|
Nnanji -> RE: The political history of Climate Change, Global Warming and the Environment in American Politcs (9/15/2017 8:59:17 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Well, ladies and gentlemen, the environment, global warming and climate change support has not always been a Liberal item. In fact, along with other political stands by both sides of the fence, seems to jump from one side of the other depending on which side of public support a party wishes to court.
And human impact on climate, was not first broached by Dems! We will wait while the conservatives on the board regain their composure....
Lets look at a few facts on the political view on climage change and global warming.
1969: The Nixon administration debated global warming;
Yup, that is right, way back in the days of Vietnam, members of the Nixon administration were talking about climate change, as both a possible problem AND a political move to get the support of the youth who were anti Nixon due to the war (Which Kennedy and Johnson got us into.)
quote:
The 100,000 pages of presidential records made available by the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum on Friday also portray former Nixon's inner circle as being out of touch with the American people and their sentiments against the Vietnam War.
Most of the archived documents released Friday came from the files of Nixon's Democratic adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo that it was "pretty clearly agreed" that carbon dioxide content would rise 25 percent by 2000,
"This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."
"I would think this is a subject that the Administration ought to get involved with," Moynihan wrote to John Ehrlichman, who in 1975 was convicted of conspiracy, perjury and obstruction for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up.
"The more I get into this, the more I find two classes of doom-sayers, with, of course, the silent majority in between," he wrote. "One group says we will turn into snow-tripping mastodons because of the atmospheric dust and the other says we will have to grow gills to survive the increased ocean level due to the temperature rise."
Heffner wrote that he would ask the Environmental Science Services Administration to look further into the issue.
Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency and had an interest in the environment. In one memo, Moynihan noted his approval of the first Earth Day, to be held April 22, 1970.
"Clearly this is an opportunity to get the President usefully and positively involved with a large student movement," he wrote to Ehrlichman, Nixon's adviser on domestic affairs.
Source
Now, funny thing is that Nixon was indeed interested in the environment, and felt that pollution needed to be addressed, but Nixon also believed that impossible immediate goals and penalties was not an appropriate way to deal with the problem, hence his administration's move to establish the EPA and push for sensible environmental reforms.
And the Dems were firmly in the "Leave it alone" camp on all of this, until the gas shortage of 1973 when the United States and the world learned that it is not wise to fuck with OPEC.
So, climate change and global warming is not a liberal invention or conspiracy to ruin big business, it is however, actually supported with some facts. The difference is that in the early days, the GOP was not opposed to a gradual program to change the amount of crap we were pumping into the air, and promoted research that would produce cost effective ways to deal with pollution.
And the majority of Americans were all in favor of it.
Reagan Administration and climate change:
quote:
The Reagan White House did take action on climate change in a way consistent with the Chinese foreign minister’s comments, highlighting how recently the Republican Party has shifted to allow hardline climate deniers to dominate the party. A look at what drove President Ronald Reagan to move on the issue, though, seems to suggest that his response was bound up with anxieties over America’s assertions of power on the global stage – a theme cited by the president-elect in the infamous Twitter post.
One Reagan-era initiative on climate change, signed into effect as the 1989 Montreal Protocol, is often seen as a model for bipartisan global-warming action due to what The New York Times once called its "pragmatic, business-friendly principles." That global treaty phased out the production of commonly used industrial chemicals found to be responsible for destroying the ozone layer.
But the Reagan administration's starring role in negotiating the treaty may have been key to its success, judging by the case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As Duke University political scientist Tara Johnson wrote in a 2014 book, the idea for a global body dedicated to fighting climate change was initially rejected by the Reagan administration in 1985.
Source
Well, then when did the change in attitude come about is the question, since there was wide spread public support for the issue across the board, cons and libs were in agreement, that the problem needed to be addressed, and drastic and unmeetable goals was the wrong way to go about it.
The shift in political philosophy and approaching climate change began during President Bill 'I aint going to keep it in my pants' Clinton.
So we have a Dem in the white house, who decides that he needs to make some drastic steps to divert attention from a couple of 'ethical slips' he had. The first being that he and his wife did not actually put their financial holdings into a trust (a lot of which were in the health industry) until after he started his failed 'health reform' bid (when the GOP first broached a public mandate on everyone having to buy health insurance or get fined) and our friend Rush made a major point on this fact.
So, Bill 'hide under my desk and blow me' Clinton started looking at ways to get public support on his side, and there was the environment. Of course, being the man that he was, instead of testing the waters to see just what he could get unilateral support on, went over board with his actions. Of course, being the head of the Democrat party as the President, he basically drug the rest of the libs down the toilet with him.
Which pretty much gave Bush 2.0 the win in the election.
Bush pulled us out of the Kyoto agreement, with good reason. The goals agreed to were harmful to US businesses, industry would be penalized for not moving fast enough to clean up. And while the tree hugging lobby was perfectly happy with all their electric driven devices, gas burning cars (you got it folks, contrary to propaganda, the first electric cars produced in the US were not killed by the car companies and oil producers, but by the fact that they were about as practical as milk buckets under a bull.)
Bush had to make a choice, and not an easy one. Stick with an agreement that would harm the US Industry, which would in turn hurt the American workers, or get out.
Well, of course in doing that the libs immediately started the "GOP is anti environment" bullshit, which was never the case.
That led to the hard line anti climate change rhetoric from the extreme right, which is a fairly new thing since the whole climate change study idea was a GOP brain child.
However, the issue does prove one thing about American politics.
As soon as the opposition starts to support something the other party supports and is actively looking into, the other party immediately has to change its stance on whatever the issue happens to be.
At this point in American politics, it would almost be expected if one party made the claim "humans need to breathe air" the other party would immediately provide evidence to dispute the claim.
Even stranger, the so called anti climate change studies that the libs are so adamant about pointing at and screaming that the right is denying science, actually only dispute one particular point, that humans are the primary cause of climate change.
The agree on that human use of fossil fuels is not helping the problem, they even agree that something needs to be done. However, their alternative idea of slowly making changes is the equivalent of crucifying Christ in the eyes of the liberals.
Exxon produced a study on climate change and the impact of fossil fuels back in the seventies. Which is one of the reasons that Exxon and other major oil companies started looking at cleaner burning fuels.
Car makers have been trying to develop more fuel efficient cars since the first gas crisis. While the climate change 'deniers' are looking at saving money at the pump, the pro climate change mob are screaming 'conspiracy to hide the truth.'
Climate change problems have been almost universally accepted in every country on the planet, only in the US is there an active movement to deny science.
It is true that the majority of scientists agree that there is a problem, that it is happening, even that humans can make a difference. It is not true that the majority of scientists are willing to place the blame on humans as a primary cause.
Even NOAA and NASA have been looking at solar activity as a major player in climate change.
However, the problem is not one of science, but extremes. The libs want extreme measures adopted to alleviate the problem. Measures that would further impact industry in the US.
In the sixties and seventies, liberals were opposed to nuclear power plants, some were opposed to any new power plants.
Ideas for solar power farms were all the rage, and in some circles, still is. However, a solar power farm of sufficient size to power LA would cover most of the Mojave desert with solar panels.
Hey, libs, got a question for you, if you cover half the desert with solar panels, all those endangered species that live there are going to do what? Move to the suburbs?
And the electric car? The carbon footprint that is created by building one electric car is equal to five years of using standard vehicles, without looking at the long lasting toxic by products of making the damn batteries.
Oh, and the idea that electric cars are safer, well you might want to look into what happens to a lithium ion battery when it gets hot. Boeing found out about that nice little thing when one of their shiny new airliners crashed thanks to a lithium ion battery going into over load and exploding. Which made them redesign that part of their nice shiny new plane.
Forget climate change, global warming, and consider this.
Humans require clean air and clean water.
Just addressing that issue would cover the rest.
Even stranger is that their are scientists playing around with all sorts of gadgets. One group developed a device that actually cleans up the air and generates power at the same time. The pollutants are converted to hydrogen and organic molecules, the hydrogen will act as a fuel and the rest of the stuff is basically harmless.
Now, these guys and gals do agree that it is a neat thing, but, they also point out that hydrogen is not the safest fuel around. Tends to explode when exposed to heat.
Some climate change doom sayers want to use this thing to power cars. They want to use it to fuel power plants where there is a limited chance of the hydrogen exploding, pointing out that cars are involved in accidents, and a hydrogen fueled fire is not very survivable.
These are also the same people that look at Norway's hydrogen fueled highway and say it looks great on paper, but first major multicar accident is not going to be pretty.
Then there is a technology that has been ignored by both sides.
Synthetic fuels. The Germans pioneered the science during WW2 when the allies were blowing hell out of oil fields, oil refineries. They had the stuff going full bore for over a year before the Allied high command made the connection between "we blowing the oil supply to hell and the Germans are still moving shit. How?"
And since oil is a finite resource, maybe someone should look at synthetics again. Hell, we are using synthetic oils in our engines as lubricants, so....
Of course, in American politics anyone that moves toward the middle is automatically a traitor to the cause.
But common sense dictates there is a middle ground that everyone can agree on.
Oh, and by the way, in the sixties and seventies, it was the liberals opposed to strict gun laws, it was the GOP that pushed the 55 mph speed limit on everyone, and in point of fact, the great causes of either side today were the great causes of the other side then. Liberals were the fascists and conservatives were the anti fascists.
And those of us who were around then cant help but laugh now. Of course, anyone that even dares to point this out is not welcome.
There was a time in American politics when being a moderate was a good thing, compromise was the way to get things done. Reagan didnt change that, but, if you look at Washington politics, you can point a finger at the president who was in office when it did start to change.
Good ol' Bill 'I didnt inhale' Clinton and his wonderful wife, Hillary "my husband is a cheating, whoring bullshit artist but I am going to suck it up for my political future" Rodham Clinton.
By the way, has anyone ever bothered to ask "Inconvenient Truth" former vice President why the hell he hasnt eliminated a major polluter in his home state from his financial holdings and put that money where his mouth is?
I think the term hypocrite is fully applicable. As for some of the other hypocrites, funny how the evil Koch brothers (MSNBC's favorite anti climate change polluting evil doers) have put out the most damning of the anti climate change research while simultaneously investing heavily in the alternative and renewable energy fields. The hypocrites are those like Rachel Maddow and others at MSNBC who vilify people for not embrassing the doom and gloom climate change philosophy but actually are embracing the "hey, it is good business and good for our investors to find more avenues for profit" philosophy.
But hey, you want ratings or political points, paint the other sides as demons.
Except Bush didn't get us out of Kyoto. Under Clinton, the Senate voted 95-0 to not allow the US to sign on.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-lesson-from-kyotos-failure-dont-let-congress-touch-a-climate-deal/
|
|
|
|
