After last week's vote, it is clear for the time being 1) that the US Senate believes climate change is real, and 2) that Republicans do not believe its cause is man-made. Now we can parse the issue.
The GOP has edged off outright denial of climate change but has drawn a line in the (beach) sand regarding the who, what and why.
Republicans are sticking to their hard line for a simple reason: if man caused climate change, then man is required to take steps to avert its worst consequences. That's what the party of compassionate conservatism would do.
"Doing something" about climate change is exactly what the GOP doesn't want to do.
It doesn't want to do anything about climate change because the GOP's major funders are the fossil fuel industry, the electric utilities, and other components of the Great Destroyers. Political money and unlimited campaign contributions are driving the train we all share as human travelers straight off the cliff. It is hard to explain, but let's try.
To my Republican friends: think of the atmosphere as if it were a toilet bowl. (I can't take credit for this metaphor. A friend -- an engineer and one of the nation's top venture capitalists came up with it.)
A toilet bowl can only contain a fixed volume of fluid. It's no different with C02 in the atmosphere. Our atmosphere and oceans can only absorb a limited amount of heat trapping gases and still sustain human life. All the natural systems we depend on for survival are at risk when these gases overflow the absorbent capacity of the atmosphere.
When your Republican toilet overflows it wrecks your bathroom floor just like it does in the Democrats' house. The atmosphere, when it overflows with man-made gases destroys the capacity of the planet to sustain both Republicans and Democrats.
So, why would Republicans allow a toilet bowl to overflow after knowing it is stopped up?
Some Republicans, one imagines, would rather tear down and replace the entire bathroom than admit they could fix a clogged toilet. But here's the rub: the planet can't be remade. As the bumper decal reads: "There is no Planet B".
So what should Democrats do? Here's a suggestion.
Based on last week's votes -- and President Obama's citation in the State of the Union Address that the US military is landing squarely on the side of climate change as a major national security threat -- let Democratic Senators ask their counterparts to vote on whether the GOP has confidence in the US military.
Put a question to the Senate this way: "It is the sense of the Senate to support the US military in its conviction that climate change represents a real and present danger to the United States and that therefore the US Senate must act to avert the worst consequences of climate change."
The Republicans will vote against the US military. They will do anything, including self-destruct, before admitting we need to be doing much, much more to ward off the most inconvenient truths about climate change.
So let the Republicans vote against the US military and let their candidates explain why, in the next election cycle.
The GOP has edged off outright denial of climate change but has drawn a line in the (beach) sand regarding the who, what and why.
Republicans are sticking to their hard line for a simple reason: if man caused climate change, then man is required to take steps to avert its worst consequences. That's what the party of compassionate conservatism would do.
"Doing something" about climate change is exactly what the GOP doesn't want to do.
It doesn't want to do anything about climate change because the GOP's major funders are the fossil fuel industry, the electric utilities, and other components of the Great Destroyers. Political money and unlimited campaign contributions are driving the train we all share as human travelers straight off the cliff. It is hard to explain, but let's try.
To my Republican friends: think of the atmosphere as if it were a toilet bowl. (I can't take credit for this metaphor. A friend -- an engineer and one of the nation's top venture capitalists came up with it.)
A toilet bowl can only contain a fixed volume of fluid. It's no different with C02 in the atmosphere. Our atmosphere and oceans can only absorb a limited amount of heat trapping gases and still sustain human life. All the natural systems we depend on for survival are at risk when these gases overflow the absorbent capacity of the atmosphere.
 |
| graphic by guerrilla artist Banksy |
So, why would Republicans allow a toilet bowl to overflow after knowing it is stopped up?
Some Republicans, one imagines, would rather tear down and replace the entire bathroom than admit they could fix a clogged toilet. But here's the rub: the planet can't be remade. As the bumper decal reads: "There is no Planet B".
So what should Democrats do? Here's a suggestion.
Based on last week's votes -- and President Obama's citation in the State of the Union Address that the US military is landing squarely on the side of climate change as a major national security threat -- let Democratic Senators ask their counterparts to vote on whether the GOP has confidence in the US military.
Put a question to the Senate this way: "It is the sense of the Senate to support the US military in its conviction that climate change represents a real and present danger to the United States and that therefore the US Senate must act to avert the worst consequences of climate change."
The Republicans will vote against the US military. They will do anything, including self-destruct, before admitting we need to be doing much, much more to ward off the most inconvenient truths about climate change.
So let the Republicans vote against the US military and let their candidates explain why, in the next election cycle.
9 comments:
Were in big trouble and the confederacy of dunces continue to destroy.
And you above, can't spell.
All Miami-Dade County commissioners and Mayor Carlos Gimenez should answer publicly: Do you believe that man-made burning of carbon is primarily responsible for climate change and sea level rise. These officials should not talk about their commitment to sea level rise resiliency unless they are willing to answer that question for the residents of this at-risk county.
Spelling doesn't count here.
Heads up: Miami Beach has contacted Bergeron Land Development to supply plans for raising the street level on West Ave., in Miami Beach.
Funny how 5 years ago it was called "GLOBAL WARMING" and now it's called "Climate Change".
Way to use such an all encompassing phrase so as not to box yourself in.
M
That's because there is no global warming. And people are upset that the left's "solutions" are all detrimental to the US economy. Have you read how all those sad pictures of the "baby polar bears standing in a little piece of ice as everything was melting around them" have been debunked? So now, "climate change" is the new mantra. Of course climates change. They do all over the world, continuously. You can't fool all if the people, all of the time. So true!
I wish someone had the guts to tell Al Gore to stop traveling in a private plane. Talk about a carbon footprint!
The "no global warming" comments and arguing about word choice are just more idiocy we can't afford.
"Last year tied with 2010 as the hottest on record, in a new sign of long-term global warming stoked by human activities, British researchers said Monday, backing up American scientists’ findings of record-breaking heat in 2014. The worldwide data, compiled by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia from records stretching back to 1850, showed average surface temperatures last year were 0.56 degree Celsius (1.0 Fahrenheit) above the long-term average of 1961-90. With 2014, all of the 10 warmest years on record have been this century, with the exception of 1998. Given the statistical ranges, the data echoed findings by scientists in the United States. On Jan. 16, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said last year was the warmest on record, just ahead of 2010. The British team said the findings showed “several data sets in broad agreement.” Discrepancies occur because different methods are used to determine temperatures in places with few thermometers, such as the Arctic."
Post a Comment