Skip to main content

Convenient Truth: An Atlantic Monthly Essay on Attacking Global Warming

First of all, there's hope for the world. The photo to the left is me with my oldest son Sam at his high school graduation earlier this summer. I believe in the future. I believe in Sam and his generation. I hope you do too.

Now, to the business at hand:

Gregg Easterbrook has a well argued commentary piece in the September Atlantic Monthly, entitled, "Some Convenient Truths" (you may need to register with The Atlantic to read his piece) which asks why global warming has such a negative aura surrounding it. At one point in the piece he writes:

"Yet a paralyzing negativism dominates global-warming politics. Environmentalists depict climate change as nearly unstoppable; skeptics speak of the problem as either imaginary (the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated,” in the words of Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate’s environment committee) or ruinously expensive to address."

Easterbrook points out that there is ample evidence that numerous environmental measures in our past were very successful and not nearly as costly as "experts" from the business community claimed they would be. In fact, if you're paying attention there's a lot of really amazing stuff going on out there right now--from the Tesla Roadster to advanced photovoltaics to carbon fund initiatives and regional sustainable development projects chock full of profits, beauty, and a cleaner environment.

Indeed, if you read through the postings here at Blue Olives, we give all sorts of evidence that what you are hearing from politicians and the general media is not the way it really is. "Life can be good again, Mavis! It really can!"

If you're interested, please go check out my "Green Emperor Gets Naked" series at GetUnderground.com. It was written awhile back and it has more importance today than it did a year ago.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Short-Sighted Buffoonery: Send me in coach!

I'm getting ready to re-enter the fray. I recently agreed to take on a job in the City of Philadelphia that I can't provide details on, but it's not soon enough apparently. Leaders in Washington and state governments all over the country are doing their best to turn solving the climate change problem into another example of oafish, mercenary, short-sighted, buffoonery. Check out the rather direct posting at the Center for American Progress today, "Facing Reality." I'm fighting mad. You should be too. Personally, I've been on the sidelines way too long and I'm itching to get back in the game. Yesterday, I listened to the news that President Obama is authorizing $54 billion in loan guarantees for the nuclear power

The Path to Green

A January 23rd article by Usha Lee McFarling in the LA Times, "Studies Support Emissions Plans" gives the lie to the notion that mitigation of greenhouse gases will be bad for the economy. This is an extremely important issue. One study produced by the Center for Clean Air Policy says, "Based on our independent analysis of greenhouse gas mitigation (GHG) options for the State of California, we conclude that Governor Schwarzenegger's goal of reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 can be met at no net cost to California consumers." Another study performed by the California Climate Center at Berkeley found that climate protection measures proposed for the state would boost economic activities, creating 20,000 new jobs and increasing gross state product by $60 billion by the end of the state's mitigation date of 2020. The executive summary for their 10-chapter report says, "Preliminary modeling indicates that just eight policies that were analyze...

Bashing Recycling for Confusion and Profit

The following essay is a work in progress. I invite all readers to give me criticism and direction. --------------------------------------------------------------- Recently, the ABC show, Good Morning America , ran a segment interviewing columnist and author Stephen Dubner (co-author of the book Freakonomics ) on whether recycling works. You can watch it by clicking here . While Dubner's basic argument about recycling turns on the idea of market economics (which is sensible), he also says some really weird things that drew me back into the good old early 1990s when bashing recycling was the sport of kings. In particular, Dubner says that plastic water bottle recycling doesn't make sense because it costs more to recycle water bottles (they aren't as valuable as aluminum cans) than it does to make new ones. He also says that old newspapers have such a low value that cities often simply landfill them after they go to the recycling center. He doesn't really provide us with...