Will it be Climate Change or Global Warming?

For the first time since he came to the White House, the Current Occupant will tonight talk about what is popularly known as global warming. Soon we’ll have analyses of how serious the White House effort will be, but for now, the big question is: Will the Prez actually say the words "global warming?" Or will he, as the the press release from the White House suggests, stick to "climate change?"

Chris Mooney has an amusing post pointing out that in his past State of the Union speeches, Bush has uttered the word God many times, but climate change or global warming…never. Meanwhile the Wall Street Journal has a thorough round-up of industry thinking on climate change, called "The New Consensus," that subtly points out that even notorious denier Exxon corporation is talking about "how to structure emission constraint"…a step the White House still will not consider.

The Fifth Bad Thing: Drought

Ventura County, where I live in Southern California, has had a slew of natural disasters in the last couple of years. The White House declared a disaster for the floods of January 2005, after several months, and the state has declared a disaster as well, and also for the Day Fire of last September, and now for the most recent freeze. That’s not even mentioning the other disasters from the 90’s.

The recent disasters have been mostly spectacular; sliding hillsides, roaring fires, shrieking winds. (We had gales of 70 mph after Christmas.) But despite all the drama, a less spectacular but even more dangerous sort of disaster appears to be stalking us, as citrus grower Jim Coultas told The Ojai Valley News ($).

"There’s about five bad things that can happen to us," Coultas said. "Last year we had floods, then fire, then we had big winds, and now a terrible freeze. The last thing is drought, and it has rained only 1 inch in the last year."

His fears, unfortunately, appear well-placed. A recently released study by Marty Hoerling for the IPCC (the international climate change study organization) predicts a new era of drought in the 21st century:


The Southwest appears to be entering
a new drought era. In the 20th century,
drought was principally precipitation
driven, and enhanced by temperature.
Indications from the simulations are that
a near perpetual state of drought will
materialize in the coming decades as a
consequence of increasing temperature.

This obviously needs reporting on from yours truly. For now, here’s a graphic version, drawn from Hoerling’s climate models (you’ll need to click to enlarge):
Our_future_drought

What the Prez Will Say about Global Warming in the SOTU Address

Last year at about this time I took a poll among interested parties–such as Roger Pielke, Jr., Environmental Economics, Kevin Drum of Political Animal–to see if the Current Occupant of the White House would mention global warming. The consensus was unanimous: he would not.

Indeed, he did not. A year later, rumors from London published in The Guardian (see below) suggested that the Prez had signed on to a greenhouse emissions cap. In response, the White House rushed out an unusually firm denial on Sunday. Today presidential spokesman Tony Snow followed up in the press briefing:

"Q:     Reports from London? Are you going to be able to be categorical about whether or not the President had been persuaded by Tony Blair to agree to greenhouse gas emission limits?

MR. SNOW: Look, we’ll have a State of the Union address in a week and we’ll lay out our policy on global warming.

Q:" So that’s not the same kind of denial that —

MR. SNOW: That’s because — you’re confronting me with another report I haven’t had time to test out.

Q That’s the one we were talking about this morning —

MR. SNOW: If you’re talking about enforceable carbon caps, in terms of industry wide and nationwide, we knocked that down. That’s not something we’re talking about."

Interesting. This suggests the White House will agree that global warming is real (which the Prez, under the influence of Michael Crichton, has questioned in the past). They might actually call for some sort of action. But what sort?

Follow-up: The Financial Times has a fascinating quote on the subject:

White House officials remain privately sceptical about a British report produced in October by Sir Nicholas Stern on the economics of climate change, suggesting it would be wrong to make big decisions based on what some officials dismiss as “popular science”.

This White House claims we should respect their opinion on a question of science? After all their efforts to eviscerate the collection and study of scientific data by Federal agencies? Holy Jesus. The arrogance of these folks knows no bounds.

Sealevel to Rise a Foot or Two in Coming Decades, Richard Alley Fears

From the NYTimes today:

Until recently, the consensus of climate scientists was that the impact of melting polar ice sheets would be negligible over the next 100 years. Ice sheets were thought to be extremely slow in reacting to atmospheric warming. The 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, widely considered to be an authoritative scientific statement on the potential impacts of global warming, based its conclusions about sea-level rise on a computer model that predicted a slow onset of melting in Greenland.

“When you look at the ice sheet, the models didn’t work, which puts us on shaky ground,” said Richard Alley, a geosciences professor at Pennsylvania State University.

There is no consensus on how much Greenland’s ice will melt in the near future, Dr. Alley said, and no computer model that can accurately predict the future of the ice sheet. Yet given the acceleration of tidewater-glacier melting, a sea-level rise of a foot or two in the coming decades is entirely possible, he said. That bodes ill for island nations and those who live near the coast.

“Even a foot rise is a pretty horrible scenario,” said Stephen P. Leatherman, director of the Laboratory for Coastal Research at Florida International University in Miami.

On low-lying and gently sloping land like coastal river deltas, a sea-level rise of just one foot would send water thousands of feet inland. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide make their homes in such deltas; virtually all of coastal Bangladesh lies in the delta of the Ganges River. Over the long term, much larger sea-level rises would render the world’s coastlines unrecognizable, creating a whole new series of islands.

Bush to Make U-Turn on Global Warming, Says Blair

For literally years, Tony Blair has been pushing the Current Occupant to move against the threat of global warming. Now–according to insiders on 10 Downing Street–he will. According to a front-page story in The Observer:

…there is a feeling that the US President will now agree a cap on emissions in the US, meaning that, for the first time, American industry and consumers would be expected to start conserving energy and curbing pollution.

For evidence, insiders point to the fact that the Bush administration allowed the US Fish and WIldlife service to list polar bears as "threatened" by climate change.

True, but enviros everywhere are skeptical. A spokesperson for Greenpeace pointed out that last year Bush shocked everyone by admitting that the US was addicted to oil, but did nothing meaningful about it.

"Be afraid. Be very afraid," remarked David Roberts at Grist. "If the mendacity doesn’t get you, the incompetence will."

A commentator (Number6) at Kevin Drum’s Political Animal site ventured a prediction:

If you want a clue as to what to what to expect from [[the State of the Union], have a look at how Australia’s Prime Minister, John Howard, handled his own greenhouse about-turn speech recently. Grudging recognition that climate may be shifting, and a few vague measures that basically amount to ‘more of the same’- a committe or two, more research, and assistance to the big end of town. No changes to energy markets to shift consumer behaviour, efficiency measures or mandated renewables targets. As John Howard seems to have got away with this approach, it’s likely to set a model for GWB.

I would note the vague, hopeful phrase "the feeling" from insiders that the Current Occupant will agree to an emissions cap. If past experience is any guide, he probably allowed himself to be talked into a potentially good idea in the presence of Blair, but any actual useful actions to protect the environment will be spiked by Dick Cheney before they emerge from the White House.

UPDATE:    Well, that didn’t take long. The White House has rushed out a denial before the story was even a day old, saying "the rumor is not true." Perhaps the Current Occupant is still a denier.

 

The Unbought Grace of Life

In an "Advisory Readings" post that meanders through all sorts of fascinating topics, James Wolcott alerts us to a fiercely concise little essay by a professor much loved at Dartmouth, Jeffrey Hart, on the true nature of Burkean conservative thought, which does not overlook that quality forgotten to so many capitalists–Beauty.

I’ll post it in its entirety below, but here’s the crux of the matter for us:

Free-market economics. American conservatism emerged during a period when socialism in various forms had become a tacit orthodoxy. The thought of Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman informed its understanding of economic questions. At length, the free market triumphed through much of the world, and today there are very few socialists in major university economics departments, an almost total transformation since 1953. But the utopian temptation can turn such free-market thought into a utopianism of its own — that is, free markets to be effected even while excluding every other value and purpose …

… such as Beauty, broadly defined. The desire for Beauty may be natural to human beings, like other natural desires. It appeared early, in prehistoric cave murals. In literature (for example, Dante) and in other forms of representation — painting, sculpture, music, architecture — Heaven is always beautiful, Hell ugly. Plato taught that the love of Beauty led to the Good. Among the needs of civilization is what Burke called the "unbought grace of life."

The word "unbought" should be pondered. Beauty has been clamorously present in the American Conservative Mind through its almost total absence. The tradition of regard for woodland and wildlife was present from the beginnings of the nation and continued through conservative exemplars such as the Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who established the National Parks. Embarrassingly for conservatives (at least one hopes it is embarrassing), stewardship of the environment is now left mostly to liberal Democrats.

Not all ideas and initiatives by liberals are bad ones. Burke’s unbought beauties are part of civilized life, and therefore ought to occupy much of the Conservative Mind. The absence of this consideration remains a mark of yahooism and is prominent in Republicanism today. As if by an intrinsic law, when the free market becomes a kind of utopianism it maximizes ordinary human imperfection — here, greed, short views and the resulting barbarism.

[From "The Burke Habit," one in a series of commentaries in the Wall Street Journal under the rubric ‘American Conservatism," published 12/27/2005. At another point in the essay Hart specifically excoriates the idealistic "Wilsonianism" that leads to foreign wars as soft-headed, "a snare and a delusion" and "far from conservative." Gee, who could he be thinking of?]

I should state the point clearly: Caring for the planet is true conservatism.

Here’s Mr. Hart:

Jeffrey_hart_from_dartmouth_review

American Conservatism

The Burke Habit

By
JEFFREY HART

December 27, 2005

[WSJ}

In "The Conservative Mind" (1953), a founding document of the American conservative movement, Russell Kirk assembled an array of major thinkers beginning with Edmund Burke and made a major statement. He proved that conservative thought in America existed, and even that such thought was highly intelligent — a demonstration very much needed at the time.

Today we are in a very different and more complicated situation. Nevertheless, a synthesis is possible, based on what American conservatism has achieved and left unachieved since Kirk’s volume. Any political position is only as important as the thought by which it is derived; the political philosopher presiding will be Burke, but a Burke interpreted for a new constitutional republic and for modern life. Here, then, is my assessment of the ideas held in balance in the American Conservative Mind today.

Hard utopianism. During the 20th century, socialism and communism tried to effect versions of their Perfect Man in the Perfect Society. But as Pascal had written, "Man is neither angel nor brute, and the misfortune is that he who would act the angel acts the brute." In abstract theory was born the Gulag. One of conservatism’s most noble enterprises from its beginning was its informed anti-communism.

Soft utopianism. Both hard and soft utopianism ignore flawed human nature. Soft utopianism believes in benevolent illusions, most abstractly stated in the proposition that all goals are reconcilable, as in such dreams as the Family of Man, World Peace, multiculturalism, pacifism and Wilsonian global democracy.

To all of these the Conservative Mind objects. Men do not all desire the same things: Domination is a powerful desire. The phrase about the lion lying down with the lamb is commonly quoted; but Isaiah knew his vision of peace would take divine intervention, not at all to be counted on. Without such intervention, the lion dines well.

The nation. Soft utopianism speaks of the "nation-state" as if it were a passing nuisance. But the Conservative Mind knows that there must be much that is valid in the idea of the nation, because nations are rooted in history. Arising out of tribes, ancient cosmological empires, theocracies, city-states, imperial systems and feudal organization, we now have the nation. Imperfect as the nation may be, it alone — as far as we know — can protect many of the basic elements of civilized existence.

It follows that national defense remains a necessity, threatened almost always by "lie-down-with-the-lambism," as well as by recurrent, and more obviously hostile, hard utopianisms. In the earliest narratives of the West, both the Greek "Iliad" and the Hebrew Pentateuch, wars are central. Soft utopianism often has encouraged more frequent wars, as it is irresistibly tempting to the lion’s claws and teeth. The Conservative Mind, most of the time, has shown a healthy resistance to utopianism and its various informing ideologies. Ideology is always wrong because it edits reality and paralyzes thought.

Constitutional government. Depending on English tradition and classical theory, the Founders designed a government by the "deliberate sense" of the people. The "sense" originated with the people, but it was made "deliberate" by the delaying institutions built into the constitutional structure. This system aims at government not by majorities alone but by stable consensus, because under the Constitution major changes almost always require a consensus that lasts over a considerable period of time. Though the Supreme Court stands as constitutional arbiter, it is not a legislature. The correct workings of the system depend upon mutual restraint among the branches. And the court, which is the weakest of the three, should behave with due modesty toward the legislature. The legislature is the closest to "We the people," the basis of legitimacy in a free society. Legislation is more easily revised or repealed than a court ruling, and therefore judicial restraint is necessary.

Free-market economics. American conservatism emerged during a period when socialism in various forms had become a tacit orthodoxy. The thought of Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman informed its understanding of economic questions. At length, the free market triumphed through much of the world, and today there are very few socialists in major university economics departments, an almost total transformation since 1953. But the utopian temptation can turn such free-market thought into a utopianism of its own — that is, free markets to be effected even while excluding every other value and purpose …

… such as Beauty, broadly defined. The desire for Beauty may be natural to human beings, like other natural desires. It appeared early, in prehistoric cave murals. In literature (for example, Dante) and in other forms of representation — painting, sculpture, music, architecture — Heaven is always beautiful, Hell ugly. Plato taught that the love of Beauty led to the Good. Among the needs of civilization is what Burke called the "unbought grace of life."

The word "unbought" should be pondered. Beauty has been clamorously present in the American Conservative Mind through its almost total absence. The tradition of regard for woodland and wildlife was present from the beginnings of the nation and continued through conservative exemplars such as the Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who established the National Parks. Embarrassingly for conservatives (at least one hopes it is embarrassing), stewardship of the environment is now left mostly to liberal Democrats.

Not all ideas and initiatives by liberals are bad ones. Burke’s unbought beauties are part of civilized life, and therefore ought to occupy much of the Conservative Mind. The absence of this consideration remains a mark of yahooism and is prominent in Republicanism today. As if by an intrinsic law, when the free market becomes a kind of utopianism it maximizes ordinary human imperfection — here, greed, short views and the resulting barbarism.

Religion. Religion is an integral part of the distinctive identity of Western civilization. But this recognition is only manifest in traditional forms of religion — repeat, traditional, or intellectually and institutionally developed, not dependent upon spasms of emotion. This meant religion in its magisterial forms.

What the time calls for is a recovery of the great structure of metaphysics, with the Resurrection as its fulcrum, established as history, and interpreted through Greek philosophy. The representation of this metaphysics through language and ritual took 10 centuries to perfect.

The dome of the sacred, however, has been shattered. The act of reconstruction will require a large effort of intellect, which is never populist and certainly not grounded on emotion, an unreliable guide. Religion not based on a structure of thought always exhibits wild inspired swings and fades in a generation or two.

Abortion. This has been a focus of conservative, and national, attention since Roe v. Wade. Yet abortion as an issue, its availability indeed as a widespread demand, did not arrive from nowhere. Burke had a sense of the great power and complexity of forces driving important social processes and changes. Nevertheless, most conservatives defend the "right to life," even of a single-cell embryo, and call for a total ban on abortion. To put it flatly, this is not going to happen. Too many powerful social forces are aligned against it, and it is therefore a utopian notion.

Roe relocated decision-making about abortion from state governments to the individual woman, and was thus a libertarian, not a liberal, ruling. Planned Parenthood v. Casey supported Roe, but gave it a social dimension, making the woman’s choice a derivative of the women’s revolution.

This has been the result of many accumulating social facts, and its results already have been largely assimilated. Roe reflected, and reflects, a relentlessly changing social actuality. Simply to pull an abstract "right to life" out of the Declaration of Independence is not conservative but Jacobinical. To be sure, the Roe decision was certainly an example of judicial overreach. Combined with Casey, however, it did address the reality of the American social process.

Wilsonianism.

The Republican Party now presents itself as the party of Hard Wilsonianism, which is no more plausible than the original Soft Wilsonianism, which balkanized Central Europe with dire consequences. No one has ever thought Wilsonianism to be conservative, ignoring as it does the intractability of culture and people’s high valuation of a modus vivendi. Wilsonianism derives from Locke and Rousseau in their belief in the fundamental goodness of mankind and hence in a convergence of interests.

George W. Bush has firmly situated himself in this tradition, as in his 2003 pronouncement, "The human heart desires the same good things everywhere on earth."

Welcome to Iraq. Whereas realism counsels great prudence in complex cultural situations, Wilsonianism rushes optimistically ahead. Not every country is Denmark. The fighting in Iraq has gone on for more than two years, and the ultimate result of "democratization" in that fractured nation remains very much in doubt, as does the long-range influence of the Iraq invasion on conditions in the Middle East as a whole. In general, Wilsonianism is a snare and a delusion as a guide to policy, and far from conservative.

The Republican Party. Conservatives assume that the Republican Party is by and large conservative. But this party has stood for many and various things in its history. The most recent change occurred in 1964, when its center of gravity shifted to the South and the Sunbelt, now the solid base of "Republicanism." The consequences of that profound shift are evident, especially with respect to prudence, education, intellect and high culture. It is an example of Machiavelli’s observation that institutions can retain the same outward name and aspect while transforming their substance entirely.

                                                                           * * *

The Conservative Mind is a work in progress. Its deviations and lunges to ideology and utopianism have been self-corrected by prudence, reserved judgment as an operative principle, a healthy practical skepticism and the requirement of historical knowledge as a guide to prudent policy. Without a deep knowledge of history, policy analysis is feckless.

And it follows that the teachings of books that have lasted — the Western tradition — are essential to the Conservative Mind, these books lasting because of their agreements, disagreements and creative resolutions.

It is not enough for conservatives to repeat formulae or party-line positions. The mind must possess the process that leads to conservative decisions. As a guide, the books, and the results of experience, may be the more difficult way — much more difficult in a given moment than pre-cooked dogma, which is always irresistible to the uneducated. Learning guards against having to reinvent the wheel in political theory from one generation to the next.

For the things of this world, the philosophy of William James, so distinctively American, might be the best guide, a philosophy always open to experience and judging by experience within given conditions — the experience pleasurable or, more often, painful, but utopia always a distant and destructive mirage. Administrations come and go, but the Conservative Mind — this constellation of ideas — is a permanent achievement and assesses them all.

[Mr. Hart, professor of English emeritus at Dartmouth, is author of "The American Conservative Mind Today" (ISI, 2005). This is the last in an occasional series.]

What’s Wrong with a Plastic Pink Flamingo? A Q & A with Jennifer Price

Here’s a post that took me quite a while to put together for Grist, but which I forgot to include on my own site! Sometimes I’m so thick. Take a look…

Jenny Price is a nature writer, but unlike most of the species, she insists on writing about nature as it really exists in our lives. If that means writing about plastic pink flamingos asnd concrete-bound rivers; well, this is the nature we see in the 21st century.

Her dissertation from Yale she published as the remarkably thoughtful but witty Flight Maps. On the site LA Observed, she has a very popular guide to the half-secret access routes to the beaches of Malibu. For The Believer, she recently wrote a spectacular essay on the Los Angeles River, and in November published a tribute to the late great plastic flamingo for The New York Times ($) that concluded: "Rest in peace, my pink plastic friend. It was fun while it lasted."

She is a Guggenheim fellow whose writing takes chances, and can open minds. For Grist, she graciously consented to an interview via email, which went back and forth for nearly two weeks. Take a look:

KS:    Last month the Union Products factory that has been making the plastic pink flamingo for nearly fifty years shut down, and the inventor Don Featherstone said he thought his creation would soon become extinct. Can we use that word for something that was never alive in the first place?

    

JP:    Well, I think it’s more accurate to say it’s stopped reproducing.
   

   Pink_plastic_flamingos
 

That Darn Global Warming Myth, Again

In Texas, apparently, global warming is a myth.

Or, possibly, some folks down there might have a sense of humor. Hard to know for sure.

On the scientific side, here’s a first-rate picture of how warming is affecting the U.S. today, courtesy of the Arbor Day Foundation, which put it together after surveying 5,000 USDA-affiliated climate stations across the country.

Global_warming_in_the_us

A Few Good Posts


The Sad Guardian of the Carrizo Plain
(8/20/05)

Sorry, Mr. Sullivan. Sorry, Mr. Kennedy (8/30/05)

Land of a Billion Bonus Points (10/4/05)

If John Lennon Were Still Here…  (12/9/05)

Bush A "Dissenter" on Global Warming (2/19/06)

The Future Taps Us on the Shoulder (3/16/06)

"My Life is My Message" (4/29/06)

Global Warming: #2 on the Pop Charts (7/20/06)

Everyone’s Talkin’ (’bout my Global Warming) (7/7/06)

Chat with Andrew Revkin about Inhofe Attacks (7/23/06)

Fire In SoCal: How Close Are We to the Edge? (9/26/06)

Betweeness (11/20/06)

The Ecology of Peace (12/13/06)

An Environmental A to Z (12/26/06)

Global Warming Splits Conservatives (3/5/07)