Home

Follow Countercurrents on Twitter 

Why Subscribe ?

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Editor's Picks

Press Releases

Action Alert

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

AfPak War

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

About CC

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Search Our Archive

Subscribe To Our
News Letter



Our Site

Web

Name: E-mail:

 

Printer Friendly Version

Climate Change: Speaking Truth to Power

By Bill Henderson

11 April, 2011
Countercurrents.org

The distinguished climate scientist and 'Republican' Kerry Emanuel addressed the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology on March 31st. You can find his enlightened and lucid 'advanced written testimony' here (pdf) and there is a webcast of the proceedings.

Dr. Emanuel was especially astute at explaining how science works to the House Committee members. He quoted Dept. of Defense documents on the national security implications of climate change as well as citing Fukushima as an example of how we underestimate risk. Hopefully, his learned common sense will make an impression on the members of the Science, Space and Technology committee.

Like David Orr and Brendan Smith , who both ignored the prevailing Big ENGO conventional wisdom and spoke out recently about climate change, Dr. Emanuel wasn't afraid to support the IPCC and the present scientific consensus. He told the committee:

"In facing this highly difficult problem, reasonable people will differ in what approaches to take. But citizens have a right to insist that their representatives confront this complex problem in an open and honest way. In soliciting advice, we should be highly skeptical  of any expert who claims to be certain of the outcome. I include especially those scientists who express great confidence that the outcome will be benign;  the evidence before us simple doesn't warrant such confidence. Likewise, beware those who deride predictive science in it's entirety, for they are also making a prediction: that we have nothing to worry about. And above all, don't shoot the messenger, for this is the coward's way out of openly and honestly confronting the problem." 

But, IMHO, Dr. Emanuel got one thing about climate change policy ass backward and it's important to note because it illustrates how we are still trying to shoehorn climate change into political and economic BAU instead of a proper due diligence to future generations framework:

Dr. Emanuel gave three reasons why climate change is particularly difficult to deal with, the third of which is:

While the costs of confronting these risks will fall largely to our generation, the primary beneficiaries of our actions will be our children and grandchildren, not us.

Uh, no - this wrongfoots and helps limit action. We greatly benefit from burning fossil fuels today and the dire consequences will (with increasing probability) rain down on future generations.

Future generations, in some hopeful futures, may greatly benefit from the wealth generated from our use of fossil fuels today, but the main reason we burn them is for energy for our purposes today.  Future generations will be the beneficiaries of rising sea-levels, more powerful storms, desertification, ocean acidification, climate chaos, species extinction, famine, failing states and war, and maybe mass dieoff and extinction as a result.

Here's a good picture of the world we are creating for our kids by our use of fossil fuels today:
http://www.climateactioncentre.org/sites/default/files/4-degrees-hotter.pdf
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934.toc

If I shot an arrow into the sky and it fell back to earth injuring someone I'd be culpable. Responsible people wouldn't shoot an arrow into the sky if there was a chance that it could come down and injure.

But we are in denial and won't quantify the risks of our use of fossil fuels in a due diligence to future generations framework because of fear of the inconvenient costs to us today. We could and should have a top level inquiry, open and transparent , to investigate and quantify our culpability and build a robust consensus on action, but instead we are in denial and merely hold political theatre hearings to witch hunt the scientific messengers:  "the coward's way out of openly and honestly confronting the problem."

Bill (at) pacificfringe.net



 


Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report) them and they will move into moderation que.