September 2009
Can liberals and conservatives agree on the cause, the impact and, more importantly, the solutions to Global Climate Change?
For a long time, liberals and conservatives disagreed on the existence of global warming. Faced with overwhelming evidence, most of us can agree that the Earth is facing major climate change. We see it on the news — collapsing ice shelf in Antarctica, shrinking sea ice in the Aortic, melting glaciers, coral reef bleaching, polar bears on the endangered species list, etc. The United States has NOW signed an agreement with the other G-8 members to reduce greenhouse gases by 50% by 2050, but only if India and China agree to these same cuts. Scientists warn that larger cuts must be made sooner to address the negative impacts of climate change. Also, it's doubtful that China and India or any developing country will make any significant changes any time soon — they believe that rich nations caused the climate crisis and should take bold action to correct it. Facing major economic and humanitarian disasters, can liberal and conservatives come together to make the sacrifices needed to solve the global climate crisis?
|
Conservative Response
|
|
Some conservatives have been fighting the rear-guard action of denying climate change. Many more have been asking reasonable questions about when climate change will affect us and what kinds of affects will occur (scientists have posited many possibilities). But it is the question of how to react to climate change that makes it a conservative-liberal question.
Conservatives are not seeing in the evidence a rapid catastrophic event. Instead, the market will provide many opportunities to address the challenges of climate change: building green buildings; adapting to climatic realities; and forging fair economic agreements with polluters around the world. But the key thing is Research & Development (R&D). Let’s keep increased tax burdens off of industry to allow research into new technologies, and provide incentives for industry to create solutions.
|
What we oppose is creating a new tax money sink to fund a bunch of haphazard initiatives. Let the market respond to what people want, not what the government is foisting upon them.
— Editor
|
Liberal Response
We are going to see agreement between liberals and conservatives right away: research. Liberals would see more; we would see government Research & Development (R&D) as the direct and focused response to a potential crisis. All of the great innovations of our times have been driven by government involvement: the Internet, the space program, increased transportation efficiency, GPS, and lower communication costs.
Liberals would also see the government providing resources that would otherwise be lacking. Government spending should be sparking efforts into advanced energy production, more efficient communications, lifestyle changes that leave smaller carbon footprints, updated infrastructure, and consumer education. The two factors needed to address climate change — technology and lifestyle changes — require an integrated approach that only an active government can spur on.
— Editor
|
Alternative Response
Liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans — these are not going to solve the issue of climate change. Why? They are two sides of the same coin. These centrist groups are vested in the success of the climate changers. Be honest: where is your 401K invested?
Profit depends on consumption. Producing things for consumption depends on materials and power, providing both of which causes greenhouse gasses.
In the developed world, people expect that they will be warming their homes, driving their cars, eating out, buying on the Internet, and traveling for fun and business. In the developing world, people aspire to live like that.
What will it take to break the upward trend in heating the earth? It will take radical politics. The corporation must be busted down to allow for small and family-owned businesses. Necessarily large industry needs to be owned by the people, not a few rich people scratching each others’ backs. Only then will industrial power be used and managed in an earth-friendly way. All of this will require a return to a simpler, less consumer-driven life.
— Editor
|
| Author |
Comments |
NB
10/4/09 |
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) released a new report, Climate Change Science Compendium 2009, on global climate change reflecting a better understanding of how the Earth systems work and the impacts of climate change. According to this report, if every country implements ALL climate reduction legislation currently proposed, global temperatures will STILL rise over 6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, a significant increase from the last report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The report states that many of the long term forecasts of the IPCC are either already happening or will happen sooner than previously predicted.
The report, based on reviews of 400 major scientific contributions to Earth systems and climate change, addresses the following:
- Increased average temperatures with at least half of the next 10 years exceeding the warmest year on record
- Ocean acidification linked to increased absorption of CO2 resulting in the destruction of coral reefs throughout the world
- Increased loss of glaciers and polar ice-sheets resulting in rising sea levels and major impact to human and natural ecosystems
- Increased drought conditions not only in South-East Australia and South-West North America but in Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia
- Loss of a third or the world’s plant and animal species
Although there are no major national or international scientific bodies expressing doubts that global warming exists and it is a result of human activities, skeptics continue to voice opposition to these findings. Faced with overwhelming scientific evidence, the actions of the skeptics have, for the most part, evolved. At first, they denied global warming. They then acknowledged that global warming exists but it was NOT a result of human activity. Now, many acknowledge global warming and its relation to human activity but instead of addressing the problem, they focus on adapting to the changing climate. Their response to global warming is to let the market drive solutions.
Market driven solutions will not solve global warming. It requires the governments, especially the United States, to take a leadership role and to enact tough standards. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon wrote, “The time for hesitation is over.” I couldn’t agree more.
|
|
