« To Neda - In Memory | Fred Moolten's Blog | Can A Hypocrite Ever Be Elected To High Public Office? »

Climate Change Legislation - The Hidden Scandal Behind Public Support


President Obama strongly endorsed a bill to curtail greenhouse gas emissions that has just been approved by a narrow margin in the House of Representatives. It would save families money, he claimed, and create new jobs. Many members of the public appeared to agree with the President on the need for the legislation, but why did they support it? Was it the savings or jobs he touted? Or was something else the true driving force behind their position?

 

For reasons that will become obvious, I have not reveaaled the real names of three neighbors I recently interviewed who told me they wanted the climate bill to become law. I believe, however, that they are merely the tip of a much larger iceberg with disturbing implications. Their stories follow:

I interviewed Mrs. S. as she tended her garden at the front of the modest suburban home she shared with her husband and three school-age children. She strongly supported the bill, she said emphatically, because it would save them money.

"How much do you expect to save?", I asked.

"The newspaper says it would be at least $100 a year", she replied.

I asked whether that sum was enough to explain the strength of her support.

"Of course", she insisted. "how can anyone afford to turn up their noses at $100 these days?"

Her husband, who had overheard our conversation from the doorway of the house, accompanied me to the sidewalk.

"Grace tells everyone it's the $100", he said quietly, "but I don't think that's the real reason."

"Her cousin lives in the Arizona", he continued, "and water is in short supply in the Southwest. With the climate warming there, the droughts are going to make it worse every year. People will suffer, the land will stop supporting any farming or even grazing, the economy will go bad..."

He hesitated. "It's not just her cousin", he said, "but everyone else out there who's hurt by droughts."

He then added, "I shouldn't tell you this, but the truth is Grace is not only worried about the droughts here in America. She's heard that the warming is making droughts worse in Africa, and maybe Asia and Australia, and people are starving."

"She's sort of a bleeding heart, that way", he confided, before we shook hands, and I walked on.

I wondered whether Mrs. S. was an anomaly, but my next conversation, with Mr. and Mrs. J., suggested otherwise.

Mr. J. looked to be in his mid to late forties, well built and vigorous with a few gray hairs at the temples.

"We need this bill because of jobs", he told me. "I've got a family to feed, and I can't give them what they need if I'm out there looking for a job instead of working", he announced.

His wife interrupted.

"Ted, what are you talking about?", she exclaimed. "You've run your own bicycle repair business for the past 12 years, and it's going strong. The only way you can lose your job is if you fire yourself."

He started to speak, but she persisted.

 "Didn't you tell me just last week you wanted the bill to pass because the new apprentice you hired has family in Bangladesh, and the floods and hurricane damages are driving them off their land, so they can't farm and can't make a living? You said, 'We've got to do something to put a stop to that - the buck stops with us' - I remember your exact words."

Mr. J didn't answer directly, but it seemed clear he was unhappy with his wife's comments.

"Bangladesh is fine, but if I don't bring home any income, how are you going to pay for the fancy dishes you just bought"?, he demanded, as I left them to visit my third neighbor.

Mr. and Mrs. N. greeted me in the doorway of their home. Mr. N. pointed to a partly constructed stairway at the back of the house.

"That's costing us real money", he complained. "A hundred bucks or two won't pay it all off, but it sure makes it easier to keep our house looking good. Definitely we need that bill to pass."

Mrs. N. glanced at her husband, and I could tell she was not sure whether to speak.

"John", she finally whispered, "Why don't you tell him the real reason you support that bill?"

"What are you talking about?", he asked.

She turned to me.

"A month ago, John was looking at the TV reruns showing Hurricane Katrina, and when he got to the picture of that man explaining how his wife was swept out of his arms by the flood, I saw tears in his eyes. He told me, 'yes, I know we can't blame one hurricane on global warming, but I also know that if we don't stop the warming, we're going to get stronger hurricanes and more people are going to die, and I don't want to have to look at more pictures like that.' He turned off the TV, and after that is when he started telling everyone they should write their Congressman to support the bill."

Mr. N. seemed embarrassed.

"It's worse than that", he explained. "The fellow across the street heard me talking about Katrina, and he asked me if that was more important than my family. He asked if I would still support the bill even if it cost me two hundred dollars instead of saving me a hundred. I told him of course not, but as soon as the words were out of my mouth, I knew it was a lie, and I've been ashamed ever since."

Mrs. N. elaborated. "John told me that he would really like to admit he doesn't care about a few dollars as much as those other people. The problem is, he can't tell people, because what will everybody think? We have to keep up appearances, you know."

This seemed to be a cue for Mr. N. to open up further. "It's true", he conceded. I want to admit I lied to that other person, to get that burden off my mind. I even thought of becoming a Catholic so I could confess to the priest."

"He decided not to", Mrs. N. intervened.

"Why not?", I asked.

"Well", said Mr. N., "I realized that when you confess something, you're supposed to promise never to do it again. And I kept thinking about Katrina and all that, and I said to myself, "What if it happens again? What if someone asks me what's important, and I lie and say it's only the money? I don't know if it's a promise I could keep."

Mrs. N. looked wistful. "It's a problem", she sighed. "John would really want to confess to people, but he's a proud man and he can't."

I told her I understood and that there might be others with similar problems who would be interested in reading about their dilemma. I then asked whether I might quote them. Her face grew hard and determined.

"Don't even think about it", she warned. "If you say one word mentioning our names, I'll deny we ever spoke to you!"

I've honored her wishes. Even the initials I cited are not the real ones.

 


22 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

What is disturbing about concern for others?

user-pic

so what's the scandal? Sorry Fred, could you simplify for me?

user-pic

I'll address the above comments, but I'd like to wait for a bit more input to see how others react.

user-pic

To Tom and TPMgary -

In retrospect, the “scandal”, I suppose, is that we live in a society where the fictional characters I concocted for my piece could be mistaken for real people. When satire is confused with reality, the problem can lie with the satirist, with reality, or both. I’ll own up to the first part of the problem, but America should ask whether or not it might have a problem too, when intelligent readers find it unsurprising that everyday people would feel a need to pretend they care more about a hundred dollars than the welfare of a hundred million or more members of the human race threatened by the ravages of climate change in the form of floods, droughts, starvation, disease and the like..

But that’s exactly how the politics of the recent climate change legislation were played out. Opponents denounced the bill as a tax, and Obama countered by saying, “No, Mr. and Mrs. America, you’ll all actually benefit economically sooner or later if we pass this bill.”

This may have been cynical, because Obama fervently believes in the need to mitigate global warming for the sake of the planet, but it was not stupid. In fact, it worked, and it seems that appealing to our better nature would probably have failed in the face of the onslaught launched by adversaries.

I’m tempted to say, “If that’s not scandalous, I don’t know what is.” But I won’t.

Actually, I’m probably a softie after all when it comes to my faith in human nature. Unlike Lily Tomlin, who once proclaimed about Washington politics, “No matter how cynical I get, I can’t seem to keep up”, I actually celebrate the millions of Americans who supported the energy bill because it was good for someone else rather than good for them. They alone were not enough to ensure passage, but without them, the bill would certainly have been doomed to fail.

Most encouraging, I think they are predominantly the younger generation, and their day will come.

user-pic

If it makes you feel any better - to me, those interviews were totally unbelievable (the bike repair shop owner "worried" about the family of his "Bangladeshi apprentice" was somewhat laughable). I stopped reading because my bullshit meter was about to explode. I wasn't going to debate the issue ... and just move on. But since you've acknowledged it, just gotta say the dialogue was not believable. The news media has been highlighting a COST to every household not savings.

Now that you've explained why you used these fictional minuets, I'm not sure your "experiment" was entirely a success.

user-pic

Average short term costs will rise slightly (about $175 per year) but lower income earners will enjoy a $40 net benefit due to tax credits. In the long term, everyone's costs will go down in comparison with the costs of unmitigated global warming, but of course, the "long term" will require many years to many decades depending on individual circumstances.

As a footnote regarding higher energy costs, I live in a fairly big house, and despite conservation efforts, our electric bill is still not trivial. Recently, I've been able to switch about 40% of my electric power from a fossil fuel source (mainly coal) to wind power. This brings with it an extra charge of $120 per year. My fictional bike repair shop owner notwithstanding, I'd be willing to pay even more to spare the coastal residents of Bangladesh from the death toll and impoverishment inflicted by warming-induced sea level rise (recently estimated by satellite telemetry at a rate of about 3 mm/year in the Bay of Bengal region).

user-pic

I figured it was fiction or you live in a wonderful place where the first 3 couples you see actually have long term concerns. What a wonderful place that must be.


"Most encouraging, I think they are predominantly the younger generation, and their day will come."

TEACH THE CHILDREN!

user-pic

Nice post Fred,

One thing that most have overlooked on the climate change issue. The planet will not be destroyed, or even damaged. What may happen though is that we could destroy the habitability of the planet. The climate change issue is really a question of the human race, shall we live or die?

I've realized that many in power have finally found the ultimate victim. The future. Is it robbery or fraud if generations yet unborn are the victims? Is it possible to commit a crime against humanity if that humanity does not yet exist? Thus the politicians and plutocrats have identified the perfect victim, our descendants. The earth is not going to be significantly effected by the nature of the thin green biology on its surface, but we certainly will.

user-pic

I wonder, Adelfarb, if you think the effects of climate change have anything to do with the present. In other words, do you assume that no one's life or geographically-inherited natural resources are being endangered right now?

This idea that only the habitat of future generations is in danger seems to exclude populations and cultures on earth that aren't directly in front of you.

user-pic

Of course I recognize the present problems. As these problems become worse, the damage will increase exponentially. The problems we now have that are thought to be due to climate change can be considered to be local events, such as a hurricane which is isolated both geographically and in time. In the future however the frequency and impact of these disasters is likely to increase. The events will likely not only be sudden catastrophes, but will include progressive changes such as desertification punctuated by large wildfires for instance. The rate at which the situation will evolve is the one of the most uncertain factors of the subject. We don't know how events will develop because no one has ever observed a geophysical situation such as the one we are in develop over time when driven by man made influences. I fear however that unless we change how we do things on a planetary basis, we may not survive to see the results of our experiment.

user-pic

We are that "thin green biology on earth's surface". Humanity is part of the ecosystem. We are nature. The health of nature and the health of humanity are one in the same.

user-pic

Nature can continue to evolve, adapt and likely survive quite nicely ... we are stuck with our physical forms.

That said, assertions of human extinction as a result of global warming seem to be grand hyperbole - even if it were left completely unchecked. Massive loss of human life would ultimately reduce human activity ... which in turn would reduce the impact of human existence. One way or another, the planet will take care of the problems we create.

user-pic

I find it truly astounding that anyone believes this nonsense! First, there is no global warming. Period. Second, if there were, hurricanes would become less intense due to the wind shear effects. Refer to the research by Dr. Gray, the leading hurricane authority on this, not Al Gore, the leading fruitcake. It is laughable that supporters of this nonsense on the one hand point to a fraction of a degree of alleged warming, then attribute every known disaster to that half degree change. Like claiming that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting. Well, of course it is. Put ice in water and it will melt. That's thermodynamics for you. The system is not in equilibrium, it will melt now and it always did always will. Now the fact that the ice has extended farther out into warmer water because the ice in the interior is increasing is conveniently ignored. Also left unexplained is how CO2 rising from .035% to .038% can cause this calamity, since at one time ALL the CO2 from fossil fuels was in the atmosphere, and there was plenty of life on the planet (that's what turned into the fuel!)
Now as far as the cost, you have to be a complete fool if you think this bill will SAVE you money. It will cost jobs and dollars, millions and millions of both. Obama cheats on the numbers by factoring 'planned' rebates and credits. But not everyone will get them. Then there are the tech issues of how to power the entire country on solar and wind, since vast areas of the country do not have the area or the sunlight to make it work. Then there is nighttime, a small problem. And winter, and storms. It like saying all our problems will be solved by magic unicorns and paid for by Leprachauns. Only Pelosi and Gore could believe in this.

user-pic

I think you should take some time to check http://www.ipcc.ch/.

user-pic

Good reply. When solar and wind become cheaper to produce than coal and oil, private industry will be happy to provide it. Otherwise, there's no reason to waste taxpayer money on inefficient energy supplies.

Oh yeah, don't forget to mention that Earth's temp has increased just as much as Mars' over the same period of time. Mars CO2 didn't increase .003% though!

user-pic

I would discourage anyone here from becoming distracted into an argument about anthropogenic global warming, which will never be a settled issue on the Internet or in public media, but is long settled among the thousands of scientists who work in the field of climatology. If anyone wishes, I can provide references to specific topics in the literature - journals that include Geophysical Res. Letters, J. Geophys. Res., Nature, Science, PNAS, J. Climate, Nature Geoscience, etc. However, given the intransigence of some viewpoints, it's not likely to serve a useful purpose.

My concern at this point is twofold. First, the legislation has passed only in the House, and faces a potential Senate filibuster. It has momentum, but that may be insufficient, and enormous efforts will be needed to prod some members of the Senate to have the courage to complete the process.

The second point is that the legislation, which started out as a tiny step in the right direction, has become even tinier as a result of all the compromises needed to satisfy various constituencies. That, in fact, was part of the reason I posted the essay - my hope was to remind legislators and constituents alike that there are times when a degree of unselfish devotion to the needs of others, both now and in the future, must take precedence over selfish concerns. No legislation will pass that inflicts impossible hardships on any of us, but some of us who can affort it may be asked for some modest sacrifices.

I remain hopeful, although not yet certain, that what's needed will be what happens.

user-pic

Stoopid political blunders by the EPA - like this - aren't going to help much. I am expecting the senate debate to devolve into sniping over this report as a process (i.e. the process was flawed because critical information was ignored). Which is too bad; if the thing had just been moved up the chain for review it could have been addressed scientifically and easily countered as part of the final finding (making the final product stronger by directly countering skeptics).

A part of me isn't going to be too upset if this legislation gets knocked down. In many ways the bill seems to be more just to get people to accept that we have to do *something* about the problem ... which is good. But I'm not personally convinced this bill will necessarily lead to doing the *right* things.

user-pic

I partially agree with you in the sense that a final law will give a false impression that we've undertaken to do as much as required toward climate mitigation. We haven't. It will be a necessary first step, however, but more importantly, a critical step in making it possible for other nations to do what they need to do. Without evidence we're moving forward, they won't either, and we collectively will be allowing the planet to slide toward a potentially catastrophic future.

I don't take the report about the two EPA dissenters very seriously. They (Alan Carlin and John Davidson) are economists, not climate scientists. Neither has published any scientific work in the area they discuss, and their criticisms, which I've read much of, regurgitate the usual arguments that circulate on the Web but enjoy little credibility within science because they've been refuted by data. Many, in fact, refer to blogs and public statements rather than work published in the climatology or geophysics literature. There's an enormous distinction between the unwillingness of the EPA to circulate a report drafted by two non-scientist members with a minority opinion, on one hand, versus the Bush Administration's suppression, on the other hand, of conclusions arrived at almost unanimously by EPA experts, and recommended to the Administrator, but ignored by him because they conflicted with Administration policy. In any case, the current EPA didn't "suppress" the dissenting draft, but merely refused to incorporate it into their final report written by a multiplicity of individuals with scientific expertise.

The EPA has to some extent, been sent to the sidelines by the new bill, but will still play an important role to the extent that proposed legislation, if and when it becomes law, will need to supplemented by vigorous EPA enforcement measures, including some within the authority of the agency that may go beyond what the law requires.

user-pic

If we don't start calling "global" warming what it really is--POLAR warming--we won't have a benchmark on which to base a viable premise. Joe Sikspak hears the term "global warming" and says "That's bullshit. Ever'body knows the winters have been getting colder these last few years."

Proper education in any subject starts with identifying the subject accurately.

user-pic

Hi Eric - The Arctic polar region warms faster than lower latitudes because of the strong ice/albedo feedback. On the other hand, Antarctica has warmed less than the global average because of its relative insulation from atmospheric and ocean currents that distribute temperature changes over wide areas.

"Global warming" is not uniform, but it is unequivocally global when averaged on a long term basis. Short term peaks and valleys have been part of the process, but even so, it's not correct to state that winters have been getting colder. The 2007-2008 winter was characterized by a cooling trend driven primarily by a strong La Nina, but the most recent winter has been significantly warmer. What is important to note is that both theory and observations dictate that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions warm on a multidecadal basis, but that internal climate modes such as ENSO, as well as external forcing agencies such as volcanism (e.g. Pinatubo in 1991) will impose short term fluctuations on these long term trends.

user-pic

I wish we could just get back to words like pollution. Either you're pro-pollution or anti-pollution.

user-pic

My first thought was you live in a different world from mine. It was a little far-fetched.

Leave a comment

Fred Moolten

user-pic

Following: 0
Followers: 27

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

Bio

Current interests include climate change, folk music, and politics.

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address