Archive for September, 2010
Pledge
In introducing the Republican Pledge to America, House minority leader John Boehner said the GOP would need to have an “adult conversation” about the future of Social Security and Medicare, suggesting he envisioned some tough choices ahead.
If the GOP wants to have an adult conversation with the public, the lawmakers also need to do so in regard to environmental policy. As it now stands, if they should capture the majority in the House of Representatives in November, they are talking about making their top priority an investigation of some global warming activist scientists’ e-mails.
Let’s see. As their first order of environmental business, the House Republicans are planning to conduct circus-like hearings that rehash a non-story for partisan brownie points while the nation and the world are wrestling with ever increasing ecological degradation. The aforementioned e-mails were assailed by global warming skeptics as proof that the science behind climate change was shaky. But two independent official investigations concluded the science establishing global warming as a serious man-made concern was sound, and that the authors of the e-mails were merely guilty of petty sniping at professional rivals.
So there you have it. If the GOP takes control, it wants to concentrate environmental governance on reviving a controversy of no substance while global temperatures continue to rise, the world’s coral reefs are dying off, the polar ice caps are receding, and inclement weather events are becoming more intense.
There is also talk of Republicans disbanding some of the environmental committees currently operating in the Democratic-controlled Congress. That sounds like grist for an “adult conversation” if the Republicans have a good day in November.
In the GOP’s Pledge to America, there is a vow to increase access to domestic energy sources. Does that mean giving oil companies greater freedom to drill in offshore waters and encroach on previously protected wilderness areas? We would need some open dialogue
What about support for expansion of clean, renewable energy? There is nary a word in the Pledge, a glaring omission that certainly merits vetting in an “adult conversation”.
The Precautionary Principle
Every Republican running for the U.S. Senate in November believes either that human activity is not the driving force behind global warming or that the planet isn’t even heating up, according to a recent survey.
Their skepticism abounds despite a study by the respected public interest group known as the Natural Resources Defense Council that found night time temperatures in 37 states to be the highest on record this summer. So what, you say? Well, what about the most devastating floods in memory in Pakistan, and the record breaking unbearable summer heat in such diverse locations as New York City and Moscow?
Climatologists are quick to point out that none of these events by themselves are conclusive proof of global warming. There have been serious weather-related disturbances in the past.
It should be noted, however, that these events are occurring in juxtaposition and contribute to a growing body of evidence that the accelerated warming of the planet is occurring. The weight of evidence suggests that the earth’s temperature is rising at an abnormally rapid rate due to a major infusion of carbon emissions from human fossil fuel burning activity, and that we ought to try to do something to slow the trend.
That having been said, here is a recommendation for the Republican senatorial candidates. Embrace the Precautionary Principle, the philosophical core of environmental protection activism. It is a “better safe than sorry” approach. When appropriately applied, the risk/reward ratio is extremely attractive for any politician, regardless of party affiliation. In the case of the global warming threat, the main precautionary steps to be taken are winning propositions in their own right, regardless of whether scientists’ worst fears materialize.
The remedies in question include reforestation to absorb the excessive amount of carbon being emitted into the atmosphere from our power plants, automobiles and other fossil fuel burning sources. At the same time, the expansion of forests contributes to improved air quality, increased wildlife habitat and water purification capacity, and aesthetic enhancement.
Another strategy to combat global warming involves greater efficiency in fuel use which in turn results in a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and energy costs. The same emission reduction objective is achieved by integrating renewable sources of energy into the nation’s fuel mix in a major way. Our reliance on Mideast oil would be reduced as well the level of air pollution in our cities. A further dividend is detailed in a recent World Resources Institute study which documents how wind power will generate far more jobs than the fossil fuel industry does.
So in regard to the Precautionary Principle, I submit to Republican senatorial hopefuls (and skeptics): what’s not to like?
Edward Flattau is an environmental columnist residing in Washington, D.C. and the author of the forthcoming book, Green Morality, now available for pre-order.
Smear Job
The media got it all wrong in its description of James Lee, the deranged individual who police shot dead after he broke into the Discovery Channel building in Silver Spring, Md., and threatened to kill hostages. He was identified by just about every news source as an “environmental” extremist because of his bizarre demands and irrational rant against humanity’s ecological impact on the planet. Lee had warned that if the Discovery Channel did not agree to televise programs promoting the halt of population growth and civilization itself, he would start shooting. That even led some conservative observers to suggest that environmental teachings had influenced Lee to commit his act of violence.
Well, here is a news flash. Lee was not, I repeat not, an environmentalist. Environmentalism isn’t about curtailment of life, violence or otherwise; it is about preserving and enhancing the quality of life. Mainstream environmentalism pins its hopes on human genius’ capability to create an ecologically sustainable society in a peaceful fashion. It is no partner to the despair that consumed Lee’s tortured psyche.
Newscasters ought to know better than to automatically characterize an individual as an “environmentalist,” simply because he or she condemns pollution. Actions speak louder than words.
This decoupling of the environmental movement from Lee’s demented behavior is not what some Right Wing news sources and bloggers want to hear. They aren’t interested in anything that contradicts their contention that the environmental movement was the driving force behind Lee’s rampage. Several broadcasters on Fox News proceeded to cite Lee’s reference to Al Gore’s global warming film, Inconvenient Truth, as evidence that the former vice president’s rhetoric was the catalyst for the nut case’s siege of terror.
This demagogic, ludicrous tactic of smearing environmentalists through guilt by association is old hat. Witness two Libertarian college professors who in 1993, wrote a book in which they asserted that ecological concern was a major element of Hitler’s Third Reich, making it “the first government to be dominated by radical environmentalists.” Hint, hint, Brown Shirts equal Green.
Another ideologically driven academician wrote a tract in which a big deal was made of the fact that prominent Hitler henchmen Rudolph Hess and Heinrich Himmler were keen on organic farming. Also, the Nazi storm trooper training regimen conveyed a respect for animal life near “Buddhist proportions”.
Is this supposed to mean that organic farming and animal rights activism are philosophical petri dishes for Nazi-type brutality?
The smear merchants don’t stop there. They assert that the environmental movement is anti-people despite standing shoulder to shoulder with the downtrodden in the battle for social justice. Environmentalists are maligned for being anti-God when in fact, spirituality pervades the movement as manifested by the outspoken reverence of all major religions for the sanctity of nature
Why do some Right Wingers feel compelled to demonize the environmental movement and its core policies? It’s not hard to figure. These conservatives regard environmentalists’ advocacy of government regulatory restraints on corporate activity as a threat to the freedom to earn a profit in a capitalist system. It doesn’t gibe with their plutocratic vision of how American society should operate. Conservatives believe the marketplace has a self-policing mechanism that will ultimately curb any excesses. It’s a naive ideological pipe dream in which conservatives maintain that the private sector will voluntarily forego profits–its raison d’etre–for the benefit of the public good.
Yes, the marketplace is a cornerstone of freedom to innovate and make a profit, but not at the expense of the earth’s natural resource base that is indispensable to future generations’ survival as well as our own.
Edward Flattau is an environmental columnist residing in Washington, D.C. and the author of the forthcoming book, Green Morality, now available for pre-order.
Cinema Smoke Screen
Through most of the 20th Century, movies with characters puffing away on cigarettes helped make smoking a popular, and in some circles, necessary status symbol. In the 1940s’ and 1950s’, Humphrey Bogart, Bette Davis, and scores of other established Hollywood stars always had a smoke in hand at some point in their films. Decades later, James Bond and Superman’s girl friend, Lois Lane, puffed away in front of audiences filled with many an impressionable teenager.
Not surprisingly, moviegoers of all ages tended to associate cigarette smoking with glamour, vigorous youth, sexiness, wealth, and occasionally rebelliousness. I remember that my mom did not care all that much for cigarettes, but briefly took up its use in response to peer pressure.
As the major adverse health effects of tobacco have become widely publicized over the past 30 years, smoking has declined both on and off the screen in the United States. Nevertheless, 43 million Americans (many of them youngsters) remain addicted to the evil weed and 450,000 a year die prematurely from it. Despite efforts to diminish the presence and discredit the allure of smoking in films, 54 percent of movies with parental guidance ratings still have smoking in their narratives.
As long as smoking is legal, it is unconstitutional to ban the practice from appearing on the silver screen. Nonetheless, films containing smoking can still be rated “R”, be preceded by anti-smoking messages, and be prohibited from displaying actual brands and receiving compensation for such actions. Many jurisdictions have adopted these measures, again with middling results in regard to discouraging smoking.
It is thus important to reduce cinematic smoking scenes even further. The Center for Disease Control has conducted studies that show youngsters who are exposed to cigarette use on film continue to be much more likely to take up smoking and set the stage for health problems later in life.
Yet James Cameron, director of the box office smash hit Avatar, fiercely defends the cigarette smoking portrayed by Sigourney Weaver’s character in the film.
“Yes, smoking is a filthy habit,” Cameron says, “but movies should reflect reality. Some people smoke.” There are some cinematic situations where smoking is not glamorized but instead represents a character’s release from anxiety, a brief respite from desperation. Military combat scenes come to mind and are unlikely to produce many new customers for the tobacco companies.
But there is another reality. Smokers are abandoning the habit in droves, and cigarette use is increasingly viewed as a societal stigma. Why not work into movie scripts the rejection of cigarettes for health reasons and the depiction of the lethal medical consequences when rejection is ignored?
Evolution of a Columnist
Peering Through the Bushes
Tracking the Charlatans
