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

The State of the War on Climate Change: Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way

Bill McKibben (Source: 350.org) Talking Writing magazine just posted an interview I did with climate activist and environmental journalist Bill McKibben called  "We Don't Require Leaders."  I urge you to go check it out. McKibben surprised me with some of his answers. The whole climate equation and how it impacts culture and politics is not simple or predictable. I did a lot of research for my interview. You can never get in all your questions. Nor can you make all the points you want to make in your interview introduction. I want to add a bit here, then, if that's okay. It's my contribution this week to what will likely otherwise be a finger snapping coverage of  Earth Day  by mainstream media. First off, while it's been underway for about two years, the climate change Divestment Movement at college and university campuses is really heating up, if you'll pardon the pun. Bill was getting prepared for Harvard Heat Week when we were correspondin...

Why Green Jobs Don't Count

In ten years, if we're still talking about green jobs, we will have failed to transform the world economy to a more sustainable and egalitarian set of markets. For many of us who have been invested in the so-called "green revolution" for the past three decades, the fact that we're talking about jobs with special hues even today is disconcerting. As has been documented here at Blue Olives , efforts to modernize technology and establish a more democratic and benign form of productive capitalism have been in the pipeline since at least the early 1960s.  Indeed, "green jobs" should not be something special; they should simply be "good jobs" that are part

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...