Trump and Republicans are isolated on climate change

[homersapien 11,362]

This is going to have an impact on the 2020 election IMO.

 

https://www.axios.com/trump-and-republicans-are-isolated-on-climate-change-5ecc6947-ed65-46e6-8716-d719a1e6db99.html

President Trump and congressional Republicans are increasingly outliers in an otherwise emerging consensus across America that climate change is a problem and that the government should pass new laws to address it.

The big picture: The shift has been underway for the last couple of years, driven by investor pressure, growing public concern and mounting scientific urgency. In the last several months, the fervor around the Green New Deal is accelerating this shift and accentuating Republicans’ isolation and their internal divisions — as a handful of Republicans break ranks and acknowledge the problem is real.

The intrigue: The juxtaposition was on stark display last week.

• I spent the first half of last week at a major oil and gas conference in Houston (CERAWeek by IHS Markit), where virtually all executives acknowledged climate change as a pressing issue and a few, including CEOs of major oil companies like BP and Equinor, implored the industry to do more and embrace big policy changes.
• The second part of the week I was back in Washington, D.C., where Republican leaders of House committees held a press conference to criticize the Green New Deal but didn’t discuss policies they would pursue instead of it.

Where it stands: After a decade of either questioning or ignoring climate change, some Republicans are slowly beginning to discuss the issue. But for now it's mostly rhetoric and it's not enough to convince the majority of the party, and especially Trump, to change their views.

• Trump is considering creating a controversial panel questioning federal climate reports. A senior administration official said the government takes "seriously the issue of climate change and it is important that policies and decision-making be based on transparent and defensible science."
• The loudest voices in the Republican congressional caucus are those who make inflammatory or bizarre statements, such as likening the Green New Deal to genocide and responding to a question about climate change by explaining photosynthesis.

Between the lines: Those remarks aside, a fundamental difference persists between what most Republicans say should be done about climate change versus almost all other leaders: mostly status quo with incremental bills versus more sweeping policy changes.

• Republicans say what they’re supporting now — relatively narrow bills on topics like carbon-capture technology, hydropower and nuclear power — is sufficient.
• Zack Roday, spokesperson for Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said: “I disagree that those are minor bills — solutions that reduce emissions while expanding America’s renewable energy options matter.”
• Bigger policies that could more substantially reduce emissions are unpopular with most conservative lawmakers: a price on carbon emissions, regulations or subsidies.
• Matt Sparks, spokesperson for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, said: "Conservatives are leaning into the debate on our future. ... But whether it is a carbon tax or Green New Deal, the conventional conversation in Washington today has impacts that hurt working Americans."

Almost everyone else says far broader policy changes are needed — including most oil and gas executives, other parts of corporate America, scientists, the United Nations, Democrats, economists, environmentalists and youth activists.

• There’s big disagreement about what that policy should be and how to ensure a big reduction in greenhouse gas emissions doesn’t cost too much. Energy costs are traditionally regressive: hitting poorer people more.
• There's certainly no consensus that it needs to be the Green New Deal, which shows how far some Democrats have shifted to the left. The proposal is a non-binding resolution calling on Congress to pass a 10-year plan drastically reducing emissions and creating government-run health care and job guarantee programs.

At the Houston conference, energy executives and other experts, including Ernest Moniz, President Obama’s former energy secretary, said the proposal is unrealistic. Yet amid the criticism, there was widespread agreement the government should be acting more.

“I think there is a general acceptance in the energy industry that there should be some kind of pricing on carbon emissions,” Charif Souki, a pioneer in the natural-gas industry and founder of Tellurian Inc., a Houston-based gas export company, told me on the sidelines of the conference.

On the Green New Deal, Souki said: “This is a bunch of aspirations. Tell me how we’re going to get there and tell me how also we’re going to provide electricity to a billion people who don’t have it.” Yet he said the debate around it is healthy: “That’s part of democracy.”

Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), who is the top Republican on the new select committee Democrats created to discuss climate change, is looking for new bipartisan policies, according to spokesperson Kevin Roig.

• One includes making changes to the Climate Change Technology Program to focus on "technologies we can truly commercialize that will result in” lower energy costs and emissions, Roig said.
• That program dates to 2002 and is led by the Energy Department. Its website isn’t working, and among the only information I could find about it is this 2006 report.

What we’re watching: whether Republicans support new, more substantive policy, including a price on carbon emissions.

• Two House Republicans, Francis Rooney of Florida and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, support a carbon tax — out of nearly 200 GOP House members.
• The Climate Leadership Council, a group backed by former Republican politicians and oil companies, has a plan to tax carbon emissions and send the money back to consumers. The leader of that group, Ted Halstead, predicts the Senate will introduce a bill on that policy later this year — with Republican support.

 

[jj3jordan 2,050]

Except its not getting warmer.

 

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

3 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Except its not getting warmer.

 

We know that. It is changing like it always has. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

14 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

We know that. It is changing like it always has. 

True but the fanatics can't accept that. Too much money being spent for some to admit that.

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

•  

What we’re watching: whether Republicans support new, more substantive policy, including a price on carbon emissions.

A new tax?

[I_M4_AU 7,798]

Homer, do you believe the earth will end in 12 years if nothing is done right now as the narrative is pushing?

[homersapien 11,362]

14 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Except its not getting warmer.

 

Seriously?  You actually believe that?

[homersapien 11,362]

26 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Homer, do you believe the earth will end in 12 years if nothing is done right now as the narrative is pushing?

Of course not.   And the "narrative" - as you call it - is not pushing such a ridiculous notion.

The earth will "end" when the sun goes red giant, in about 5 billion years.  Homo sapiens will have been long gone prior to that.

This is about the immediate future of our species.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

14 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Except its not getting warmer.

 

The people in the Midwest  and NE agree right now as a result of recent record snowfall.

[homersapien 11,362]

17 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

We know that. It is changing like it always has. 

With all due respect, you need to educate yourself Brother Salty.  Based on that post, you "know" practically nothing regarding this subject.

AGW is acting on a time scale of a few hundred years - starting at about 1760 to be exact.  Natural climatic changes operate on an entirely different scale - one which permits time for evolution.

One could argue that AGW is an integral part of the anthropocene, but that's just a broader prospective of the immediate problem, which is AGW.

[homersapien 11,362]

Some of these responses are truly embarrassing for Auburn University.

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Some of these responses are truly embarrassing for Auburn University.

That is a fair observation Brother Homer.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

52 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

That is a fair observation Brother Homer.

He should look in the mirror sometime.

[I_M4_AU 7,798]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Of course not.   And the "narrative" - as you call it - is not pushing such a ridiculous notion.

The earth will "end" when the sun goes red giant, in about 5 billion years.  Homo sapiens will have been long gone prior to that.

This is about the immediate future of our species.

Thanks for the response.  By immediate future of our species; do you believe our species will be extinct in 12 years?  To clarify; The 12 year “narrative” has been used when the Green New Deal was introduced. 

[homersapien 11,362]

52 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

He should look in the mirror sometime.

Actually I was thinking of you when I wrote that. 

Citing recent snow storms as justification for your (presumed) belief the world isn't warming is an embarrassingly ignorant thing to say as an AU grad.

Didn't you claim to work for NASA?  What did you do, count beans or manage the cafeteria?

 

[homersapien 11,362]

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Thanks for the response.  By immediate future of our species; do you believe our species will be extinct in 12 years?  To clarify; The 12 year “narrative” has been used when the Green New Deal was introduced. 

No, of course not. 

Unfortunately, barring a nuclear catastrophe, there will be more humans than ever in 12 years. And more than ever will be worse off from a general well-being perspective.

And the deleterious effects of global warming will continue for a couple of more decades regardless of what we do now.  The real question is can we make it level off before it get's really, really bad for us.

I haven't read the "Green New Deal" in detail.  Does it specifically say humanity will be extinct in 12 years without action? Can you please quote that part?

[homersapien 11,362]

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, of course not. 

Unfortunately, barring a nuclear catastrophe, there will be more humans than ever in 12 years. And more than ever will be worse off from a general well-being perspective.

And the deleterious effects of global warming will continue for a couple of more decades regardless of what we do now.  The real question is can we make it level off before it get's really, really bad for us.

I haven't read the "Green New Deal" in detail.  Does it specifically say humanity will be extinct in 12 years without action? Can you please quote that part?

I just read the actual resolution - H. Res. 109 - introduced into congress and it makes no such mention of extinction in 12 years:

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf

I pretty much agree with everything stated in this resolution.  I would certainly vote in favor.

 

[SaturdayGT 719]

   Just a question, sorry if its too far off topic...But, If you look it up, looks like the US government spends 26 Billion a year researching climate change...thats just a random website, it could be much less, either way though, Im sure we spend Billions! With that in mind, why would whatever research organizations or scientist who get these funds ever say that humans have no effect on Global Warming and there is nothing we can possibly  do to stop it or effect it in any possible way? Wouldn't that make their studies pointless and put them out of a job! It would make sense for them to be desperate for the population to believe that they are needed, to keep the funds coming, right?...Im sure Im over looking alot of stuff, but just the gist of that hard to get around for me.

[I_M4_AU 7,798]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I just read the actual resolution - H. Res. 109 - introduced into congress and it makes no such mention of extinction in 12 years:

https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf

I pretty much agree with everything stated in this resolution.  I would certainly vote in favor.

 

I wouldn’t expect to see the “narrative” in the House bill.  McConnell is calling their buff after AOC started the rhetoric on Jan 22 of this year.  Here is an article explaining the 12 year “narrative” and it seems her source was the U.N.

https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-climate-change-world-will-end-12-years-un-report-1300873

She published the Green New Deal with FAQ on her website and took it down within hours as it was calling for ending air travel replacing it with trains, rebuilding all buildings within 10 years to incorporate energy saving, only electric cars and trucks and a Iiving wage if you choose to work or in not, a guaranteed income.

Not a good way to start off a conversation if you want a serious discussion. The House bill is a watered down version of the original.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Beto is also a climate doomsdayer:

Quote

This is the final chance. The scientists are unanimous on this. We have no more than 12 years to take incredibly bold action on this crisis. My gratitude to them for the young people who stepped up to offer such a bold proposal to meet such a grave challenge. They say we should do nothing less than marshal every resource in the country to meet that challenge, to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, to get to net zero emissions, which means not only must we emit less greenhouse gasses, we must plant things that absorb greenhouse gasses and Carbon and invest in the technology to allow us to claim some that are in the air now. Can we make it? I don't know. It's up to every one of us. Do you want to make it? 

[ applause ]

Your kids, my kids. Ulysses, who in 2050 is going to be just about my age, will be looking back on this moment in Keokuk in 2019 and every moment thereafter to judge what we did or failed to do. Thinking about us, his kids' lives, whether they can even breathe, depends on what we do now. 

Some will criticize the Green New Deal for being too bold or being unmanageable. I tell you what, I haven't seen anything better that addresses this singular crisis we face, a crisis that could at its worst lead to extinction. 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/03/14/beto_orourke_on_green_new_deal_literally_the_future_of_the_world_depends_on_us.html

[DKW 86 7,419]

'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change,' Ocasio-Cortez says

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez_the_world_is_going_to_end_in_12_years_if_we_dont_address_climate_change.html

AOC's "12 Years" Comment Comes From This UN Report on Climate Change

I support most of the GND, not all but by far most. I fully understand pollution etc. and my family has supported environmental causes since about the time the oldest of us were born. But there are nutcase comments out there, like the one broadcast all over the world from AOC AND THE UN that make a mockery of the real issues. 

Ted Dansen predicted the World's Oceans would all die off by 1995 was another whopper. 
Having the World Climate Summits exhibit open content for environmental common sense is yet another.

If you want people to follow your words, you must show them with your deeds.

[homersapien 11,362]

19 hours ago, SaturdayGT said:

   Just a question, sorry if its too far off topic...But, If you look it up, looks like the US government spends 26 Billion a year researching climate change...thats just a random website, it could be much less, either way though, Im sure we spend Billions! With that in mind, why would whatever research organizations or scientist who get these funds ever say that humans have no effect on Global Warming and there is nothing we can possibly  do to stop it or effect it in any possible way? Wouldn't that make their studies pointless and put them out of a job! It would make sense for them to be desperate for the population to believe that they are needed, to keep the funds coming, right?...Im sure Im over looking alot of stuff, but just the gist of that hard to get around for me.

That's just not a feasible proposition model.  It totally disregards the actual science being done and the motivation of all scientists to further their careers by doing meaningful research - research that will be tested and either confirmed or rejected by other scientists.

And no, if a scientist develops data that refutes AGW it will not put him "out of a job".  Just the opposite, it would make him famous! (Of course his work would come under a lot of scrutiny which is the way of science.) 

What you seem to be alluding to is the idea that government is manipulating the grant system to achieve particular outcomes for nefarious reasons. This is the epitome of conspiratorial thinking, which - if you consider the thousands of people involved from both the government and the international scientific community - is patently absurd. Groups that promote such an idea - such as Heartland.org and Heritage.org have a clear political agenda.

Also any serious investigation of individual scientists doing the actual work will reveal they are not making much money as a result. You don't go into science to get rich. And grant money is meant to fund the research (which can be expensive), it's not to simply pay scientists for doing it. And whatever personal pay they do get from a grant does not depend on the results of their work, but rather on the scientific validity of their methodology.

Also. if you look for scientists who are personally benefited from their work, you will find that most of them are profiting from their associations with groups that have a clear political agenda, such as the Koch brothers organizations. Government grants are not based on a certain result, but on doing the research.

As for the amount the government spends, it's pretty paltry considering the significance of the research, which is true in all fields of basic research the government funds.  Adequate funding of basic research is not something that can or will be done by the free market system.  The days of large companies doing basic research are pretty much over.

This is just off the top of my head, but this question has been dealt with in the popular press:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-report-fact-check.html

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-in-it-for-the-money.htm

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/27/opinions/nca-november-report-opinion-sobel/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/sep/15/the-idea-that-climate-scientists-are-in-it-for-the-cash-has-deep-ideological-roots

 

 

And here's a GOA article that discusses government spending in climate change. You will note that the actual amount spent on the science is about $2 billion.  A lot more is being spent on technology, which presumably is focused on private industry.

https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary

[homersapien 11,362]

17 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Beto is also a climate doomsdayer:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/03/14/beto_orourke_on_green_new_deal_literally_the_future_of_the_world_depends_on_us.html

To point out the obvious, saying that "we have no more than 12 years to take action" is NOT the same as saying we could be extinct in 12 years.

While the former comment needs to be justified, it is at least plausible based on current indications. 

It just depends on what average temperature you think will result in "unacceptable" consequences.  For example, I think we are already "locked in" for a 2 degree rise, which will be bad enough.

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,362]

On 3/20/2019 at 6:45 AM, DKW 86 said:

'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change,' Ocasio-Cortez says

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez_the_world_is_going_to_end_in_12_years_if_we_dont_address_climate_change.html

 

That's just bogus.  Wrong.

I seriously doubt she believes that literally.

I don't see the relevance of the rest of your post, except that I wouldn't put the UN in the same class with "nut cases" or Ted Danson.

Not saying the UN is credible as a given respected organization of scientists, but you need to be specific if you want to dismiss them as "nut cases".

[homersapien 11,362]

19 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I wouldn’t expect to see the “narrative” in the House bill.  McConnell is calling their buff after AOC started the rhetoric on Jan 22 of this year.  Here is an article explaining the 12 year “narrative” and it seems her source was the U.N.

https://www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-climate-change-world-will-end-12-years-un-report-1300873

She published the Green New Deal with FAQ on her website and took it down within hours as it was calling for ending air travel replacing it with trains, rebuilding all buildings within 10 years to incorporate energy saving, only electric cars and trucks and a Iiving wage if you choose to work or in not, a guaranteed income.

Not a good way to start off a conversation if you want a serious discussion. The House bill is a watered down version of the original.

Obviously AOC needs to be much more calculating about what she says.

But to quote her as the "current narrative" suggests we define current narrative differently.  I take it as the position of respected scientific organizations, not any given politician. 

Likewise, the "Green New Deal" is a political statement not a scientific or economic one.  It does make some very valid points however.