The Defense of The Environment

Perhaps you've had a chance to view the new TV series Terra Nova, a fictitious show that follows a group of settlers going into the past to settle a prehistoric Earth. The frightening portion of the show is the depiction of Earth in the year 2149. There appears to be very little water, almost no plant life and air quality so poor that filtering masks are required to travel outside. While fictional, one is only left to ponder just how far fetched the idea truly is. Are humans the primary drivers of global warming and rising world temperatures or are we in the midst of a natural cycle experienced by Earth? The Committee on the Science of Climate Change (2001) responded to the question of "Are greenhouse gases causing climate change?" by writing:

The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. The stated degree of confidence in the IPCC assessment is higher today than it was 10, or even 5 years ago, but uncertainty remains because of (1) the level of natural variability inherent in the climate system on time scales of decades to centuries, (2) the questionable ability of models to accurately simulate natural variability on those long time scales, and (3) the degree of confidence that can be placed on reconstructions of global mean temperature over the past millennium based on proxy evidence. Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years. Whether it is consistent with the change that would be expected in response to human activities is dependent upon what assumptions one makes about the time history of atmospheric concentrations of the various forcing agents, particularly aerosols.

While it is agreed upon that there is much uncertainty surrounding the Earth's climate, most scientists are in agreement that the last twenty years have produced "particularly strong" observed warming events. One could assume these events coincide with the industrial rising of countries such as India and China where carbon monoxide levels are increasing at a troubling rate. The United States and other countries are also responsible with more than 18% of CO2 emissions occurring from America. Although one could argue that Earth may be in a natural warming cycle, it is undeniable that pollutants released by humans are growing at a rate that will be unsustainable for the planet if allowed to continue.

Republican candidate Rick Perry has gone on the record stating he believes that global warming is a "hoax" and that the climate has been changing "ever since the Earth was formed". While true, Perry's response plays down the argument questioning the human aspect of the warming and seems to paint the issue as something fabricated by scientists eager to make a profit off the funding of new projects. Perry's chief rival for the nomination, Mitt Romney, has distanced himself from Perry's remarks by stating: "I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that".

Perry's stance is troubling because it conveys (in my opinion) a refusal to even consider the idea as plausible and downplays the idea that humans and Americans should consider what they can do to reduce global warming. For a moment, let's consider that Americans reduce greenhouse emissions and make painful lifestyle changes throughout the country that result in lost jobs, elimination of useful and effective products and an increased responsibility by every citizen to take ownership of the problem. If those such as Perry are correct and the Earth is in a natural warming state or not in one at all, then dollars and livelihoods will be affected and measures put in place will be for naught, ineffective or unnecessary. While unfortunate, those outcomes would hardly seem to be painful to swallow.

On the other hand if humans had the ability to take measures to stop the trend and do nothing, the outcomes would be painful and terrifying. Humans would watch as biological diversity slowly dies away and an increasing number of species become extinct due to inability to adapt to climate change. Sea creatures such as plankton, a nutrient source for many creatures, could be affecting by rising sea temperatures causing uncertainty over the survival of much aquatic life. Humans would cope with decreasing water supplies, proliferation of deserts and arid land and world-wide competitions for ownership of water and natural resources supplies. Rising sea levels would affect coastal communities and islands, forcing millions of people to relocate or risk being swallowed by the sea. In short, images from movies such as The Day After Tomorrow, while extreme, could become a reality for many populations throughout the world.

If the costs of being proactive are small compared to the risks of inaction, why aren't many humans concerned with global warming? Is it apathy, ignorance, conflicting beliefs or some other viewpoint that creates lack of action? For me, the risks of doing nothing far outweigh the costs of doing something. For those opposed to the idea of global warming, an eventual validation will lead to a brief "I told you so" moment and a platform for political maneuvering. A validation of global warming coupled with inaction could lead to annihilation and a plot line from Terra Nova becoming reality.

The Tea Party Blues

A couple of posts ago, I ranted and raved (which I have a tendency to do) about how the Tea Party was fringe and non-relevant. Boy was I wrong (as happens from time to time, or all the time!). As I write this post, Christine O'Donnell has defeated Mike Castle in Delaware for the Republican Senate nomination. For those that don't know, I lived in Delaware for four years and Mike Castle is as much of a favorite son as you can be. What's even more shocking is that O'Donnell had the "perennial candidate" syndrome where she was always on the ballot for something but never seemed to get any traction.

To get back onto a little more of a philosophical note, I think 2010 has been the season of tea for several different reasons. For starters, the most involved and dedicated voters (especially in the primaries) are arguably the "hard-core" partisans and ideologues. For Republicans this means ultra-conservative partisans dominate the process, and for Democrats it's progressive and liberals. What has been different in this season is that Democrats have been more lenient to their moderate members while Republicans have brought the hammer down on them with force. For examples, I use Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, a moderate Democrat who survived a left-wing primary challenger and Mike Castle/Lisa Murkowski, two arguably moderate Republicans who were shocked by tea party upstarts.

To summarize the conversation so far, one could argue that the Republican tent is getting smaller while the Democrat tent is for most purposes staying the same. Republicans are demanding ideological purity while it is common knowledge that most Americans are moderates/independents. Does this help the party? You can argue both sides effectively but you can't argue the fact that it makes Democrats more competitive in many races where they were all but written off. The larger question is what does it mean for the future of the Republican party? Does it move right and assimilate the tea party-ers into its base, or do two separate factions develop that threaten to virtually hand the races to Democrats?

I've been on the record saying that moderate candidates are good for America. This means people like Mike Castle, Scott Brown, Tom Kean, Claire McCaskill, John Warner and Jon Tester. You can argue that I've named all liberal politicians here, but if you check their voting records you will find that they buck their party more than most for the good of their constituents (and to save their hides!). It isn't about being Republican or Democrat, it is about being able to go against your party and vote for your people. You can call that a RINO if you want, but I call it a moderate.

New Jersey's First District: The Fighting Firsts

New Jersey Democratic Congressman Rob Andrews will be running for re-election in 2010 against familiar nemesis Dale Glading, you may remember Dale for granting this interview to the American Portrait back in 2008. Glading was only able to garner 26% of the vote in 2008 and while he will definitely fare better in the current climate, his chances of election are slim.

Dale writes on his campaign page that with "career politician" Rob Andrews, "not much has changed". Much has been made of Andrews complete debacle in 2008 when he had his wife keep the congressional seat warm for him while he tested the waters for Frank Lautenberg's Senate seat. Andrews tried to claim he changed his mind after deep personal reflection although it was clearly and objectively a bogus story. You may recall me observantly pointing out the fact that Camille Andrews (Rob Andrews' wife and placeholder for his house seat) didn't even bother to put up policy stances on her campaign website. She may be very friendly and nice in person but she was definitely a lousy candidate.

While Glading definitely hits some points home against Andrews, mainly the argument that Andrews has an "insatiable" appetite for higher office, he faces a daunting election against a congressional juggernaut. County Republicans would love to brand Andrews as liberal and socialist in the hopes of it gaining traction with a frustrated electorate, but do the facts back that up? The New York Times (an arguably biased source) brands Andrews as a "fiscally conservative...and socially moderate". Glading on the other hand, doesn't give any hints as to his stances on social issues via his website.

As Glading has cast himself as a conservative, one would think he would be socially and fiscally conservative. This perceived social conservatism (whether true or untrue, he hasn't said anything to the contrary) goes squarely against the traditional New Jersey mold. In fact, New Jersey's 1st congressional district scores a DVI of +12 (Democratic) in the Cook Partisan Voting Index. So while Glading would more than likely be an agent of change for South Jersey, his social stances might be a tough pill to swallow for many South Jerseyans. So while Rob Andrews' actions were clearly questionable, if no suitable candidate attuned to the county's political leanings emerges, it is this blog's opinion he will be comfortably re-elected in November.