A Major Network Talked about Climste Change for an Hour and it wasn’t a $#!+ Show

[Paratus]

https://earther.gizmodo.com/a-major-tv-network-managed-to-cover-climate-change-for-1831400314

Color me shocked, but Meet the Press talked for an hour about Climate Change, science and policy, and didn’t once feel the need to have a denier on to provide the “other side”.

I think that’s great. The proudly and aggressively ignorant have enough avenues to spill their tripe no need to give them another megaphone in the name of false equivalency.

Let’s hope more mainstream media follow suit.

 

[theeedude]

It's easy to have adult conversations once you put the kids in daycare.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So how seriously did they take it. Are they still stuck with sea level as being the disaster or did they take into account the additional and substantial contribution from CO2 from melting lakes in Siberia and such?

 

[Paratus]

So how seriously did they take it. Are they still stuck with sea level as being the disaster or did they take into account the additional and substantial contribution from CO2 from melting lakes in Siberia and such?

I haven’t had a chance to watch it yet. I read summary in the article linked above.

On the plus side Todd called it a crisis and said they would not be having any deniers on.

They mostly had politicians (former, current, and potentially future), on to talk policy along with a NASA scientist.

“
Michael Bloomberg, Governor Jerry Brown, NASA scientist Kate Marvel, outgoing Republican Congressman Carlos Curbelo, former Federal Emergency Management Agency head Craig Fugate, and former Undersecretary of Defense Policy Michèle Flournoy.

Their discussion followed grounds that will be largely familiar if you’re a regular Earther reader. The planet is getting hotter, we have increasingly limited time to address it, climate change-fueled disasters are already taking a toll on people and the economy, the president doesn’t have any clue what he’s talking about and his actions are endangering this and future generations.”

So a baby step in the right direction?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So a baby step in the right direction?

That's a start but this baby had better be able to run the marathon in short order. I'm already uncomfortable about the Dem "Don't rock the boat" position on the Green Movement. That usually leads to a hearing and things getting buried.

 

[Bitek]

That's a start but this baby had better be able to run the marathon in short order. I'm already uncomfortable about the Dem "Don't rock the boat" position on the Green Movement. That usually leads to a hearing and things getting buried.

The Green New Deal is a good step in the right direction, but you are correct in that the leadership is trying to push it down.

Winning the messaging battle is the problem with Democratic leadership and past liberal activists on the issue.

Addressing climate change and passing green tech has tended to tell people what that need to stop doing, and what needs to be taken away.

Stop driving, if you have to, shitty Priuses only.
No big houses, turn down the heat.
Lots of new taxes. Carbon, gas, & new regulations making houses and products more expensive.
Stop eating meat.
Put all the workers in the carbon industry in the unemployment line.

No wonder there is such a divide and motivation to deny the science.

The issue is urgent, but more scare tactics on future possibilities won't work when the alternative is definitely losing what you have now.

Addressing climate change will only happen when the solution is also making people's life more wealthy and prosperous in the short term.

 

[Homerboy]

I don't get why, when climate change is discussed, most news organizations feel the need to have a denier on. When 99% of scientists agree on something, you don't bring in the crazed mad scientist to derail the discussion.

 

[Greenman]

Did anyone offer up a solution? Or was it a "someone else has to fix it" format?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Addressing climate change will only happen when the solution is also making people's life more wealthy and prosperous in the short term.

Then we are doomed. It is out of control consumption that is causing this problem, we can not fix it with more consumption.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Then we are doomed. It is out of control consumption that is causing this problem, we can not fix it with more consumption.

It depends on how things are handled. As I've said we need to take much of the old ways of doing things out of solutions, or return to some we didn't use often. When we had a time sensitive issue in the past, creating the atomic bomb, we didn't wait for a "free market" solution, but funded the crap out it and had people of ability, not Exxon Rex, running things. Oppenheimer wasn't thinking "how can I get the IP on this so I can slow things down to get the maximum profit without sacrificing investment in infrastructure".

For most things we can transition laterally once technology is unchained. Improved battery performance would be vital and it's not far away dreamy stuff, but we would need to own the IP and make it a matter of national security and defense, which is it and then some. That will mean reforming IP law, probably the toughest hurdle of all. "We're suing!". No you are not. We wouldn't have taken that in WWII and this is a much more significant problem. Put our academia to work, heaven knows places like MIT have people who are fit intellectually, the US retains the patients we fund with bonuses for those who create viable ideas, and license out to industry with draconian penalties which automatically kick in if violated with contracts that are not subject to a pentagon type inflation. They just manufacture stuff and no funny business. Subsidize deployment to replace old tech, and the like. Some industries require high amounts of power so we provide the best environmentally sound methods to sustain them.

We likely have about 30 years at most to do this before we cross a point of no return judging from the loss of permafrost and the spike of CO2 that's going to cause all on its own.

 

[Bitek]

Then we are doomed. It is out of control consumption that is causing this problem, we can not fix it with more consumption.

To believe that would mean that this is the pinnacle of civilization and technology, the futurists are all wrong, and our only path forward is a regression to 20th to 19th century living standards, as technological progress and standard of living is intimately tied to energy consumption.

I don't believe that path is a real choice.

I think carbon energy is simply a low tech energy bridge to build our civilization to a more sophisticated state where less harmful energy sources can be researched, developed and meaningfully implemented.

The question our civilization faces is whether we can progress quickly enough down the pathway before the the carbon runs out or the poisonous by-products do us in.

If you believe in the Gaia theory, humans are the Earth's best chance at reproduction. If we fail, then all Terran life likely fails to escape the inevitable doom of a planet/solar system killing event (eg Sun's expansion or a nearby supernova.)

The only way is urgently forward.

Maybe we fail as a civilization and kill ourselves, but considering we're using up so much of the cheap and easily accessible carbon energy, we put the survivability of all life in jeopardy.

Earth being able to to evolve a new intelligent species and replenish the cheap energy source for the next civilization to fuel itself would take many millions of years. Time we're not guaranteed to have.

 

[Stokely]

I don't get why, when climate change is discussed, most news organizations feel the need to have a denier on. When 99% of scientists agree on something, you don't bring in the crazed mad scientist to derail the discussion.

Not just climate change--everything has "the other side". In reality, very few of these issues have only one or two sides, they are muddled with a lot of context and history. Look at our "recent" (50 years or so) history with Iran. Are they good guys, or bad? Before or after they fought against our foe Saddam? Should we have propped up the Shah? etc etc etc. Climate Change is one of the few "consensus" issues compared to most and you still get flat-earth types that refuse to not only believe, but consider, evidence.

 

[K1052]

It's a start anyway. All the other outlets should follow suit...especially CNN who really manages to have have some nuts on.

 

[realibrad]

There should not be a debate on Climate change. There should not be a debate on man made Climate change. The only real debate to be had is what we do/not do about it.

I doubt that shifting the argument will help though. Climate change is a fact, and its a political shit show. Arguing about solutions and debating the cost benefits is far more murky. If we cant deal with facts, I doubt we will be better at dealing with opinions. I see a lot more suffering in the future.

 

[dainthomas]

The Green New Deal is a good step in the right direction, but you are correct in that the leadership is trying to push it down.

Winning the messaging battle is the problem with Democratic leadership and past liberal activists on the issue.

Addressing climate change and passing green tech has tended to tell people what that need to stop doing, and what needs to be taken away.

Stop driving, if you have to, shitty Priuses only.
No big houses, turn down the heat.
Lots of new taxes. Carbon, gas, & new regulations making houses and products more expensive.
Stop eating meat.
Put all the workers in the carbon industry in the unemployment line.

No wonder there is such a divide and motivation to deny the science.

The issue is urgent, but more scare tactics on future possibilities won't work when the alternative is definitely losing what you have now.

Addressing climate change will only happen when the solution is also making people's life more wealthy and prosperous in the short term.

Lots of derp here, but I'll stick to the highlighted point. Renewable energy jobs outnumbered fossil fuel jobs in 2017. I imagine the difference has only grown. People saying green energy will throw everyone out of work are selling you fear, not reality.

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/lara-ettenson/us-clean-energy-jobs-surpass-fossil-fuel-employment

 

[realibrad]

Lots of derp here, but I'll stick to the highlighted point. Renewable energy jobs outnumbered fossil fuel jobs in 2017. I imagine the difference has only grown. People saying green energy will throw everyone out of work are selling you fear, not reality.

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/lara-ettenson/us-clean-energy-jobs-surpass-fossil-fuel-employment

The point he made was that the solutions often pushed are what not to do, and not what new ways we could do things.

"Addressing climate change and passing green tech has tended to tell people what that need to stop doing, and what needs to be taken away."

For sure there is lots of work being done for finding better sources and methods, but, what the public is often told is what not to do.

 

[Bitek]

Lots of derp here, but I'll stick to the highlighted point. Renewable energy jobs outnumbered fossil fuel jobs in 2017. I imagine the difference has only grown. People saying green energy will throw everyone out of work are selling you fear, not reality.

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/lara-ettenson/us-clean-energy-jobs-surpass-fossil-fuel-employment

Yes, that is the oil/coal/sometimes utility industry derp and it needs to be fought.
While it mostly gets pushed by the conservatives, liberals are not immune and at times undermine their own position.

Green movements need to be about growing everyone's wealth, health and prosperity or they are doomed to failure.

 

[Bitek]

The point he made was that the solutions often pushed are what not to do, and not what new ways we could do things.

"Addressing climate change and passing green tech has tended to tell people what that need to stop doing, and what needs to be taken away."

For sure there is lots of work being done for finding better sources and methods, but, what the public is often told is what not to do.

Thank you.

Obama himself : "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times"

Pushed the carbon tax through the House. Liberals often talk about raising gas taxes re: climate change.
Macron set off the yellow vest riots, in part, due to the gas and carbon taxes.

Turns out, people do want to have homes warm, drive nice cars and eat what they want.

They don't want to wear sweaters and pay more taxes.

Forcing them to do the opposite understandably pisses them off, is stupid politics, and is ultimately is counter-productive to the actual goal of reducing the threat of climate change.

The goal should be reducing the threat of climate change while growing the economy and improving people's lives.

First won't happen without the second.

 

[realibrad]

Thank you.

Obama himself : "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times"

Pushed the carbon tax through the House. Liberals often talk about raising gas taxes re: climate change.
Macron set off the yellow vest riots, in part, due to the gas and carbon taxes.

Turns out, people do want to have homes warm, drive nice cars and eat what they want.

They don't want to wear sweaters and pay more taxes.

Forcing them to do the opposite understandably pisses them off, is stupid politics, and is ultimately is counter-productive to the actual goal of reducing the threat of climate change.

The goal should be reducing the threat of climate change while growing the economy and improving people's lives.

First won't happen without the second.

You also find that improving people's standard of living makes them care about the environment more. So, if you want to make people care, improve their lives. Its a win win.

 

[hal2kilo]

Not just climate change--everything has "the other side". In reality, very few of these issues have only one or two sides, they are muddled with a lot of context and history. Look at our "recent" (50 years or so) history with Iran. Are they good guys, or bad? Before or after they fought against our foe Saddam? Should we have propped up the Shah? etc etc etc. Climate Change is one of the few "consensus" issues compared to most and you still get flat-earth types that refuse to not only believe, but consider, evidence.

Fox started the phony fair and balanced BS. Facts are just facts, no balancing fake news required.

 

[realibrad]

Fox started the phony fair and balanced BS. Facts are just facts, no balancing fake news required.

Some people don't like facts. Show conservatives that immigrants are a net good for the economy, and, don't cause more crime. Then show a liberal personality traits and how its linked to sex and is not *just a social construct. Both disagree, but, one side gets angry ->.

 

[realibrad]

I found this funny and being somewhat connected to this.

 

[Moonbeam]

Did anyone offer up a solution? Or was it a "someone else has to fix it" format?

The big problem with climate change being difficult and slow to fix are restrictive liberal gun laws on their use in self defense. If people could just legally shoot climate deniers and people who want to block action on climate change because such actions threaten human life on earth, a lot more would get done and a lot sooner. There would also be a lot fewer polluters too. The bodies should probably be buried, however, rather than cremated.

 

[realibrad]

The big problem with climate change being difficult and slow to fix are restrictive liberal gun laws on their use in self defense. If people could just legally shoot climate deniers and people who want to block action on climate change because such actions threaten human life on earth, a lot more would get done and a lot sooner. There would also be a lot fewer polluters too. The bodies should probably be buried, however, rather than cremated.

Do factor into account the net increase in weapons and thus the increase in CO2. I mean gosh.

 

[Greenman]

The big problem with climate change being difficult and slow to fix are restrictive liberal gun laws on their use in self defense. If people could just legally shoot climate deniers and people who want to block action on climate change because such actions threaten human life on earth, a lot more would get done and a lot sooner. There would also be a lot fewer polluters too. The bodies should probably be buried, however, rather than cremated.

I like that plan. The reality is it's going to be a lot more beneficial in the long rub to reduce population as a method of reducing CO2 emissions. Since I'm a "go big or go home" kind of guy, I'd start with ICBM's and use hand guns for the final cleanup.