Even as climate change whipsaws the American south, states such as Florida and Texas remain hotbeds of global warming denialism.
The outgoing governor of Texas, who is expected to seek the GOP nomination in 2016, Rick Perry maintains that climate change is "a theory that has not been proven." Of course this is the same jackass who claimed that, with enough prayer, Jeebus would deliver the Lone Star State from its ongoing megadrought. Now there's a theory that has not been proven.
From the Environmental Defense Fund:
NOAA’s comprehensive [State of the Climate report] stands as a rebuke to what we hear from
many Texas lawmakers. Four major independent datasets agree that,
globally, 2012 was among the ten warmest years on record
(ranking either 8 or 9 depending on the dataset used). It was also the
warmest year in American history. All that heat plunged the country into
a billion-dollar drought, with 61.8% of the contiguous U.S. in drought
conditions by July. While Texas fared better
than the central U.S. in 2012, the all-time record-breaking summer of 2011 is still fresh in the memory of most Texans. The extreme temperatures and associated
drought contributed to the most destructive wildfires in Texas history. The La Niña-related heat wave that prompted 2011’s extremes was made 20 times more likely by climate change.
...But even as mainstream American society searches for the best ways to
cope with a changing climate, our leaders in Texas still have their
heads in the sand. In fact, the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) has
removed mention of climate change from state-commissioned reports, calling it
“unsettled science, in our opinion.”
And Florida, next only to Louisiana in vulnerability to sea level rise and severe tropical storm impacts, climate change denialism is alive and well. GOP pretty boy, Mark Rubio, continues to insist that the whole notion of anthropogenic climate change remains mired in "reasonable debate."
With 'leaders' like Perry, Mound, it is hard to feel anything but contempt for politicians. Which reminds me, have Thomas or Justin offered their thoughts on the issue of climate change?
Well both support the Tar Sands so it's unlikely they'll take an aggressive stand on climate change. Life is not easy when you're looking to govern a Petro-State.
"Life is not easy when you're looking to govern a Petro-State." Perhaps good examples of that could be anywhere that corporations have decided government is a disposable nuisance unless it is their tamed variant. Apropos of not much I recall hearing Ralph Klein, now deceased and beloved former premier of Alberta, was introduced to political realities under Lockheed when, as Minister of the Environment, he actually tried to do what he saw as his mandate.
This destructive and gigantic mess poisoning Alberta's water is to produce exports. B.C. would make a lovely imitation of the fiasco of the Exxon Valdez should B.C. be stupid enough to relent on its opposition. Doubtless trans Canada piping will have to produce the disaster.
What aggressive action on climate change do you consider advisable and what are your sources ? This is especially interesting given the collapse of the European initiative on carbon credits where institutional fraud collapsed the market.
p.s. I understand we are losing our financial shirt on export prices for tar sands oil. I wonder if that doesn't point towards the actual fraudsters pushing the initiative.
Opit, I'm not one to advise on aggressive action on climate change. We have experts for that, a good many of them, a consensus in fact. I think they would give our leaders all the advice they could ever want.
I agree that we're probably not making much if anything on bitumen exports. That would be apparent if we brought forward all the deferrals and subsidies and began pricing the natural capital consumed in production at something approximating fair market value. It requires a lot of conjuring and sleight of hand to show a significant, positive cashflow.
Well, I tend to think it's just the usual vile mixture of politics, fundamentalist religion, and corporate interests sleeping in each others' beds. Denialism seems to be strongest in those areas where there's the least separation between government (elected and unelected), religious, and corporate spheres.
At least I *hope* that's what it is...
The alternative theory that it's some sort of human nature where people start to deny things when they become too terrifying to accept is a pretty frightening prospect.
You might have nailed it, Anon. A culture inherently predisposed to denialism.
All through history, when changes have been needed there are those who cannot get their head around changing the mind set for betterment lest they lose. That is all these people think about...losing.
I expect you're right, Anyong. People like Perry can't possibly envision succeeding through denialism.
Post a Comment