10 B.S. Statements in the Climate Change Debate

When people who don’t know what they’re talking about spew utter hogwash about an important issue to people who don’t really grasp the issue in the first place, can anything important ever get done? Unlikely – and that’s the reality we’re living today as both parties of government debate climate change in front of an American public that can’t tell they’re being bullshitted.

WorldChanging is paying attention, and sorting out the truth from the half-truths, misrepresentations, lies and propaganda. They’ve put together the Top 10 Bogus Statements (BS) in the US Climate Debate, with a reality check following each one.

Check out the first two:

No. 10 BS: The United States can’t make a firm commitment to reduce greenhouse gases until China and India do.

Reality check: With this statement, international climate negotiations assume the stature of an Alphonse and Gaston routine. The modern version – “I’m not going to do the right thing until you do the right thing” – would be comical if it weren’t so childish and potentially tragic.

Why shouldn’t the United States make a hard commitment to cut carbon before China, India and other developing nations do? We’re responsible for most of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today. We have been emitting them with abandon for generations.

On the other hand, many developing nations such as China and India are attempting to pull millions of their people from poverty. I don’t believe they deny their obligation to help solve the climate problem. In fact, many of China’s clean energy goals are more aggressive than ours. But they want the leeway to help their people approach the standard of living people enjoy in the U.S.

What the hell: Let’s be big about this and agree to go first. If the US is worried about a trade disadvantage with countries that don’t have carbon regulation, then let’s institute a “border adjustment” – the price those countries should pay for not agreeing to hard targets.

No. 9 BS: Coal will be with us for a long time to come.

In a recent interview with Grist, the chief White House environmental advisor, Nancy Sutley of the Council on Environmental Quality, said: “[C]learly coal is a part of our energy mix now and it’s likely to be so in the future… [E]ven if we were to stop using coal tomorrow, it’s used around the world and we have to deal with its environmental impacts.”

Reality check: Of course we must deal with coal’s environmental problems, but the best way to do that is to stop using it. Accepting that coal is part of our future is not the policy that motivates us to find substitutes. And whether we can deal with its environmental impacts is open to question. We don’t yet have and may never find a cost-effective and safe way to permanently sequester huge amounts of carbon dioxide from coal. If the technology ever is perfected, it will significantly increase the price of electric power from coal, while the price of power from renewable resources is coming down.

Then there’s mountain top removal and all the other environmental damages and carbon emissions associated with extraction and production (See No. 7 below). Let’s shoot for an international climate agreement that sets specific near-term targets for phasing out coal power, along with an aggressive program to replace it worldwide first with natural gas, then with renewable low-carbon fuels.

Head on over to WorldChanging for the rest, which includes statements about domestic oil production, mountaintop coal removal, putting a price on carbon and more.

Link [WorldChanging]
Photo credit: Flickr user dullhunk

Related Posts:

More Climate Bill Forgery: Big Oil Lobbyists Fake Public Opposition
Oil Industry Planning Town Hall Protests Against Climate Bill
Right-Wing Pundit Freak Out Over ‘Madoff-Waxman-Markey’ Bill
9 Incredibly Stupid GOP Statements on Climate Change & the Environment
Climate Change Deniers’ Sad Little Gathering in NYC