Krugman on climate change denial

[MBS]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/republicans-climate-change-denial-denial.html?

Future historians — if there are any future historians — will almost surely say that the most important thing happening in the world during December 2015 was the climate talks in Paris. True, nothing agreed to in Paris will be enough, by itself, to solve the problem of global warming. But the talks could mark a turning point, the beginning of the kind of international action needed to avert catastrophe.


Then again, they might not; we may be doomed. And if we are, you know who will be responsible: the Republican Party. O.K., I know the reaction of many readers: How partisan! How over the top! But what I said is, in fact, the obvious truth. And the inability of our news media, our pundits and our political establishment in general to face up to that truth is an important contributing factor to the danger we face.

Anyone who follows U.S. political debates on the environment knows that Republican politicians overwhelmingly oppose any action to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, and that the great majority reject the scientific consensus on climate change. . . . And most of the contenders for the Republican presidential nomination are solidly in the anti-science camp. What people may not realize, however, is how extraordinary the G.O.P.’s wall of denial is, both in the U.S. context and on the global scene.. . . It’s true that conservative parties across the West tend to be less favorable to climate action than parties to their left. But in most countries — actually, everywhere except America and Australia — these parties nonetheless support measures to limit emissions. And U.S. Republicans are unique in refusing to accept that there is even a problem. Unfortunately, given the importance of the United States, the extremism of one party in one country has enormous global implications.
. . . .

More important, probably, is the denial inherent in the conventions of political journalism, which say that you must always portray the parties as symmetric — that any report on extreme positions taken by one side must be framed in a way that makes it sound as if both sides do it. We saw this on budget issues, where some self-proclaimed centrist commentators, while criticizing Republicans for their absolute refusal to consider tax hikes, also made a point of criticizing President Obama for opposing spending cuts that he actually supported. My guess is that climate disputes will receive the same treatment. But I hope I’m wrong, and I’d urge everyone outside the climate-denial bubble to frankly acknowledge the awesome, terrifying reality. We’re looking at a party that has turned its back on science at a time when doing so puts the very future of civilization at risk. That’s the truth, and it needs to be faced head-on.

[newfie11]

1. I so agree

I'm not sure if it's stupidity or bribery.
I can't imagine the mindset of someone willing to risk humanity for money.

[Buzz Clik]

2. "we may be doomed" God damn it!

This is why fucking political economists and a lawyers should leave the science to the scientists.

Doomed?

Not helping.

[modrepub]

3. I Disagree

The scientists can only provide predictions and theories; they can define the problem and come up with general solutions. It's the economists who have to do the cost analyses, come up with market solutions and map out a strategy to solve the problem over the long term.

One of the simplest and most cost effective measures to reduce our carbon emissions is to increase energy efficiency. Over the last few decades we have done a lot to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we need to burn. More efficient building designs, appliances and vehicles have reduced the amount of energy we use. This in turn has helped stabilize our carbon emissions and actually reduced them somewhat.

Undoubtedly we need more, but we have to find and encourage market solutions as we move forward. What's going on with the coal industry is a perfect example of how markets and not necessarily regulations are culling the inefficient players in the energy sector. Old coal plants are half as efficient combined cycle gas-fired plants. Coal plants are finding they can not run profitably at current grid auction prices hence they are closing. If the Repubs want to keep these unprofitable coal plants open then the message has to go out that keeping these plants running will raise your electric rates. This is what is happening; there are electric rates in my state (PA) that are lower than what people are paying in WV, where nearly all of the electricity is produced by coal-fired power plants. This doesn't even consider the vast expansion of renewables that is currently occurring along with those people who are committing to distributed power systems (off-grid).

The future is not as bleak or bright as pundits say.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Economists? Yes. Economists who have transitioned to political pundits/activists? Ugh!

The IPCC has a very health load of economists of all kinds. I'd be real interested in hearing where Krugman found some scientific or economic analysis that suggested global warming will trigger our "doom."

[brett_jv]

5. There are various scenarios that are fairly 'doomsday' ...

For example, if melting greenland and arctic ice caps succeed in shutting down the 'gulf stream', Europe could find itself MUCH colder than it is at present. This in turn could seriously impair many, very populated, regions ability to feed themselves, and lead to major political strife and unrest ... and many of the possibly affected countries ... have nukes.

There's also the possibility of defrosting the near-polar 'permafrost' regions that contain the billions of tons of methane-like gas, which has way stronger 'insulating' properties as CO2. If those regions get defrosted and these gases released in large quantities, we could end up with a feedback loop that causes not just a couple degrees rise in average temps, but, like, a BIG rise in ave global temps. Some experts have expressed fear that a temp change this drastic could basically denigrate the already fragile state of the oceans to the point that the plankton that provides the O2 we need to breath ... could die off.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. What's that got to do with science? This is about the use of English, and Krugman did it OK

Oxford English Dictionary entry for 'to doom':
To pronounce judgement or sentence against; esp. to condemn to some fate.
To destine or consign to some adverse fate or lot; also sometimes in neutral sense, to any fate, good or ill. pa. pple. Destined, fated.

There's nothing incorrect about saying "we may be doomed". It's saying that large climate change may unavoidable, thanks to the very nature of the Republicans. It's certainly not a matter of science; perhaps a sociologist or political economist can show us how to get rid of this Republican mentality and their worrying grip on power, but no-one's managed it yet.