A growing number of Americans rightly accept that global warming is real — and a problem. In fact, 83 percent of Americans believe that global warming will be a serious problem for the nation if nothing is done, a March poll found. Sixty-eight percent want our government to do more about it. But, as this Salon article explains, our political system — combined with the unwillingness of Americans to sacrifice — may be working against us:
“The issue horizon for presidents and members of Congress is the next election, not 2040. Despite all the bleating since the 1980s about the inability of America to pay for the eventual retirement of the baby boomers, the crises of Social Security and Medicare have only gotten worse. In typical short-sighted fashion, the president and Congress approved the prescription-drug bill before the 2004 election without bothering to enact a long-range formula to pay for it. But then George W. Bush and House Speaker Denny Hastert will no longer be in office when the Medicare trust funds become insolvent.”
Most Americans now agree that something needs to be done about global warming. But the test will be actually doing it.
Posted by Melissa Cooley
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- JMWalker on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- JMWalker on Open thread 8/29
- BlueJay on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Sanford on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Monkeyhawk on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Kandisue on Media coverage favoring McCain?
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- HLP on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- HLP on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
36 Comments
There is minimal incentive for presidents to look beyond their eight year term of office. Same with governors and legislatures.
So, my suggestion is to establish monarchies at both the national and state level. Kings would have the incentive to look forward into time to protect his/her descendent Kings. They might use their bully pulpit to get some action on global warming and similar long-term issues.
Perhaps the future King of Kansas might be a current WE blogger!
I’m shocked. Salon is right about something. Not the global warming issue though. They are right that President Bush and Congress should not have enacted the Medicare prescription plan without a long range plan of how to pay for it. Hell, we can’t even balance the books on social security!
But in an attempt to show that Republicans can be compassionate with other people’s money too, they shackled us with another incredibly expensive entitlement program.
Free everything from the government would be nice. But we have to realize that the money’s got to come from somewhere. Guess where?
First off, while the earth may be warming, there is still enough scientific doubt that man is the culprit: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000713slouching_toward_sci.htmlhttp://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/01/18/not-as-bad-as-we-thought/http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000674indur_goklanys_reje.htmlhttp://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/01/11/jumping-to-conclusions-frogs-global-warming-and-nature/http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=904http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=900
I put the links up to show the opinion on global warming in not universal. There is still much to be learned.
I put the links up also to show there are sites that state anything they wish as true. Kind of like the Opus Dei nonsense.
Make of it what you will.
But…but..JM..How DARE you? There are lots of people with PROOF global warming was personally caused by GW. Better put on your flak jacket, JM.. the sharp knives will be headed your way…
This is not a question of certainty, this is a question of mitigation and prevention.
There is no doubt about the following facts:
CO2 and other greenhouse gases are known to cause greenhouse warming. The earth has been as warm as it is because of CO2 in the atmosphere. Without it, the earth would be much colder.
Laboratory experiments have linked increasing greenhouse gas concentrations to increases in temperature. Say yo have a flask with 0.1% CO2 and you expose this to radiation. It doesn’t get as warm as a flask containing 0.2% CO2.
There is evidence that the earth is warming. The “onset” of this warming is in line with the start of the Industrial Revolution.
The speed of the global temperature rise has been outside the limits of past warming events.
The consequences of warming would be catastrophic.
On this basis alone, risk management and disaster mitigation would say that it would be wise to try to minimize greenhouse gas emissions…whether the science is in or not.
If you have evidence that people of the past have died when struck by horses, buggies, trains, cars, trucks, etc., it might be wise to tell people not to stand in the street when fuel cell cars or hydrogen cars are developed even though no deaths have yet been caused by them since the principle seems to apply, and it would simply be wise to avoid the incident and mitigate potential damages or deaths.
Since the prevailing additude amoungst many here is that regardless of the science being in or not we should act now on Global warming…
Well, regardless of the “science” being in on the existence of God you all should act now and become Christians!
Global warmining is real and demonstrable. I find these “wait and see” and “well maybe” argruements very disquieting.
JR,
Were you alive in the 70’s when they said we were headed to another Ice Age?
Nathan - I was around in the 70s when ‘they’ did NOT say we were gheaded for another Ice Age. What they DID say was that in tens of thousands of years such an event was likely. NOT DECADES or centuries.
Another interesting proposition concerning global warming and an impending ice age: http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let32.html
A more comprehensive study:
“Our knowledge about past climate change is limited as well. There are only a handful of high-resolution ice core climate records of the past 100,000 years, and even fewer ocean records of comparable resolution. Better definition of past climate states is needed not only in and of itself, but for use by modelers to test their best climate models in reproducing what we know happened in the past before believing model projections about the future. We are not there yet, and progress needs to be made on both better data and improved models before we can begin to answer some critical questions about future climate change.
Researchers always tell you that more research funding is needed, and we are not any different. Our main message is not just that, however. It is that global climate is moving in a direction that makes abrupt climate change more probable, that these dynamics lie beyond the capability of many of the models used in IPCC reports, and the consequences of ignoring this may be large. For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.”http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=10046
The idea of a localized “Younger-Dryas” cooling in Europe and parts of NE North America triggered by disruption of production of NADW is not new. This has also been observed in the geologic record.
Global Warming may be real, but I don’t see it as a catatrophy. I don’t think it’s going to kill us, so why worry about it?
“But, as this Salon article explains, our political system — combined with the unwillingness of Americans to sacrifice.”
I strongly disagree with this statement. When Bill Clinton laid out the case that we needed to balance the budget and pay down the national debt by raising taxes, the American people supported it.
People are perfectly willing to sacrifice if they are convinced that the end result will be a better world for everyone.
But it takes something we don’t have with our Republican controlled government–LEADERSHIP.
Their idea of “sacrifice” is some working class kid who wants an education so he signs for The Guard–that kid gets “sacrificed” into military action in Iraq. Meanwhile the rich get their taxes cut.
Because BushCo. never ask for any kind of collective sacrifice, like reducing driving to lower gas prices, say, they can never claim that their causes are DESERVING of sacrifice.
It’s pretty hard to claim that our Iraqi adventure is a “noble cause” and Americans are “heroic” for engaging in it when hardly any of us have to lift a finger to support it.
No pain = no gain.
Joe - maybe because it will kill millions of other people? Oh well, I guess the “inferior peoples” or “lesser races” don’t matter.
I’m always amazed when people like Joe elevate their opinions to those of the scientific and policy experts on a subject. I’m sure that’s just what T. Rex said when he saw the faint glow of the meteor impact in the Yucatan from the plains of Montana…”it may be real, but i don’t see it as a real catastrophe”.
It is like this on every issue - let our children deal with our debt, our polution, our solid waste problem. Joe won’t be alive then, so why should he care? Apres moi,la deluge - the prophetic words of Louis 15th - after me, the deluge. He didn’t care what came after him as long as he got to enjoy his extravagance, and neither do we. Somebody else can die for our wasteful consumption.
Well, if Salon says so, it MUST be true.Chortle.
And if the Jr. College flunkout says it isn’t true it must be false. “Chortle”
Salon is late getting on to what my fellow scientific professionals have been saying for decades.
And the great experiment continues …
Ben? How will Global Warming kill millions of people? If you mean starvation and drought, well that has been happening long before Global Warming became a catch-phrase. That is the result of bad goverments and poor farming practices.
Humans will survive global warming. Here is a thought for you… Why would we and how can we stop Global Warming?
Joe,
The question is not whether people will die by starvation..it’s how many MORE people will die by starvation.
First, with the melting of the polar regions, esp. Greenland, sea levels will rise precipitously..All of Florida, Washington D.C., New York, Boston, New orleans, will all be under water. Consider the other low lying parts of the world. Bangladesh will also disappear. Where are those people supposed to go? If you think we have a border problem, India, China, Bhutan, etc. will have one hell of one. Not only Bangladesh will disappear. This will lead to all sorts of international ‘border’ incidents, and perhaps even wars as countries try to take land or hold land.
In addition, the influx of fresh water into the North Atlantic will reduce the salinity there. The Gulf Stream… a heat conveyor from the equator to the north might shut down since the colder seawater of the North Atlantic will not sink since freshwater is less dense. This will affect global weather patterns all over the globe with as yet completely unforseen consequences. warmer ocean water also kills coral, so barrier reefs will gradually erode and land areas protectd by them will be certain to be adversely affected.
Warmer weather will allow species that we potentially don’t want to come north. These would include things like fire ants, mosquitoes carrying malaria and yellow fever, killer bees….etc.
In addition, one of the largest stores of greenhouse gases is the methane trapped in the Arctic tundra regions. With global warming this gas could be released, resulting in a self-sustaining and accelerating rise in global temperatures.
Can we stop it, you ask? Computer models show that every little bit helps when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We can continue to develop solar, hydroelectric, and wind power. We can spend more money funding fusion research. We can implement higher cafe standards on vehicle fuel efficiencies. We can induce companies to reduce emissions by enforcing strict legislation while giving them a monetary incntive to modernize.
Brian. How long will it take to flood the coastal regions of the world. How long will it take to disapate the ocean conveyor system? Last I read that we are only up a degree or two in the last 100 years.
Does these computer models show how fast this will come? Will it happen in one day, or take a month, year, ten years, hundred year, or a thousand years?
Did you know that Kansas was once under water, and it was also frozen under a glacier? What caused all of that?
Honestly I doubt a dooms day senerio is going to happen. There will be some melting and some sea level rise, but nothing catastropic and this will happen during a period of many years that humans will learn how to adapt like they always have.
Joe - The fact that you do not understand what is going on does not mean it should be ignored. All of the projections are for massive increase in “drought” in coming decades. Note, for example, the poleward shift of the subtropical jet and the concommitant increase in desertification. Decades, not centuries. Also, melting in decades, not centuries, as positive feedback loops continue to take hold.
I have described in detail how and what can be done. Other scientists have as well.
“Last I read that we are only up a degree or two in the last 100 years.”
That is enough to cause worldwide catastrophe.
Joe,
Just to test your statistical knowledge. let’s say I have 1,000 numbers with a value of 80. i then want to add 100 numbers to that list so that the average value comes out 81 (a change in average of 1). What would be the value of the 100 numbers I would need to raise the average?
(Hint: the answe is 91…I would need 100 91s to raise the average to 81….get it now???)
Everybody! Stop driving your cars. Don’t be a hypocrite. Especially you SUV drivers.
You can arm chair the enviromental disaster or you can do something about it. Unless you are just waiting for the government to save it for you.
Joe - at least those of us who try to conserve are doing something. That’s a hell of a lot more than you “What Me Worry” types.
What are you doing Ben? Please tell me.
I drive an efficient vehicle. Maintain my thermostats high summer and low winter. Recycle.
And you? Other than denying the problem?
Joe is using his keyboard rather than spewing all that hot air orally.
Keep smiling Joe. But when the water reaches your lower lip ya best do it with your mouth closed!
I accept that there is global warming, which I doubt anyone would deny. BUT, the real reality is that global warming is cyclical and the impact of natural causes far exceeds the impact of man. The day the libs accept the reality of one innocent child of God unnecessarily being aborted every 35 seconds in the US only is the day I will be concerned about global warming.
ID,
I am concerned about abortion. But we tried making it illegal and abortion was higher THEN THAN IT IS NOW.
Why should we return to something that has proven it didn’t work?
What clearly DOES work is stopping conception: abstinence and birth control education is key, as Europe has shown.
JR. Don’t worry! I’ll throw you an intertube. We can go water skiing.
It’s going to be a lot of fun.
If I do that, will you let me on the Leftist Noah’s Ark of “I told you the Global Warming is bad”?
I don’t want to drown.
Add to your list of abstinence and birth control education, a strategy to incent the right behavior and disincent the wrong behaviors. I agree that making abortions illegal will not work.
Let’s get one thing clear; the earth isn’t in any real trouble. It’s seen a lot worse than us in it’s long history. On the other hand, WE may be seriously screwed! Evolution’s solution to global warming may very well be our extinction. So, either we solve it ourselves, or decide how to bequeath the best of our accomplishments to whatever species comes to fill our niche. It’s that simple!
ID - I assume hundreds of people dying of starvation is OK?