Comments on: Pardon My Boehner http://stevebrodner.com/2009/06/30/pardon-my-boehner/ Steve Brodner is an artist and illustrator. This is his official website. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:48:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Steve http://stevebrodner.com/2009/06/30/pardon-my-boehner/comment-page-1/#comment-521 Steve Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:09:49 +0000 http://stevebrodner.com/?p=885#comment-521 Joe: Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. Are you writing form the Big Easy? Hoping all's going well. This is not complicated. We have to stop using this stuff. The only way to stop is to stop. And how quickly we can change over to renewable and non-polluting energy sources will determine how much or little damage we cause to the world our kids will live in. So, yeah there are lots of good ideas out there, but the gov't has to start this off. And nations not in so tight a grip of corporations have shown a willingness to cut far more than we. This from Krugman again: "To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research. The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course. Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events. In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events. In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?" Joe:
Thanks for the very thoughtful reply. Are you writing form the Big Easy? Hoping all’s going well.
This is not complicated. We have to stop using this stuff. The only way to stop is to stop. And how quickly we can change over to renewable and non-polluting energy sources will determine how much or little damage we cause to the world our kids will live in. So, yeah there are lots of good ideas out there, but the gov’t has to start this off. And nations not in so tight a grip of corporations have shown a willingness to cut far more than we. This from Krugman again:
“To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.

The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.

Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events.

In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events.

In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?”

]]> By: Joe Bluhm http://stevebrodner.com/2009/06/30/pardon-my-boehner/comment-page-1/#comment-520 Joe Bluhm Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:55:46 +0000 http://stevebrodner.com/?p=885#comment-520 Yes, however it is a farce to quickly say that the economic impacts will be low. Lower than what? Lower than a crippling impact? Lower than 2 cents/month? Lower than $500/month? What is low? The real issue, as you note, is making the bill effective without FORCING all Americans to pay for such a move. I was talking with an eco-green-obsessed friend the other day and my personal opposition of this bill, which has to do with the false constructs of cap-and-trade, and the inefficient way of going about it, and she heard only that I hate the environment. We need to have a real discussion, and remember that often our first effort is not the perfect answer. On the flip-side, that may be something we have to accept, but I'd rather get a more complete construct that allows us to create a real impact without allowing companies to simply trade emissions and let us all pay the bill for the smog that will still exist. It's great to support 80 or 90% of a bill, but in my mind that doesn't make it ready to be law. Great site, Steve... loved catching up in NYC. Let's do it again soon! Yes, however it is a farce to quickly say that the economic impacts will be low. Lower than what? Lower than a crippling impact? Lower than 2 cents/month? Lower than $500/month? What is low? The real issue, as you note, is making the bill effective without FORCING all Americans to pay for such a move. I was talking with an eco-green-obsessed friend the other day and my personal opposition of this bill, which has to do with the false constructs of cap-and-trade, and the inefficient way of going about it, and she heard only that I hate the environment. We need to have a real discussion, and remember that often our first effort is not the perfect answer. On the flip-side, that may be something we have to accept, but I’d rather get a more complete construct that allows us to create a real impact without allowing companies to simply trade emissions and let us all pay the bill for the smog that will still exist.

It’s great to support 80 or 90% of a bill, but in my mind that doesn’t make it ready to be law. Great site, Steve… loved catching up in NYC. Let’s do it again soon!

]]>