Ten years.
According to the country's best climate scientist we have ten years until global warming passes a point of no return, and Bush is going to make sure we don't address the problem for at least the next three. Democrats and environmentalists alike have to make sure we spend those three years talking about this problem a lot. It will take a hell of a lot of political will and muscle to cut greenhouse emissions as quickly as we need to, and right now neither Democrats nor environmentalists have either.
posted by Antid Oto @ 10:30 PM
7 Comments:
At 1:57 PM,
Josh K-sky said…
It'll be especially woeful if Dems think of global warming as an issue that has to be swept under the rug until they're in power, because if that day ever comes, they'll be crushed if they try to do something about it. It needs to be a plank right now -- not a platform plank, but the kind of plank you rip out of the floor and hit people in the face with. The only way they'll ever be able to do anything around it (regulate, for example) is if they lead on getting people angry about it now.
At 3:52 PM,
Antid Oto said…
If they think of it as an issue to be dealt with once they're in power? Can you name an issue they don't seem to think of that way?
At 4:44 PM,
Solomon Grundy said…
Hm, this is something Republicans can get behind, too. No need to make it a partisan issue. In fact, it has to not be framed as a partisan issue if it's going to succeed.
At 4:59 PM,
Antid Oto said…
Okay, how do you frame it so Republicans get behind it? Because at the moment they're actively hostile. I agree with you that this shouldn't be a partisan issue--in fact there are plenty of conservative-friendly, market-based programs we could try--but we aren't dealing with Rockefeller Republicans here. We're dealing with a rare wedding of fundamentalist loons and crony capitalists. If the grownups ever get back in charge of the Republican party maybe we can deal with them. Until then someone has make an issue of global warming, and that means making it a campaign issue. It doesn't necessarily mean negatively partisan in the sense of using it as a club to bash the other party, but it does mean bashing people over the head with reality (to draw a distinction maybe Phoebe didn't intend).
At 6:56 PM,
Solomon Grundy said…
I know a guy who started a firm to lobby Republicans on environmental issues. There are a lot of Republican congressman from the northeast and the west, especially, who are friendly to protecting wilderness and maybe even business-friendly global warming solutions.
Also, don't forget about the environmentalist fundamentalists who just came out a month or so ago.
Haven't you heard? Green is the new red, white, and blue.
At 7:28 PM,
Antid Oto said…
To a certain extent. But even the best Republicans score worse on the LCV Scorecard than about 150 of the Democrats in the House. The best Republican in the House, Sherwood Boehlert, current chair of the Science committee, is retiring. And while the CW may be that Westerners love their environment, they sure elect some of the worst Republican Representatives and Senators in the nation. Every single one has a horrible environmental record. The Northeastern ers are okay (except for the ones from New Hampshire), and I'd certainly hope to include them in any Democratic-Congress-led ideas, but I can't remember the last time their party took them seriously.
In the short term, in close range, we absolutely have to get rid of people like Peter King and Vito Fossella. Even New York Republicans who are relatively moderate on some things, like Jim Walsh, are pretty lousy environmentalists.
At 7:29 PM,
Antid Oto said…
The environmental fundamentalists, though, they are interesting.
Post a Comment
<< Home