclusion: this kind of arguments doesn't make any sense.
1
@Ana Luisa: The more efficient a car's propulsion system is, the more aerodynamics determines its fuel efficiency. SUVs have three or four times the drag of cars due to larger frontal area and clumsier aerodynamics.
2
@Ana Luisa
I support what Rational is saying; I am a diehard environmentalist who has been involved with climate change issues for 20 years now. I live in Silicon Valley.
Rational's post doesn't say that environmentalists buy more SUVs than the general population, but observes that they sure buy a lot of them even though they know the CO2 consequences of their decisions to drive them.
I am so tired of attending climate change workshops/meetings where there is only one bicycle in the rack (mine) and a parking lot full of cars/trucks, and the weather is CA perfect.
This doesn't disprove anything about the science of Climate Change. But it does prove that there are really only two kinds of people in the USA; those who deny climate change, and those who accept it but have a million reasons why they can't do more to lower their way too high carbon footprint.
No wonder the CO2 content in our atmosphere is shooting beyond 410ppm with no end in sight.
2
Why not go back a bit further? How about the religious right/Republican connection? According to Merriam-Webster: Definition of Faith (2B): Firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Many folks are well practiced in believing what they are told to believe way before they hear about climate change.
3
@GK: These people believe what the Establishment Clause was written to keep out of legislation.
1
Marx said that the last capitalist we hang will be the one who sold us the rope. The deniers may think that they could escape the effects if their policy prevailed, but they will suffer also. How misguided can they be?
2
@Cassandra
Kind of implies that Marxists can't make their own ropes. That is why his vision of taking down capitalism is hopeless.
@Cassandra
Actually it was Vladimir Lenin who said
“The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
1
We need to remember that three prominent Republicans, namely George Schultz, James Baker, and Hank Paulson have promoted and supported the idea of a carbon tax.
What would a carbon tax do? Two things: 1) It would make polluters pay for the use of our air and waters as "free sewers" for dumping their pollutants, and; 2) It would allow the free market to determine winning clean energy technologies. However, we had better hurry..... Here, according to another NYT opinion piece by Michele Bachelet, are some sobering words on the subject:
"......We are the last generation of decision makers that can act in time to avoid a planetary catastrophe. The decisions we make today could lead us toward a more climate-resilient future, or they could undermine food, water and energy security for decades to come."
2
Simple fix, build nuclear rectors. Manage the cost of changes that drive the total cost up. The two in Georgia has risen to $28B from around $12B. That is a productivity killer.
1
It may he that no-one may knows the true state of climate change at the present time but the description that I find most persuasive is this one, from the MIT Technology Review:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610457/at-this-rate-its-going-to-take-nearly-400-years-to-transform-the-energy-system/
Everyone should read this, perhaps several times.
The article makes it clear that climate change and what to do about it is a multi-disciplinary question: it is not just a matter of science, it is also a matter of engineering, the state of technology (and the gaps in it), project management, manpower, natural resources, economics, politics and geopolitics.
It is a mammoth challenge, perhaps too big for humanity. It will completely disrupt the economic order. Perhaps it will result in a halving of the world population, which may be the only solution
The current political debate is nonsense, one side denies the problem or wants to do nothing about it, the other proposes solutions that are pitifully inadequate, a waste of money, tokenism, and would likely be rejected by the population anyway - look at the riots in France over a small increase in gas prices. Both positions are a denial of the reality.
1
I watched Rick Santorum on the Sunday news shows spout the line that "climate scientists are driven by the money they receive." If you know any scientist in any field, you know they are not raking in the dollars. Someone needs to challenge this idiocy when it is voiced by pointing out that scientists who work for the fossil fuel industry make far more money toeing the line for climate change denial than those working for academic or government institutions. Much like the cigarette/cancer denial scientists from several decades ago.
3
Krugman (and others) suggest climate change as something that is 'happening to us' as the consequence of some external agency: Republicans, 'moneyed interests', conspiracy theorists; even nature itself.
Americans largely live the suburbs. They drive large cars (each with one occupant). They buy products made in China then shipped across the Pacific in giant container vessels or by air. They eat meat. they read the NY Times travel section and take jet vacations. They go to college then demand luxury jobs. Even as the climate scientists fly all over the world for conferences, they drive to-and-from the airport in their SUVs.
The American lifestyle is indolent and consumption based. It's also the model for all other societies. There is a broadly based impulse in continuing 'business as usual' if only because so much political, social and economic capital has been sunk already and at a certain level ... it works.
Threaten the smallest part of waste-based economy - raise interest rates, fuel taxes or eliminate subsidies - and there is heck to pay; see the rioting in Paris.
In 2018, the American Way is obsolete. The only way to solve the climate threat is to deindustrialize starting with cars and all that goes with them. The agent is entropy.
Make no mistake about it. Obsolete means the 'all that goes with them' items are going anyway regardless of who is in charge or what they do.
1
Like Sigmund Freud, Adam Smith was "right in his time", but his philosophy is not of universal application, I am referring to "everyone looking for their own interest produce the maximum welfare of society" ( or something like this)…
Those paid "Scientifics" are the best proof; it is more the philosophy of Louis XV: " Après moi le deluge:: After me the deluge.
1
We are a society dominated by an economic system whose ultimate goal is to maximize profits. Heck, people are reduced to "human" capital. Truth and morality are pushed aside when they get in the way.
Blame the primacy of your own science Dr. Krugman, embraced by the "business schools" and now the dominant force in society--above religion, community all all else--have you seen ads plastered on the sides of school buses these days?--and remember the words of Keynes as our world becomes enslaved to the amorality of capitalism.
1
On local TV yesterday they had a man on who said "We know that our planet is going thru a small climate adjustment right now." He was put on TV for a reason.
In California police pulled over a drunk driver who was passed out behind the wheel of a Tesla on autopilot. The police managed to get the Tesla to stop, woke up the drunk and arrested him. But the crux of the whole article in the SFO Chronicle was about why the Tesla was dangerous and how it would encourage drunks. You know because before Tesla nobody ever passed out drunk behind the wheel of a vehicle.
In Washington an attempt to pass an initiative to charge a carbon fee on fossil fuel companies was defeated in a mostly liberal state because each fossil fuel company spent millions and millions burying us in ads on how this was going to cost consumers...(not oil companies) billions! In this case they hid behind lots of women pretending to be small business owners and mothers just trying to make it day to day without having to deal with the horrible results of charging oil companies a fee to clean up their mess. It could bring a tear to your eye.
If you don't think that the fossil fuel industry is spending the billions we provide them in tax breaks to tell us what and how to think you're not paying attention. They may hide their identity behind every thing that doesn't look like an oil derrick but it's them.
I just wonder don't any of them have children or grandchildren?
3
The names of the 3% of so-called "climate scientists" who deny human causation of climate change need to be published along with who they work for, who pays for their "science" for hire and how much they've earned by perpetuating the devastating denial lies. No doubt there are the obvious coal and fossil fuel interests to whom today's buck earned trumps (pun intended) tomorrow's starving child, and I'm sure the Koch network has its grubby hand in this, who else? We need all of this information. They use harassment, in this case exposure might be enough. It worked with the tobacco company lackeys.
Ironically, the Republican party was started in part because the Whigs were soft on slavery.
Now the Republican party is soft on corporate corruption.
How long before a common sense party is formed that balances the interests of all the people? I know there are Senators and Representatives of both parties who would like to be free of the "quiet dogmas of the past."
I wonder how many of these Republicans throw away the milk after the expiration date? (And that's set by an industry group!) I wonder how many think that GPS signals appear on their phones via magic, or how many think the labs of Monsanto are lying about the most recent strain of corn, or how many refuse penicillin because everyone knows mold is bad for you?
What is it about climate research that continues to make people so untrusting, when we rely on and trust the discoveries of science in so many other things in our life?
The denial of Climate Change was a byproduct of the anti-Gore campaign.
The Right had to create a narrative that everything Al Gore believed was foolish dribble, and since he frequently raised the issue of climate change, well, (obviously) anyone who supported that idea must be wrong.
The most important thing we can do now is create a system where the ill-gotten gains of climate change denial are not sequestered by those it enriched: the grandchildren of the Koch brothers should not be allowed to live in a protected glass bubble when this Earth goes through famine and war...
1
1) The NOAA reports for the 406 consecutive months ending in Oct 2018, the average global monthly temperature has been greater than the average 20th century global temperature. That is, sans global warming, one-half the time the monthly temperature should exceed this average; and one-half the time it should be below. If a random process were at work, the random pattern should be: (+,+,-,+,-,-,- ...), for example. But, we have had 406 consecutive pluses (+,+,+,+,+,+, etc.). Such a probability of 406 consecutive pluses equals: ((1/2)^406)) = an iota; or very small amount, if random.
2) As temps rise, and land glaciers melt into the ocean basins, it is as though our seaports and ocean coastlines contain fixed, unmovable infrastructure that is ineluctably subject to upwardly creeping ocean tides. This unmoveable infrastructure is also subject to increasingly potent hurricanes fueled by rising ocean temperatures.
3) My child has one-half of my genome. My grandchild has (1/2 x 1/2) or 1/4 of my genome. My great-grandchild has (1/2)^3 or 1/8 of my genetic complement; with my great-great-grandchild clocking in at only 1/16 of my genome. I lose a 50% proportion of my vested interest or DNA with each additional generation. Locking onto and solving the global warming problem, entails a multigenerational, anthropogenic process and it is not something humankind is genetically evolved to do. Humans have evolved to increase their short-run betterment.
12/04/18 Tu 12:12p Greenville NC
When their crops fail, year after year, Trump zealots will argue that it's the Democrats, seeding rain clouds in liberal congressional districts, drawing away the moisture. When cyclones wipe out the Bible Belt, it will be argued that wind from turbines on solar farms are to blame.
You'd think anyone serious about "buy American, hire American" would want to lead the world in cutting-edge clean technology so we can corner the market and sell our made-in-America technology to the rest of the world. But, nope; let's use the plight of ~50K coal miners who will lose their jobs no matter who is in power (it's a dying technology, just like steam power) to make the poorly educated base mad and the fossil-fuel-oligarch donor class happy. Fast forward 20 years and Americans will be buying made-in-China and made-in-Germany clean technology (if they have jobs), and the fossil fuel oligarchs will be kicking back in their bunkers in New Zealand. How does this MAGA?
1
The GOP is not hostile to all science, just to science that threatens existing private interests.
1
Attacking scientists who publish papers about climate change is real threat. A couple at the University of Arizona says scientists are fleeing to places like Canada and Europe where climate scientists are respected, and where they are safe. This adds to the damage the Republican Party is doing -- their hostility to scientists is causing a brain drain out of America.
All of these point are valid. But it's sometimes useful to remember that in war, the first victim is always reason, and the reasons for doing things disappears in the fog.
Republicans dispute climate change for material gain, but the support of their followers is gained by far simpler means: This is our team, and we're winning, and whatever we can do to upset the other side is fair and necessary.
This is about Red vs. Blue. In basketball terms, this is a grand version of 'Trash Talk'. The average Fox News person cares no more about climate science than about whether your Mama really does wear Army boots. And the ball is blue, and green, and spins, for the time being, around the sun.
2
Point of purchase taxes are never popular and often regressive.
One reason we have governments is to spread the costs of what needs being done. Regressive taxes (like the French carbon tax), bring people teetering at the edge of the economy up short of paying their bills. Increasing the profits taxes of fossil fuel companies and the capitol gains from trading in their stocks may be a better proposal.
Government can subsidize investments it wishes the nation to make. This was the strategy (low cost loans) of the Energy Dept. concerning renewables before the installation of Mr. Trump.
Historically, selling public lands subsidized the railroads in the 19th century, tax policy bolstered the oil industry in the 20th century and Congress propped up the nuclear industry by limiting liability for radiation release.
Thus reducing emissions is a matter of politics, nothing else.
The eruption of the Tea Party movement in the US, eventually shown to be a creature of fossil fuel interests and other corporate players and not a grass roots movement, makes me very skeptical of the seemingly instant eruption of the French "yellow vest" movement.
The photos I've seen of the protests show at most hundreds of people in the streets, and not the thousands across France who protested anti semitism last spring or the millions of 1968 that almost toppled the government. The tax may be unpopular, but the protests look staged.
1
Usually, I am 100% behind the commentary that PK presents but I am less inspired by another attack on the Climate Deniers than I would be on some more positive commentary. For example, I believe that economists have dropped the ball, generally, on the problem. Cap & Trade will not be enough, it is already too late for that. We need to control human population growth, but this is rarely addressed. All the models I see of 'economics' moving forward have growth as one of their central planks. This is just as crazy denial as anything the energy industry has come up with. Nor do I see any attempts to address the real costs of this continuing; yes, maybe there isn't a model of what the costs of global collapse might mean, but we should at least be talking about it. The much derided Club of Rome report back in the 60's (?) can't recall the exact date, seems to me like the only attempt to get out in front & state what is now compelling & was prescient back then. The current Gilets jaune activity in Paris indicates just how awful & difficult the future ahead will be. I think economists who recognize the scientific reality confronting us should be producing much more, & with much more granularity than they appear to have have done so far. How about a planetary cost for each 1000 barrels of oil or tons of coal burned at the tipping point, which is where we are. What is the planet worth?
1
Hey, what do those darned scientists know? Stuck in their elite ivory towers thinking up ways to profit from their silly math problems. Meanwhile, we can cling to the safe old status quo, as that's why God gave us iPhones and the Internet and TV satellites and our beloved Trump.
2
I'm a big fan of Professor Krugman, but it has to be said that it's naïve to suggest that conspiracy theorizing and denial of fact begins with climate change. The engine that is driving the Trump train is white nationalism, which is at least as old as the nation itself. Trump's followers will believe--or pretend to believe--whatever he says so long as his words, actions, and policies continue to support the idea that the U.S. is a white Christian nation, that only white Christians deserve the full benefits of citizenship, and that others should be allowed to live here only as second class citizens and only if their presence benefits white Christians.
It should go without saying that this is unacceptable. But white nationalism was the explicit policy of the U.S. government until the mid-60s at least, and it didn't disappear with the Civil Rights Act. Trump has benefited hugely from being the only national politician of the past 50 years to openly voice theses views. This is the source of the passion among his supporters, and mere facts or logic are no match for the gut-level intensity of their beliefs.
3
let us all say, Amen!
The roots of Trumpism and Climate Change Denial were indeed forged at the same time, but those roots go back to the tobacco lobby and the automobile lobby, both of which resisted any and all efforts to improve public safety through denial and deliberately flawed "science." To understand the common threads, read Jane Mayer's phenomenal reporting in 'Dark Money.' These are all seeds that have been sown by the Koch brothers and their cabal of billionaires. It's a well-rehearsed strategy, executed over decades and intended to serve one goal: letting the rich get richer regardless of the risks, including the survival of the planet.
3
Take for granted that the sciences is infallible and exact. The solutions, given current technology, are to drasticly lower our standard of living and the amount of freedom we enjoy. And hope China africa India ect do the same.
This is a tough sell. But if you truly believe the earth is dying sell it.
Also please explain why population reduction is verboten wrt this subject. One or the other will convert me.
1
@Brian
With all respect, you don't seem to get it.
"Exact science" is by definition fallible. That it provides us with the best available predictions for the future is precisely because its findings have been tested and verified and corrected over and over again by hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world, from all walks of life and religious, social, racial and political background.
And that's why deciding to imagine that the opposite of what they've proven to be true, must be true, is totally irrational, you see?
Secondly, given the current technology there's actually no reason whatsoever to imagine that we should lower our standard of living - let alone "drastically". Burlington (Vt) for instance is already one of the world's 40 zero carbon cities, and they are still as addicted to their cars and smartphones as anybody else ... ;-)
Third, developing countries of course won't stop developing their economies, AND nobody is asking them to do so. What we need is for them to do so all while adopting clean energy sources, contrary to what we did during our dirty industrialization phase (which was the main cause of the current climate change in the first place).
The good news is that Obama and his team indeed managed to convince them to do exactly that. And China, by the way, is already the world's leader in clean energy consumption.
As to global population: it will stagnate by the end of this century at about 11 billion, when all economies are developed.
1
@Brian
a) Obese people make this decision all the time. Either suffer undeniable health complications and eat all the ice cream they can eat, or a enjoy a reduction of health risks but also a reduction of caloric intake and the enjoyment it brings.
We are fast approaching the point of no return for humanity's obesity. It's time we replace the ice cream with some apples.
That's the pitch. We aren't saying let's live in straw huts. It's saying people need to accept 60 degree heating instead of 72; that industries need to accept regulation and a reduction in their bottom line for the betterment of the community. People aren't calling for a return to the Stone Age, just, as you say, a reduction.
Let's give a little now so our future generations can enjoy a better future tomorrow.
Population reduction is not inherent in this discussion. Ensuring exponential population growth doesn't overwhelm our planet is. Basically, 7 billion is one thing. 21 billion in 100 years, however, is something totally different. But that is a complicated topic that needs to be discussed further. No one is calling for a 1 baby America yet...
2
@htg
It's too easy for the West to throw the "population" argument into the debate.
Populations stagnate (or even obtain negative growth) in fully developed economies, whereas population growth slows down in developing economies, and is highest in subsistence economies - for merely economical reasons, as you need a large family if you have to survive by cultivating your own food on your own piece of land.
What people who believe that population growth is the problem here forget, is that countries with high population growth:
1. have a very low life expectancy, with many early childhood deaths and an average adult death at about 50 years old, a whopping 30 years earlier than what happens in fully developed economies.
2. even more importantly, have a MUCH lower per capita carbon footprint than developed economies, precisely because their economies use much less energy, and as a consequence less dirty energy. So these countries contribute MUCH less to climate change than the US, per capita.
3. Advocating slower population growth, as an American, basically means first ruining the climate for the entire globe by fully developing our own economies in a dirty way, to then ask those countries following our footsteps to starve to death, as we want them to have less children in an economy where children are vital to survive. And that, of course, isn't merely morally reprehensible, it's obvious that we'll never get poor countries to agree with us here ...
2
I would argue that this denialism and willful dismissal of facts goes back even further, to conservative religious dismissal of the theory of evolution and the science behind it. When people have already given themselves permission to embrace the conclusions of science only selectively, when it does not challenge their presuppositions, it is not a difficult thing to dismiss other inconvenient science and ultimately any inconvenient facts that run counter to ones beliefs and interests.
3
A gallon of gas has 5.5 pounds of carbon. 100 gallons of gas have 550 pounds of carbon. A tree can sequester 550 pounds of carbon. You can plant a tree for $1, so we can sequester the carbon in one gallon of gas for one cent. We need to start now.
One Penny a Gallon. Prove me wrong.
4
@Douglas
Easy.
1) Trees don't live forever and will die. Then they decay and release their carbon. So, you may slow down the increase in Carbon, but the total amount released from fossil fuel will still be there.
2) Where are you gonna put all these trees?
3) If you plant a little tree, it will take decades to sequester that much carbon, and then only temporarily (see 1). By then it'll be too late.
4) Worldwide, way more trees are chopped down than planted. For the same shortsighted immediate economic reasons. So your "solution" is also very unlikely due to economics, national interests etc.
5) Have you put in the numbers of how many trees would have to be planted to compensate not only for automobiles but also households, agriculture, industry etc.?
4
@Douglas A tree will only "sequester" carbon until it dies or burns. A temporary measure at best. QED.
1
@yapete
You seem to be quite the underminer. I am a science person, but he is talking about potential and hope and what each person may be able to do to change things ... eg individuals planting trees may catalyze other actions, its always easier to say why something WONT work ...
1
PARIS (Reuters) - When Emmanuel Macron rose to power, he put the environment at the heart of his agenda. Eighteen months later, anger over those policies has stoked protests that are a huge challenge for the French president.
1
@R. R. But France gets something like 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. Why hasn't it made France an energy utopia?
2
@R. R. The so-called riots were mobs, mostly from rural areas, mobilized by the far right and the far left, just as the Far Right had mobilized riots against gay marriage 2 years ago. Sum total of the "gasoline" surcharge in France was 0.8 cents US per liter. In other words, a Nothingburger.
@Steve Bolger
Because fuel for transportation does not come from those nuclear plants.
I agree with Krugman that the scientific evidence that global warming is real and largely caused by human activity is overwhelming. But that's because I believe in the scientific method and can verify with my own eyes the abundant evidence produced by scientists. For examples, there are photos showing the receding of sea ice in the arctic as the years pass, clear evidence of the effects of warming.
But I don't agree with Krugman's assessment that those who deny global warming are depraved. In fact, I was raised as a Seventh-day Adventist. My mother believed that the earth is only 6000 years old. Her conclusion was different from mine, because she had a different way of reasoning about the world.
Instead of following the scientific method, she followed authority as revealed in the Word of God. And if the Holy Scriptures are taken literally the conclusion that the earth is only 6000 years old is inescapable. This in spite of the evidence from the Grand Canyon. It would have taken millions of years to create the Grand Canyon by erosion by the Colorado River. But this was not important to my mother who regarded the Grand Canyon as a work of creation.
I never tried to convince my mother that her viewpoint was wrong.
But I also would not characterize her as "depraved."
And if the various religions may be factually wrong, so may much of the social sciences, say sociology and philosophy, that often replace religion.
Geology is much more sound than Keynesian economics.
@Jake Wagner democracy depends on an educated public. That is why we have free public education. So your mom is entitled to her religion, but she is not entitled to foist her religion on the rest of the educated public, who want to get something done to help the earth. Did you get vaccinated? Did you drive on asphalt - does she use a phone? This is all science. We don't want to stop her faith, but we do want to stop hers and others like her ability to stop scientific thought.
2
@Jake Wagner
I don't think Krugman ever wrote that people believing the lies spread by the amoral GOP "leadership" and its Fox News "pundits", are morally depraved.
It's those who are massively betraying their own voter base by telling them the things that your mother believes, that are morally depraved, because THEY had the education that allows you to understand that religion and science aren't necessarily enemies at all, just like conservatism as a philosophy and science have never been incompatible at all, as soon as you take "philosophy" seriously (which means accepting as proven facts what has been scientifically proven to be a fact).
To me, it all started with America's "neoconservatism", founded by a bunch of ex-Marxists turned self-declared conservatives, and who actively cultivated anti-intellectualism, believing that a conservative political party will always lose elections if it has to "debate" and come up with arguments supporting its ideas, and can only win elections if it cultivates "sentiment" and "evident truths".
Since G.W. Bush became president, neoconservatism has taken over (and destroyed) the Grand Old Party.
Your mother is as much a victim of this destruction as any other GOP voter out there - and most GOP voters are without any doubt very decent citizens and patriots.
1
@Jake Wagner: Belief in God is to project a human personality onto the automatic processes of physics. The more ignorant people are, the more susceptible they are to claims of charlatans who purport to be in communication with an immortal all-knowing all-powerful being who somehow conjured the universe.
Paul, you mentioned the Holy Grail of RePubs: Taxes. If anything lowers Taxes, it is inherently good. If anything raises Taxes, it is inherently Bad. The entire governing philosophy of the RePubs is based on this simple concept: Taxes. Only exemption: The Military budget must be raised at all times to increase Industrial Complex Profits.
@Michael W. Espy: The Republicans are completely clueless about synergizing the public and private sectors of mixed economies. It is like discussing quantum mechanics with babies.
The science has been clear - when there are high levels of carbon in our atmosphere it cause climate change. We need to be focused on working diligently on ways to cut harmful carbon emissions and building towards a low-carbon future. For this administration to not participate in the Paris Accord and also not to be a leader in developing renewable energy and the thousands of practical solutions to slowing climate change is causing a much greater crisis for our country down the road.
2
@Sally: Trump Makes America Great Again as the technical and intellectual laggard of the planet. Welcome to Snakebit Holler.
All this talk on climate change by the environmentalists, but no plan on how to protect the poor. If you want to cut energy usage and help the environment, reduce and enforce the speed limit at 55, make air conditioning minimums in all commercial space 78, lower all heating to 65, cut back on non-essential lighting and start discouraging people from living in deserts. Places like Phoenix are huge energy hogs.
1
@Mark
With all respect, I couldn't disagree more.
1. The Paris Climate agreement has been signed by ALL governments in the world - both left and right, democracies and dictatorships. So if you disagree with it, you can't just oppose "environmentalists", you have to show where scientists all over the world and from all kinds of backgrounds would nevertheless be wrong, and why the Paris agreement won't solve the problem.
2. In the US, it's precisely the political party that tries to make its voters believe that there is no climate change (or no climate change dangers/threats etc.) that systematically attacks the poor and destroys laws that protect them, and vice versa (only the Democrats propose and pass bills that helped and will help them). Social security, Medicaid, Medicare, Civil Rights, Clean Air Act, Obamacare ... they all protect the poor, and are all the results of very hard fighting by moderate and progressive Democrats alike.
3. It's too late for speed limits already. We must do MUCH more now. We need clean cars and clean energy everywhere, so that we obtain zero carbon cities (such as Burlington, Vermont, and 38 other cities all over the world).
3
@Ana Luisa
Paris Accord is a wishy-washy document without real teeth, zero way to enforce its tepid suggestions. We need something real, deep, broad and RIGHT NOW and it doesn't look like we are going to get it. It is up to us as individuals to find out as much as we can about climate change and order our lives accordingly.
@dressmaker
With all respect, I couldn't disagree more.
As Saul Alinsky has shown, ALL real, radical, lasting, non-violent, democratic progress is step by step progress.
The only way to act globally, when it comes to climate change, is to accept that bringing together the people and governments of 200 countries and getting them to agree on starting to change their economies, IS necessarily a democratic process, which means that it takes time to build consensus, and that the only way to really make progress is to go from consensus on x to consensus on y, until we reach the finish line.
But that also means that progress - contrary to what many progressives seem to imagine - is HARD. It requires a long battle, a lot of patience, and a strong focus on our ultimate goals all while we accept to go standing in the mud and celebrate the next step forward.
And as history has shown, the most difficult one is always the first one, which has to operate a complete U-turn compared to the past. That may SEEM as no movement at all, as we're still standing at the same place, but now the perspective and the road ahead are totally different. And THAT is what the Paris Accord achieves.
Moreover, history also shows that international accords are MORE effective if you allow each government to manage its own goals and implementation than with a top-down approach.
I do agree though that we as individuals also have to try to change our own lives as much as we can, and NOW.
1
The moral rot began at least as far back as Saint Ronnie and continues to this day. Little does it matter that the most strident deniers of climate change are the fossil fuel companies, all heavy contributors to the GOP. The moral rot of the GOP extends to tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts from the safety network of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and scores more. This is the most corrupt administration in my memory, 77 years old.
1
Paul, following are two facts taken from the June 2018 BP Statistical Review of Global Energy:
1. The United States led the world in the decline in of the CO2 emissions in 2017. This is the third consecutive year in which the US has seen a decline in CO2 emissions.
2. US carbon emissions are at their lowest levels since 1992. China and India accounted for nearly half of the total amount of the worlds carbon emissions in 2017, followed by the EU.
For the sake of the progressives, let's attribute all that gain to the Obama administration. The question remains what to do with China, India and the EU? Combined they way surpass the gains the rest of the world has made in carbon and CO2 emissions. So let's say that the US meets it's climate change goals in 2040 and China, India and the EU keep on their current path. What is the net gain? We're a global village when it comes to the environment so it must be a global solution supported by all, not just some. I think your concern regarding climate change would be better directed to the body of the UN Climate Change Conference going on now in Poland rather than pandering to the rancorous Trump haters. I realize that wouldn't generate near as many clicks in the op-ed wars at the NYT, but that's not what really matters now does it?
4
@Kurt Pickard no, we have to lead. Right now we are backsliding - fuel standards, opening new areas for drilling, de-regulating all kinds of chemicals, ignoring envirinmental reviews - all this is taking us backwards, and it is our own republicans and people who don't understand climate change that are allowing this to happen. The US has to LEAD on this issue, not run in the other direction!!
2
It’s misleading to quote carbon emissions by country and only compare the US to much bigger countries or unions, such as China (1.4 billon people), India (1.3 billion) and the E.U. (0.5 billion). Per capita the US carbon emissions are unrivaled.
4
@Kurt Pickard
I'll tell you what I wouldn't do in my effort to curtail the emissions from other countries. I wouldn't pull out of a global treaty designed - for better or for worse - to curtail global emissions. I wouldn't continually dispute the science behind climate change. I wouldn't continue to promote coal use in lieu of natural gas and/or renewable energy.
I would lead by example, because it's my home, too.
2
Technologies exist today that can slow and perhaps even halt Climate change. What we need to do is to implement them with the fervor and determination that we exhibited on the Manhattan Project and the Interstate Highway System.
What are these technologies? Wind, solar, and fourth-generation advanced nuclear reactors that can turn nuclear waste (i.e. so-called "spent" nuclear fuel) into vast amounts of clean, affordable electricity with no carbon footprint.
Much as the fossil fuel lobbyists would have you believe otherwise, it is possible to produce all our electricity with little to no carbon footprint and save money in the process.
4
What are the insurance companies expectations for future cost increases due to climate change? They must have models. What is their view for non flooding areas?
2
@Dave Brown; You're on the right track. The private sector will solve the climate problem (if that's what it is) when economic determinants make it worthwhile to do so. The market is your friend, count on it to provide the right answers, and at a profit, too.
@Ronald B. Duke Trouble is, Ronald, that they will be closing the barn door after the horse has gone.
1
The motivation of climate deniers is exposed by their methods. As a scientist (PhD in Physics), if I doubt a publicly published theory, I search for a detailed explanation of the theory and its underlying DATA (!!) and assumptions. I also search for any supporting work or data-supported rebuttals. There are marvelous text books on Climate science. The data is published and available.
What I DON'T do is search for incriminating evidence in the emails of the scientists (See Prof Krugman's reference here to Dr. Mann). There is no more work involved in searching the science than researching the ridiculous idea that there is a conspiracy among 10,000 scientists in hundreds of research institutes. The conspiracy is among the 100 or fewer climate deniers who find far more money and satisfaction in exposing the supposed conspiracy than in studying the underlying science.
4
I think a helpful media graphic would be a side-by-side comparison of the average climate scientist's salary/compensation compared to a fossil fuel company executive as well as compared to those paid to opine from Republican run/funded 'think tanks.'
5
Paul Krugman is right on in describing the destructive results of fossil fuel influence on the climate debate, and it is shocking. I do want to point out though that Republicans are capable of climate action, as shown in the recent release of the "Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act", which will be re-released in the next Congress and is bi-partisan, as well as revenue neutral and effective. So we could all call our representatives and ask them to support this bill and give Republicans cover for actually working for us.
As I commented the other day on a different article in nyt, Trump simply lifted the veil of the Republican Party for every one to see. Thank you Dr. Krugman for confirming it. I personally feel Trump’s tweets, save few, should be in entertainment sections than in front pages to reduce his impact, so that it could save the endangered species in the Republican Party.
3
@Kodali
Those tweets will be in the entertainment section as soon as "we the people" send all Republicans out of DC and to Hollywood (where apparently both Trump and Cruz wanted to work, before they became professional politicians).
Until then, we'll have to deal with them, as they're coming from the most powerful political leader in the world.
Mr. Krugman was born in the wrong age. He would have made such a wonderful Puritan minister, calling out those whom he viewed as heretics and condemning them to climate hotness (or whatever).
There is nothing "anti-climate" or "anti-science" about being a climate skeptic. To the contrary, while the historical evidence of climate change over the past millennia (that is, changes in the climate, both hot and cold) is clear (and not denied by climate skeptics), the evidence of a material future change in climate due to man-made causes is ambivalent and relies, not on science, but on very crude and often incorrect models of future temperatures.
Krugman and his followers are the quasi-religious believers. They should present their views and be then participate in a scientific discussion and be willing to change their minds (perish the thought). They should not issue ukases and expect obedience.
2
@Uysses Yep, your comment illustrates my new thing - I no longer use the phrase 'climate change denial' or 'climate change believers' - instead I think it is more accurate to say ' those who understand climate change" and 'those who don't understand climate change', from either ignorance or willfullness or both.
4
@Grace Thorsen I appreciate your effort. But I think it still has a pejorative connotation. Perhaps it would be better for you to just say "those who believe that CO2 is the most important factor in climate change" and those who don't believe it is a material factor. A little wordy but much more accurate, scientifically speaking.
@Uysses
Name a single so-called "skeptic" who actively "participate(s) in a scientific discussion."
To get a sense how amature and professional climate change deniers worked the conversation check out comments of New York Times' old blog Dot Earth. When the topic was climate change or anything relating to putting the breaks on gogo oil and gas development, it seemed like industry PR/image flacks were signaled by the American Petroleum Institute to swarm the comments with denial and obfuscation. Dot Earth archive is a gold mine for anyone doing research on climate science communications. Great blog and is missed.
1
I think the problem also is that evangelical Christians and Catholics who typically vote for these science denying Republicans - believe that Jesus is coming back someday. In their Christian train of thought, even if climate science were true, it just doesn't matter to them if the world implodes. Jesus is coming back and will save the day.
2
We have gradually eroded our educational system to where sports have displaced science. China is churning out scientists like America used to. We have a population that gets more worked up over athletes standing for the national anthem than when 50 people get murdered in Las Vegas. Facts don't matter to them. I see them at trump rallies and I blame them personally for what has happened to our country and what will happen to our world. These are the same people whose children will hate them for their stupidity.
4
If climate scientists having been doing this "for the money" for 15 years and more they must be richer than Soros by now. Add money from their so-called "grants" and, well, uh...
It is useful, in this context, to recall the details of the Reagan administration. Specifically, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James G. Watt. Here are some choice quotes from Mr. Watt, which don't just presage Trumpism; they sound practically of a piece with it.
"I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns; whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations." (Testimony before House Interior Committee, Feb. 5, 1981)
"The Department of the Interior must be the amicus for the minerals industry in the court of federal policymaking." (Mother Jones, August 1981)
"I never use the words Democrats and Republicans. It's liberals and Americans." (Quoted in NY Times, 10 October 1983)
"We have every mixture you can have. I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent." (Statement before U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Sept. 21, 1983)
"If the troubles from environmentalists cannot be solved in the jury box or at the ballot box, perhaps the cartridge box should be used." (Phoenix New Times, Aug. 7, 1991)
It's all there. The unhinged denial of reality (we only need the environment to last until we get raptured out of here!), the industry cronyism, the manichean partisanship and the fascistic violence in rhetoric. I'm 35. Nothing has changed in my lifetime, and I am confused by older Americans who think things have.
3
@DanielWatt was a real piece of work. All of those idiotic statements/positions and it was his bad mouthing of the Beach Boys that got him dumped. Saint Ronnie and his lovely bride Nancy liked the Beach Boys.
It's hard to wrap your head around catastrophic climate change if you believe the earth is only 6000 years old.
We are a nation settled by religious extremists. We have managed to contain them somewhat, but they may yet end up being our downfall.
268
@Medusa
Exactly.
And then w're not talking yet about the fact that the GOP , as only conservative political party in the world, has made its base believe that "dictatorship" isn't a very specific kind of government, but ANY type of government intervention (especially those you don't like).
That makes it much more difficult to obtain a government BY the people, and allows huge special interests (read: the fossil fuel industry) to take over the country and pass one bill after the other that benefits them, rather than putting America first.
17
@Medusa It's hard to wrap your head around climate change if you don't understand climate science.
We are a nation consumed with Environmentalism as the 21st Century Hip Religion.
Those who don't buy into your faith are deemed "deniars" and "non-believers."
Tithing is central to your religion and hersey is punishable by ex-communication.
I'm afraid alright, but not by me driving a SUV.
I'm afraid of your desire to take power by whatever means necessary only to tell us 20 years from now when temps have again subsided globally (because that's what they do every 35 years due to NADO and PDO) that you're sorry..after driving our economy into the ground with your Virtue Signaling.
Enough with the Tesla's. My 2008 Mini Cooper has a lower carbon footprint than a Tesla.
1
@Erica Smythe
Proven science is the exact opposite of "faith".
Religion is where faith is necessary. You either decide to believe that God exists, which is a leap of faith, or you decide that he doesn't exist, which is equally a leap of faith.
Science doesn't require any faith. You can be entirely convinced that scientific theory x is wrong, for instance, but if it has been proven to be true, then even though you're convinced that it isn't, all that you need to experience how wrong your own "evident truth" was is to do the scientific experiment that proves it yourself.
In religion, there is NO way to prove a theory wrong or right.
And it's precisely because climate science is SCIENCE, not a religion at all, that the ENTIRE world has signed the Paris Climate accord, remember?
Only in America are conservative politicians trying to make its voter base believe that climate science is fake science and policies that do something about it wrong. In the rest of the world, conservatives are clearly confident enough in conservatism as a philosophy, to be able to win elections, for them not to need to start lying to their own base on such a massive scale.
As to your idea that Democrats are "taking power by whatever means necessary", rather than respecting democracy: any concrete example ... ?
In the meanwhile, the entire world is building electric cars today, so from a purely economical point of view, we HAVE to invest in it too, if we want to stay competitive...
32
Is Trump our Lord and Master, who determines truth?
Are we becoming, the US of T, the United States of Trump, now,
and we are moving towards, "planet Trump"?
My hope is that the country will soon flip over, with a "new birth of freedom" in spite of Donald Trump and his Trumpsters...
The Republican rot is really a function of another kind of rot. Our democracy has been molding into a ruinous form for some time. The fact that we can ignore and promote Republican, conservative rot is due to the putrid state of a democracy with citizens who have by in large part elected to be complainers and spectators. Until this basic people’s rot is eliminated, Republican rot in some form or other will continue.
“The credulousness of all too many journalists about the supposed misconduct revealed by “Climategate,” a pseudo-scandal that relied on selective, out-of-context quotes from emails at a British university, prefigured the disastrous media handling of hacked Democratic emails in 2016. (All we learned from those emails was that scientists are people — occasionally snappish, and given to talking in professional shorthand that hostile outsiders can willfully misinterpret.)”
Most of this column is correct, but the above quote is not. Krugman is right that Climategate was a nothingburger, but the Democratic emails revealed some genuinely newsworthy facts about what the Party was doing in the primaries, and who has influence on our foreign policy.
At first glance, the photo above this article portrays Pence as an innocent schoolboy at the feet of his fiendish master, eager to please him in creating and spreading evil. How disingenuously calming!
Perhaps the word ‘cauldron’ would be more apt in the headline than ‘crucible’ since its meaning connotes more demonic acts such as ‘witch hunts’ which our current leader claims to be the victim of.
Regardless, climate scientists, the media, the poor, the disenfranchised, the weak and more are all targets of this administration’s continuous, amorally nefarious behavior that has been sanctioned by groups such as Big Tobacco, Big Government, Big Guns, Big Pharma and the like for far too long.
Draining the swamp must only be the beginning of the end for this deplorable phase in our country’s history.
If not, it will surely be the end.
1
I remember as a teenager long ago seeing little, strange newsletters from the far right that were mailed around and shared with true believers in wild and outrageous theories and conspiracies. There has always been a nut-case far right in America. Now, they've gone mainstream. Their voices are multiplied endlessly and the nutcase conspiracies are repeated so frequently so that someone with a far right frame of mind would have to do some intellectual work, some thinking, to escape their influence.
More than a decade previously, I made it a habit to listen to Limbaugh on the radio to see what he was up to. He is a very clever and very slimy propagandist. He starts out typically with a short news item that consists of something not yet proven. Then, he blows that news story into something much larger. By the end of his "show" (and it is show business), that little theory has become PROOF, "proof, I tell you" that all the other right wing theories are true. He is reasonably intelligent and quite insane, living in a world of his own imagination and taking millions along with him into a wonderland where everyone who is against him and his ideas has immense power and acts from a position of evil intent, always.
Until lower Manhattan and half of Miami are under three feet of water, we can never know with absolute certainty that climate change is being caused by human action. By then, it would be too late, far too late.
4
@Doug Terry. The right wing media occupies most all the talk programs on radio. Even in liberal Massachusetts. Limbaugh modulates his voice to be entertaining. It is easy to see how less informed Americans can be led. It’s like listening to a carnival barker at a side show. Endlessly. And all along it is just keeping the audience tuned in for the next commercial.
The time has come to defend our American principles from these godless acolytes of Mammon. We once learned how to deal with their UnAmerican Activities. Bring these fellow-travellers into the light: demand that these agents of fear, discord and greed be forced to testify in open session, and answer, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Republican Party?"
For they are an existential threat to the compact made by the Founders of this nation and honored by all genuine citizens, those of us who submit to the rule of law and pay our fair share in taxes. We do so in the expectation that all who do so may flourish through cooperation, and in confidence that those who garner unlawful wealth by lying and cheating and oh-so-cleverly avoiding paying their fair share will be punished accordingly.
These liars and cheaters must be rooted out, and deposed from their positions in government and business. They must be forced to disgorge their unlawful wealth by civil forfeiture. And because there is no place for them in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, they must forfeit the privilege of American citizenship, and be summarily deported.
Redraw their gerrymandered districts, for it will be by unity that we will prevail over the liars and cheaters who would herd us, sheep-like, into the thrall of the hate-mongers of Fox and their ilk. We are smarter and more courageous than those callow creatures can possibly imagine. Let us pass from the dark and into the light.
If all registered Democrats (more than 44 million of them), along with their unregistered families (their children for instance) zeroed out their carbon emissions (it's possible to do this today), or set a goal to do that in the next few years, not only would the US go a long way towards getting its global warming gases under control, but they'd be a market force that industry would find hard to ignore and a more powerful political force.
Why don't they do this? Are they lazy or just cheap?
While trying to throw their pointless, worthless money on the counter for a couple drops of clean water and a rancid turnip, the deniers, as the rest of us, also perish of starvation and thirst.
Krugman has been wrong on so many things and his Opinions only echo the Trump Derangement Syndrome playbook.
The Economy didnt crash when Trump got elected Paul, and the earth as we know it isnt going to end anytime soon.
Enough with the Mass Hysteria already!
1
@SunnyandNice
Thanks for sharing your completely unsubstantiated opinions with us.
"Birds of a Feather Flock together" , like batty Bats.
The meek minded are inheriting the Earth and destroying it.
It's the general alternate reality culture. You also find it in 'the secret', 'prosperity gospel', and any amount of salesperson self-help books. See the unreality, be the unreality!
All I have to say to climate change deniers is this, "May the heat be with you."
The dynamics of the Republican party resemble those of a black hole. They have passed some kind of ethical event horizon and entered a region of ever intensifying amorality from which it is impossible to imagine them ever escaping.
My fellow suburban liberals; I have some bitter medicine for you to swallow. If you own a home without solar panels on the roof, and you have an SUV (or two) in your driveway, then you are part of the problem. I'm not suggesting we let up on the despicable deniers. I am suggesting that as we fight for government implementation of solutions, we can be doing a whole lot by ourselves in the meantime. Lead by example.
3
@Jim
That there can be no nuance in between using gasoline and being concerned about our long term energy strategy and environmental stewardship is the very essence of the anti intellectualism being talked about here.
Exactly - I only hope they live long enough to answer to their greed.
1
There is a great meme on the interwebs that shows a little boy asking his father, "Dad, whats science?"
And his father replies, "I dont know son. We're Republicans".
3
Yes Yes Yes!
It has been obvious to this old hippie that the republican party has been this close to full blown fascism for quite some time.
Between unending wars that benefit no one except the arms makers, indifference to curbing carbon emissions, refusals to act on semiautomatic weapons in the face of widespread carnage, and a full blown embrace of money equals citizenship, the republican party is the sole property of the fill in the blank industrial complex.
But the face of the party was always so pleasing: Reagan and the Bushes wore the mask of gentility while African Americans faced another form of Jim Crow, the middle class was hollowed out, and the poor rural areas were left with their opioid crises; all while being told it was their own faults.
Now t rump has ripped the mask of geniality off the face of the party and they stand exposed for what they have been all along. Ugly, malevolent and as unAmerican as can be.
1
There is an end in sight: the end of the human species.
Conservative scientific projections (in the non-political sense of the word, conservative, ironically) are about ten years from now.
More likely projections are that we're already on an unalterable path (people don't like to say this as it turns quickly into justification for further plunder and destruction, cf. Alaska). And it may even be shorter than ten years.
And yes, this isn't some "natural" inevitability, but the pure consequences of a small group of GOP politicians who are the servants of energy and technology groups (did you know that the pollution created and heat generated by the "internet and big data" competes with the oil industry for destructive power?).
The rich believe they can get off-planet and kill the rest of us in the process (cf. Elon Musk).
I think maybe it's time we turn that equation around. France is a start, though at present it is a "headless revolution."
But it's just the beginning.
There's further hope in the next, and probably final, crash of the global economy. May that happen in time to save the rest of us.
1
I believe climate science denial is the worst kind of entitlement...thinking one shouldn't have to sacrifice for Earth's future peoples.
175
There's some protests going on in France in part about carbon taxes but mostly as the French would say its about overthrowing the Bourgeoisie. No "deniers" there. India wants to harness the hydraulic wealth of the Himalayas. Over a billion people of India need water and clean hydro power. Should they stop construction. Who do they answer to? Paris? The WTO? The Green Party? Keep in mind the WTO refused loans to China on one of their water projects. The people of France, India and China aren't ignorant and crazy they're concerned with running and bettering their own lives. Something the left wing elites of EU and the US lost sight of.
If Krugman and his band of sheep followers actually believed in Climate Change (previously global warming until the data showed otherwise) and the catastrophic results to come this would be the only topic anyone would be talking about. Krugman is not actually concerned about climate change. If he truly believed that millions would die or even worse that the human race would go extinct, he wouldn't be using the issue to bash trump. We have lost the main stream left and right in this country. All we can hope for his that both parties collapse and we rise a new from the ashes.
1
"We’ve become accustomed to the spectacle of Donald Trump, the most corrupt president in history leading the most corrupt administration of modern times, routinely calling his opponents and critics “crooked.”
NO, WE HAVE NOT.
His boorish behavior and those of his acolytes will NEVER be something WE can become accustomed to.
I'd love to see the climate scientists offer to share their tax returns if Trump will do the same.
1
The trumpism GOP should change their party emblem to the Sabot. It is more representative of their attitude and actions.
If you like it I hate it.
Anything that causes political opponents pain is essential to these guys and repeated enough becomes their own truth. Political expediency literally "Trumps" everything.
Every night FOX news tells the tale. We are on at least a second decade of a party being defined by little other than fear and loathing.
2
Some consider the world imperiled primarily because the merchant class, which controls the politicians, who control the military, has become recklessly powerful to the point of self-annihilation, adding to that religious fanaticism viewing a threatened planet as a positive because it may hasten the Second Coming, the Messiah, etc.
Anyone who thinks there is a conspiracy among scientists to foist anything on an unsuspecting public doesn't understand science and scientists. It's comical.
A scientific conspiracy is as much an oxymoron as a herd of cats. Scientists like nothing better than tearing apart the work of their fellow scientists - when they can. Only when they can't will they grudgingly agree.
The only successful scientific "conspiracy" was the Manhattan Project I can think of- and that only worked because the scientists involved where shut up in a camp the middle of the New Mexico desert, their mail censored as if they were prison inmates.
A scientist
5
Hmmmm! I thought it was the deniers that were subject to harassment and threats. Many of the well-known "climate change enthusiasts" have suggested publicly that deniers should be jailed. Seems they deny the first amendment when it comes to global warming.
1
@George Fisher
Examples? You are making this up.
@George Fisher
Of course, you have some facts to back this up, right?
We had 2016 presidential debates in which not one moderator asked his or her own question on climate, and a negliblie amount of major TV news campaign coverage was devoted to the fact a science denier and obstructionist was the GOP candidate. Where are the microphones and cameras in GOP officials' faces? When it comes to covering GOP depravity on climate, the media has refused to confront officials in the way this growing catastrophe demanded long ago. Or, in the case of Fox, done real evil.
1
Really, there is not a lot of money in climate research that reveals global warming. The money ($$$) is in climate denial! So if all these global warming scientists were really that greedy and dishonest, they would switch their conclusions and work for the oil companies. That is where the money is to be made.
I recall, years ago, some climate scientist who made a big stink in a skeptical documentary about how the National Science Foundation would not fund him because he was researching an atmospheric chemical reaction that resulted in cooling. Well, he finally got his funding after that big stink. The effect he found turned out to, yes, cool the atmosphere, but the effect was negligible.
1
Unfortunately the Republicans think that to be pro-God they need to be anti-science and anti-intellectual. What they don't understand is that they are being anything but pro-life.
3
And the roots of climate denialism are in the incoherent arguments and conspiracy theories of creationism.
@Rob E
I agree, fundamentalist religious beliefs condition people to believe nonsense.
We've understood all this for years if not decades. A descriptive analysis is useful if you're Rip Van Winkle and you just woke up. What I'd rather hear from Paul Krugman and other experts passionate about our intellectual/moral decay is what to do about it.
Voters just turned the House and Governorship in historical numbers. However, Lame duck Republicans are busy gutting Democratic authority using power granted to them through aggressive partisan gerrymandering on the state level. Clearly, voting the bums out isn't an entirely effective solution to Trumpian woes.
Rather than talking about all the misdeeds and transgressions, why can't columnists suggests useful policy or political strategy to combat these alarming trend? We know the Republican party is willfully corrupt. They are fundementally opposed to long-term prosperity and well-being in America. Okay. What do we do about it? Our normal democratic levers aren't levering anymore.
1
Germany and especially China continue to increase their CO2 emissions
Under the fracking program favored by trump US emissions continue to diminish
So much for demonizing trump
1
@Doug Brockman
Both countries have a long way to go before they meet US per capita CO2 emisions. The average American creates over 5 times the emissions as the average Chinese.
Actually Krugman, it’s the other way around. Finally, I have a President who shares my viewpoint.
1
@hawk
Yes, amazing that we have such a stupid an as President.
1
For some reason I was thinking of eels. To catch an eel, you cannot reach one hand in and pull it out. Hooks are not very effective. What you need it a net. Which brings me to the Trump Republicans. It is the confluence of Wisconsin gerrymandering, Miami corruption, the Kavanaugh disgrace, fawning over Russia, and the steady drumbeat of indictments, on top of policies that are selfish and dangerous that will arouse enough people to put stop to it. Playing while Rome burns. Oh, that was another corrupt ruler.
Trump can't stand the heat of the kitchen, let alone a crucible.
The pin point target of my home in that hurricane Florence chart is nothing more than modern art to the trumpence - the invisible thought bubble over trump's head in the photo is "what's this?".
"What kind of party would show such support for a leader who is not only evidently corrupt and seemingly in the pocket of foreign dictators, but also routinely denies facts and tries to criminalize anyone who points them out?" Because all that is EXACTLY what the GOP is!
Typical of the GOP - threatening and menacing those doing good - like saving their lives, their health and - heaven forbid - education. Much like the moral rot of religions and cults over millennia when their dogma is questioned or revealed for the farce that it is. "Just look at what's going on", as trump would say, at what Christians did to Galileo.
We're no longer the center of the universe? Inconceivable! The Earth isn't flat? Inconceivable! Why the media continues to give these deniers and trumpists an audience is inconceivable to me.
Perhaps scientists can release all their emails if their attackers release all of their emails - including Cuccinelli, the Kochs, etc. If it affects the public interest, why not?
It's no longer willful ignorance. It is just willful. Indeed, it's intentional.
Unfortunately, it's the public interest versus the political-private class, and the latter is winning - the depraved deplorables.
There's just one thing missing here: the money. The GOP propagates this nonsense because of who pays its bills. The oil and gas industries overwhelming give to the GOP over Dems. The suckers at the bottom who think they are such rebels against liberal elitist intellectuals are missing how their rage and pride have been stoked by corporate interests above looking to keep open their cash flow even if that business is going to bring the whole planet down.
What one thinks re: climate change doesn't matter. Mother Nature runs the show regardless of what baby steps humanity takes to combat her. See: Global Heating rolls on.
As with all else Republican.....follow the money. Trump should bring back the cigarette boxes and lighters and conveniently place them all around the White House. And why go through the time and trouble of cancer screenings? All a waste of time...invented to make money for the medical and pharmaceutical industries. You simply cannot cherry pick your science because you find the results unappealing to your portfolio or your wallet. Unless, of course, you live way up in a high rise where the rising sea waters can't reach you. And, sooner or later, the Big Macs and the inactivity WILL catch up to Trump. My science tells me it will be sooner. Well disbelief in climate science will doom the planet. Disbelieve in high fat food and inactivity will save it.
Yes, but why ? If you're sitting on the tracks and someone tells you a train is coming, does it matter whether that person is a Dem or a Repub ? Reports seem to indicate that most religious fanatics are Repubs, but most Repubs aren't religious fanatics, are they ? Don't some Repubs breathe the same polluted air as the Dems, don't they have homes on the same beaches as the Dems, don't they have children that will be terribly affected by the damage to farmlands ? Are they tossing that all aside for short range financial gain ? Don't Repubs benefit from science, don't they have phones, don't they use the internet, don't they have MRI's, aren't they vaccinated against terrible diseases, don't they take antibiotics against syphilis and other scourges ? Why do Repubs ignore warnings from those who know things ? Why ?
1
The antecedents of the climate change denialists lie in the long history of antipathy to developments in environmental science that threaten the profits of powerful business interests. As Richter et al. (2002) aptly stated, “In most scientific fields, the rewards go to investigators who report positive findings. But in the environmental sciences, the situation is the opposite. In environmental and occupational medicine, and in epidemiology and related disciplines, ‘positive’ findings about hazards and risks are threatening to powerful interests. Investigators who study or report these risks are therefore at increased risk for harassment by the very nature of their work. … Environmental scientists and occupational health and safety professionals measure and report health risks from exposures to toxic and physical agents so that preventive measures can be put into effect. As a result of their work, they may be subjected to harassment, lawsuits, ostracism, job loss, loss of funding, intimidation, abuse, threats, or even force after reporting such risks, or are prevented from investigating or reporting risks altogether.” Today, climate scientists can regrettably be included in this infamous list. And so was I. I discuss this issue at length in my forthcoming book, Enemy No. 1, Waging the War on Secondhand Smoke. James L. Repace
How unusual, rare tornadoes in December in Illinois. 23 rare events. Hmmm, I thought Amageddon was supposed to come AFTER the Rapture, not before it. Somebody explain please.
Why are Pence and Trump staring at that piece of cardboard? Are they waiting for it to move? This photo perfectly encapsulates the idiocy of this White House; During an ongoing natural disaster, someone took the time to create a blowup of a computer image and put it on an easel for a photo-op instead of just plunking a laptop down in front of the dunces or directing their attention to a tv display. And if this were after the fact, wouldn't a computerized record or model of the storm's movement and path have been more useful still? Behold, America, two men who have never solved an actual problem in their lives.
2
The maxim for deniers: Real men don't do science.
1
Get a basketball. Now cover it with plastics wrap.
This represents the earth and the atmosphere that surrounds it.
Keep pumping carbon and other pollutants into that thin cover...
If that doesn't give you pause for thought, we have no hope.
PS And by the way, the earth doesn't give a fig what party you vote for.
The light has gone out of the Republican party...let them dance in their darkness, let them kiss their gold, and suckle on their corruption like greedy infants, let them genuflect to steel, petroleum and coal.
The GOP is not who we are. Our duty is to continue to shine the light, be the light that seeks solutions, and alternatives, that recognizes the divinity in all living things.
Let Republicans have their waters of denial. We have something much more powerful: consciousness.
If you want to be charitable and respectful , when talking about many Trump supporters , you should avoid words like unintelligent and ignorant . But if you want to be painfully honest , you should use those words . If Trump was right about something is that there is too much political correctness .
1
These conspiracy theories seem to have something in common. It seems when the truth is so damning to closely help positions the only way to maintain the position is deny the truth.
When the Sandy Hook shootings exposed the dangers of free access to fast, powerful guns, people went as far as to suggest the shooting was a hoax. An extreme example to be sure, and of course the need to make up an alternate narrative is an even greater condemnation of both those who would do nothing about guns, and harmful emissions.
I beg to differ Paul. If you go back and cross reference Trump campaign speeches, surveys, exit polls and his rallies, what sticks out, above all else, is fear of white culture displacement. Hence the immigration harangue. The Trump electorate sees the year 2042 right around the corner .. the year demographers say that ethnic and racial minorities will become the majority. The panic driven malice this has created drowns out everything else. Truly sad...
“Plus ca change plus c’est la meme chose.” Recall the persecution of Galileo by the Church which was in denial of his demonstration that the earth was not the center of the cosmos. This only became a threat when when the Reformation challenged its authority. This led to the Thirty Years War.
I quibble that it started with climate change. I've said for years that the scariest fact about the United States is that fully half the population refuses to "believe in" evolution.
That should be a *terrifying* statistic. This isn't the kind of number you find in a developed country - it's the kind that you associate with failed states in Africa or the Middle East where people still believe that witches exist or that sex with a virgin can cure AIDS. For a long time the U.S. has tried to deal with this by sort of pretending it didn't exist - let the educated, rationalist, (for lack of a more PC word) *smart* people be in charge of science and of science-related governance, and just sort of ignore all the Dark Ages believers in the background who benefit from their science along with the rest of the population. But the Dark Ages types won't allow themselves to *be* ignored, it's not in their nature, and they're deluded enough not to realize just how much of their lifestyle comes from the smart people. That was always something we were going to have to reckon with somewhere down the road.
I'm of the opinion that denial of man-made climate change on the part of the president is an impeachable offense because by denying it the president is doing irreparable harm to the country.
If the scientists are correct, and I think they are, then four years of Trump and the GOP's energy policies could actually put our planet over the tipping point. I'm sixty-six, and won't be alive to see the worst of the damage. Those of you with young children, however, are in a different situation. Your children in adulthood will likely suffer greatly because of our collective indifference right now.
Who stands to benefit from climate science denial? And zooming out further, which capital interests are beneficiaries of Trump policies? White working class people (men in particular) have been duped so hard. It is much easier to sell the plight of structurally displaced or unemployed working class communities in Appalachia than it is for those same employers to advocate for their bottom lines. However, attributing corruption to 1 political party is self-serving, and intellectually lazy, as it furthers the partisan divide instead of revealing the class/capital divide that is one of biggest forces in climate skepticism..
It is shocking to me, though it shouldn't be, that too many Americans are willing to give up clean air and water, and a healthier future, for purely political reasons.
It seems to fly in the face of reason and even self-preservation that they are willing to accept a brewing cataclysm of catastrophic, life-threatening storms along with the cesspool of political rot that characterizes the Trump administration.
It is said that a frog placed in a pot of cold water on a stove will remain there, ultimately boiling to its death, after the flame underneath it is turned on.
Why is it that so many Americans are more interested in supporting Trump, in spite of his disregard for the environment and climate, even as he places them at risk of becoming the proverbial frog?
Denial of climate change is criminal fraud; they tell lies intending to prevent us from regulating pollution from heat-trapping gasses. Their criminal fraud has and will cause massive damage, and there must be a legal remedy. It is not too late for blame. They must pay for the damage they've cause. At the very least, they must fund the FEMA budget for climate related disasters -- floods, droughts, and fires. I say "they" and I wonder; who do we sue?
I wonder how much Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" contributed to the politicization of climate change in the US. Having the issue solidly tied to a Democratic presidential candidate like that may have caused a knee-jerk reaction from Republicans who didn't like Gore or didn't want to be associated with Democratic positions, even if defies reason (i.e. scientific consensus). It would be tragically ironic if Gore's passion on this, which I support, actually hindered our progress as a nation.
@Andy
How on earth can we blame Al Gore for inaction?!? His movie mild and apolitical, compared to the devastating science it exposed. The scene where he used a cherry-picker to draw the upward curve of CO2 in the atmosphere was shocking. It would only add to the blame we should heap on Republicans that they might blame their recklessness and irresponsibility on their dislike of one determined politician who tried to raise our awareness.
You do realize that the denial of truth, economic greed and blind indifference that has characterized much of the US response to climate change over the last 30 years is and was a progenitor of Trumpism. Indeed, Trump serves as a warning- perhaps one of the few, of what happens when a society collectively denies the truth- putting itself and the world in great peril.
@Lowell Greenberg
The image of Trump as a canary in the coal mine would make a great cartoon.
"...that corruption isn't a problem of 'politicians' or the 'political system.' It's specifically a problem of the Republican Party..."
The worst fossil fuel companies and the worst corrupt billionaires were able to hijack a major political party largely because of problems with the political system.
1. The Supreme Court decision that corporations are people under the 14th Amendment allows them to donate as much as they want to a political campaign or PAC.
2.,The electoral college system allowed the candidate who loses the popular vote to become the president in 2000 and 2016. President Al Gore would have addressed the climate problem, and also probably avoided two wars and a devastating financial collapse.
3. Under the Constitution, every state gets two U.S. Senators no matter how populous. This means Wyoming, North Dakota, Idaho, Montana and Utah have five times the clout of California. This makes it easier for wealthy interests to pollute the political process and the planet: they can easily buy a Senate majority by locating businesses and backing politicians in states with few people but a lot of clout.
4., The end of the FCC Fairness Doctrine in the 1980s paved the way for nonstop right wing talk radio hosts like Rush Lamebrain and fact-free networks like Fox News. They have been able to brainwash much of the populace this way.
Yes, Prof. Krugman, the Republican Party is responsible for the mess, but the political system allowed them to succeed.
@Dave
Yes, the disproportionate power of states like Wyoming and North Dakota and Alaska which get two Senators each is exacerbated by those states' economic reliance on the fossil-fuel industry. The power of those states to dictate national energy policy is self-serving and dangerous.
Al Gore just summed it up perfectly, during an interview with Trevor Noah: a majority both globally and inside the US strongly rejects Trump and his insulting, amoral, corrupt mafia-style of talking and acting, as president.
And now WHO has become the international face of climate science denying? Not one or the other highly respected scientist, but ... Trump.
So yes, the GOP's approach to science and energy of the last two decades, and their approach to government of the last decades (= mainly based on lying and cheating and working only for their wealthiest donors) had directly led to them nominating someone like Trump.
But by doing so, they're signalling to the entire world what a joke climate science denying actually is.
And that in itself may have some positive effects, after all ...
This fails on multiple levels:
"First, if we fail to meet the challenge of climate change, with catastrophic results — which seems all too likely — it won’t be the result of an innocent failure to understand what was at stake. It will, instead, be a disaster brought on by corruption, willful ignorance, conspiracy theorizing and intimidation."
The biggest problem is casting this a a political problem that can be solved. Similar to using 'problem to be solved' logic when you are in the middle of a car crash. There are no good solutions and at best all you can do is maintain what control you can with human progress and growth being the core issues. Of course what is going on now is the opposite of what should be done where you aren't doing nothing but exactly the wrong things, eg burning more coal, funding more oil drilling, etc. Like stepping on the gas and accelerating in a car crash.
Climate change is caused by acquisition, exploitation and consumption. And yet we are supposed to believe that the governments of the world who fostered all of this are going to solve it.
1
@PeterC Even the concept of any "solution" is not possible with world population on track to add another 3 or 4 billion people over the next three or four decades. Like looking for solutions if you were on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. The reaction now is something like just having an open bar for the first class passengers.
Seems like the French are rioting in protest over climate change, those anti-science, climate change deniers.
They are protesting their government declaring climate change a convenient excuse for extracting even more of their hard earned money.
And here I thought Europeans, unlike Americans, are fully in support of the government expanding control due to the dire threat of "climate change".
Is rational the same as what you deride as "anti-science"? Is funding the multi-decade government boondoggle a litmus test for scientists?
1
I think this misses one of the more troubling aspects of "Climate-gate"--scientists discussing the suppression of test data and information because of its potential effects on political decisions.
It doesn't matter if the climate change consensus is 100% right or that the scientists had the best intentions of promoting the truth and avoiding misinformation and distortion of inelegantly crafted comments. That is not the role of science--restricting information to control the narrative and thereby influence policy--and it is a slippery slope to converting what should be scientific discourse into propaganda.
The First Amendment is based on the principle that with free, open discourse, the truth will rise from the chaos of opposing points of view. Jettisoning that principle--even if you are *sure* that the other side is lying--is at best a short term gain and can only lead to long-term harm.
There is also a troubling paternalism that the unwashed masses somehow are incapable of processing conflicting information, and therefore some elite-determined consensus must be fed to them (and other viewpoints or information blocked). This is antithetical to the founding principles of our nation, as well as rife with the potential for misuse and the encouragement of a propaganda state.
Even if you think you're right or have noble goals, it's still propaganda to distort and control the flow of information. (Most dictators and fascists believe they are right too)
@PH Wilson
The First Amendment is a thorny issue when it comes to climate change. Yes, Fox News may have a First Amendment defense to giving 70% of airtime to science deniers which gave the Republican Party as a whole plausible deniability for their climate change denial (and even made denial a litmus test in gerrymandered hard-right districts), but what is the result? Suicide by free speech. You can't yell FIRE! in a crowded movie theater; likewise, you can't say NO FIRE! as flames lick theater walls.
If you want to really plumb the depths of our current crisis of belief, you have to go back to capitalism's early bargain with the devil, when it became not only justifiable but completely expected that ordinary standards of truthfulness never apply to speech used to sell or market ... anything. "Caveat emptor" was smugly invoked by every snake oil salesman confronted by angry dupes. And thus the disintegration of the bedrock of verifiable facts has become a continent on which the only buildable land is quicksand. It started with the private sector at a time when citizens of ordinary prudence could be expected to perform due diligence and avoid being duped. Crude exaggeration, absurd claims... nobody was really fooled. But now, the sophistication of scientific enterprise is wielded by the powerful in commerce, medicine, government, non-profit - even religion - and no one could expect6 a citizen of ordinary prudence and competence to spot the increasingly sophisticated lies, we're left with not much more than tribal loyalties on which to base allegiance. No one can actually stop lying and win anything. I do not see how this experience-based cynicism can be reversed.
What pre-dated climate denalism? Good old "Intelligent Design." Pseudo-science got a firm foothold in the American conservative movement decades ago. The press gave it a pass in order to "respect religion" and "show both sides of the argument." Give an inch and they will take a mile.
2
A very shrewd observer of people H.L. Mencken observed. " The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule" Protecting humanity from climate changes is just the latest version of this urge to rule.
@wes evans
You seem to have forgotten the "almost" in your quote ... ?
Each day, humanity puts 100,000 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere (a closed chemical system).
That's the equivalent of 500,000 Hiroshima bombs exploding each and every day.
And somehow your fear of dictatorship would lead you to prefer to put your head in the sand rather than doing something about the consequences of such a huge and proven to be extremely dangerous transformation, by humanity, of our atmosphere ... ?
You have one quote, the rest of the world has tons of scientific studies proven that we're doing something wrong today, globally, something VERY wrong...
1
There is considerable evidence that the climate deniers are the same people who denied that cigarette smoking caused cancer.
There is a lot of money being spent to maintain the status quo.
That money finds its way to congressional campaigns. The only way out is mandatory public campaign financing so elected leaders work not for the money, but for the people.
1
When most of the candidates for the Republican Party's nomination for the Presidency refused to say on stage that they believe in Evolution, what can you expect from them about climate science?
When biblical creationism is taught in some schools as a superior or at least equivalent theory to biological evolution, what can you expect?
We have a Republican Party that has sacrificed its soul for the temporary high of power. It will not last. Science is not about to be defeated by ignorance, any more than truth losing out to lies. The only question is whether or not the damage they have already done to the Nation can be repaired in time.
3
For a sentient species such as Homo sapiens, the level of general intelligence necessary to create a technological civilization is less than the level of intelligence necessary to maintain a technological civilization.
Climate change is demonstrating this proposition in spades.
3
Since the Eisenhower years, the Republican party has been the party of selfishness (let's stop using the milder term "self-interest"). From Nixon on, the party's primary mission (ignoring Ike's admonition about the military-industrial complex) has been to do the bidding of its chief donors: the arms manufacturers, the gun makers, the Big Energy and Big Agro combines, the profit-driven Big Banks and trading houses. The party's complete subservience to Trump isn't an abdication, it's a continuation of what has defined it for decades. Reminder to Democrats: Barack Obama won a second term because he was able to paint Mitt Romney convincingly as a corporate shill.
5
I would go even further back than climate change. The repudiation, beginning in the 1970's and crystallizing in the 1980's, of Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes' economic theories with the economic charades of trickle down economics and the Laffer curve (let's leave Milton Friedman out of this, shall we?) seemingly invented not empirically, but to align with the oligarch wanna-be's trickle down economics. Stephen Moore is the current face of these fallacies.
2
Climate denial is part of a larger collective narrative of the GOP, woven from many threads, that they are the protectors of America. In this mythology, the rest of the world seeks to bring down America, while Democrats try to destroy it from within.
This mythology encompasses trade, immigration, social services, gender and ethic/racial politics, gun laws, environmental protection and the military.
This belief among the strongest supporters of the GOP is likely only to intensify with the upcoming struggles of a divided government.
The two forces pushing in the opposite direction are regionalism and much of the corporate community, excluding the fossil energy sector.
States representing more than two thirds of the national economy are moving away from the GOP in virtually all of the areas above. They are likely to contest the centralization of power in Washington as increasingly unrepresentative of actual American interests, as rural area populations shrink and large metros grow.
If money talks in politics, it is likely to increasingly oppose the retrograde politics of the GOP. Of the 24 House seats supported by Bloomberg, 21 of them are now Democratic.
The GOP may ultimately be defeated by the game they created. And future budget constraints are likely to slow the flow of Federal tax transfers to the states they continue to dominate.
Things change.
3
For more on this topic read Dark Money by Jane Mayer.
One chapter reveals that the gas/oil/coal billionaires hold in reserves in the earth five times the capacity of what can safely be burned with out causing catastrophic climate change. Continued profit drives their own self interest and they invest in the propaganda machine that is needed to confuse the issue and drive doubt. Mayer likens these actions to those of the tobacco industry in obfuscating the connection between smoking and cancer. The difference here is that all life on earth will suffer the consequences for the greed and self-interest of a few billionaires.
3
Excellent article. Please Mr. Krugman, extend an invitation to your colleagues Nobel Prize economists and together issue a call to all CEOs and business leaders in general. The world must know that economically speaking, it makes sense to shift rapidly to sustainable forms of energy and clean technology in order to reverse the climate warming and Not be faced with the impossible: the catastrophic future predicted by scientists coupled with economic entropy, which combined will make it even hard to correct..
It is imperative to recognize the fact that Trump's supporters are affected by what has been called "primitive morality". What this means is that this humanchallenge must be addressed in ways that will bring results, for a poor understanding of facts and scientific reasoning requires teaching methodologies designed to explain the task at hand in ways that are easier to comprehend; but nonetheless are/can be grasped as being acceptable and therefore not ideological but meant to bring future results that benefit all, that helps a country and indeed the whole world transit to a new phase of human existence predicated on a sustainable economy in safe manner.
It's not rocket science. The GOP long ago sold its soul to big business and special interests and there's no bigger business than Big Oil. Their livelihoods are under direct threat by climate change science and they have spent billions doing everything possible to undermine the science and the people who are taking the truth to the general public. You think buying off a presidential candidate who was already hostile to environmentalists was too big a stretch for them? Let's not be naive.
5
There has always been a conflict between the moneyed interests and the rest of us. The Republican Party originated in the mid-nineteenth century as a coalition between the moneyed interests and abolitionists. The abolitionists got what they wanted with the 13th-15th amendments, and faded from the party. That left only the corporate interests as the core of the party.
Rich people and corporations seem to have a strong libertarian streak: they strenuously object to any type of laws or regulations (i.e., government interference) that puts limits on their acquisition of wealth and power. Corporate interests, of course, have the advantage of oodles of money (e.g., the Kochs, Mercers, Adelsons, Rupert Murdoch and the Sinclair group). The Kochs fund "think tanks" dedicated to finding ways of selling their views to the masses. Murdoch and the Sinclair group provide the means (propaganda networks) to sell their libertarian views: "liberty", "freedom", "low taxes", "deregulation", "religious liberty". These things sound good, but in reality they are not actually meant for the little people--they are meant for the Kochs, the Mercers, the Murdochs, et al., so that they can continue to fleece the rest of us.
Tackling the problem of global warming and climate change means governmental intervention. It is therefore anathema to the corporate interests, and to the core of the Republican Party.
5
Where is the green equivalent of the Manhattan Project? The Apollo Program? Oh right, these were science based efforts...nevermind.
Well then what about the money? It seems to me, there is possibly money to be made in remaking modern society in a way that is less harmful to the Earth. You'd think that a whiff of new green revenue that could last generations would turn a few heads in the investor class away from a fossilized revenue stream that will eventually dry up. Doesn't the investor class control the GOP. Isn't someone going to play the long game here?
It seems not, so it looks like we are going to foul the nest. The good news is that even if humanity does not survive its own ignorance, the Earth will continue to orbit the sun without us. The Earth will survive like it always has before.
4
"Where is the green equivalent of the Manhattan Project? The Apollo Program? Oh right, these were science based efforts...nevermind."
Reaganite "government is the problem not the solution" dogmas (which have penetrated much deeper into the public consciousness than most people realize) has done a lot to neuter the prospect of things like that.
If the federal government suggested something like the electrification of the Tennessee Valley, or the Marshall Plan, or the Interstate Highway system, or the Space Race, in *this* era, conventional wisdom from not just right-wing but mainstream outlets would be that it simply couldn't be done. It's impossible. Government, Very Serious People teach us, is inherently incapable of running such complex and expensive programs. And even if they could, it would be so costly and inefficient that it would bankrupt the nation. And even if it didn't, it's morally wrong for the government to Do Big Things, because reasons.
Of *course* we could do a Green Manhattan Project, and it would be just as beneficial economically (the opportunity for lots of well-paying jobs) as it would environmentally. But for ideological reasons, we've decided not to.
It's really mind-blowing to watch the U.S. essentially commit slow-motion suicide. It's kind of like seeing a Christian Scientist die horribly from an eminently treatable illness, while furiously keeping the doctors, nurses, or EMTs at bay with a loaded gun.
1
As other commenters have noted, the news media bear some responsibility. I recall listening to a discussion about climate change on NPR some years ago. At the time, 90% of climate scientists agreed that human-caused climate change was occurring. Yet NPR invited two scientists, one pro and one con, and gave them equal time and equal credence, thereby conveying an inaccurate message that there was no consensus and scientific opinions were divided 50-50.
Another practice that should be ended is asking in opinion polls, "Do you believe in climate change?" Framing the issue that way conveys the misinformation that climate change is just a notion that one may choose to believe, similarly to a belief in God. In reality, it constitutes fact stemming from scientists' carefully controlled observation, experimentation, and computer modeling. A better question might be, "Do you accept the scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is occurring?"
The news media, and spineless Democrats, should stop enabling corporate-financed Republican misinformation.
5
@ch Thank you, ch...you sound like a lone voice in Indiana, the land of belief-based politics and delusional religion.
1
Thank you, Mr. Krugman for pointing out that this a problem caused by the republican party. Something that has been obvious for years but for which way too many still attribute to 'politicians'. If we can't be clear about the cause we'll never solve anything.
2
Several centuries ago the Catholic Church had serious problems with the science indicating that the earth is not the center of the solar system and universe. This time it's the Fossil Fuel Church threatened by science.
3
The 97% figure is a dangerous figure to bandy about with improper explanation, because it doesn't, but it doesn't (or at least, shouldn't) actually refer to the opinions of individual scientists, but to their work in peer reviewed journals.
It's precisely the gloss of 'we achieve scientific truth via popularity contest' that sends many folks into science denialism. Yes, 97% of climatologists in several surveys support the facts of anthropogenic climate change. But that's a separate fact from the percentage of peer reviewed literature that supports the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
And that figure is roughly 97-98%, with the remaining research being highly suspect, at best.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5
2
To raise the level of awareness of the devastating affects of climate change the scientific community must educate the public. Politicans will not do it because they will be out of office and dead before the worse affects are felt.
The problem facing the scientific community is how do they raise the money for this educational campaign. Who is going to pay for it? Government's budget is already huge as is our deficits. What elected official is going to commit political suicide by recomending a further increase in our deficit?
Climate change needs to be tackled at the United Nation's level and a formula needs to be developed to allocate the cost of doing so. This problem is global and needs to be addressed at that level.
2
@sbanicki - The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the international treaty trying to address the problems of climate change and how we mitigate and adapt to it.
George H.W. Bush signed for the US in 1992, which was the right thing to do, after the Senate OK'd it, which was the right thing to do.
https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/102nd-congress/38
He didn't push hard to actually limit emissions, though.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2012/05/08/countdown-to-rio20-george-bush-senior-starts-20-years-of-stalemate/
The US, currently still the top emitter of CO2 over the span of the industrial age, has taken steps to limit emissions, but nations like Germany have pushed harder - their CO2 emissions are now lower than in the mid-1960s.
Emission targets and limits here, due mostly to the Republican Party's denial (esp. since Citizens United) have become work that states, cities and corporations are taking on, though R&D programs and support, and popular voluntary programs like EnergyStar, have lowered costs of renewable and storage technologies, and led to more-efficient appliances, buildings and vehicles.
Just an aside - the Trump buildings tend to do very poorly on the EnergyStar ratings for efficiency.
"Of the 100 largest buildings listed in Chicago’s 2016 Energy Benchmarking database, the president’s 98-story riverfront tower ranks last in energy performance with a score of nine". That's a 9 out of a possible 100.
Anti science is not the exclusive domain of the right. The anti vaccine movement is very much coming from the left, and interestingly has Trump on board.
1
@Len -- it doesn't really matter where anti-science comes from, but the biggest populations of anti-vaxxers, and all the recent measles outbreaks, have been among the ultra-religious ... of various sects.
And today anti-vax beliefs are much more common among the far right generally, as part of the paranoia about "government control" and the belief that the government is doing awful secretive things -- the kind of people who believed in "pizzagate," or are currently QAnon followers, or believe in "chem trails" ... are likely to be anti-vax.
@Lenu..... To anti vaccine movement you might add those on the left who are anti-GMOs.
The vast majority of liberals, progressives, whatever you want to call them, reject the insanity of the anti-vaxxers. That is why there is no equivalence. All conservatives active in politics have become minions of anti-science fossil fuel propagandists and have been quite willing to support other anti-science nonsense.
Dr. Krugman states that Donald Trump is “…the culmination of where his party has been going for years.” I, for one am not at all surprised. Since the early 1980s Evangelical Christians, a majority of whom are skeptical of science and see scientific facts and theories in conflict with religion, have worked to influence the Republican platform and become the base of the party. The Republican Party of today is not forward thinking, but an anachronistic vehicle working hard to move our country back to a much bleaker future
14
@Linda Quinn You mean, Christian shariah rule? Everybody who is literate: read Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation. He described all of this succinctly.
Fourth, the press (especially producers) are at fault and have contributed greatly to the ignorance of the electorate by continuously promoting false equivalency and to offer equal air time to any ''debate'' on climate change as a whole.
It's doubly hard to persuade anyone when you might have a scientist on television trying to explain (maybe somewhat dryly) as to how the snow caps are melting and what disastrous effects that might have, versus showing a Senator bringing a snowball onto the Senate floor and declaring it to be cold outside.
What happens is the former clip might be played one or two times, but the latter clip is played again, and again , and again, and ...
You get the picture.
272
@FunkyIrishman Agree. The press was similarly unprepared to deal with evolution, presenting it as a theory, as if theory means not a fact.
23
@FunkyIrishman
I agree 100%. The press is now a big problem on this issue. I can remember screaming at the TV during the endless 2016 presidential debates. There were simply NO questions regarding climate change posed to either candidate in any debate. NOTHING. Astonishing. Is CNN and MSNBC simply afraid of the topic. Does it threaten their revenue stream? It’s these myopic processes that is guaranteeing that we will find out how this catastrophe will unfold.
14
@Terry McKenna
A scientific theory is NOT a fact. It is an "explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation".
6
Everything Dr. Krugman says is true. But America has always flirted with anti-intellectualism. In 1963, in the wake of McCarthyism, the historian Richard Hofstadter published his Pulitzer Prize winning book, "Anti-Intellectualism and American Life." In it, he argued that there has always been a tension between populist ideals and notions of intellectualism that rely on so-called "elites" (or "eggheads" in his day). McCarthyism was just one manifestation of this phenomenon.
But now we live in such a complicated world, reliant on experts and technology for everything. Instead of embracing knowledge and expertise, the current Republican Party (or whatever it has metastasized into) embraces anti-intellectualism in order to 1) appeal to people's fear and loss of agency ("What do those experts know anyway? Nobody's going to tell me what to do!"); and 2) to leverage that fear for greater power and financial gain.
Unfortunately for all us, climate change is an existential threat that cannot withstand anti-intellectualism. Unless the Republican Party once again embraces science, facts, and truth, our entire planet remains at mortal risk.
370
@jrinsc:
"...America has always flirted with anti-intellectualism."
More than a flirtation. It's been a red-hot, bedpost-banging love affair for more than 200 years. Alexis de Tocqueville saw it plainly and described it in his journals and books.
Which I should really sit down and read in full. There's no time to waste.
28
@jrinsc
I've said a hundred times now, I'll say it again - education, education, education...the republicans have eroded education, limited voting, thwarted science at every corner. This is reflected in urban voters favoring Dems and rural favoring Repubs. And, on that note, don't give me that "it's not that simple" argument, yes, it is that simple. A relatively small number of well educated republican "leaders" are doing their best to hold onto power and control their base with misinformation, playing on bigotry and superstitious tendencies of their poorly educated base. Speaking of superstition, religion plays a role here; when Newt Gingrich polarized politics after G.H.W. Bush made a reasonable compromise on taxes and then the repubs embraced the religious right, it played a synergistic role in the polarization - faith being used as a tool to promote willful ignorance of science and facts. I recall a writer (NYT?) predicting back then that the republican party as we know it would cease to exist in 20 years. Nostradamus much?
32
@jrinsc
The Republican Party embraces the uniformed voters that sacrifice their economic interests for their religious interests.
Pander to their fears, prejudices, and convictions that they are the "real Americans" and you've got them.
Of course the money men that finance it all care not about God, guns, gays and fetuses. They care only about money and power.
25
Did you not see Bernie Sanders' Town Hall meeting on climate change last night? It was live-streamed on all the major social networks. Instead of pointing out the who, why and how of climate deniers, let's get behind the movement to do something.
9
@WalterZ Let's do a national referendum on this, I say
"greenhouse gases that cause global warming."
Thank you for stating this, Prof. Krugman. I am incensed by major media outlets' continued practice of referring to climate change as a hypothesis that "some people believe" is caused by greenhouse gases. We know that this is what is happening, thanks to scientific study. Just like we know that cigarettes cause lung cancer. It's not what "some people believe." Its what informed experts who aren't funded by oil companies believe.
514
@rational person "Its what informed experts who aren't funded by oil companies believe"....and can prove. Facts are stubborn things.
13
@rational person
The statistical link between smoking and lung cancer (and heart damage--even bladder cancer) is very clear, the details of exactly how the cancer is caused by tobacco smoke is less clear. (There is no doubt that the lungs of smokers are significantly altered, but that is not the same as a clearly identified "this is how tobacco smoke causes cancer")
In the case of climate change, the mechanism is very well understood: the greenhouse gases are highly transparent to the photons (light) from the sun, but opaque (blocking or reflecting) the lower frequency infrared photons emitted from earth. Glass does the same thing, which is why glass houses are used to grow tropical plants in temperate climates (greenhouses). Republicans will never argue this basic science--so must deflect and distract and lie to claim the observed effect is a hoax.
The Kochs know all this. They went to MIT at the same time I did, and took the same 4 introductory physics courses. Like the rest of us trained there, they should have figured it out some time in the 1970's at the very latest. They have been lying about it for 40 years.
39
@rational person Belief can be said of religion. Climate science is fact.
3
This is all persuasive in its way, and undoubtedly right in its various details, but I still think the answer to the question posed in the first paragraph is this:
Donald Trump -- the demagogue and general shaker-upper, not the climate-denier -- outflanked other Republican officeholders at the grassroots level. The voters who control the political fates of those Republicans demand fealty to Trump. Hence the party's discipline in shoring up his presidency.
The Republican Party has long been a hotbed of climate denial, but let's remember that the Republican Party didn't create Trumpism; the primary voters foisted it on the Republican Party.
Trump sees eye-to-eye with those who have been denying climate change all along, which must make their servitude more bearable for them. But that's not to say that he or his ism came out of their crucible.
1
Facing up to the problem goes beyond our borders. You are correct that for our current president the future means next week.
This problem is the biggest challenge facing the United Nations and it is our responsibility to bring it to the forefront.
1
I have never believed the Repubs were climate deniers because of some mistrust of science. Instead, I think they are fully aware that climate change is real. But they deny it and enact anti-environmental policies because of GREED. America is the land of selfishness and greed. It’s that simple.
672
@Dissatisfied Its much more complex than that. Here's the issue:
1. A natural phenomenon, climate change, has been moderately accelerated by human activity. (Cars and energy production, but also enormous contributions by industrial scale livestock)
2. To drum up public action, a full-scale (and transparent) influencing campaign was started that also exaggerated the immediacy and effects of doomsday.
3. The solutions put forth by these campaigns dovetailed with well worn leftist positions (more taxes, huge increases in un-elected regulators)
4. In pushing #2 and 3, the over blown prognostications of doom were doubled down on by attributing ALL negative events to climate change, even when the link was tenuous at best.
...all of this means that a real issue, human acceleration of climate change, was no longer debated: we'd already moved onto debating hot button issues of implementation without talking about proportionality.
Finally, by tying meaningful solutions to a global consensus we'd activated the key conservative fear: that the world will blame the US for everything and our lives will impacted by foreigners and/or we'd be forced to accept new immigrants.
If you can't acknowledged that is the alpha and omega of conservative, Jacksonian concerns, then you don't understand America.
2
@Dissatisfied it's like the firearms industry and their enthusiasts. The gun manufacturers and sellers have to know from their own data tracking that more guns cause more deaths. But they market them as "protection" that people buy, especially in reaction to gun violence. And the industry rewrites our national history while distorting the meaning and words of the 2nd Amendment.
All of this to make money, at the expense of human life.
12
@Dissatisfied No, America is not the land of selfishness and greed------- it is only a portion of Americans. They call themselves Republicans.
12
The professor left out the main reason for the existence of climate deniers: they are afraid mitigating the effects of climate change will raise their taxes.
And it is well known, almost axiomatic, that to be a conservative means not wanting to pay for anything.
Exhibit A? The life of Donald Trump.
803
@Paul It's not just conservatives who don't want to pay more taxes. Millions of Democrats are in that group too. In poll after poll the overwhelming majority of Americans are against paying higher taxes for climate change legislation. The point of cap & trade was always to increase the price of 85 percent of the energy we use in America. That is the goal. For it to “work,” cap and trade needs to increase the price of oil, coal, and natural gas to force consumers to use more expensive forms of energy. President Obama’s former OMB director, Peter Orszag, told Congress that “price increases would be essential to the success of a cap and trade program. The majority of U.S. voters will never go for this. Period. The overall reality in that climate change legislation is hard to pass even in good times. It's a real killer in an economic downturn where citizens & business fear higher costs, even slightly higher costs, & may see no concrete benefits. The US is extracting carbon & flowing it into the global energy system faster than ever before. We're trying simultaneously to reduce demand for fossil fuels while doing everything possible to increase the supply. Can we bring ourselves to prioritize renewables over cheap fuels? Are we willing to vote against our own self interests & approve higher taxes on fossil fuels? Can we muster the restraint needed to leave assets worth trillions in the ground? Absolutely not. It's never going to happen.
28
...and the world ends because individuals put their near term interests over their long-term interests...economist Milton Friedman is the architect of our doom...
90
@Bill Brown
"Are we willing to vote against our own self interests & approve higher taxes on fossil fuels?"
Such a vote is not against our own self interests but the surest action promoting our own self interests.
111
So true. All rational earth-dwellers can agree that Trump is a corrupt, cynical, lying, egomaniac.
But to pretend that Trump came out of nowhere is to miss the real danger.
There were forces across our society including the base of one of the two political parties that enthusiastically aided and abetted Trump's rise.
Trump will go eventually. Perhaps even in handcuffs.
But that does not protect the nation and the world from the forces who still support government by conspiracy theory.
Taking on those forces will not be easy nor will it be simple.
The GOP has been lying about climate change and many other issues for decades now. I've always wondered how many times we have to watch supply-side theory fail before average Americans get that it is a fraud. Or how many "hottest year on record" we have to have before average people accept that 97% of scientists are indeed correct and self-serving liars like Trump, Alex Jones, and Exxon, are wrong.
Unfortunately for the rest of us and the world, those admissions, should they ever occur which is doubtful, will be too late.
But it isn't just a problem of Trump. He's just the inevitable, perverse manifestation.
8
Causing the destruction of a republic has happened before (think Julius Caesar) but condemning an entire planet to destruction because of greed and willful ignorance is unique in the planet's history. Trump and his band of climate denying followers are complicit in what may be the worst crime in human history.
4
The Republican party long ago gave up on rational discourse. There may well be an argument to be made by the 3% of scientists on the other side, but that is a debate the Republicans and conservatives do not want us to have. They want us to mindlessly follow FOX's propaganda and Trump's "gut".
The founders created a system of rational self-government based on the Enlightenment idea of a competition of ideas. Of all the damage done to this nation by Trump and his followers, the failure to adhere to basic idea of rationality is clearly among the most substantial.
6
How long will this verbiage of passing each other between the hard right Republicans and seasoned Democrats continue before something sensible can be agreed upon?
A few years ago a very smart, conservative columnist George Will denied global warming by giving examples of cold spells when David Gergen chided him by saying how foolish we were when we didn’t believe the consequences of tobacco. Sometimes our political persuasions determine our beliefs.
5
I'm afraid the problem isn't just Trump and the Republicans. The saddest thing to me is that vast numbers of US citizens fall for the nonsense about the climate and the environment that they are spouting. And it isn't just us. Yesterday, Sir David Attenborough delivered a powerful address to the UN's congress on climate change warning that the existence of our "civilizations" and much of our present natural world was in danger of loss unless decisive actions are taken. His very large audience of representatives from around the world gave him little more than the polite applause the felt obliged to offer to a 92 year old. Since the climate changes only very slowly--and the input of more energy into it results in variations that produce storms as well as draught and very cold days as well as very hot ones--it requires thought and careful long-term measurement to see the trends. The weather, which we experience day to day, is not the climate, which involves a long-term shifts not immediately discernible to the senses. Cynical politicians and business leaders take advantage of this fact. One can only hope that more and more people will understand that they are being taken for fools and react before fires burn up our forests, droughts turn our farm fields into deserts, and our coastlines disappear under the encroaching seas.
7
The GOP sees the Environmental movement as the new Communism. They needed a new Bogey man once the USSR was gone and it has been easy to cast Environmentalists as being anti free market Capitalism and therefore Conservatism's new primary enemy. No holds barred opposition is justified because in the Conservative mind even if Environmentalists are right they are using the wrong tools to combat climate change. They see the only solution to environmental disaster as free market innovation. By embracing conservation they see environmentalists as blocking the Capitalist solutions that are the only possible path to salvation. Conservatives need an enemy to justify their using any means to hold on to power and Climate change activists fill the role.
4
As in Wisconsin with the legislature's recent actions to limit the incoming (Democratic) governor's powers, the GOP has shown they are willing throw anything and anyone under the bus in order to maintain their grip on power and their money. Climate change denial is no doubt the most egregious example.
4
"I just don't know why we have to tell the people what they need to hear. Why can't we just tell them what they want to hear?" --- Ron Burgundy
The contemporary Republican party, along with it's Fox propaganda arm, reflect the above philosophy carried to its perverse extreme. If the facts don't comport with right-wing ideology, then the facts are discarded. It is a type of devolution.
1
Another place where the Republican dogma tries to right reality is on abortion. Reality says that the most effective way to reduce the number of abortions is to educate and empower women.
Instead they promote abstinence-only sex education, and try to remove women from the decision process.
5
Thought provoking, as always, but I think the cause and effect arguments are backwards. Conservative Republicans have long used the tactics you describe- conspiracy, fake propaganda, threats, etc. They have managed to create a cult-like devotion on the part of the less educated populace that compares to a religious fervor. It is impossible to challenge science denial just as it is impossible to challenge religious beliefs. Most importantly, however, science denial is not the issue that binds Trump supporters. Ugly and pervasive racism unites them.
7
@Disillusioned
Are you kidding? Krugman is anything but thought-provoking. How can a political hack be thought provoking?
He has the same talking points; just fits data/ facts to conveniently fit his narrative.
"First, if we fail to meet the challenge of climate change, with catastrophic results — which seems all too likely — it won’t be the result of an innocent failure to understand what was at stake. It will, instead, be a disaster brought on by corruption, willful ignorance, conspiracy theorizing and intimidation."
My vote is for "willful ignorance" as primary. The others are derivative. We live in a time that future historians, if indeed there are any, will characterize as the Age of Denial. And we are all complicit, not just Republicans and oil moguls.
The differences are mainly ones of degree. The term "climate change" is a euphemism. The entire ecological framework is on a pathway to collapse: ocean acidification, resource exhaustion, mass extinctions, depletion of potable water, topsoil loss -- to name just a few.
Nobody really wants to walk around all day thinking about these things, certainly not in their full panoply. Simply too depressing. So we shut much of it out. Some try to shut it all it out. But reality keeps seeping in along the leaky seams, making many furious or terrified. Or both. Nobody enjoys feeling out of control.
The answer is that we must accept that there is no answer. The task is to experience evolution it as it unfolds, without expectations or fear. Solve the problem immediately at hand; don't waste time agonizing over absent abstractions. Do your work and trust that others will do theirs. And trust that in time the pieces will fit together.
3
Didn’t Nostradamus & Malthus both predict Doom & Gloom?
Yup, they got famous. But both were false prophets.
2
@Morgan
Not Malthus. He was ahead of his time.
Climate denial is the stance of people like Trump who care not one wit about future generations. They live for the moment, exploit our natural resources, and eagerly refute scientific evidence of climate change because it suits their selfish interests. Destroy the planet - who cares? By the time it happens we'll be dead. That's Trumpism at its worst.
3
I don’t understand this denying the ferociously severe damages inflicted worldwide by climate changes .
As a quite old reader I have taken notice of these changes both in Europe, where I spend several months in the Alps every year , and in Florida .
On the western coast of Florida we have been suffering a yearlong plague with red tide, green algae and massive deaths of fish, including hundreds of dolphins, turtles and birds .
One cannot walk the beach without coughing.
In the Alps snow fall is quite limited and most glaciers have vanished. Many birds belonging to warmer climate are now calling home the high tops of the mountains .
I don’t understand climate change deniers, these changes will affect everyone and everything .
it’s about time we do something to reverse this path .
The fact that politics is mixed up in this mess tells us how stupid politicians are , in particular the one sitting in the Oval Office.
7
As one who has been active for 30 years in trying to make people see climate change as the critical issue it is, it still fails to move the greater population. Say what we will about the craven and bloodless fools who try to obstruct understanding, the American people are all to willing to continue on their way, putting off changes anyone can make now, and everyone will have to make soon.
Why? As Al Gore once said, it's inconvenient.
6
Science usually leads to progress, change, venturing into unknown territory. Unfortunately, the majority of Republican party are extreme conservatives who are afraid of progress or change. Instead of embracing the unknown, they resort to denial and worse. What a shame, considering this was the party of Lincoln, the most liberal and progressive party 150 years ago.
3
The whole debate is absurd. How about treating climate-change as something that COULD happen (even though it will and is happening). We buy insurance for everything just in case. We mandate seat belts and airbags, just in case. We have a huge defense budget, just in case. So what is wrong with an "insurance" investment in climate-change, just in case? Responsible leaders would take that position on any possible threat. So why not now? They're either stupid or on the take, or both.
5
Greed and resistance to change, taking the path of least resistance, unwillingness to sacrifice. We are all guilty of this, it’s just a matter of degree. Sadly, just a couple degrees will destroy humanity and life as we know it.
2
It is good to read of Krugman pointing his finger at the Kochs- too often the mainstream liberal focus has been on the puppets and not the masters.
But don't forget that the puppets have to do the bidding of their donors to hold onto their jobs, and if you are a Republican, it isn't even just about getting funding- it's also about not getting primaried by someone who's more willing to lie than you are.
Republicans are the party of business and business is ultimately about sales. Very often sales strategy is based on telling lies about products, so it shouldn't be surprising that the party of business is also the party of big fat liars.
Without serious campaign finance reform, big business money will continue to corrupt our system at the expense of our planet, culture and the overall economy.
2
Or...good business can come by creating a better product.
The same scenario played out with regard to cigarette smoking. Vested interests, the swamp if you will, bought out politicians who then put personal interest over the public interest. Its been conservative Republican policy for decades.
1
Republicans made a deal with the devil when they embraced the Christian right. The base is now made of resigned preordainers, anti-science reactionaries and ardent doomsdayers. When a third of the country is actively praying for the end of the world it's really tough to gain political traction on action to halt that end. Cynical leadership just plays them for the votes and the money.
3
The best part of reading Krugman is he does nasty in such an intellectual way. "Snappish", see if Trump can top it. In fact, I don't think Trump could explain the word. Anyway, use of fines, taxes or trades to control a negative externality is not new. As he points how Herb Bush brought it up. Milton Friedman covered the subject in his early 70's Playboy interview. You could spend a lifetime reading about Cap and Trade and the like. So why the denial. Because you have to use your brain. A typical GOP cult town is full of people who did what they were told to do, even as the factory was being sold and salvaged and the business had left town. I read this juxtaposition recently. Early labor movements had economic power but no political power. But the bosses needed them. So they reaped the benefits. This crew today has political power, they got Trump elected. But no economic power, the bosses don't need them. So a few more crumbs from the denier club will keep them going until the ultimate disaster strikes and doom sets in.
1
Trump is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and is arrogant, so there is no accounting for his views on anything, much less climate change. But many of the Republicans who are also engaging in climate denial are not dumb at all, which makes me believe they are choosing to lie for reasons of self interest. Apparently they are willing to sacrifice the well being of their children and grandchildren so that they don't have to pay the price, today, that fixing the climate change problem will entail. I find such callous disregard for one's own family, let alone the citizens of the country that they are elected to protect, to be appalling.
4
Krugman misses the crux of the matter. Global warming isn’t the result of man’s insatiable greed and unwillingness to face unpleasant facts. It’s the result of liberal sinfulness, namely liberals’ acceptance of same sex sex, their willingness to entertain the idea that all religions have something of value to say, their idea that logic and critical thinking are worthy ways to use our intellect, and most importantly the liberal idea that we, not God, are responsible for our destiny. The fact is we only need to pray more and make love less and God will take care of the rest. We don’t need to worry about what our God-given industriousness is doing to the planet if we just keep God on our side. He’ll make sure we get what we deserve.
@jz What is this "God" that you keep referring to?
@jz Religious mythology is what helped get us in this mess in the first place.
@John Griswold
Hello! I was being ironic - or actually sarcastic and satiric. As far as I am concerned, there is no god and nothing that cares whether this planet and its inhabitants survive. It's up to us to decide whether we're important and whether we care if our children have a decent planet to live on.
1
what a phony debate climate is.
in paris, they are literally burning down the place, due to an idiotic gasoline tax that would have as close to zero an affect on the climate. the paris accords have been a complete failure..and the geniuses want to make even more accords that no one can adhere to.
people are voting with their feet-they are not alarmed by the hysteria of climate change, and they are not interested in impoverishing themselves while the elite paladins of government pat themselves on their backs for the green bona fides.
climate change is not science- it cannot be tested or proven. period. ask any 6th grader. it's based purely on computer models, which seem to change every year. there is probably nothing more complex in the universe than climate, and to tease out the human component with any reasonable certainty is truly risible. many of the "scientists" who push this agenda have been exposed repeatedly as partisan and not pursuing scientific truth. worldwide famine and worldwide overpopulation were also predicted by these same scientists back in the 70's. you know why they were wrong then? simple-- it aint' science. it could not be proven or tested.
i suggest everyone repeat that to themselves- it aint science if it cant be proven or tested. it's why Krugman is so often wrong in economics- very little in economics can be proven or tested in a controlled manner.
2
@ari
This is complete nonsense, and betrays a total lack of ignorance about science in general and climate science specifically. Climate change has been repeatedly proven and tested - as GHG-levels rise, the earth is getting hotter. That's not a theory, it's a fact that we are currently measuring and experiencing. And the models are getting increasingly accurate and predictive, as confirmed by real-world results. The commenter confuses the fact that we can't be certain of the exact degree of change with uncertainty regarding the direction of change, an elementary mistake (ask any 6th-grader). By his definition, nothing in the real world can be defined as science, since there is no such thing a perfect precision when predicting outcomes. By this logic, since a rocket scientist cannot tell you where a rocket will be withing a millimeter of precision 2 minutes after takeoff, there is no such thing as rocket science, which must be a big hoax.
2
@ari
First, I'm so very sad for you, laboring under an impoverished, as you say, sixth grade conception of what science is and has to offer.
Then, I'm concerned your attitude is such an unscientific one.
Of course the models change every year, because we learn new things every year. Of course predictions are not exact. Yet, the preponderance of the evidence not only supports what we have been saying about climate change, it demonstrates we are in the midst of it, with limited time to respond.
More than that, what is your problem with models, and your obsession testing? Could you be more wrong?
How do you think we understand the solar system, the sun, the effects of gravity and solar storms? All models. How do you think we predict your weather, earthquakes, volcanoes, as best we can? Models.
Models which change daily. Models about which there is still debate after all these decades later.
Models are good. Pig-headed refusal to listen to rational arguments is bad. And the definition of "unscientific".
More than anything I'm curious about this "agenda" of which you write, and who did the "exposing", and how.
It seems to me the agenda is all on your side. The anger, the block-headed refusal to consider what's being said, the truly bizarre conflation of climatic science with free market ideology, that's all you.
As is the rage, the name-calling, the conspiracy theorizing.
Where in all that ideological mess, ari, is your truth?
2
@ari....climate change is not science- it cannot be tested or proven....... Wrong. We know that burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere because we can and have measured the change. We also know that C02 absorbs in the infrared, which happens to be the same wave length that the Earth radiates heat off into space. We know that the temperature of the Earth is a balance between the heat energy coming in from the sun and the heat energy irradiated back into space. We also know from many experiments from many different sources that when you change the balance of an equation you establish a new equilibrium.....And by the way, you can't test or prove by direct experiment that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning.
2
The Republican party has portrayed itself as congruent with the evangelical Christian right of America. So if that is true, why do they look the other way to the destruction of God's great creation, our planet?
Because they are anti-christian in effect.
Why does the Republican party practice militaristic economics and supports unlimited financial resources for the killing empire and also supports building a whole new arsenal of mass murdering massive nuclear weapons?
Because they really don't believe in God's commandment; "Thou Shalt NOT Kill".
Why does the Republican party, led now by the real estate magnate Trump deny real proven science?
Because they either lack a basic science education, or are very stupid.
But why do I really think the Republican party denies proven science? Because without the fossil fuels and related industries they would be out of power.
The Republican party and those like them in the world are either going to support the expansion of fossil fuels use that will result in a runaway atmosphere like Venus, or they will nuke the world, as they are prepared to and the likes of who would do.
I feel like the desperate voice on the avenue wearing the placard heralding the end of the world. I can look at people like that with a more open mind now. Maybe they are not so crazy after all.
2
But why do forty per cent plus of Americans approve of Trump, or a higher percentage vote Republican? It seems insane. It is just good propaganda? Is it all a branding exercise? Me White, Me Republican? The lies are transparent, the corruption obvious. To an outsider it just makes no sense. It must be a cultural problem with White America. And that doesn't bode well for a short term fix. Dr. Krugman is right to say the problem isn't just Trump it's the Republican party, but that's not far enough. It's not just the Republican party it's White America.
3
Professor Krugman goes farther than anyone in stating the simple, sad truth of our era. Truth is that the Republican partly is largely responsible for our current moral, social, and financial decline. The racists, liars, frauds, and flat-earthers who run this party are willfully causing environmental destruction, infrastructure collapse, catastrophic federal debt, anti-democratic elections, international destabilization, exploding inequality, routine gun violence, record incarceration, and unavailability of healthcare. Oh, and delegitimization of American institutions like the courts, the Justice Department, and the FBI. More people need to state this as honestly and succinctly as Professor Krugman has done because bothsidesism is tantamount to lying and complicity.
6
"Donald Trump, the most corrupt president in history leading the most corrupt administration of modern times, routinely calling his opponents and critics “crooked.”
I am happy to say that Donald Trump is indeed absolutely correct when he calls scientists "crooked". Of course, that is all relative and depends on perspective, as Albert Einstein already realized over 100 years ago.
When oneself is crooked, naturally anyone who is straight and honest will appear crooked to an immoral observer like Trump. I.e. a straight line will naturally appear crooked when observed from a crooked perspective.
Let's give the man credit where credit is due.
"There are three important morals to this story."
Oh, there are more.
But for now maybe the most important is this: None of this is random, none of it is unplanned, and none of it is unique.
We're in thrall to a cabal of the Right that intends to dominate, and they're following a well-defined path to their goal.
As described by many, most succinctly Hannah Arendt in her tome Totalitarianism, we're on the Fascists' path to damnation and national destruction. Arendt provides a program; we can follow along step-by predictable step.
Much of what seems senseless becomes expected next steps when you realize many of today's notable players just want to see stuff burn.
They want to tear it down and stomp on it because its easier to dominate a nation without functioning institutions, with contempt for any authority on anything, without those nurturing some pathetic allegiance to an idealized past of compromise and competent government.
Their bile spills freely on anyone suggesting national identity, community security, patriotism should supersede personal whim and want-to.
Each step is predictable, every Trump move and McConnell abomination has been done before, in exactly the same order, with precisely the same stupid justifications and fake explanations.
These people want to do what you can't believe anyone in their right mind would do, not to a nation as wonderful as us.
So far, we're all too sure such a thing could never happen here.
1
They’ve already done it.
Brave condemnation of republican, now Trumpian, prostituted politicians, rigid ideologically, religiously fanatic, in denying the obvious, that climate change is human-caused and accelerating as corporate pollutans are allowed a free hand. This is similar to Trump's repeated lies in spite of ample evidence to the contrary, in a deeply shameless, and dangerous, proposition. That is, if they repeat a falsehood often enough, eventually it may become the gospel truth to his credulous and prejudiced 'base'. How is this even possible, in the supposedly most powerful nation on Earth, and a major pollutant (along with China), to deny what is already biting our behind, the increased frequency and severity of natural disasters (floods, droughts, fires)? Could we be this obtuse?
There is one disgusting aspect about the conspiracy-theory behavior behind these crimes against humanity, by the Koch bros. and the likes in the GOP, and many of their "anti-science" (which is just a front) cronies all over the world:
they actually believe that they are bigger than whatever armageddon they bring on the rest of humanity; that they will survive and thrive no matter what (climate disaster being preferred to a nasty nuclear war); and that they are entitled to proceed with their greed.
A movement should arise to make it a criminal offese to perpetrate damage to the environment. Yet I know that even in the face being way too late to contain the said damage, this still sounds radical and naive.
We are in deep trouble.
Paul Krugman's piece doesn't address the motives of Republican politicians. Follow the money. Public personalities deny climate change because they have been bought by the fossil fuel industry. That is the story.
4
Bravo. You put it clearly and concisely.
We are past some points of no return and have no time for beating around the bush.
Thank for writing it plain.
2
I know you don't want hear it but if you, the reader, want to do something (other than complain about science-deniers) to help this planet then quit eating tortured animals at every meal. Maybe you don't give a hoot about the sad life of the animal you are consuming but how about doing something, anything, to reduce your negative impact on the planet. Take responsibility. I recently watched a documentary called H.O.P.E. What You Eat Matters. I cried for the animals and ourselves as we will certainly get what we deserve and we don't deserve this planet.
2
90% correct.
Plenty of Sanders supporters stood before a majority of Democrats, union reps and people of color, to insist Mrs. Clinton stole the nomination. Based on conspiracies.
Plenty of educated people believe vaccines are foisted on their children by self-dealing biochemists. Another conspiracy of scientists.
Plenty of environmentalists know that we're already on a trajectory to extinguishing more species than the Chicxulub asteroid, but won't breathe a word about "geoengineering" because it's a techno-fix proferred by, you guessed it, scientists in cahoots with big oil.
The Republicans are the worst, by far. But their illness is contagious. What if a Trump arrives who's a Democrat, passing legislation liberals want, but still a corrupt fool. Will we have the character to reject him?
The deniers are documented. Before long their children will be witnessing, fleeing the horror of collapsing eco-systems, species die-offs, starvation. I hope those children of the powerful, all deniers’ children right on down the line, hold their elders accountable and even disown them, while the old evil know-nothings are still alive and in their right mind to feel that pain and contempt. May they suffer as much as they have impacted failure to act, and then suffer more. Maybe their rich children will have to hide, and change their names, fear for their lives as mayhem and history predicts. The deniers had 30 years of time to wise up. Why didn’t their college educated children change their minds? Sometimes I wish the military would step in or even the insurance companies, those that depend on science and data. Isn’t that a wild thought? Terrible times ahead. How does one prepare to say goodbye to the beautiful earth, to prepare to experience unknown horror, to watch and face extinction as we are shook off the earth like cockroaches....? I detest the GOP for its willful ignorance, but it’s not helping.
1
Hold on. You are playing into their hands. You can’t beat climate deniers with exposure, they are incapable of embarrassment for their lies. But you can beat them with facts. An article in Scientific American shows that placing solar panels one 0.4 percent of the earth’s surface would give us the energy we need to kick fossil fuels. The 2014 BP Annual Report says there was at the time a 54-year supply of petroleum left. How long will it take to convert the global economy? Shouldn’t we care that we’re running out of petroleum? A report from MIT says there’s enough geothermal energy under the Rocky Mountains to supply all our energy needs 1000 times over. There’s more too and it’s good news. But we won’t get anywhere by whining about what those mean old Republicans did to us. That’s another fact.
1
Climate denialism is rooted in one inescapable fact: stopping the globe from warming is antithetical to capitalism as we know it -- fossil-fueled, extravagantly wasteful, predicated on continuous growth in consumption and GDP, and placing profit above all else. Yes, the Republicans are depraved in their dismissal of science -- but their depravity is based on a gut understanding that dealing with climate change means a total overhaul of our economic system, maybe even -- dare I say it? -- a socialist revolution. So unfortunately, until the rest of us acknowledge how fundamentally capitalism must be reformed to prevent catastrophic global warming, we are also complicit in the Republicans' denialism.
2
Once upon a time the oil lobby did away with electric street cars and touted a new concept of suburbia, both to make cars a necessity and gasoline a basic food group. Now the oil lobby is on a global destruction course with GOP blessings.
4
See also Merchants of Doubt, by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway.
The southbound output of a northbound bull has been a standard profit-making conservative tactic for decades.
If we are going to contemplate this tack, I very much recall Bush Sr. derisively calling Al Gore "ozone man" during the 1992 campaign.
I think U remember Trump sometimes whining about those regulations too, saying it removed his favorite hairspray from the market.
So it goes back to "ozone man." And continues today with Trump being aggrieved one of his grooming products is no longer available.
Meanwhile, somewhere in Baltimore, John Waters is chucklinh as he says, "My God, this script is writing itself!"
1
If Krugman is going to dismiss Climategate, it might be helpful if he actually made a case about it. Like everything else he says about climate, he does not do this. Nor does he show a smidgen of honesty or understanding about the mindless "97% of scientists"figure he and so many others rely on, Pavlovian like. That figure has been so effectively debunked it is embarrassing to see anyone use it, especially an esteemed economist. The term "climate deniers" substitutes for actual journalism here. A term that applies to NOT ONE of the many scientists who question various aspects of the catastrophic climate change hypothesis. Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Bjorn Lomborg, and on and on. Does Paul Krugman know a thing about what these people say? Not that I can see.
Do we remember the Native American protests against the pipeline under the Missouri River adjacent to the Standing Rock Reservation in South Dakota in 2015? The state hired TigerSwan, a contractor from the Iraq War, to "assist" local law enforcement via a public disinformation campaign coordinated with infiltration, illegal cellphone intercepts, false arrests, destruction of property and physical violence. At times, the rural protest site looked like Paris last Sunday.
Confronted with this level of public chaos combined with massive political pressure (it was Obama's last full year in office), the Corps of Engineers caved and issued permits for the pipeline, accepting some hasty environmental surveys as justification.
Republican cutthroat politicking at its finest! Coming too your neighborhood soon.
1
The greed and corruption now firmly planted in the GOP has caused many real conservatives (Max Boot, Kristol, etc) to vote against the GOP. As is said here, many of the loud, obnoxious Republicans are like investors who think short term, quarterly reports drive their investment decisions. The long term will take care of itself they believe. So, it will be somebody else's responsibility when the doo hits the fan.
This makes the new House control more important now. Alexandria, a 29 year old brand newHouse Rep, has begun promoting the New Green Deal that puts an immediate focus on the problem at the federal level. I laud that move but worry that Bernie, the disrupt-er, will attempt to co-opt it as the platform for his 2020 run.
1
@Harold
Max Boot, Kristol...the whole pile.
One can only hope, should we manage somehow to survive Trump/McConnell, the august masters of The Right will begin to speak openly, to acknowledge the reality that capitalism requires consistent and vigorous regulation or it dies of avarice and paranoid greed.
We didn't have to end up here. But the purists of the sick capitalist Right brook no deviation from the ideology guaranteed, given time and freedom, to eat its seed corn and starve its brightest stars to slow and ugly death.
About the environment, I don't know...we're still trading survival off against maximum profits.
You would think, by now, these sages of capitalism would recognize the damage they've done, the death spiral they created, the huge and threatening gulf between their inhuman business-first-and-only selves and every other capitalist democracy on the planet.
But I suspect not.
1
The problem is, largely, the mental habits encouraged by fundamentalist religion, which are inimical to enquiry.
Believing despite the lack of evidence, and on the basis of authority figures (generally encountered in childhood) causes people to live in a fantasyland of alternative facts and alternative reality, stripping them of the tools they might need to analyse their own situation and the world’s.
3
Alain Danielou, the French writer on Indian music and culture, stated towards the end of the twentieth-century that the world was imperiled primarily because the merchant class, which controls the politicians, who control the military, had become recklessly powerful to the point of self-annihilation. Together with this any religious fanaticism viewing a threatened world as a good thing because its prophesied to bring the Second Coming, the Messiah, etc.
Climate denial has become a major tenant of the republican party, however it is not just about climate. The Paris accords have been used by republicans to raise fears of a loss of sovereignty and autonomy. The american refusal accept the accords, to show solidarity with the rest of the nations of the globe is firmly grounded in a history of... isolationism.
Climate denial like the open war on free trade and immigration is but one aspect of the war on globalism. The fear that isolationism feeds on is a paranoia based on the idea that american living standards and economic well being are based on zero sum economics. The gain of the world is our loss, an immigrant in america takes a job from a native born american, and higher prices for energy will reduce our productive capacity...all false
The idea that we live in a zero sum game has been proven to be untrue, but is so seductive to people whose wages have stagnated that it may be important to also look at income distribution for answers as to why the republican party has managed to seduce so many. It is clearly time that denial of inequality of wealth distribution and the impact this has on daily life become part of our conversation as to why Trump continues to find support among people who feel themselves to be economically threatened and who imagine that accepting climate change will make them poorer.
1
The anti-science gang is not limited to climate change.
Since Ronald Reagan's pandering to the religious right and George H.W. Bush's succumbing to the ascendant influence of evangelical Christians and Catholics, the GOP has denied science in all areas of life.
Pat Buchanan's announcement that he was a nominee for the GOP's presidential candidacy was the beginning of the end of the Rockefeller Republicans. At the 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston, the GOP was taken over by the religious right and the moral majority.
That has led to twenty-six or more years of the anti-science brigade culminating in Donald Trump, a reincarnation of Pat Buchanan. Anti-science, racism, nationalism, protectionism.
6
I was near the shore a few days ago where the local town was repaving a strip of road. A fairly normal maintenance activity that has been done from time to time for years. There was a difference though. This time they raised the road bed at least 1 foot. So at least local authorities are paying attention.
First of all, we're talking about a cult, as the GOP is no longer a political party, at least not in any traditional sense of the term. Secondly, this is the same cult that questions the "theory" of evolution. Thirdly, it is a cult that is working feverishly to establish its own state religion, and a fundamentalist version at that. This is all of the same cloth. One thing is confounding though - if they truly believe this is "God's way", believe in heaven and want to hasten their arrival, do they not also believe in hell? What book are they reading? Certainly not the one I was taught, not remotely.
14
I wish more reporting would show Americans how much we are extreme outliers on this issue. Cable news in particular rarely gives much attention to this issue. After one of the major scientific reports came out recently, I put on CNN and they were - rather shockingly - giving airtime to a climate change-denying Republican along with someone on the "left." There are no "both sides" to this issue and news organizations should not be in the business of spreading such dangerous misinformation.
15
It may be true that the climate denial phenomenon is driven by money from the fossil fuel industry, but I the underlying theme of opposition to science goes back to Darwin and Galileo. The church was in this business long before oil was discovered in Pennsylvania. By now, Galileo has been vindicated and offered a long-posthumous apology by the church, but not Darwin.
In America today, climate denial is closely linked to evolution denial. It is part of a world view that says God created the earth for people. He wouldn't have put all this stuff in the ground and expect people not to find it and burn it.
13
It's not "climate change" directly that worries me, it's the persistent weakening of multiple ecosystems on which we depend. Aquatic life, birds, trees, insects - all are suffering and greatly diminished.
Yes, some coastal dwellers will find their homes submerged, but more likely is ecosystem collapse (which can happen swiftly) followed by mass starvation and all the other side-effects of millions of hungry people.
11
So long as there is no political will to face these problems, nothing will be done.
Unless Scientists, who believe that Climate Change is ruining the planet, can break their findings into plain talk so that most of us can understand it, there will be little support from the general public to do their part in solving the problems, by changing habits to assist in slowing it down.
When the megaphones and bully pulpits are owned by Trump, the Republicans and the Industries that would have us believe that we have nothing to worry about are taken over by the Scientists and groups who know all the facts, we have very little hope that people will put their shoulders to the wheel and pressure politicians to do what is needed to be done.
What needs to be done is to gather together a group that can have the same impact that the mothers of MADD had on Drunken Drivers. They have been one of the most successful groups that ever came down the pike. They made a difference that we are still seeing today.
It appears that mothers have more of an impact on policy changes, think Madd and the Mother's Peace Movement to end the violence in Northern Ireland.
We need Mothers for Climate Change Solutions or MCCS.
2
@Jean "Unless Scientists, who believe that Climate Change is ruining the planet, can break their findings into plain talk so that most of us can understand it, there will be little support from the general public"
Unprecedented and catastrophic forest fires; increasingly powerful and more frequent hurricanes, lighting storms and tornadoes; rising sea levels that already are inundating coastal areas worldwide. That's pretty plain talk if you ask me. The only people who no longer understand that these events are the rusult of manmade climate change are the ones that are paid to do so and their gullible, if ever dwindling, followers. Unfortunately, the rest of us will drown along with the deniers.
12
In 2020, I want the democratic nominee to run on a platform of "TRUTH." Yes, climate change is real, and we have to do something about it now. Yes there will be short term pain, but saying we should not deal with the short term pain, is akin to telling a cancer patient they to do their treatment because they don't like the side effects.
8
Is there no end to the embarrassments for Republicans of good conscience? No, not until they too begin paying the price for their party’s most enduring achievement: engineering its own dominance whatever the cost to principle.
5
Hi Paul. I agree with the idea that Mr. Trump is a climate change Luddite. That being said, so much about our climate change narrative is naive. "There have been at least five major ice ages in the Earth's history (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age, and the current Quaternary Ice Age). Outside these ages, the Earth seems to have been ice free even in high latitudes." Ice free. Even in high latitudes. Yep. There were no cars or coal burning back then. Yes, we have impacted the global climate and polluted the environment and destroyed much habitat and biology. But we still have ice sheets, so there may be further natural increases in average temperature that will occur to reach a normal inter-glacial state. Add to the natural cycle of climate change 8 billion human consumers (and growing). I'd be thrilled to see the UN propose rational, achievable challenges to the world to stop 1) a natural geological cycle and 2) an unsupportable population. The Paris Accord was a well-meaning gesture at best, one that failed to take into account our reality on this rock. No surprise no one is going to meet it.
1
@VonnegutIce9
You sound fairly naïve.
4
@VonnegutIce9 - Suppose we enact comprehensive reforms to reduce greenhouse gases... only to find out that global warming wasn't caused by us. What would the end result be? Less air and water pollution, a cessation of mountaintop removal and other catastrophes associated with coal mining, no more dependency on Saudi Arabian oil, tons of money saved from fuel efficiency in vehicles and buildings, massive economic stimulation and job creation, more responsible construction standards in flood-prone areas, and a more modern and robust electrical grid. Oh, the horror! We better not do that!
8
@John
VonnegutIce9 could be naive, but maybe his confusion is humans (surviving) vs the earth (surviving).
I'm pretty sure that the earth will be here hundreds of millions of years from now, but I'm less sure about the current ecosystem (and humans).
1
It seems to me that the marketing focus of the reality of climate change needs to shift from scientific consensus to those homeowners who are or who will be standing chest deep in water in their living rooms due to ever worsening storms. That denial of facts comes with personal, out of pocket costs. People who are hostile to science can be remarkably receptive to issues that drain their bank account.
11
I would like to see the media ask more probing questions regarding the science background and understanding of the scientific method by the "deniers." After all, the essence and validity of the scientific method rests on questioning, questioning and verifying, verifying. It is pretty obvious that there are many politicians who are perhaps well trained in a discipline (law seems to be popular) but poorly educated.
6
Only problem is the Dems haven't done much better... Besides which all those captains of industry one assume have grandchildren and should be concerned about their future. Change in habits can occur without a law about it. It's called choice.
Frankly, I look forward to the day when Mar-al-Lago is under the sea.
11
As Lutheran pastors in exurban Charlotte, NC, my wife and I were astonished to encounter such a complete rejection of the modern state in so many of our parishioners. Many families chose to home school their children to protect them from the contamination of public education that focused on the authority of reason, facts, and science over the authority of scripture. Many more were convinced that the primary purpose of most universities and colleges was to destroy the traditional values they had imparted to their children and replace them with progressive, atheistic, radical values that insisted on equality for LGBT and minority citizens. To that end, many insisted their children attend conservative christian colleges that promised to protect traditional values. Many life-long Lutherans were unable to embrace the beauty of science as fully compatible and essential to their faith in God. They were deeply offended when we made that a cornerstone of our teaching and faith formation for their children. The history of our nation's founding reveals that this movement has been around since the beginning. It is part of the counter-enlightenment that grew up in rejection of the modern values on which our country is founded.
124
@Jack
As a young adult studying biology, I learned that life is ancient, ingenious, ever-changing and mysterious. The theory of evolution shines a brilliant light onto the ways of God and all the creatures.
Yet people reject it because its not in the Bible. This has always saddened me.
9
Sir, I would think you're in a powerful position to educate extreme traditionalists that science helps us understand and better comply with God's laws, i.e. saving the world from our own polluting actions, etc. What you've learned would be of immense value to the rest of us in building bridges to these folks.
6
@Jack
"counter-enlightenment". I haven't heard that term. I may borrow it. It's depressing that these attitudes persist. Appreciate your post.
8
Risk management includes two calculations:
What is the statistical probability of an adverse outcome? -
and importantly - what are the consequences of that adverse outcome? Climate change science highlights not only the likelihood of continuing adverse changes in climate, but the disastrous consequences of ignoring them. To willfully ignore the empirical evidence based on decades of research is criminal, and should be assessed as exactly that. History will be the judge, but unfortunately, it will be too late to gloat.
13
The Freedom caucus' anti gov't tirades and the zero sum abuse of power by Mitch McConnell certainly point to the aggressive cock sureness of the Republicans. Like Christians with 4 aces. But they are wrong on climate change. The Freedom caucus was damaged by the 2018 election with the Democratic takeover of the House but McConnell is stronger than ever in the Senate. So we see Red State angry white people who hate the teacher's union and Medicaid expansion, they would scrap the whole public education system and force the uninsured into emergency rooms for health care, but they just punish the people in their states. Green house gases are mocked as a scare tactic by environmentalists. A worse form of liberalism can not be found. Electric Cars and mass transit improvements are just a hiding place for tax raisers. The problem for these people despite their global warning denials is that most of corporate America and the of the developed world has accepted the premise and has tried to reduce their carbon foot print. But many voters continue to cling to the idea that climate change is a hoax.
14
Follow the money.
1. Who benefits financially by declaring that climate change is a gigantic hoax? (This is a real question, not a rhetorical question.) And the most obvious answer - the gigantic fossil fuel industrial complex - is not adequate (in my opinion), because they could easily 'co-opt' climate change to start new revenue/profit streams by developing, manufacturing, deploying and maintaining climate friendly technologies around the globe. See #2.
2. Who could benefit financially by working to address climate change? (the gigantic fossil fuel industrial complex certainly has the resources and the clout).
4
@AP917 -- you are missing the obvious: fossil fuels in the ground have been an enormous asset, that is now starting to be written off.
Nobody who believes they are very wealthy, and as a result powerful, wants to write off their wealth and power.
Read Yergin's "The Prize" to understand the history of the world oil business and how we got here, and then think for a moment on what the way forward might be for many of of the players of that game and industry.
1
@AP917
As someone who has followed the global warming issue for many years, I do not think it is that simple. For many years, the petrochemical industry funded the deniers. However, by now, many in the industry see it as a fact that they have to live with(although certainly not all, by any means.). The bigger problem now. Is that climate change has become a signature issue for Republicans. The base is convinced global warming is a fraud, perpetrated to increase the power of government and the globalists. The support of the petrochemical industry is no longer a crucial part of the issue, as global warming denial is a mainstay of the Republican Identity.
1
And you read that Trump is opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve to oil drilling. The release is being rushed through to bring exploration and drilling before the 2020 election. What effect will that have on the last refuge for arctic wildlife—and how will it change oil prices?
And which is more important in the long run?
1
The seriousness of the COP24 Climate Conference taking place now in Katowice, Poland is quite a contrast to the absurdity of climate change denial in the U.S. Sir David Attenborough made a speech on behalf of all citizens who are concerned about the changes taking place on our planet.
We would do well to listen.
31
Why did reliance on the free markets assure the moonshot fracking technology would win out in the completion for necessary investment resources over a moonshot technolgy that would lead to a clean renewable energy future?
The answer to this question is the inevitable distribution of the wealth created by the developed technolgy. Fracking increases the value of otherwise inaccessible gas and oil. The implementation of any clean energy technology is inherently labor intensive.
The wealth created by fracking is that to which economists refer as rent. The payoff of a successful moonshot clean energy technology would be a vast increase in manufacturing jobs.
Obama knew that addressing climate change would be the engine for job growth for many generations. The Koch brothers and Trump know that addressing climate change will leave great wealth in the ground.
24
@John McCoy
This canard that green jobs are a new economic engine are absurd on their face.
If I burnt down 20 houses and then they were rebuilt is that an "engine for job growth"? What about all the builders and suppliers who would have jobs to build those houses? Surely they wouldn't complain so it must be good right??
The above is a type of "broken windows" analogy, demonstrating that the market (not individuals) efficiently allocates resources, and the original is literally in Chapter 1 of the economics text book Dr. Krugman wrote!
Furthermore, you misuse the term "rent". In economics this refers to holding existing technology captive, adding no new features or tech, and drawing revenue because you prevent new entrants.
Fracking is the OPPOSITE. We've built a new drilling technology that has made the U.S. the largest oil and developer in the world while making use of resources we thought were depleted. That's good old American ingenuity.
Looking back, I wish Al Gore hadn't embraced the cause of global warming. I admire him for doing it, but wish he hadn't.
It became a tribal issue once Al Gore embraced it. Republican voters who otherwise wouldn't have cared either way (and probably would have deferred to scientific opinion) now associate global warming with the tribal Republican/Democrat identity.
While the ideological warfare mounted by the Koch brothers would have had some effect, I don't think it would have been successful to the extent it has now without this tribal aspect.
Thus, global warming inexorably went into one of those categories - evolution and gun violence - on which factual debates can never be had with Republican voters.
14
@KS Why blame Al Gore for being on the right side of the issue? Shouldn't we blame the Koch brothers for pushing the system with their money to favor their own selfish business interests over the good of the country or the survival of human life on the planet?
2
@KS, whoever delivers the global weather change message will be burned at the stake by the wealth extraction 1%. So, what's your better idea to awaken the country to the environmental crises? Play "nice" with the people who intentionally spread corrupting misinformation?
@KS I think it odd to feel negatively toward Al Gore on this issue: he used his bully pulpit to raise awareness of the seriousness of climate change. That the republicans choose to act in insane tribal ways speaks only to their lack of human decency.
No, I think the blame for tribal misbehavior falls squarely on the GOP when in comes to climate change denial. (...and, frankly, so much else.)
Is it science or simply education that is the GOP issue? Taking over state governments starting in the 80's the GOP has stifled education funds for schools. They then use the broad brush stroke that the educated are the elites.
Trump is right in that he likes the low educated as does the rest of the GOP and they continue to try to create generations of such people. "What me worry?"
33
Meanwhile, we're all driving around in our SUV's, to the point that auto manufacturers are stopping production of sedans.
50
@EW I drive a Honda Fit. Next car will be a hybrid small car. Not all of us drive troop carriers or semi's to work. Everybody should think about what they do and try to make their part of the world better. Start now.
12
@EW - What drives me crazy is that the auto industry (American and Asian) focus all of their electric car development on either hyper-efficient econoboxes, or Tesla-type luxury cars. When most people are driving smallish cheapish 4x4 "SUVs" (more like CUVs actually), why isn't their focus on making those? Maybe they would sell more electric vehicles.
1
@EW -- AMERICAN producers are abandoning little cars because gas is cheap in the USA right now, and the Asian companies and VW beat their brains out in the design and manufacture of small cars.
GM is saying that they are abandoning little ICE cars first in a transition to EVs (and their first EV is a little car) as part of an obvious-to-management way to make the transition, and it is a rational strategy. Pickups and so on are cash cows for American manufacturers, and a market that won't flip to electric as fast as sedans ... so this really is "world of duh."
If you look at the range of layoffs that GM is making most of the public attention has focussed on the assembly workers at 5 plants, but the far more significant layoffs are the engineers who develop engines and the plants that build them. GM is really abandoning ICE, and that is epochal.
4
Again, the rich can afford bottled water and air conditioning. They can afford aero-farmed food, and central heating. They can afford wind mills and solar panels. They can afford electric cars and 20.00 a gallon gasoline. And most importantly they can afford lots of lobbying. Lots and lots of lobbying, to keep them and theirs high above any environmental negatives. So, nice article, but zero impact.
9
@Richard Mclaughlin And guess who they voted for, and who they received generous tax cuts from?
8
@Richard Mclaughlin - I've got news for you Richard, it's very likely that YOU can afford solar panels. I'm a pretty average middle class homeowner, and a couple of years ago I allowed Solar City to install panels on my roof with no money down from me (and I basically pay them as my utility every month) and my electric bill has gone DOWN by about 10%, and much more than that at the height of summer. It's basically at the point where solar panels can pay for themselves (depending on the cost of power in your area, and how much Solar City makes from selling power from your panels back into the grid when you aren't using it). And as you can see... like you, I also live in rainy cloudy cold PA. And the panels still work great.
4
@Richard -- you are spewing the standard "Al Gore hate" line -- the idea that conservation is a hoidy-toidy hobby for the rich; poor people cannot afford it.
You need to go back and read "Poor Richard's Almanack," starting with "a penny saved is a penny earned." These days, with all the taxes, a penny saved is more like 1.25 pennies earned, even for poor people.
Insulation and better windows pay for themselves in a very few years in most climate zones of the USA ... particularly so in the more extreme ones.
Solar heat is cost effective TODAY ditto in many areas, and rural people have chopped wood since time immemorial. I heat partially with wood and could do more -- my home outside Albany on the edge-to-rural suffers relatively frequent power outages due to icing storms -- a wood stove gets me through them, and I can save by burning some wood on the coldest days, without the work of harvesting that wood becoming too onerous. I'm 67 -- cutting and stacking wood isn't as easy as it used to be. 1 cord per winter is manageable. I don't burn during windless inversions, unless the electric power is out.
The biggest issue(s) for the less-well-off are access to the capital to make improvements that save money AND save the environment. A secondary issue is property taxes on such improvements. The first of these is partially fixed by government aid and policy, and could be fixed more. The second is an area that needs more attention.
3
There are many accomplished, well respected scientists that find fault in the exaggerations of climate alarmists.
Examples are Freeman Dyson, Judith Curry, and Richard Lindzen. Mr. Krugman continues to stereotype them as "deniers" and ignores their cogent arguments.
@James
Yep. Trump, Ken Cuccinelli, and the Koch Bros. = Freeman Dyson, Judith Curry, and Richard Lindzen.
Also, Krugman likes to talk in code on his blog.
3
@James Freeman Dyson acknowledges that climate is changing due to man-made causes, he just disagrees with some of the predictive models. Judith Curry says that all the disasters that are being predicted will happen, they just won't happen as soon as many people think. Richard Lindzen likes to argue that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, which of course makes him super credible.
Got anyone else?
23
@James
March, 2017
Lindzen tells Trump that Paris Accords are "not scientifically justified".
"As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.
2
Mr. Krugman, I'm glad that you address the issue of climate change issue. I wonder, however, why you don't address the problem and solutions from an economic perspective.
If there is no end to the depravity in sight, those who accept the findings of science best mount a counter force to that depravity.
My feeling is that greed motivates the climate deniers, and our collective spending habits support them.
Reasoned arguments are not going to persuade industries blinded by short term profits over long term survival.
Therefore, economics in the form of direct and massive consumer action is the strategy that could most effectively stop this madness in its tracks IMHO. But I'm not an economist.
Perhaps you could address the issue on a hypothetical basis.
How do you think industries would react if funds were created by grass roots contributions to be awarded to any industry producing x, y, or z ? ( Trump wants to end government subsidies to clean technology developers )
How would industries react to boycotts or selective purchases by consumers on a massive scale?
Do you think general strikes on a national basis would effect the bottom lines and persuade industries to reconsider their profit strategies?
Climate change is a problem on a global scale and as such needs a global response.
There is nothing I can do individually that will have any effect whatsoever unless it is part of a collective action.
12
Rima Regas points out that some of the seeds of our present political situation were planted by Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, where he wrote that the duty of corporations was exclusively to reap profit.
Friedman used two types of arguments for this. One was a superficial theoretical one and the other was a historical argument. His theoretical one was driving home a utopian belief in a perfect system based on rational thinkers, with a level playing field, without any extraneous factors at work. Such a utopian system requires some sense of justification for wanting it and showing the possibility of getting to it from here.
To conceal that this was utopian thinking, he brought in a historical argument. By presenting historical vignettes he tried to disarm the doubters, showing that examples of this utopia have in fact existed; therefore it was not utopian. But his history is fantasy and flim flam -- sound familiar?
He used examples from a John Wayne-version of 19th century America, colonial Hong Kong, and modernizing Japan, to prove how libertarian economic activity succeeded. Of course, these were anything but. He left out such things as the slave-plantation system base of his America (not to mention its genocidal actions against indigenous people), the colonial nature of Hong Kong relying on resources of the British Empire, and the role of the Meiji and Taisho governments in Japan in providing entrepreneurship, investment, and direction.
Flim-flam.
14
The anti-fluoridation campaign of the Birch Society in the '60's, and 'intelligent design' campaigns of the '70's and '80's were harbingers of (many) conservatives' animosity towards science. In the rare cases when they embrace evolution (which threatens their authoritarian world view), they twist a few ideas to promote 'survival of the fittest' in the economic sphere.
17
Mr. Krugman, in your column you use the statement "convinced 97 percent of climate scientists" to establish the veracity of human induced climate change or global warming. This overused phrase diminishes the factual basis for our knowledge of the causes, effects, and ultimately fate of this planet's climate.
Science does not rest on being convinced, or in beliefs, science is founded on facts, and continuous skeptical review of evidence to prove those facts. We all can see much of the evidence showing the reality of global warming, but science pieces these effects, and their root causes, together to arrive at the overall fact that man-made greenhouse gas is warming our planet, melting our oceans, affecting our weather, and increasingly changing the climate for the worse.
T-rump and his ilk conflate science with "believing". The media needs to make it clear science isn't a "belief".
38
@Pete
Science has never been that pure, never been divorced from social and political forces of the times: https://networks.h-net.org/node/5280/reviews/6498/keighren-shapin-never-pure-historical-studies-science-if-it-was-produced ("Keighren on Shapin, 'Never Pure: Historical Studies of Science as if It Was Produced by People with Bodies, Situated in Time, Space, Culture, and Society, and Struggling for Credibility and Authority'")
None of this negates the value of scientific consensus. There are things we can do now, with existing technologies, that are predicated on gradual change over 5 or 6 decades, that would help to mitigate problems (whatever their source): https://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges . This is a discussion of "Stabilization Wedges" from Princeton's Climate Mitigation Institute.
@Pete, Krugman doesn't promote blind belief in science. He simply states that 97% of scientists have reviewed the evidence cited by science and accept it as the most current and correct understanding of reality. Direct your focus to solutions rather than attacking the messenger. You're doing exactly what the climate change deniers want you to do.
2
@JSK
Oops. That is the Carbon (not Climate) Mitigation Institute.
Perhaps some are not really oblivious to science, rather only pretending global warming, climate change, and pollution is nothing to worry about while rationalizing that if the earth is threatened that's natural because it will hasten the Second Coming.
11
Any retelling of the Republican party's descent into intellectual fantasy, particularly this week, should include at least a mention of "voodoo economics." 41's willingness to abandon truth for electoral expediency was a teaching moment for the rest of the party.
25
@JMM you’ve obviously missed the message.
Dems and libs are hoisting 41 up as high as possible in the hopes that they can yet again make 45 look as bad as possible.
Of course we all remember the treatment 41&43 were treated to courtesy of the left and the press.
But it’s certainly entertaining.
Why you ask? Namely, politicians are beholden to their financial backers and for most Republicans in powerful positions, those backer are super wealthy with ties to the energy extraction sector, and not polar bears.
21
We need to remember that Trump was not held to account by journalists regarding climate. Climate was virtually absent from the debates. To this day journalists are not pressing the regime on a daily basis. To overcome climate denial we need to speak about it all the time. Overcoming the ideological entrenchment will require a concerted of all, all the time. Thanks for a first step.
11
@arendtiana -- I agree. There is enough evidence everywhere near the coasts, for instance, that could provide a steady stream (!) of stories about rising sea level and other effects of global warming. There is a ton of information out there that could be reported, day after day after week after week. Just reported, reported, reported. Specific bits of evidence.
13
@arendtiana -- Trump was not held to account for much of anything by the media in his run for the presidency. There are some understandable reasons why: he caught everybody by surprise, he had been only tabloid personality until then, almost nobody took him as a serious candidate until very late, and FOX and the right-wing echo chamber insulated almost all of those who voted for him from any critical reporting anyway.
We will get no rational climate policy from our federal government given Trump as president and the incoming Republican senate.
1
@SFR Daniel
You could have a reporter stand in downtown Miami and report on how high up his/her leg the water is on any day you wish.
We also where the Republican Party is going in North Carolina, Wisconsin and Michigan, When a Democrat was elected Governor in North Carolina in 2016, the heavily gerrymandered legislature passed a series of measure intended to reduce the power of the Governor, increase the power of the Legislature and prevent local government from enacting minimum wage ordnances.
After voters ousted Scott Walker on November 6, the heavily gerrymandered Wisconsin Legislature is now taking up a Sore Loser bill to reduce the power of the Wisconsin Governor and increase the power of the Wisconsin Legislature and reduce the time period for early voting. Voters elected also ousted a Republican Governor in Michigan on November 6. The Michigan Legislature reportedly is drafting a Sore Losers Bill to trim the powers of the Governor.
The Republican Party has become a greater threat to our democratic republic than the Communist Party of the 50's and 60's.
102
It is interesting how some of these Republican denialists and skeptics have been given the public forum in recent days. Some intersecting with discussions of Senor Bush' legacy and winning the Cold War.
But if you look at all the costs of "winning" and particularly the opportunity cost of diverting our attentions and resources from the greatest existential threat at that critical time, it is now pretty clear the Earth has come out the big loser.
Besides our great debacles of losing in Viet Nam and our incredibly tragic losses in Iraq and Afghanistan one can also point to one of our greatest weapons against the Soviet Union -- the demonstration of great wealth generation of western capitalism as our show of superiority over Communism.
And in this drive for MORE and greater wealth at the top, came the subjugation of all values to the dollar. The freedom to accumulate and consume rose to dominance in the hierarchy of freedoms.
And thus arose the great divide between those who speak for continuing the great push for wealth creation and great shows of wealth and those who speak for the interest of the commons. It is no surprise the oligarchical class would continue to tie their self interests with those of the commoners by tying their interests with the continuing enslavement of the earth. With the freedom to consume at any cost by the most convenient means of not locking trillions of fossil assets in the ground.
18
The short-sightedness of the Republican party has reached criminal proportions as they continue to inhabit the safe hollow of the sand pit. Travel anywhere in the world today and you will see innovative projects addressing alternative fuels, conservation, and habitat design specifically addressing the needs to alter how we fuel our lives. At a time calling out for radical ideas to literally reinvent the wheel, the innovation, sadly for our country, is elsewhere.
Not for nothing, but if the map seen in the image file accompanying this opinion piece was made for trump, that guy's color blind.
8
And what about the millions of civilians whose willing suspension of fact based reality, namely the planet's temperature and the ever-growing size and frequencies of catastrophic weather. The former GOP--I argue it has completely morphed into the TP--has successfully trained these fleeced minions to parrot falsehoods.
If fact based reality prevails, history will not be kind to any on the right, and if it doesn't, there will be less and less fact based reality left.
7
@james everything you say here could have been said when overpopulation and worldwide famine were predicted in the 70's by scientists.
you know why they were wrong? it wasnt science--could not be proven or tested.
y'know economists are so often wrong? same problem- almost impossible to set up a controlled experiment in economics. physicists dont have this problem.
the climate is easily the most complex thing in the universe and our knowledge of it is in its infancy. and to reliably tease out the human component in this vast climate is ridiculous. im a scientist and i have no economic interest one way or the other in this debate. this is not science. not even close. worse- all the proposals put forth in paris accords have been a complete failure. it's all talk.
The problem with Krugman's article is that he's preaching to the choir. Much like he always does.
There are few readers of Krugman who don't already share most of his viewpoints and there are essentially zero Republicans who will be swayed by his articles - whether they relate to economics or the environment.
What would be nice would be if Krugman used his fame to actually further the cause (economic liberalism or environmentalism; whatever...). Doing something other than writing articles to a very narrow audience might expose Krugman to the consequences of such actions (see Soros, George) but at least he'd be actually helping people and the earth.
3
@Equality Means Equal - Yes, and a related problem is that the Times does not do at all what is possible and might over time lead somewhere. The Times does not provide any substantial articles about technologies extensively used in Europe, all of which replace fossil fuel.
I have filed a comment here on one element of this subject - advanced incineration of solid waste - noting that the Times has only mentioned this technology once, 2013 in a fine report from Denmark by Elisabeth Rosenthal.
If this technology could be discussed here we might see whether the 1000s of readers who express concern with climate change would support the technology that here in Linköping heats the city and provides biogas for a large fraction of the city buses.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
When I file versions of this reply I ask the original comment writer, how do you heat and cool your living space.
6
@Larry, and others -- solid waste incineration is largely a bete noire in the USA due to a sordid history of very bad waste-incineration schemes (and plants) built in the 60's.
In the Albany area two disastrous plants have tainted the issue to a degree nobody wants to hear about it any more: the Sheridan Hollow plant
WikiP: "In 1982 an oil burning steam generating plant in Sheridan Hollow was converted to burn garbage at the suggestion of Mayor Erastus Corning 2nd as part of the Albany New York Solid Waste Energy Recovery System (ANSWERS). Since Sheridan Hollow is a ravine and the smoke stacks are high enough to be at the level with the surrounding rim most of the pollution from the stacks ended up in neighboring Arbor Hill. Allen Hershkowitz, director of the Solid Waste and Energy Project for INFORM, a conservation research organization, said of the plant in 1986 that it "is the worst plant I've seen in the world." The garbage burning aspect of the plant was closed in 1994 by order of Governor Mario Cuomo."
ANSWERS also built a larger garbage-burning plant out near today's Albany dump , and it was a local disaster too.
Modern plants can be cleaner, but the tradeoffs of waste-burning remain complex, and not the pure win you suggest ... unless ...
... the technology is oxy-combustion with subsequent CO2 sequestration. This coupled to high-efficiency power generation (combined-cycle or Allam) would be a big win on all fronts ... but not happening yet.
2
@Equality Means Equal
I do not understand your criticism of Krugman. He is doing his job extremely well, and he does help to persuade people to see what is wrong. If foolish people choose to ignore him, that is not his fault. He has responded to criticism in the past and improved the tone and effectiveness of his writing over the years. He also participates in conferences, teaching, and public events, which is "something other than
writing". If you cannot stop yourself from fault-finding, why not try critiquing Fox News?
Most economic (and religious) models for how society should organise itself (trade & procreation) proceed from an assumption of “infinite resources”. When these models were first mooted, the world’s population was a fraction of what it is now; individual consumption of goods (beef, fossil fuels, plastics, etc) were similarly minuscule and this assumption was warranted. This is now clearly not the case and regardless, at some point the assumptions would have needed to be revisited. That time is now upon us. Even if the current projections for global warming are out a magnitude of order or more, the earth is not an infinite sink and we are seeing the visible results of our actions in the oceans and atmosphere. We need to view this problem as an opportunity for jobs rather than a threat. Where is the American “Can do” attitude when we need it most?
11
@Carl -- Applying a version of Fintan O'Toole's recent writings, in which he looks under the surface at attitudes and beliefs, I'd say there is a deep attachment among climate deniers to a kind of paradox. On the one hand, there is the assumption of infinite resources, which is a good way to avoid looking at any shrinking of same. On the other hand there is an equally strong assumption that wealth is limited and must be grasped and kept from others. There is a desperation to corner all the wealth, while pretending that resources are infinite and that there will be no overall loss from exploitation, except for the loss to one's competitors (enemies). It is a kind of insanity that winds up destroying actual prosperity, and also very likely the ecosystem and our own species.
13
This not just climate denial, for all purposes of policy the GOP has become a Church, and a fundamentalist one for that matter. Like a Church, if has an official doctrine which sounds good (there is no global warming, you go to heaven after death, ...) and which is totally oblivious to facts. They keep preaching a gospel (no global warming, tax cuts create jobs and growth, guns are god’s given right,...) and insist on purity. Any heretic is immediately cast away. Divergent opinions must be fought rather than debated. And like any good Church, they hate scientists (climate researchers are the new Galileo). And like Churches, they are very successful, as the strategy creates a cohort of faithful devotees who are willing to suppress any critical reasoning for the comfort of remaining in their certitudes.
29
@Den Barn
Amen.
Right wing politics and fundamentalist Christianity are two sides of the same coin.
Both have dogma (strict construction-intent of the Founders, the Bible), the need for strong leaders, and the conviction that they are the "real Americans".
There is crossover in that many of the "Christians" think our country and its documents are divinely inspired.
9
The unending references to "97%" in the press give the impression that there are actually 3% of climate scientists who are unconvinced that global warming exists or is down to human activity. There are over 10 000 atmospheric scientists in the US alone, whilst a listing of climate-skeptic scientists (including some outside the US, and some outside climate/atmospheric science) on Wikipedia runs to about 50 names. So the fraction of "climate-denying" atmospheric scientists would seem to be 0.5% at most.
The science is quite clear. Republican denial is quite clear. The inability of the international community to address global warming is becoming clear. What's less clear is how to set up realistic but effective incentives to develop and implement nonpolluting energy sources. I look forward to hearing more on this from Dr. Krugman.
13
I spent my entire career as a research scientist; the last 15 years of it in climate science-related technology. So, I have some first-hand experience, including attending professional (technical) conferences all over the world.
I always found it perplexing that anybody could possibly buy into the bizarre idea that all these scientists (including me!) were somehow involved in a broad conspiracy to “cook the books” on climate science. Various specious motivations were trotted out by the science deniers, including protecting grant money streams and personal prestige.
Seriously? How many climate scientists do you know living in New York penthouses, hang out at the local yachy club, and fly around in private jets? Projection, indeed. And while climate scientists are, at the end of the day, sometimes fallibe, too, why is it so hard for some people to accept that maybe—just maybe—they’re motivated by a desire to find the underlying scientific truth to their hypotheses? It’s almost as if this cabal of pointy-headed nerds care deeply for their children and grandchildren’s health and well-being in the years and decades ahead.
Scandalous!
77
@Terry Malouf So right. As someone involved in the sciences, the goal of most is to refute the dominant paradigm, to make a name for oneself. Someone with evidence that global warming was caused by, I don't know, dark matter previously undetected, would win a Nobel prize. A conspiracy of scientists is an oxymoron. It's like a conspiracy of cats.
6
While climate-change denial was clearly one thread that presaged Donald Trump's presidency (and the meekness of the formerly-Grand Old Party in rolling over when Trump says to), it's not the only one.
Evolution denial is older than older than climate-change denial. Evolution is more widely accepted among scientist than climate change is. (99.991% of those eligible to sign the "dissent from Darwinism" document have not done so.) Does this stop politicians from denying evolution?
President George W. Bush thought that creationism ought to be taught in public schools (NY Times, 3 August 2005).
Senator Marco Rubio doesn't know and doesn't care about the age of the earth, but in any case feels that it is a question for theologians to debate about, not for scientists to experiment about (GQ, ThinkProgress, 5 December 2012).
Former Senator Sam Brownback presented a defense of creationism full of misconceptions (NY Times, 31 May 2007) and was rewarded for his errors by being appointed United States Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom.
Is it a coincidence that all these evolution deniers are Republicans?
25
@Dan Styer
Conservative politics and fundamentalist Christianity are two sides of the same coin.
Anyone interested in learning more about why humans deny this reality should read Jared Diamond's book, Collapse. The chapter on Easter Island is especially prescient as he explains the Tragedy of the Commons, where each group continues to exhaust the island's supply of lumber for their own selfish purposes, some to build the huge statues, which they worshipped, some to build ships and homes, some to burn for heat and light. Be prepared. It is not a hopeful book.
5
I don't think understanding global warming is very complex.
The Antarctic ice is melting, this we know without going into heavy maths.
We also know that the most effective insulation is that which entraps air and if we exchange the air for CO2 we get more insulation So it does not take a scientist to realize that if the world’s atmosphere increases its CO2 we get more heat retention.
But we also know that the Antarctic is one and a half the size of the US. We also know that it takes heat to melt ice. So when Antarctica ice is finally converted to water where is all the extra heat going to end up.
As ones granddaughter with her feet buried in the desert cries out in anger….you did not need heavy maths to know this was going to happen and you did nothing to prevent it.
6
There has been a strong thread of environmental exploitation in the American experience, right from the beginning. The New World was ripe for the taking, in the view of the white Europeans. We've never really shaken that foundational point of view. Today, it is expressed as "drill, baby, drill," in the case of oil and gas; in the case of Big Pharma it is illustrated by the bizarre TV and cable commercials hawking the latest and greatest iterations of drugs for major diseases down to "the heartbreak of psoriasis;" in healthcare it is "give people the freedom to choose healthcare coverage that doesn't cover" so consumers can save on premiums. So the right to exploit our natural and human resources for profit is still the highest good, in the view of regressives. So this is nothing new, but it is getting to be dangerous. I likely have just a few years left, but I believe I will live to see America in crisis over the burning of the West, drought and floods alternating throughout the land and cities like Miami, New Orleans, Houston and New York (and many others) flooded out by unprecedented hurricanes and by coastal flooding due to rising seas--all because we have never given up on the right to trash resources for greater profit. Can America survive? Can the human race survive? Not likely.
44
we will survive... but we must jail the perpetrators beginning from the top
1
Another extraordinarily astute analysis from Krugman. I am very aware of how these lies and conspiracy theories affected some people. As an environmentalist, I was appalled to learn that a good friend of mine had become totally convinced that climate change was a hoax by a cartel of rich people aiming to take over the world. Increased extreme weather was being produced by the Dark State's experiments at geoengineering to prevent climate change, which was really a hoax because the real reason for the geoengineering was to control people by spraying chemical in the air. My friend swallowed hook, line and sinker the Climategate scandal and the attacks on Michael Mann. I did some internet research to try to help her. When I googled Michael Mann, I found there were literally dozens if not scores of websites viciously attacking him like a school of sharks in a feeding frenzy. I punched in Jim Hansen's name and found the same thing. These men were savaged by the army of trolls hired by the climate change denial industry. This was not only at the highest levels of the Republican government, there were even attacks on Hansen from within NASA (although they represented only a very small % of NASA employees.) You are so right, this was where the bald-faced lies and deliberate fraud began. All this while the Pentagon had acknowledged climate change in a report. My friend never recovered from these sad beliefs.
33
Economics seems to have been an early victim. Laffer curves and such.
Then there was tobacco, fed by corporate interests.
Utah had its own local interest in "food supplements," the state being a hotspot for marketing nostrums with little or no evidence of effectiveness.
Climate change was a natural. Of course consequences have spread beyond climate science. State universities are being trashed. Respectable conservatives seem to thing only private colleges count (of course that doesn't keep Florida's state universities from being crowded with students despite a legislature worthy of Alabama).
I support the American Association for the Advancement of Science but fear that lasting damage to the federal government's support of, and use of, scientific information is already badly damaged.
12
It has reached the point that you don't have to be a climate scientist to see the reality of climate change. So why hasn't there been a shift in policy to address the threat to planet survival? The answer is simple and depressing: criminals are in positions of power. If you go to any country run by a corrupt regime, you'll see those in power living in ostentatious wealth, while everybody else lives in conditions of squalor and decay. You can find this in Africa, in Asia, in South America, but also in places like Flint, Michigan. The principle of corruption applies to the planet as a whole--ignore the common good for the benefit of the ultra wealthy. If we have any real hope of dealing with climate change we need to get the crooks out of power.
30
@Bob Chisholm France just dropped their fuels tax.
Trump's base denies the facts and evidence and scientific analysis supporting evolution and instead favors creationism with no hard evidence. Does it surprise you that they distrust facts and science in general? This may be why they will not thrive economically in the 21st century, so they wish to either a) go back to the 20th century, or b) ruin it for the rest of us.
Facts and science under-pin most of our advances in the last 200 years. The rest of the world will not ignore science, even if the US does. So we will fall behind. Understand, Mississippi and Lousiana and Kansas and Nebraska and Iowa and Missouri and Arkansas and South Carolina?
12
I'll side with the the recent climate report that was released over Thanksgiving, and the 97 percent of scientists who warn that climate change is real and influenced by human behavior. Interestingly, there are examples where conservatives and liberals have worked together to address specific issues that are related to reducing the so-called "carbon footprint." One example would be the "Green Tea Party Coalition" in Georgia. Environmentalists and Tea Party activists united to support legislation that favors solar power and eases the process for individuals to install solar panels and sell electricity into the grid. They are motivated by different reasons, but the end result is producing a "cleaner" means of power generation. Granted, this is not a "game-changer" as far as climate change is concerned... But it is one small step in the right direction. One of my favorite quotes is attributed to a Tea Party activist who reportedly said something to the effect that, "If you don't believe that we are influencing the environment with what we put into the air, drive your car into the garage, leave it running, close the door, and see what happens.
15
Finally, the media are beginning to inform the public about climate change. We have been waiting since Jim Hansen testified to Congress in 1988. Only today is the true emergency we are facing becoming apparent. In today's Guardian, David Attenborough speaks without any quibbling. We are facing the end of civilization and a massive extinction of half the species on Earth, perhaps including us! It's time to stop dithering and man the lifeboats. The morning after Trump was elected, I cried. Because I knew we did not have four years to waste on more climate inaction. Today, the UN is officially saying we need to increase our global efforts fivefold to avoid utter catastrophe. In these circumstances, I have wondered if an assassin would be ethically justified. Why must all humanity suffer because of a few powerful people? As the situation worsens over the next twenty years, I fear many will start thinking as I, but they may lack my moral compunction. Today's news is dark, and we truly have no exit. There is no alternative to our planet, not for most of us anyway. We the People must wrest our world's governments free from these monsters.
66
@Cynthia Adams: "In today's Guardian, David Attenborough speaks without any quibbling. We are facing the end of civilization and a massive extinction of half the species on Earth, perhaps including us!"
So true! In fact, Mr. Attenborough said that at a climate change conference in Poland, which is scheduled for two weeks:
https://unfccc.int/katowice
But, according to the UN...
"COP24 will generate a carbon footprint of 55,000 tonnes of CO2. To balance this emission, the State Forests will additionally plant more than 6 million trees (i.e. twice as many as in Central Park in New York City)."
You can use this site (https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator) to see the equivalence of 55,000 tons of CO2 to driving cars and other things.
In this day of teleconferencing, what a waste of energy and an example of hypocrisy.
Climate change happens all the time. Are we contributing to it? Of course. The question is just how much. Conservatives can help by acknowledging that. Liberals can help by not demonizing anyone who even slightly disagrees with their view by labeling them as "deniers".
1
Climate change presses all the conservative buttons at once:
1. It requires actual reading and listening. Highly educated liberal scientists are explaining a complex subject to the masses in a fact-based, organized way. Compare an IPCC Summary to a Trump tweet. The former provides information, the latter only affirmation, when coherent.
2. Solutions to the problem require big government intervention, forcing high carbon emitters to pay low carbon emitters. Note to conservatives: It can be revenue neutral and be effective.
3. Humans changing behavior to influence nature sounds like stepping on God's Turf. Who are we humble faux Christians who consider the white man superior to the remainder of God's Children to make the oceans rise or fall?
4. It isn't a matter of opinion. Your conservative opinion really is irrelevant. There is a compelling argument (e.g., facts supporting a claim that climate change is risky and man-influenced) supported by over 90% of climate scientists.
It's much easier for conservatives to wait for Hannity to say climate change is a hoax that read an IPCC summary or Politifact check on the 97% claim.
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/summary-for-policy-makers/
16
@David Doney It's possible that the present conservative Supreme Court will block federal policies that could address climate change as being beyond the authority of the Commerce Clause or the power to levy taxes.
1
OK Paul so what do you propose -- buy land in a temperate climate at a high altitude and wait it out?
3
@Michael typically he only attacks, and doesn’t propose.
This party has been in denial of facts for years. And they've combined it with a viciousness that didn't start with Donald Trump. In July of 1993, when Bill Clinton had been President for 6 months, Rush Limbaugh referred to Clinton's 13 year-old daughter, Chelsea, as a dog. A DOG! A 13 year old child! By one of the most influential radio commentators in the nation, then and now.
Insults and denial of obvious facts.
That's who the Republicans were in 1993 and who they are in 2018, and nothing has changed in a quarter century.
64
Rush was also endlessly attributing his climate denialism to the “expertise” of Dixie Lee Ray, onetime head of the Atomic Energy Commission.
3
The tRmp organization is built on racketeering, it has been swindling people for years, it is its business practice. It is not surprising that the GOP would be it partner.
Climate change denial, and most every other anti science position adopted by the GOP leads to an economic swindle of the American public. The Koch Brothers are only a symptom of this trend, it is the Libertarian ideal of Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan, with the GOP leadership joining in. Just Google trump and RICO, you will see several lawsuits, they are all in this together.
Climate change denial is a master propaganda assault on the credibility of science, its purpose it to get you to doubt your own senses, it is a form of mind control for the benefit if the authoritarian policies of its proponents. They know if you believe them, you will believe most anything they tell you. Dishonest Donald lies are meant to capture those already infected minds, they believe him, even when he contradicts himself. Contradictions can not exist,but the followers of him and his GOP enablers expect you to believe them.
The tactics of Totalitarians.
14
Many people want, indeed need, the comfort of certainty. They may get it from religion, but they're not going to get it from science. Such people don't seem able to understand, and are made deeply uncomfortable by, the fact that scientists are profoundly skeptical, by profession. Scientists are not easily persuaded. Thus, they almost never say anything with absolute certainty, but when scientists DO offer a considered observation, one is well advised to take it very seriously. And when there is near unanimity among scientists on a subject, e.g. anthropogenic global warming (or evolution, for that matter), bank on it being so, even if the details are still debated and not certainly so.
52
@AlexanderTheGoodEnough. A very prescient observation. This widespread misunderstanding of what science is may be due to the poor teaching of science topics in high school and university. The easy part of teaching and testing is to concentrate on the results of previous scientific accomplishments, the “facts.” What is hard to project is the process under which scientists work, and which Alexander described so well—skepticism, challenge,and being ready to change when convincing data (or theory) is presented, as in Newton—> Einstein —> Hawking.
3
The Trump Party wants to absolutely minimize the role of the federal government. The smaller the better. If it admits that there is climate change and we are contributing to it, then we (the federal government) have to do something about it.
Better we should all suffer than grow the government. I have no idea how that aligns with promoting the general welfare but, as Gore declared years ago...this is an inconvenient truth.
16
At least some of this anti-science stance must be traced back to the anti-evolution, anti-Natural Selection stance of Bible Belt Christians. To insist on the literal meaning of the highly figurative language of the Old Testament makes it impossible to use the tools of reason, systematic observation, measurement, and above all, the necessity to frame one's assertions about the world in a way that further experience might prove wrong. How far will you get asking a fundamentalist what new experience could they have which would cause them to abandon the mythology of Genesis?
88
I'm sorry, but denial of AGW has absolutely nothing to do with the science. That part is made up. Why? The root cause of denial is conservative sensitivity to threat. What kind of threat? In this case, government. Conservatives obviously think government is out to get them and they associate climate change action as just that, government out to get them. It is the most common symptom of paranoia, or as people who prefer a politically correct description, sensitivity to threat. It is why conservatives think the way they do and is unconscious, automatic "thinking" because they were born this way. It is impossible to convince one otherwise because their inherent fears are prioritized over any factual information.
11
Why is it that those who deny always claim lack of "real conclusive data" for feeling empowered to deny, while NEVER having scientifically supportive evidence to refute that which the vast majority of the worlds scientific community has declared for decades? This is a rhetorically question, I know why - 24/7 conservative talk radio and Fox News. Some people simply wish to be told fairy tales regardless of the likelihood Hansel and Gretel are about to be broiled to death.
16
@David
If you want to see the next step in this process of conservative climate denial, look to the flat earthers. They basically believe that if you can't personally do (or haven't done) an experiment in your backyard then the data is false and the person presenting that data is trying to deceive you. On Facebook, you can find all sorts of nice sunset pictures of foolish flat earthers asking "Where's the curve?"
Conservatism has much more in common with a religion than a political party since possibly Reagan but most certainly bush 2.
Really not all that surprising when you take into account the 1980’s melding of the Republicans and evangelicals. The question for both Republicans and the rest of us is where will this lead their party over the coming years. With science holding the keys to many of the solutions society will require over the coming decades this does not bode well for Americans.
21
Dr. Krugman, I always like your op-eds, even the extremely wonky ones, but I have to admit that your constant railing against the Republican Party as hopelessly corrupt climate change deniers is getting a little tiresome. It's not that I disagree with you; the Republicans have clearly has sold their soul to the fossil fuel industry. But constantly painting the Republicans as the devil implies that the Democrats are virtuous. This is dangerous, as I imagine that if you looked closely, you'd find plenty of Democrats who are not unreproachable climate champions.
Instead, I think you should focus your insightful analytical skills on the need to meet the challenge of climate change because, as you said, if we fail we can expect catastrophic results.
2
@John D
The fact is that our last real chances "to meet the challenge of climate change" are rapidly slipping through our fingers. And why is that? Republicans and those who own them, that's why.
We don't need Prof. Krugman's admirable analytical skills at this point. We need something like a revolution.
15
@SqueakyRat I agree--but given human nature (see Kahneman, Tversky, etc.), a revolution in support of personally painful changes in our lifestyles is highly improbable. Eat, drink,and be merry.
@John D -- constantly saying "don't stick your fingers in that electrical socket" does not turn off the electricity to it, whether or not a listener finds your repeated warnings tedious.
Little don actually used to have a working brain and not just a big gut and believed in climate change. He actually co-funded an ad that ran in the New York Times in December 2009 that listed himself, Ivanka, Eric, and the trump Organization urging then President Obama to take action on climate change and to reduce carbon emissions saying that the fate of the planet depended on it which President Obama and his administration did. Now little don, who President Obama made fun of at a Washington Correspondents dinner, wants to undue every good thing that President Obama did, regardless of the outcome for all human kind, nevertheless Americans. Here is the link so pleas see for yourself:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/03/us/politics/document-Nyt-Ad-Re-Climate-Change-Trump-Signer.html
9
The Koch brothers are graduates of M.I.T. Their opposition the science is not from ignorance. It’s just greed. The reduction of fossil fuel energy usage will cost them plenty. They are so old that the worst effects of extreme climate likely will occur after they are dead.
I think that the Republicans who oppose doing anything about man’s contribution towards climate change are just rejecting taking on sacrifices for purposes that will never benefit them. Base selfishness and nothing more.
120
@Casual Observer
At this point, most reasonably healthy 50 year olds have a life expectancy of at least 80 years.
If we continue to live as if climate change will not effect us, within 30 years it will negatively impact all of us.
9
@Casual Observer
Some of the science shows on PBS are supported by the David H. Koch Fund for Science (except climate science!).
2
@Casual Observer
To be sure the Koch's employ plenty of science to further their extraction of oil.
1
Trump will still be in the denial business when he is going from room to room in Mar-a-Lago in a dinghy. As for the other millions whose homes have been inundated, blown away or deprived of any value because they now inhabit a flood plain, perhaps a little reconsideration is in order. Eventually, the non-deniers will get tired of bailing you out after each fresh disaster. These people are only self-styled rugged individualists, "tough" and "resilient", because they can depend on handouts from that government they supposedly despise. It's also no coincidence their states are already the biggest moochers of federal funds.
37
@stan continople
"going from room to room in Mar-a-Lago in a dinghy."
Priceless.
There is this about the Republican Party. They just may be a bigger and more immediate threat than climate change - because they are wrong on just about everything. Trade, war, crime, jobs, health... You name it, there’s nothing they can’t make worse.
Before we can deal with climate change, we’ll have to deal with the GOP.
104
Fourth, the press (especially producers) are at fault and have contributed greatly to the ignorance of the electorate by continuously promoting false equivalency and to offer equal air time to any ''debate'' on climate change as a whole.
It's doubly hard to persuade anyone when you might have a scientist on television trying to explain (maybe somewhat dryly) as to how the snow caps are melting and what disastrous effects that might have, versus showing a Senator bringing a snowball onto the Senate floor and declaring it to be cold outside.
What happens is the former clip might be played one or two times, but the latter clip is played again, and again , and again, and ...
You get the picture.
14
Climate change is difficult to deny, but fear mongering is not helpful. I am much more concerned about environment, and pollution than climate change. Climate change is happening at a very slow rate (fast compared to geological time scale but slow compared to typical business cycle), therefore giving us plenty of time to adapt. Water levels increase by 1in every 10 years - while average person moves every 7 years. The deposits of oil and coal are limited and will be depleted at some point forcing us to use renewable energy (or nuclear). There are many feasible engineering solutions that can be deployed to lower the global temperatures if needed.
1
@Alice
This is not fear mongering. It's a stern warning. It's hard enough dealing with a problem when everyone accepts that it's a real problem. Having the so-called greatest nation denying there's any problem at all is a major setback for progress.
As for fossil fuels running out, do a little research on projections of oil extraction from the permian basin in Texas. There seems to be no end of places on this planet we can suck gas and oil out of. We can keep ourselves swimming in fossil fuels for much longer than you seem to think.
Your feasible engineering solutions take time to implement. You have this odd idea that we can all just pivot to solar or nuclear or wind power or other technology in an instant. That is simply not the case.
Finally, people move every seven years? Fine--but new people are moving into the same old storm ravaged places because houses are being put up on stilts. This costs me money as a taxpayer because the government subsidizes rebuilding. How does that make sense from a business standpoint?
Please: show U.S. your data and ideas. We need to know from you!
Fourth, the press (especially producers) are at fault and have contributed greatly to the ignorance of the electorate by continuously promoting false equivalency and to offer equal air time to any ''debate'' on climate change as a whole.
It's doubly hard to persuade anyone when you might have a scientist on television trying to explain (maybe somewhat dryly) as to how the snow caps are melting and what disastrous effects that might have, versus showing a Senator bringing a snowball onto the Senate floor and declaring it to be cold outside.
What happens is the former clip might be played one or two times, but the latter clip is played again, and again , and again, and ...
You get the picture...
The GOP always follows the money. The NRA ensures research on gun violence is quashed. The fossil fuel industry ensures climate change is denied.
Climate change, uniquely, is the tide that sinks all boats. It is the clear and present existential danger, for everyone around the globe.
If the United States continues to hold climate change in derision, it will become a pariah in the world. Humanity does not want to suffer and die due to the overt greed and stupidity of one country. The U.S. must contribute to help solve this crisis, or it will be left behind. If we do not act, then when things get really ugly, who will bother to come and help us?
The U.S. needs a constitutional amendment designed to fight climate change, regardless of who happens to be in power at any given time. Will this be difficult to achieve? Of course it will. But if we cannot work together on that, what will we ever get accomplished of true consequence? And doing so will allow us to serve as a role model, a symbol of hope and decency for the rest of the planet.
Science fiction gives us a taste of some of our possible futures. See Kim Stanley Robinson, for example.
To quote from one popular apocalyptic franchise: "Listen and understand! That terminator is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead."
We would be wise to see if we can avoid this endgame?
14
Trump leads those who like himself came from a heated environment and wish it here for all of us.
Richard Nixon, long ago, recognized the dangers of refusing to acknowledge the fatal degradation of two necessary sine qua nons—unbreathable air and undrinkable water—would mean to America and the rest of the world.
Whatever his faults as a president—and his legacy resonates in today’s poisonous political climate—he at least was not afraid to take steps that were both responsible and visionary: he created the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Koch Bottles have threatened and shamed and ruined all those who tried to stand in their way, those brave souls who warned of the dangers that unchecked greenhouse gas emissions would eventually wreak havoc on our planet and begin irreversible damage.
It’s almost inconceivable that all Republicans—who apparently don’t have enough money—care *only* about profits. Making money. The intellectually dishonest fossil fuel barons who fill the campaign treasuries of their bought politicians and who deny outright the threat of climate change (Mitch McConnell and his angry snarl at President Obama’s “war on coal”) constitute the most grievous threat to life as we know it.
Donald Trump is merely the water boy for the Koch Bottles. They have given their orders to Trump and the Tea Party and the Freedom Caucus. The Koch’s are probably behind the move to now open the Alaska shoreline for oil drilling. After all, who cares about polar bears and whales? Why think about the unalterable balance their selfishness may cause other life forms?
49
Sorry, too simplistic. There is a much simpler explanation - lived experience. Galileo invented a telescope, and wanted to show the burghers of the town the wonders of the solar system - they refused to look through it, for fear of seeing something they couldn't explain. Darwin brought forward his theory of evolution, and the leading biologist of the time went to his grave disbelieving it. It doesn't need corruption, it just requires old age, which in these cases starts at about 25 years of age for some people. No rational argument can sway even well-educated people, because they are unable to unlearn what they already know, but we can't afford to wait for them all to die off - what to do?
13
@Jim Brander
What to do? Realistically, nothing. This is the end of the road. We are paralyzed by our own human stupidity and greed.
They say that great minds think alike, so I now believe I'm Krugman's long-lost brother. Reality: my history with confronting climate denial led me to believe it would eventually infect one of America's two great parties, and so it has. Climate Science is little more than applied Physics: it's conclusions can no more be undone than Time can reverse itself, or Gravity can pull up. Clearly, if we're going to live in a Country where the seconds count backward, and Gravity pulls us away from the ground, there is not a single actual 'thing' in our waking lives that cannot now be questioned by someone with enough power: someone like Orange Caligula. And, right on cue, here he is. Funny how that happens...
13
@Phil ...gravity doesn't pull, it attracts.
In any case, the fundamental laws of the universe may or may not change at any given second - just like the Earth's magnetic field has reversed several dozen times during the past five million years or so. We simply don't know.
What we DO know is that humans are causing global climate change. We also know that it's already too late to abate the inevitable unless China suddenly decides that its destiny lies in becoming a hunter/gatherer society.
Very well put. And it all started with St. Ronnie almost fourty years ago when trees were polluting and ketchup was a vegetable.
15
@sapere aude
St. Ronnie did his part, but the effort to undermine science has even deeper roots. Part of the reason for that is the news media is ignorant and relies on others to interpret what science discovers.
This column coming on the heels of the yellow vest riots in France seems tone deaf. The root cause of the French protests stems from the citizens being outraged over President Macron’s high gas taxes. Dig deeper & we discover the riots are caused not just by a huge hike in fuel costs, but that the increase was due to a draconian increase in fuel taxes to reduce fossil fuel consumption in order to meet the Paris Climate Accord. Yet to fight climate change as Krugman would want that's exactly what we would have to do here. Gas in France is about $6 a gallon. Can you imagine what would happen in the U.S. if a Democratic President imposed a $3 climate change gas tax? All this in an attempt to lower the temperature of the planet by 2 degrees over the next 100 years to see if it will alter the weather. This, even as every bit of evidence has concluded that China’s international coal plant construction alone makes that absurd goal a total impossibility. Pure insanity. France has one of the lowest carbon footprint for its electricity grid thanks to their nuclear power - so why go so hard on gasoline? Because the inmates are running the asylum, that's why. This is what we might see in our streets after the Democrats raise the gasoline tax by $3 for global warming. Inconvenient truth. When a government tries to enact a green tax to support carbon reduction when income inequality is increasing, people will react to their immediate situations without considering the future.
4
@Bill Brown You're right. Too expensive, and the other countries won't play fair, so let's not even try. Because lifestyle adjustment to be more environmentally responsible is somebody else's problem! Why, if I'd listened to this Krugman guy, I'd have been inconvenienced by now!
4
@Ross It's not a question of trying. The voters won't consider it. End of story in a democracy. Climate change advocates need to acknowledge the reality that we are the ones who vote governments in or out, not environmentalists who demand we do things their way. We need to put all solutions on the table. Doubling gas prices isn't the answer.
3
What’s feeding the Republicans’ delusions on this issue is their obeisance to the fossil fuel industry, whose owners put their own short-term financial interests and quarterly earnings ahead of the long-term health of the planet.
Remember that any time you hear Republicans (or libertarians) opposing efforts to fight climate change, develop public transportation or do anything else to help the environment, or expecting “market forces” to solve all problems.
Their whole ideology is so crazy because it was bought and paid for by the wealthy interests that fund them.
11
You should not "believe" in climate change you should accept the scientific evidence that strongly supports the assertion that human sourced greenhouse gases are creating conditions that are warming the global temperature. But acceptance does nothing to change the fact that it is happening.
We also have to accept that fixing what is happening now costs money and that coal plants need to be replaced (notwithstanding lost capital investment) with nuclear and renewables, but especially with nuclear. Even going with the known technology of nuclear it would still take at least 5 years to get a single plant built. There is no time left for innovation its time to get moving with what we have. We have to accept a doubling or tripling of energy costs to pay for new plants and to spur conservation.
Did I forget to mention that world population is going to peak at 11 billon or so? That's about 50% higher than todays population and all those new people want energy too as it is directly linked to quality of life.
I see these circumstances as strong evidence for human suffering ahead.
15
It’s true that almost all climate scientists believe human-caused global warming is real. Similarly, American adults understand that expert opinions can change or turn out to be spectacularly wrong. Think of the recently overturned consensus on the link between egg consumption and coronary heart disease, or the reports during the 1970s that a new ice age was imminent. Against this backdrop, calling skeptics “anti-science” is counterproductive, especially since skepticism is the essence of the scientific method.
1
@Stewart Easterby
The evidence says they are not wrong. The experiment is running and we are seeing the results. We generate greenhouse gases, we can measure the increases of those gases in the atmosphere and we can measure the temperature increases.
I would also note that we only have one planet to live on. Mess this one up and a big hydro bill wont be one of your worries. Do ya feel lucky on this one? Wanna gamble our one habitable planet?
9
@Stewart Easterby Your understanding of scientific evidence leaves much to be desired. Before making silly claims about the fallibility of expert opinion you should at least try to inform yourself. Claims of the harmful effects of some nutrition are often flawed because of poor understanding of statistics of various proponents. Climate science is of a completely different order. It involves well understood physics of CO2 as greenhouse gas, world wide measurements of CO2 rapid (in geological terms) increase in the atmosphere and dissolved in the oceans. In fact it is becoming evident that climate scientists have been too conservative and the temperature change is closer to the upper range than the median predicted earlier. Glaciers are melting at an alarming rate all over the planet and extreme weather events are happening sooner than expected. Claim to know better than the experts should be based on understanding the scientific literature and knowing the facts on which the science is based, not on following your gut.
13
It is a historical fact that large and powerful
interests will do almost anything they can manage
to get away with to protect their economic interests. This
is the principle underlying the op-ed.
Big oil, big coal, their allies in the extraction,
refining, and power utility industries are the evident culprits
in a decades long and well executed plan to:
i) purchase political influence at local, state, and federal levels;
ii) fund pseudo studies to serve as pretexts for raising doubts of the underlying science;
iii) buy media propagandists to engage in
(a) disinformation campaigns of considerable subtlety to instill doubt (using (ii)), insecurity, and deep fear of change among the scientifically illiterate;
(b) undercut and attack all who opposed their authority to decide the key features of the country's energy policy.
Many targets were drawn on the backs of those prominent opponents of their efforts, using ad hominem attacks, explicit lying, tarring and feathering with mendacious character assaults,
etc.
No tactic from the red scares was unused to
create enemies of the average American whose entire interest was reduced to the desire for cheap energy to afford a lifestyle, considered both birthright and privilege.
This conspiracy and worship of Moloch worked wonders
and distinguishes us from the developed world
vis a vis attitudes about human induced climate change.
Moloch is ascendant in our society and is the true trumpican deity.
11
@bl Not just the giants but the small and impotent, too. For Moloch was created in man's own image. See: Better the devil you know.
Trumpism is just a crude evolution of Reaganism. We should look at the Reagan Restoration not as a single event, but as a rolling, accumulating, worsening cancer on the American society.
Frankly (to put a Cheneyism to good use for once), the corporate oligarchical forces are so strong - and let's face it, that happened with a lot of both complicity and passive inattention from the "Democrats" - I believe that the sole effective action to reverse greenhouse gas emissions is to buy out the recoverable carbon in the ground. Where the political will to do that comes from, I don't have an easy answer. It's a political and financial lift far bigger than WWII and there's no immediate bogeyman to rally the public against.
And I don't know what we can do about the methane releases already irreversible from tundra thaw... those will have an immense multi-century effect if not longer. The world must get ready for 5 degrees by 2100. It will be devastating.
8
@Rocky Five degrees F. 2.8 C.
An interesting outcome of the climate, for want of a better term, 'debate', is the light it sheds on how people form and hold their views. Promising topics for research in psychology and sociology. The laws of physics that have provided the basis for industrial growth and prosperity can now be selectively denied if they have any negative personal consequences. The principles that underpin our cell phones, medical technology, aviation, energy, scientific agriculture and pretty much all that has seen us prosper and double our life spans, are the same principles that predict catastrophic climate change. What physical laws are now to become fake laws? Is it conservation of energy? Is it the laws of thermodynamics? Is it the theories of radiation? Is the existence of atoms and molecules now a theory which is not settled science? Deniers debunk the logical consequences of science then drive away in their hi-tech cars, talk on their cell phones, fly away on holidays, ignorant of the central role science plays in their lives.
31
@Phillip Lock
Yes, you are correct. It is all of the above. We are in violation of nature's laws and no matter how much money you have, you can't bail yourself out of those violations.
5
Liberals love ringing the alarm of climate change and attempting to convince us that we are in an imminent crisis caused by Trump. But they stay far away from any facts, especially the inconvenient ones. Case in point was the UN's Climate Report from last week. It makes for interesting reading. Did you know the U.S.'s green house gas emissions peaked in 2007 and have declined ever since? Did you know Europe's emissions have been increasing since 2014? Did you know China is 27% of green house gas emissions and they are not expected to peak before 2030? Most importantly - did you know that the UN's forecast for U.S. green house gas emissions in 2030 has declined by 8% since 2017. The international climate agenda involves the U.S. torpedoing its economy even as it's 13% of global green house emissions is set to decline meaningfully. It's good to see Trump take on the world's biggest polluter in China. Perhaps liberals should support his efforts instead of acting like we are the problem. Perhaps liberals and journalists should actually read the reports they tout, instead of attributing a false narrative to them. Believe climate change if you want, but disabuse yourself of the notion that the Paris accords do anything but penalize us for progress the rest of the world is avoiding. I'd rather penalize the bad actors.
3
@TL: Only the recent natural gas boom has limited CO2 production here. Despite the modest decline, average CO2 production per person in the US is the highest in the world. It is about twice as high as in China. It is many times higher than in India. How can we convince India and China to limit the growth of their emissions if we don't do more to constrain our own?
7
@TL
The average American still has a much bigger carbon footprint than the average Chinese or European person. China only emits more than the US because it has over four times as many people.
More importantly, as the world's biggest economy the US has enormous influence; if we decide to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, we can exert economic pressure to ensure that other countries do the same.
Finally, independent economic analyses have shown that a federal carbon tax returned to US citizens on a per capita basis would actually help the economy (by creating jobs in the renewables sector) not hurt it.
7
@TL
Your post shows an unusual mixture of facts and stupidity. Many of the facts you mention sound like what Al Gore has been saying. Those are the reasons for there still being any hope. Mostly, solar and wind are now cheaper than coal, and so coal is dying without any government intervention.
But your last line shows your stupidity. We can't "penalize the bad actors." They are pursuing economic growth, and following a path similar to ours from 1900-2000. What we can do, as laid out in the Paris Accord, is get them to agree to goals if we agree to similar goals.
Since, as you acknowledge, we are meeting our goals, why not use the Paris Accords to do what they were intended to do, encourage China and India to adopt solar and wind and turn away from coal?
I fear when people look back at our failure, the 2000 election will be far more consequential than the 2016 election. Can you imagine if Gore had been President for 8 years instead of W? Not only would the environment be far better, but quite possibly 9/11 could have been averted and we would all still have our civil liberties.
W was like a deer in the headlights for his first year, ignored all the warnings about Bin Laden, and then let his Saudi friends out of the country and started two wars that weakened our economy with $4 Trillion in debt because...of course...he cut taxes rather than raised them to pay for his wars.
1
"Donald Trump isn’t an aberration, he’s the culmination of where his party has been going for years."
Exactly right. Trump is the end result of years of racism, intellectual dishonesty, lying, voodoo economics, and being beholden to big money for campaign funding. He is also the end result of 8 years of a GOP temper tantrum during which time things that needed to be done for the country were not because the GOP didn't want to see an African American male succeed as president. Martin Luther King must be nodding his head and smiling as he's watching white Americans do what they do best: deny that anyone but them can run the country (into the ground).
I shudder every time I hear a politician begin a sentence with these words: I'm not a (fill in the blank) but it seems obvious to me that (fill in the blank). No, they are not scientists. However, they are supposed to be intelligent enough to understand the implications of climate change, lack of access to health care even if we have insurance, poor education, poor housing conditions, etc., mean. They did learn how to read and reason in school like the rest of us and they have a college education unlike most Americans. They are the elite they claim to despise.
However, we do elect these people so some of this is our fault. If we want to have a planet to live on we need to elect people who have open minds. The GOP doesn't have an open mind unless it concerns getting more money for their donors.
14
"However, they are supposed to be intelligent enough to understand the implications of climate change, lack of access to health care even if we have insurance, poor education, poor housing conditions, etc..."
I think the repub leadership understands the implications. They are counting on them. People who are poor, hungry, unhealthy, and uneducated are easier to control through sophistry than those who are healthy, well fed, and well-educated.
During his 2008 campaign, Obama promised to make climate change legislation one of his top priorities. On November 18th 2008 President-elect Obama was quoted in the NYT in strongly-worded remarks to a gathering of governors and foreign officials. He said " he had no intention of softening or delaying his aggressive targets for reducing emissions that cause the warming of the planet." Obama repeated his campaign vow to reduce climate-altering carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and invest $150 billion in new energy-saving technologies. But comprehensive climate change legislation never happened. If Obama had wanted to act, he could have. Obama's party controlled the House, & Democrats briefly had a 60-vote filibuster-proof Senate majority. If Obama really wanted to pass strong climate change legislation the GOP was powerless to stop him. If passing this type of law had been a real priority, he could have done it. And if he had, there would be less finger pointing today. But he didn't do it. I don't think Dems really want to do climate change legislation. They just want to appear to be working on the problem harder than the GOP. Climate change legislation is a loser issue. It's not popular with American voters. Polls have shown this again and again. Trying to push climate legislation & the costs against strong voter opposition was & is political suicide. That's why the Democrats and Obama never proposed a tough bill. That's all there is to this story.
7
Obama did quite a bit, although one can argue he should have done more.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administration
Trump has tried to undo as much of this as possible.
11
@MKR Bottom line whether it's climate change or immigration legislation Obama talked the talk but didn't walk the walk he talked. Obama's party controlled the House, & Democrats briefly had a 60-vote filibuster-proof Senate majority. If Obama really wanted to pass strong climate change legislation the GOP was powerless to stop him.
2
@Bill Brown To paraphrase Upton Sinclair: It is difficult for a Rockefeller Republican to act like a Democrat when acting like a Democrat would displease his Rockefeller Republican masters.
Baloney.
Climate change didn't start on 16 Jan 2016.
And it doesn't start and stop as the Republicans gain and lose power.
The Democrats have talked and talked and talked about climate incessantly, and in the end have done absolutlely nothing that has any material impact.
Because, their constituents will vote them out if they do, unlike the French who prefer to burn their capital city when gas prices hit $7/gallon.
4
@Objectivist claims that this column is "Baloney" because "Climate change didn't start on 16 Jan 2016."
Of course the column never claims that climate change started on 16 Jan 2016.
In fact, the column doesn't make any of the claims attributed to it by "Objectivist". This is just an attempt by Objectivist to change the subject, and s/he wants to change the subject because the column is so obviously not baloney!
1
What do you mean, If we fail to meet the challenge of climate change, let's be blunt here that ship has sailed long ago and scapegoating Trump is hardly going to change any of it. The damage has already been done, the ice is melting and at an ever increasing rate, resulting in an imbalance to the polar ice caps that will bring catastrophic earthquakes already unavoidable. Especially those occurring during the times of stress on the Earths tectonic plates around the winter solstice, like the one we witnessed on Boxer day in 2004, and this is whether we agree or not about our role in bringing about this calamity. What we can do is prepare for these pending upheavals, signaled events like the total solar eclipse at the winter solstice in 2019 amid a planetary conjunction in the Capricorn degrees that is forming at this time. Yes this is the hidden science, occulted only by the blades of grass in the field, yet undeniably visible for those that understand what time it is up there.
4
The climate change deniers know climate change is real.
They also know that if climate change is accepted there will be pressure to decrease use of fossil fuels and that means the profits of the fossil fuel industry will decrease.
And they do not want these profits to decrease.
6
@david Can you blame them? The cost of buying citizenship in New Zealand has been skyrocketing.
This is not the first time the Republicans have succumbed to commercial pressure and totally were proved to be wrong in their dishonest attempts to stifle scientific evidence. That case is, of course, the willful denial that smoking causes cancer and is a scourge on those victimized by the tobacco industry, the former generous financial sugar daddies to the republican cause for dismissing inconvenient truths. That industry also supported pseudo-scientific think tanks, like the Heartland Institute and the Heritage foundation, to infiltrate sympathetic public media and anyone willing to listen to their willful distortions of scientific data and badmouthing the involved scientists. This scenario is playing out in the same way today with anthropological global warming. Only the donating marionette players manipulating the strings of politicians, policy makers and their accolades have changed.
Speaking of the latter, their vain and vacuous pronouncements regarding their "expertise" of AGW, or worse preceding it with "I am no scientist, but", galls me to no end.
The least the deniers should do is to say from whom they obtained the opinion and name a few of the 3% of climate scientists who still adhere to the notion that humans are not the cause of AGW. Pointing to the websites of the Heartland Institute, Watts Up with That, or similar data cherry picking organizations won't do. Better yet, inform yourselves with what 13 federal agencies have concluded.
6
Climate change is happening. Fact! And it is the greatest social, economic, and environmental catastrophe of our time. When will America realize that this is not a partisan issue? This is a global humanitarian issue that is affecting all of us on this planet whether we choose to believe it or not.
11
Thank you very much, Professor Krugman, for this pull-no-punches description of the Republican. As my mantra in 2016 was “Donald Trump is the quintessential Republican president”and “the only issue in the election is climate change,” it is refreshing to see these truths in your article.
More and more of my friends believe we are plummeting toward the sixth extinction. My proposal to Senator Elizabeth Warren, to whom I wrote after her recent speech, was that we have World War II mobilization to fight climate change. The only solution I can see.
7
We live in a period that will one day (if mankind survives) be called The Wasted Years. This is the period when we collectively could have done a great deal to save our planet from catastrophes....loss of species, destructive weather storms, mass starvation, mass migrations. Instead, we argued about whether or not this deeply studied phenomenon was real, with the main argument against it typically starting with the guaranteed debate winner, "I'm not a scientist, but....".
If I'm wrong, and this is all a hoax, then what will be the cost for taking action? It will cost companies to adapt, but will also lead to energy independence, tremendous innovation around clean energy, cleaner air, lower costs for the consumer. But if you're wrong (the climate denier), what is the cost for doing nothing? We lose it all. We wasted our chance.
8
If ireversible climate change does set in, there should be Nuremberg like trials of politicians who denied climate change influenced by the fossil fuel industry. The deniers probably feel that they will get away with what they influence and do despite the strong possibiity that their actions could ruin hundreds of million lives.
6
@MS "Nuremberg-like trials" would be a "sugar high" for those who knew "irrreversible climate change" would come if we didn't take measures to avert it, but they would be meaningless. At that point it will be too late to avert the worst consequences of CC.
@MS It has set in.
It's estimated that Vladimir Putin is worth $200 billion, making him by far the richest man in the world. We have been remarkably slow to appreciate the power of a $20 million bribe here, a $40 million bribe there--Putin's pocket change. What explains the abandonment of principle by Republicans? If Prof. Krugman wants to accuse them of corruption, you'd think the first places he'd want to check are the off shore bank accounts of our Republican members of Congress. We already know Trump is bought and paid for. Why are we hesitant to think many other Republicans are on the take as well?
7
Sadly I think the tragic consequences of climate change will only help the Republican Party.
Once the worst effects start being felt on a large scale -- a drastic increase in the number of migrants/refugees, regular catastrophic flooding of coastal cities, shifts in the global food supply, etc. -- fear will set in among the general population and the GOP's hard-right agenda will start to speak to a larger number of voters. It will be increasingly difficult to argue logical, science-based, long-term solutions when there are literally millions of climate refugees seeking entry into the country and the food supply is at risk. Even the most rational voters at that point will put their own survival above doing the right thing.
What's more, the GOP can then cynically throw up its collective hands and say, "You want to talk about carbon dioxide when Americans are at risk of not having food? You want to talk about green energy when there are millions of foreigners at our doorstep trying to come in?" It will be a political slam dunk.
This is a bleak view of the future, but I really think it's the most likely outcome, precisely because it requires the Republican Party to do absolutely nothing, which they are very good at. It's the easiest course of action: ignore, deflect, lie, and bury evidence while you sit back, collect your Koch dollars and bide your time long enough for the damage to be a forgone, irreversible conclusion.
14
The failure to address climate change and stop environmental depredations and destruction rests in the assumption that Man was put on Earth by God to have dominion over all other forms of life and the living Earth itself.
We could have built entirely newer, healthier societies where all could thrive, but instead we destroy and destroy and destroy...pity the animals who die by the millions in our blindness. Polar bears starving, whales strangling on plastic, butterflies dying in droughts - all brought by us, the intelligent species. I weep for these majestic animals and others, and weep for the innocents caught in the maelstrom. Only 100 or so corporations are responsible for the lion's share of climate change - and if governments had any decency or nerve, they would have been regulated long ago. An earlier article in the NYT revealed how climate change could have been addressed in the 80's, but was stopped by John Sununu and the Reagan administration. We are not the greatest nation on earth; we are the nation who contributes more to the destruction of the earth than any other, although China is rapidly catching up.
9
There is no real argument to be made about climate change, but there is a challenge on exactly what to do about it. As Trump gets the Saudis to produce more oil to keep gas prices low (at the cost of abetting a murderer), we continue to produce fossil energy because it is cheaper than most alternatives. So the rest of the industrialized world gets stronger technologies than we have for alternatives. The solution should start with eliminating any and all tax or investment benefits for oil gas and coal, making their prices what they should be. Then increasing tax incentives for alternative fuels, making their prices competitive. And do Not drill any additional rigs off shore. The industry cannot demonstrate their ability to avoid leaks and disasters in those environments. And the oil industry made such a big deal of birds being killed by wind turbines! At least that is being dealt with. What a ridiculous situation.
4
Big Oil & the GOP aren't the problem when it comes to enacting climate change legislation. American voters don't want to pay more for energy. Every poll backs this up. The GOP is simply reflecting the desires of their constituents. The point of cap & trade was always to increase the price of 85 percent of the energy we use in America. That is the goal. For it to “work,” cap and trade needs to increase the price of oil, coal, and natural gas to force consumers to use more expensive forms of energy. President Obama’s former OMB director, Peter Orszag, told Congress that “price increases would be essential to the success of a cap and trade program. The majority of U.S. voters will never go for this. Period. The overall reality in that climate change legislation is hard to pass even in good times. It's a real killer in an economic downturn where citizens & business fear higher costs, even slightly higher costs, & may see no concrete benefits. The US is extracting carbon & flowing it into the global energy system faster than ever before. We're trying simultaneously to reduce demand for fossil fuels while doing everything possible to increase the supply. Mind you this started when Obama was President. Can we bring ourselves to prioritize renewables over cheap fuels? Are we willing to vote against our own self interests & approve higher taxes on fossil fuels? Can we muster the restraint needed to leave assets worth trillions in the ground? Absolutely not. It's never going to happen.
6
Climate change is our crucial global existential problem. But the real crucible for Trumpism has been NAFTA and associated offshoring of American jobs, with no viable strategy to adequately protect workers. Workers were left behind. And while we're on the subject of Bill, let's consider Hillary. If she runs again, she will be the spoiler and Trump will be re-elected. Good luck with U.S. involvement in helping with climate change then. In continuing to abdicate its responsibility with climate change, the U.S. will become a pariah in the world and will be left behind. Who will then come to help *us* when things get really ugly?
What are the big stories now? Trump and Russia. Health care. Climate change, for sure. Climate change is the tide that sinks all boats. But Hillary is the big (and little-covered) story. If she runs again, she will sink it for everyone. We should be talking about that, too.
4
@Blue Moon So.. Hillary wasn't the answer to the prayers of the planet? See: dems deeply in denial.
The broader question involves how to rid the world of Trumpism and whether the GOP can repudiate Trump and survive the loss of his base. If the fracture proves permanent, reconciliation between Trumpism and traditional Republicans lacks common ground.
Combined with a lack of a voice with a vision to lead post Trump hope dims for a GOP recovery in one election cycle. Political parties may lose relevance if they fail to improve their selection and vetting of candidates. Or if the House and Senate fail to employ a common good test to policy formulation.
The environment waits. Those in danger of losing their right to vote, wait. Consumers victimized by unethical or predatory lenders also wait. DACA eligibles wait. Those in need of health care benefits worry. Economic security shrinks those on the margins worry and wait. Corporations serve investors while workers wait. GDP a measure of comfort for the wealthy.
4
"The broader question involves how to rid the world of Trumpism and whether the GOP can repudiate Trump and survive the loss of his base. If the fracture proves permanent, reconciliation between Trumpism and traditional Republicans lacks common ground."
One hopes that the Republicans might split into two parties rendering both politicly irrelevant. It seems like a long shot, but all that's left in national politics at the moment are long shots.
5
The rich Republicans deny climate science because they want to squeeze every last dollar out of their industries before everything collapses.
The middle class and poorer Republicans deny it because they think (actually more realistically than many Democrats) that taking climate change seriously would require them to give up the McMansions, SUVs, overheated or over-cooled buildings, and other trappings upon which they base their self-esteem. They are also loath to ride public transit or live in neighborhoods with the Others.
31
@Pdxtran The science on climate change is settled, but the politics isn't. The GOP is disingenuous when they deny the science, but lets be honest the Democrats are even more disingenuous when they deny the cost. Most major cities which have gigantic energy needs which can't be met by clean energy. It's not scalable. We can't & won't stop burning coal...at least for the foreseeable future. Of all the fossil-fuel sources, coal is inexpensive & a major factor in the low cost of U.S. electricity. Renewables can't fill that gap. Coal & other fossil fuels are currently the only way we can meet the high demand for power. The electricity demand on the power grid must be generated as its needed, in real time. There's no other option. When the demand for electricity suddenly spikes, we need to have the means available to generate that power immediately. Fossil fuels provide this capability. Solar, wind & hydro power is limited as we cannot generate hundreds or thousands of mega watts of power upon request if the Sun isn't shining or if the wind isn't blowing sufficiently. If we were simply forced to generate power through only clean methods at this point, there would be rolling brown-outs and power curfews like there are in 3rd world countries. The American public won't stand for this under any circumstances. While many people are in favor of alternatives, they also want those alternatives to not compromise on their lifestyle. Democrats aren't going to give up their SUV's either.
3
@Bill Brown
Spend a few hours googling the state of the art of renewables. You are just quoting people that are lying to you to get you to believe that fossil fuels are the only answer to issues.
Renewable technology is improving rapidly.
Electric vehicles have batteries and can easily use excess capacity on the grid, then providing carbon free transportation. Put a shed with solar panels at workplaces and people can charge their vehicles during the day when the sun shines and get into a cooler car.
Battery technology is improving. You can make hydrogen fuels. Hydro power probably could be expanded (why not pump water uphill into every dang reservoir during peak power / low demand periods).
Air conditioning is a major power user and coincidently lines up perfectly with peak solar power. You could generate hot water during the day rather than using electric or gas water heaters.
Sure there is a use for natural gas for peak periods and there are lots of existing plants. Coal in the 1st world ? Why ? In the 3rd world, makes more sense since portable and easy to harness, but then again solar panels could be installed in tiny villages without building any kind of grid .. which is immensely more efficient and cheaper than what we built using fossil fuels 50 years ago.
2
Dr. Krugman, the old 97% saw of climate scientists agreeing to the facts of climate isn't true. That would leave a full 3% disagreeing.
The actual number is that 99.9999999999% of climate scientists agree that it is occurring. A few years ago someone did one of those aggregate studies, checking out the findings of all the work already out there and the true figure is what is written above, 99.9%
My spouse is a NASA climate scientist and I recall finding the study in defense to Republican family members. Not that it did any good, but I'm sure you'll be able to find it and update without much trouble. Best Wishes.
140
@lechrist When David Attenborough says it's over. We're well and truly done. See: His prelude at this week's Polish (we burn lots of coal) climate chats.
11
@lechrist
Maybe more than one climate scientist in 10^12 (!), but certainly fewer than 3% deny the link between warming and human activity. A very generous estimate is 0.5%, but it could well be much less.
7
@lechrist Dear lady, thank you. We need your voice. Perhaps someone(s) will read your comment and take notice.
2
I always found it amusing (if sad) that Republicans would say climate scientists lie for the money, when the big money is obviously being made by the fossil fuel industry and its deniers.
148
@Michael The big money is in the bankers skimming off cap & trade.
@Michael projection is their specialty. what they accuse others of is what they are doing
Excellent and cogent, as usual. Please keep the drumbeat going.
17
Deliberately worsening climate change is criminally irresponsible on a civilization scale. Leaders doing it should be held legally accountable. Because people like Donald Trump will be dead when climate change causes mass loss of human life, their descendants should be made to pay. If climate change continues to intensify as scientists predict, Trump's children should progressively be stripped of all their assets until they are left destitute. In future should Trump's children undertake significant action to reverse their father's climate policies, they could be partially released from this bond. The same should apply to any political, economic, religious or cultural leader who promotes climate criminality. Make their descendants pay, since they won't be around to face justice.
27
@Damon Lynch
You are wrong. Climate denial consequences are happening now. We need to hold the deniers accountable. Their descendants are just as innocent as our own.
3
@Martha Grattan
It's not a matter of either / or. It would be great to hold criminally accountable the CEOs of big oil and politicians like President Trump. But the American electorate has thus far not shown itself to be concerned enough by climate change to make it an election issue, let alone a criminal one. Many members of Congress are in the pockets of big oil. By the time the electorate is aware of the consequences of today's climate criminals, it will be far too late to prosecute Trump et. al. If scholars can lay the groundwork now for future legal action, drawing on mechanisms like the Genocide Convention and anti-corruption laws, then climate criminals like Trump will be forced to take into consideration the effects of their policies on their direct descendants, making them more likely to act positively, if only to protect their family legacy.
3
Fourth, the press (especially producers) are at fault and have contributed greatly to the ignorance of the electorate by continuously promoting false equivalency and to offer equal air time to any ''debate'' on climate change as a whole.
It's doubly hard to persuade anyone when you might have a scientist on television trying to explain (maybe somewhat dryly) as to how the snow caps are melting and what disastrous effects that might have, versus showing a Senator bringing a snowball onto the Senate floor and declaring it to be cold outside.
What happens is the former clip might be played one or two times, but the latter clip is played again, and again , and again, and ...
You get the picture >
63
There is good news for US which is "lead" by the Trump kakistocracy. The fact that he has done nothing aside from a horrible tax giveaway to wealthy is good. Hopefully, the administration will be able to do nothing more than attract news cycles in the next 2 years. The broadcast media should focus on not whether or not the Putin inspired opposition research (Indeed, Putin may owe his election to American "tampering" with Russian elections, in particular Yeltsin's) helped elect Trump. Rather it should focus on current policies of the Trump administration, blocking them when ill considered.
Trump has been a clever grifter and corrupt for virtually his entire adult life. His policies are sufficiently bad that the country probably would be better off if he was removed from office even if his crimes did not meet the constitutional bar. Nixon's corruption was minor league compared to Trump's, and its by no means clear that Russian participation in our election was any better than the Watergate burglery. It is likely that if his Tax returns were made public, the wholesale revulsion towards Trump would accomplish what constitutional legalities and emmoluments might not.
7
@Michael Cohen You say, "The fact that he has done nothing aside from a horrible tax giveaway to wealthy is good." Unfortunately, it's not a fact. He's done lots. And pretty much every single bit of it has been worse than bad.
5
Every word.
Every word of this Krugman post is pure gold.
I fear that those who need to read and understand this the most are unwilling and/or incapable of understanding the message and the importance of this column.
I fear for the future of our democracy.
44
@Mark
Why fear? You are confronting both with this President and his Republican henchmen.
Trump probably has an entire menagerie of involuntary triggers inside his brain that cause him to deny man-made climate change. The most obvious is, he can't admit being wrong to others and most likely himself. It would be an interesting study to see what percentage of Republicans, Democrats and other affiliateds suffer from this affliction when it comes to climate change.
Climate change denial in politicians should be treated like a disability and those who suffer from its effects should be guided into careers that have the least impact on the environment. Until we can help them. Vote them out.
The first question that must be asked of any politician: "Is man-made climate change real?" If their answer is no. Move on to the next contender.
13
“A party that is not only completely dominated by climate deniers, but is hostile to science in general, that demonizes and tries to destroy scientists who challenge its dogma.”
A near perfect description of evangelicals. Only hatred of Evolution is missing.
77
it's where the routine denial of facts and the substitution of corporate ideology lives. it's where the ignorant dismissal of science by people with for-profit agendas lives. it's where no-nothingism is co-opted by interests who want to use the air and water and treat them as externalities, with the diminishment of the future drawn by those who can't buy drinking water
10
The Republican party is completely controlled by the fossil fuel and mining industries. These industries, engaged in resource extraction, typically exploit local populations and generate terrific profits in the process. This is essentially a Republican ideal. Create a few extremely wealthy patrons and a bunch of low income workers who produce enormous wealth for the owners. This has been going on for over 100 years. Like the Tennessee Ernie Ford song, I owe my soul to the company store. The company uses a take it or leave it attitude because the locals don't have any other opportunities.
Renewable energy doesn't involve resource extraction. Going green is then akin to eliminating slavery. It ruins a source of enormous income for a very few. Again, as with slavery, a population of workers is exploited for their backbreaking labor and they don't share in the profits.
The locals side with the company because of their weakened position. There is no place else to go and that's exactly what the company wants. So they cut funding for education, training, votech, all of which are ways out of the mine. Then they sell it to the locals by cutting taxes and guns everywhere which is perceived by them as enhancing freedom. But they still have to work the mines.
That's why Republicans are climate deniers.
253
@Bruce Rozenblit
I have been thinking the same thing for some time now. Our cities are, and have been, developed in such a way that there are large population groups located away from employment opportunities so that the wage rates can be minimized for the support services required by the wealthy enclaves that have been established. One needs to look no further than the slave like conditions of the labor forces in Dubai that serve the worlds wealthiest individuals in their choice vacation land, to see the same development process in the real-estate development in Miami and South Florida. The Company Store mentality has re-emerged in the new robber-baron gilded age in America.
21
@Bruce Rozenblit
What about the slave labor in the prisons for profit whose inmates are over-represented by men of color.
4
@Bruce Rozenblit
" Going green is then akin to eliminating slavery. It ruins a source of enormous income for a very few."
And it's just that simple. Fossil fuels have been the core energy sources for both the industrial revolution and modern civilization. To characterize it as similar to slavery and a source of benefits for the very few is obviously ridiculous given the current reality of alternative sources.
3
It's too late for blame; it's almost too late to prevent the climate catastrophe that has already begun with melting icebergs, rising sea levels, warming oceans causing massive damage to marine life, moster hurricanes, massive fires, and drought. The ecosystem is collapsing and the climate deniers are chanting like some Greek chorus "drll baby, drill," and pollute baby pollute with heat-trapping greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels. People are already dying and our modern-day, climate Denier-in-Chief Nero fiddles as the planet burns.
92
Yes it is unacceptable for one of our two political parties to attack basic science so zealously.
But consider the reasons why Republicans have found a receptive audience:
It is very scary to consider that climate change is in fact real and our actions (even just driving a big truck around or living in a big house) in some small way affect our family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens..."don't try to tell me an entire city burned to the ground and it's because of the way I live my life" they say.
We would do better to handle the emotional/societal implications of fighting climate change more candidly. Graphs won't do the trick!
5
Professor Krugman rightly points out the corruption of the Republican Party and its effect on the acceptance of the truth of scientific reporting on climate change. Republican responses(and Trump's specifically) are full of baseless opinions and paid for obfuscation. But the Republican deniers and all of the rest of us should remember that what they "think" doesn't matter to mother nature and that, as the climate catastrophe unfolds, science always gets the last at bat.
48
@Alfred Sils In short: Nature always has the last word, and it is rarely a kind one.
8
I am surprised that the proper historical perspective is not provided by Krugman, who is obviously a very astute person. My point(s): Go back 500 (or so) years ago and the catholic church destroyed Galileo for opposing the dogma of a heliocentric universe. (Today, we have their kin in the "flat earth" society propagating their creed, but I digress.) We can go through the centuries and the prevailing powers oppose science because it takes away from their current power structure which is enabled by people with money (who, incidentally, would be hurt by the new, emerging science). Think tobacco. This is the way it has always been and it is the way it always will be. I am just surprised that, us scientists, havent figured out a way to address these attitudes - by now we should expect no different.
85
@kumar
It would also help if the Dems would join the fight with as much energy as the GOP puts in denying science.
142
@William Dufort The problem with Dems (especially) ramping up a political fight defending science is a specific one that results from the other leg of the climate denial base. The first is as Krugman and many commenters her pount out is greed. Another however is religious belief and this time not by church hierarchy as in the Galileo case but by millions of conservative Christians, who are not willing to accept any scientific version of arguments that go against their Biblical beliefs. In the scenario you suggest it would possibly be counterproductive electorally for Dems to be more vocal since these conservative voters would feel even more looked down on and threatened. Getting them to open their eyes is unfortunately going to be a long.term proposition.
18
William Dufort wrote “@kumar It would also help if the Dems would join the fight with as much energy as the GOP puts in denying science.”
It’s always about the money. The DNC reversed course just two months after prohibiting donations from fossil fuel companies, voting 30-2 to reverse the ban.
When Fossil Fuel Money Talks, the DNC Listens
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/when-fossil-fuel-money-talks-dnc-listens
9
The only challenge is to stop this pointless climate modeling and start studying the atmosphere, oceans, ice core studies...etc. there is still alot we don't know or understand.
The medieval warm period was a time of temperatures in the so called "danger zone" yet of legendary vineyards and the building of cathedrals, not a time of catastrophic results. Many civilizations survived and even thrived during those hundreds of years. The Roman empire survived in the danger temperatures for hundreds of years.
From the 1940 to 1975 as CO2 was rising the temperature fell, resulting in the ice age scare during the '70s. CO2 is not and has never been a climate driver, the suns activity is the driver. Let's start studying facts, science and not fiction that drives a political or economic agenda.
1
@Bill
Deny! Down with well-studied standard physics! Down with scientists! But first, think harder about your last sentence.
41
@Bill
Nice example of stringing together potentious words in service of rhetoric, but now is not time to "start studying the atmosphere, oceans, ice cores" (as though that has never been done)....
The action has already begun, whether humans take new actions themselves or not. For atmospheric evidence, watch the new kinks in the northern jet stream.
51
@Bill: I'm not a climate scientists, but I have noticed some things about past climate fluctuations. One is that the ancient warm period occurred when all humans used fire for everything, when it was the only source for heating, cooking, lighting, and whatever manufacturing they had. Those activities must have sent a lot of carbon into the atmosphere. Even so, it seems not to have been as hot as the projected temperatures for 50 years from now.
The Little Ice Age occurred after the Black Death is believed to have wiped out 1/3 to 1/2 of the population of Europe and Asia, which meant 33-50% fewer people using fire. Temperatures didn't start warming back to previous levels till the population recovered its previous strength and the industrial revolution began.
21
Climate denial, you might say, was the crucible in which the essential elements of Trumpism were formed....
[ Devastating passage in that the passage makes complete sense and contains so much truth. So much of Trumpian policy now consists of attacking the environment, and I find this repeatedly distressing. ]
15
Yes, but. Yes you are right, but consider the background of those old enough to remember the lack of gasoline resulting in hours long lines, rationing and inflated prices. now that we finally have enough fuel, the 'rules' change making an apparent answer to prayer the hand of the devil himself. As has been starkly admitted recently, even with the modest goals of Paris, we are not even close to meeting them as a planet. We are a tiny three hundred million in a poor world of seven billion people and growing very quickly. To believe that our small number of people can tip the scales of nature agaisnt the furnaces of billions and the burning of the planets forests is naive, may I even go so far as to say it us unscientific considering that the population is growing on a percentage basis far far faster than the most optimistic paris projection. Once green energy is genuinely cheaper and as available as fossil fuel, the wells and mines will be shut, but most likely not before.
@NYer, as the U.S. is now down to (but not below) the second-largest contributor to global heating, yes, we can do a lot to help without even considering how our actions can encourage other countries.
9
The depravity of Trump and of the movement to massively lie about basic climate science do indeed overlap. But we should avoid concluding that widespread depravity began with Trump's political ascendancy, or that denial of science is the only -or even the main- reason why our generation is likely to go down as the most damaging ever to the long run global economy and human civilization.
This conclusion is on the right track, yet too superficial:
"If we fail to meet the challenge of climate change...it won’t be the result of an innocent failure to understand what was at stake [but, rather,] a disaster brought on by corruption, willful ignorance, conspiracy theorizing and intimidation."
Apart from our having already failed massively (despite sizable payoffs still available from reducing fossil fuel dependency), these two explanations (innocent misunderstanding vs deception and intimidation) are only part of the story.
For starters, it is counterintuitive that increases in trace amounts of an odorous gas could tip our planet into a new geological age. Beyond that educational hurdle, moreover, truly grappling with climate change requires reshaping the energy sources which underpin industrialization.
Normally, we humans are fairly good at avoiding obvious disasters like Trump. But our habits and institutions are not well-equipped to tackle a multi-generational "tragedy of the commons," now at best only partially avoidable, and only through extensive international cooperation.
6
@Sage
It may be counterintuitive that trace amounts of green house gases can tip the scales, but quantum physics is profoundly counterintuitive. Nitrogen and oxygen make up most of our atmosphere, but they are transparent nonplayers in the visible spectrum where we receive nearly all of our solar energy and in the infrared region where we exhaust a nearly equal amount of energy by radiation to outer space. Hunches don’t matter. You have to run the numbers.
7
@James S Kennedy
My point exactly. Most people go by some combination of hunches and accepting or not accepting mainstream science, not by finer philosophical reasonings based on quantum physics, or by scientific statistics in peer-reviewed journal publications. A normal human hunch would be that people using refrigerators and air conditioners, driving to the supermarket to pick up steaks and hamburger meat, etc. are not going to help disrupt polar air currents, melt Greenland, spread the world deserts, or make hundred year floods come every ten years. Science specialists need to keep running the many batteries of climate numbers, for sure, but the rest of the populace (especially in dumbed-down America) need a basic education in basic science. They are not getting much of it these days, and THAT is a challenge even without the shell games played by astroturf operatives for fossil fuel interests and their political puppets in Congress.
1
Two words: Koch brothers. To assure billions of dollars in their fossil fuel businesses they have been funneling tens of millions of dollars to Republican candidates for many years. A few wealthy people can destroy the entire planet!
524
@MEM Yes! The international network of very wealthy people, with the Koch brothers at the center, explains most of the bad decisions supposed democracies make.
9
@MEM
The Koch brothers had only two votes. The despicable deplorables put Trump into office and they are are just as responsible. Many may be wealthy and evil but a considerable amount are only evil.
9
We need to back up about three decades or so from Dr. Krugman's starting point to my birth year, 1962, and the publication of Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom. This is where the seeds were planted in what we now know as hypercapitalism and oligarchy. It took until the 80's and David Koch's attempt at getting elected and failing, for a direction and a plan to emerge. Koch must have realized that his brand of libertarian thinking wouldn't catch on without a whole lot of prep and so, over the following thirty years, through ALEC, Heritage, Heritage Action and the grooming of hundreds of people, some in Congress, others working outside as lobbyists (Justice Thomas' wife is one), people like Paul Manafort, the Kochs built a takeover machine. The only surprise in this story of domination is that it ended up with Trump as president and not Scott Walker, the Kochs' pet candidate.
But I digress... Fake studies abound. These past few weeks have seen the publication of exposes on all kinds of academic studies ranging from food, diet, medications... you name it and there is an industry-friendly study. It follows that after the ecological movements, the only way to sell uninformed Americans on destroying the earth is through lies, misinformation and disinformation to pave the way for Scott Pruitt and, now, Andrew Wheeler to do the dirty work of Big Oil, Big Chem, Big Agra...
This is hypercapitalist greed
---
Things Trump Did While You Weren’t Looking https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2ZW
325
From Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom:
“There is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”
Every single action taken by the Trump administration and the GOP Congress, from day one, has been to apply the principles laid out in the quote above. Every act signed by Trump, every rule rolled back by a member of the Trump Cabinet of Koch-backed executives, all have the intent and effect to maximize the profits of the industries under the purview of each cabinet officer involved - no matter what the consequences are to the citizens of this nation. This is business ethics turned upside down and inside out. Until Friedman, the business community recognized its place within society, as full citizens, with responsibilities to the community and the nation.
https://www.rimaregas.com/2015/09/25/from-milton-friedman-to-ronald-dworkin-economics-for-hedgehogs-socialethics-on-blog42/
What the Kochs and others have been doing is engaging in a massive fraud to reeducate the American public, much like the Russians have been engaged in disinformation campaigns to foment discord in our elections. The Kochs have been thorough. They've even been involved at the local high school level for years with an "entrepreneurship" program. https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-mT
102
An example of this style of disinformation campaign, using marketing, academic studies and changing the way the science is taught and talked about is the current opioid crisis, whose hatching began in the mid-80's, and culminated with locking out honest DEA agents and, ultimately, defanging the DEA itself.
The Los Angeles Times published a multi-part investigation in late 2016. Later, 60 Minutes and WaPo, came out with their own bombshell reporting.
https://www.rimaregas.com/2016/05/28/opioid-trail-from-fda-to-oxycontin-to-mat-our-streets-big-pharma-on-blog42/
20
@Rima Regas, ALEC and the Heritage Foundation as well as the Cato Institute predate David Koch's presidential campaign by several years. They date from the 1970's. I suspect as motivation a fear of popular revolution, aroused by 1968, focussing the minds of the billiionaire class on changing the political indoctrination of the nation.
25
The reason that Republicans are loyal to Trump is that it has proven their best strategy for control of the government. Republicans wanted to prevail in the Senate and avoid a total meltdown in the House, and that's what they got. What allowed the Republicans to save face in the election is what motivated them politically. The idea that climate change denial is their fundamental strategy is naive. Denying climate change is not what makes Republicans go. Mr. Krugman is sorely mistaken.
3
Climate Change is the go to answer for all the social problems people like Krugman cannot and/or are not willing to answer realistically.
Granted there are social issues that stem from how human activities contribute to affecting the environment, but one impact that is seldom spoke about is over population as a root cause.
The current world population is 7.6 billion and is expected to increase to 8.6 billion in another 10 plus years.
So the avoidance of root causes is equally common despite your political affiliation.
@michjas The methods used to foist man made climate denial on us is obviously being used for other issues republicans wish to misconstrue. "Saving face" and "controlling government" are just two of the results of the republican media machine, not the methods used to achieve those results. Plus, they're not exactly noble goals, are they?
11
We saw an amazing witness this week. It went under reported. It involves the same kind of political denial as climate change.
From the hallowed tradition of South Carolina senators Pierce Butler, Charles Pinckney, Thomas Sumter, John C. Calhoun, Ben Tillman, Cotton Ed Smith, Coleman Blease, Jimmy Brynes, Strom Thurmond, the Fire-eater Robert Rhett--a historic cadre of the meanest, openly racist Senators in attitude, belief, and action that spans more than a century--senators who approved of slavery, secession, sharecropping, segregation, voting suppression, clandestine racial violence. Now stands Timothy Eugene Scott as the senator from South Carolina.
He joins these men whose names are written deeply in the fabric of this nation, but who created our biggest problem and left the problem unsolved. It is the legacy of that problem; the clear, documented, witnessed history of voter suppression through threats, lies, visits and mass mailings of fear and misinformation aimed at black voters in districts and state-wide for more than a decade that Tim Scott voted no to. It wasn’t a vote on a single nominee--it was a vote to end the long history of unequal, illegal voting actions based on race.
It is meek and right for him to go against his party and vote as a patriot when other senators were willing to endorse our nation's darkest impulses, to deepen a division in our society by using our institutions to affirm power and privilege by race.
42
@Walter Rhett: Yes, Scott deserves some credit. It also suggests how extraordinarily racist is the judgeship nominee in question, Thomas Farr.
9
Excellent op-ed, Paul.
Climate denial is just the third installment of the trilogy that started with tobacco and continued with lead.
113
@Ricardo: I think you’re forgetting sugar and the Harvard scientists.
If you wonder why people question scientific research, look to the money, manipulated to serve the powerful and make them richer, and should everything — read the world — actually implode, they will have the greatest buying power, but will that be enough?
14
The Big Apple , NYC is one of the most liberal cities in the US and when there are still issues concerning “lead” in public housing (not to mention the heating issues residents face once again for at least a second year in a row), these issues are real for these people and has nothing to do about climate change, but a denial to correct these 2 issues that can should have been fixed but the bureaucracy of government just sits idle and leaders like de Blasio seek to make a name for himself as a champion battling climate change for the world but cannot even fix problems at home.
6