A Warm Body to Bite November 16, 2006 – Posted in: Aberrant Normalcy
Last night I awoke with a severe itch on my left hand. A moment later I heard a loud bzzzzzzzing in my ear. A mosquito! After several attempts at killing the insect and slapping my face in the process, the buzzing finally stopped (I was too tired to even consider its bloody carapace might be smeared all over my cheek.) And then I thought, as I drifted back to sleep, this is November 15th. Why the hell are there mosquitoes now? And then I thought, well, it’s been in the high 60s all week, and it’s been pretty wet, and even the morning glories on my fire escape think it’s spring and are sprouting from the planter.
What happened to the cool winds of fall? Um, I remember October used to be the month of sweaters and jackets, of 40 degree days. At this rate, I won’t be wearing a winter coat until late December. Every year, winter comes later and later. If I can see climate change, then it must be pretty bad, because what I learned in school was that the climate changes over millennia, not years. My friends, when are we going to do something about global warming? Iraq is the hot issue in Congress right now, but we have a Democratically controlled legislative branch. Let’s legislate some sanity back into our national energy policy while we’re at it.
12 Comments
Mercurio D. Rivera November 16, 2006 - 13:59
Standing alone, one warm November might be considered an anomaly. But a large number of the hottest years on record have come in the past decade. Yep, global warming is real, folks. The entire scientific community agrees, and the results will be catastrophic as more powerful hurricanes and other unusual weather phemonena strike. But George W. doesn’t believe in science. Hopefully, Congress does.
Mercurio D. Rivera November 16, 2006 - 14:23
An article from last week on the scientific consensus on global warming:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2644462&page=1
MN November 20, 2006 - 14:39
Mercurio,
Firstly, I am not a Bush supporter. I think a lot of what his administration has done has hurt the country (mainly his lax position on border security and illegal immigration). Still, I cringe when I hear or read that it’s his fault (and apparently his fault alone) for global warming. Certainly he has done little to curb fossil fuel consumption, but who has? And it has little to do with a belief in the science in this area (I sense your swipe at him in that respect has more to do with his religious beliefs than with the actual reasons he has done nothing in this area).
The fact of the matter is that this is about big business and how they have bought their way into our government. I suppose you could hope that this new “enlightened” Congress is now going to do something, but don’t count on it. Are these people (most who have been in Washington for years – even during the gas-cruching years of ’70s) any less prone to the corrupting forces of PACs and big business? What was done in the Clinton years to curb the problem? Oh yeah, NAFTA was passed, a program that allowed businesses to move easily to poor countries like Mexico, but did nothing to impose any enviromental standards in these countries. Where were all the critics then? And I don’t use that example to draw partisan lines. My point is that BOTH parties are responsible for the enviromental situation we are in (with varying degrees of blame). Oh, and let’s not forget the pollution being spewed by countries like Mexico, India, and China (which is on it’s way to becoming the biggest polluter the world will ever know). Or the fact that everyone is driving tanks (even members of Congress). What is being done about that? I just wish people would put their partisanship aside and understand that things are a little more complicated than just blaming Bush.
Matthew Kressel November 20, 2006 - 16:55
Clinton set aside more national parks than anyone since Roosevelt. Though he wasn’t perfect, the Democrats by far have a better record on the environment. Check out the “League of Conservation Voters” for voting records on the environment. Dems, almost universally, have a better record.
Mercurio D. Rivera November 20, 2006 - 17:04
Agreed, MN, it is a complicated issue. We can’t control China and India, but we *can* control what we’re doing at home to stop, or at least curtail, the global warming crisis. The Clinton administration (notwithstanding the influence of big business) recognized the danger, and supported the Kyoto Treaty in the hope of reducing greenhouse gas emissions around the globe. So why isn’t the U.S. a signator to the Kyoto treaty? Because Pres. Bush (1) didn’t believe in the science of global warming, (2) decried the Kyoto Treaty as bad for big business, and (3) said, “well, China isn’t signing, so why should we?” It’s that type of ignorance, that type of lack of leadership, that has contributed to the continuing crisis. Damn right I’m pointing the finger at George W. Bush. He may not be the “one-man cause” of global warming, but he’s a major contributor who deserves some blame.
MN November 20, 2006 - 21:37
Guys,
I agree that the Dems are better when it comes to the environment than Republicans. That’s a no-brainer. However, besides setting aside land for National Parks (which is a good thing), I don’t recall Clinton/Gore doing that much to reduce Global Warming during their tenure. Again I point to NAFTA, which could have included environmental standards but didn’t. I watched an interview with Kerry in which he basically admitted that the govermnet was bought and sold by big business interests when it came to energy policies and the automobile industry (which refused to build energy efficient vehicles) My point is that I don’t believe either of the parties are doing anything drastic in that area, though the Dems are definitely better.
As for the Kyoto agreement arguments, you make my point for me. NAFTA was pushed by the Clinton Administration with no regard to the enviromental impact because it would have affected business. How is that different from what Bush did? Did you decry that as well? Did you call Clinton “ignorant” or accuse him of “lacking in leadership”?
As for your specific arguments:
1) Bush doesn’t believe in the science of Global Warming. And your point is what? There are scientists who can argue that our impact is not as great as we think. You and I may not believe that, but it’s not crackpot science that substantiates that thesis. Regardless, we both know why he’s saying that. He’s on the side of business.
2)Bush decried the treaty as bad for business. See Clinton example above.
3)China isn’t going to do it, so why should we? I agree with some of that. Though the U.S. should set an example, why should China get a pass when it comes to emission standards? And why didn’t the other countries that signed the treaty include China (even after Bush’s objections)? To me it smacks of the typical Anti-Americanism that exists in the world today. The big bad U.S. has to conform to standards, but not China. Is it our fault that a country that’s been around 5000 years is finally entering the 20th Century? And let’s face it, unfortunately a lot of businesses today don’t want any restrictions on China because of it’s cheap labor and it’s future economic possibilities. Do you really believe business wants to mess with that? I’m guessing that’s why China also didn’t want anything to do with the Kyoto Treaty.
You (I’m assuming you’re a Democrat) got the Congress you want. I hope they take steps in improving the environment, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. History makes the argument for me. Politicians aren’t going to bite the hand that feeds them (regardless of the party), and that hand belongs to big business. We will see.
Thanks
Mercurio D. Rivera November 21, 2006 - 01:52
Don’t give up, MN. The Clinton administration specifically supported the Kyoto Treaty, despite the interests of big business, so there’s hope yet that the new Democratic Congress (and new President, hopefully, whoever he or she is) will push us in the direction of more environmentally responsible policies.
A leader with moral fiber should be able to stand up to big business when the safety of the globe is at risk. And say what you will about George W., I think he IS a man of conscience who will do what he thinks is morally right if he thinks the stakes are high enough–even if the world (and the facts) are against him (See Iraq and stem cell policy.) This is why I think that in his heart of hearts he truly doesn’t believe in global warming. And the scientific community, btw, in fact is in AGREEMENT: the unprecedented level of planetary warming we’re experiencing is due to our global gas emissions. Based on the evidence, this is not something about which reasonable people can disagree anymore.
How can we persuade China and Mexico to agree to Kyoto if we’re not willing to do so ourselves? There’s something to be said about moral leadership, and as you yourself state, setting an example. The objective is to persuade all countries to comply; and no, I don’t believe only “the big bad U.S.” should be criticized for failing to do so. That’s just a typical Republican construct that assumes that Democrats aren’t patriotic because they abhor this president’s shameful policies. (I assume you’re a Republican, btw, from the bitter way you talk about the new Congress.)
In sum, if you want to continue defending this President’s policies on global warming, go right ahead. I think history will prove me right on this one.
Take care.
MN November 21, 2006 - 14:48
Mercurio,
Sorry to disappoint, but I’m an Independent. My point in all my posts was that I’m cynical of both parties doing anything because of the great influence of business on our government. I’m also not “bitter” about the Dems. My one comment about an “enlightened” congress (which I think you are referring to) was in reference to all the rhetoric coming out of Washington after Democrats retook Congress. It was all very ridiculous talk in my opinion. Some of the same stuff you heard when Republicans took over in 1994 (and we know what happened there). I’m just very cynical when it comes to BOTH political parties and feel we desperately need a third party to shake things up.
And I don’t believe Dems are unpatriotic. Your response is also typical in that it brands anyone that tries to rebut a Democratic criticism as “hyper-patriotic”. Let’s be fair now. My “anti-americanism” remark was directed toward the world in general and not towards people in the this country (though I do believe there is a small segment of our population that does dislike our country). Surely you realize that a lot of the world doesn’t like us and actively tries to undermine us. You could argue that it has to do with Iraq, but the war in Iraq would never have happened if we were supported by Russia, China, and France during the early days of that mess. We now know that the reason we weren’t was because those countries had oil deals with Iraq. So there you go.
As for your hope that China and India will change because we are setting an example, I think you are being terribly naive. China cares little about what we do and would relish being the only country not bound by any restrictions in the area of pollution, economically speaking. What we have to do is get tough on countries that don’t comply by imposing economic sanctions of some kind (that includes China). But again, we are never going to do that and neither is any other country.
And finally, I don’t think I ever said I supported Bush’s policies. I understand your attempt to brand me a Republican (I sense some bitterness on your part as well), but that simply isn’t the case. I merely wanted to point out the reasons behind Bush’s decisions (big business) and I believe I was critical of those reasons. I’m all for protecting the environment and decreasing Global Warming, and I do believe we have had a hand in that. My problem is when people try to politicize it by saying it’s all because of Bush. This is a problem that spans many decades and administrations both Dem and Rep.
Thanks again and take care. I enjoyed our discussion.
Mercurio D. Rivera November 21, 2006 - 15:59
Wait! Why do you get the last word?
Kidding aside, I respect your position, MN. I enjoyed our discussion too.
Lauren November 21, 2006 - 18:48
Something’s definitely going on, Matt. I am usually already starting to whine about the cold by now and I haven’t whined once.
Dems vs. Repubs on the environment? No contest. Dems win. But it’s still not enough.
Why should the US do something when China won’t? Because we can. Because we should. And because we’re not in Kindergarten where it might actually be legitimate to complain that Tommy gets to play with the ball so why can’t I?
MN November 21, 2006 - 20:21
Lauren,
Can I welcome you back to the real world? China is on the verge of becoming an economic superpower, perhaps (likely) surpassing the U.S. in ecomomic might in the future. Maybe you haven’t noticed, but nearly everything is produced there nowadays. Now you want to give China more of an economic advantage by imposing standards on the U.S. which don’t apply to them? Do you know what that would do to our economy?
China wants a pass because they feel it’s unfair other countries were able to go through their own industrial growth without the impedences of pollution controls. Well, sorry, China. They have the money and the technology of today to curb pollution. They just don’t want to do it and the world is saying, “okay.” Meanwhile people want to demonize the U.S. for wanting a even playing field. I know, I know, it’s all about money and economics, but what can you do? I’m as frustrated as you are.
Okay, now I’ll shut up. 🙂
Take care.
Mercurio D. Rivera November 21, 2006 - 23:58
I guess there’s nothing we can do. We’ll just have to keep spewing emissions (1/4 of the world’s global gas emissions, btw) until China agrees to stop.