BPSDB Mark Hertsgaard (author of On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency) is interviewed by Democracy Now about his new book “Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth.”
Some worthwhile points that he makes:
It’s a crime
Our inaction on climate change is a crime. It is and should be treated as such. The lies and propaganda of the Anti-science Machine are crimes against humanity and hopefully they will be formally recognized as such.
“Uncertainty”
The alleged uncertainty of the science is very much an American phenomenon. Not that there aren’t Bolts, Delingpoles, Balls and Mtols all over the world (what village is without its’ idiot?), but that widespread and official Denial is peculiar to the US.
Update 18/4/11:
- National Journal: “The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones.”
- Washington Post stunner: “The GOP’s climate-change denial may be its most harmful delusion.”
Nukes
I am not yet ready to talk about Nuclear Power, but Hertsgaard makes some interesting points relevant to that discussion.
Food & GMOs
As with Nukes, here is another I will be returning too, but he is certainly right in saying that food is the issue with respect to climate change.
Now to try and get a review copy :-)
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Comment Policy
-
It is worth knowing and abiding by whether you comment on this blog or not.
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
- The “Spam” Comment Thread is for comments posted by people who think that they can ignore site policy.
Hertsgaard has it 100% right about nukes. They cost too much. They take too long to build and the projects often go way over budget and schedule. They soak up vast amounts of capital that could be better used to deploy renewables *now*. Nukes won’t mitigate climate change, they will make it worse.
Then there’s the ‘small’ problem of what to do with the waste for the next 100,000+ years.
Romm nails it as usual:
* Does nuclear power have a negative learning curve? Real escalation in reactor investment costs while solar plummets. “New nukes have gone from too cheap to meter to too expensive to matter for the foreseeable future.” http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/06/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve/
P.S. Big clue: Koch Industries (via their stink tanks) support nuclear.
P.S. Blasphemous suggestion: it’s time to stop talking about climate change and start talking about energy.
Pretty much everyone on the planet has picked their ‘side’ on climate change. The deniers are entrenched. They will never be moved with science or reason.
And the climate change ‘debate’ is simply a proxy for energy. While people argue over whether the Arctic is melting, the fossil and nuke industries get a free run at spreading anti-renewable FUD and slowing deployment.
Also, it’s easier to sell clean energy to the public. It’s all about positives: clean air, energy independence, no more foreign ‘wars’ to protect oil supplies. Whereas, climate change is all about “bad things will happen if you don’t do as you’re told!”
/blasphemy
at least now we know that the climate changes are normal.
research paleo-climate models and you will see that all this crap about our measly 150 years of industrial spew-age is just another fear tactic like terrorism ….. the facts of the matter are our earth is just going through another temp. and Co2 spike like it does every 110,00 years …..
—-