|Climate Change Divides America|
Let's follow some of the hoopla of the two political conventions to their logical conclusions to illustrate that point.
Consider that one similar theme at the two conventions was "let's get off foreign oil", that is, let's use local oil instead of foreign oil so that we will be more secure.
This theme will eventually give rise to "all oil is local", but how does that help with the addiction to dirty oil, because we must still ask "is local oil clean, is local coal clean, and is local pollution clean?"
Additionally we must ask "is the big issue concerning oil addiction who the dealer is?"
If we simply become our own oil drug peddler, does that heal our oil addiction?
Are we brazen enough to think that our oil is not addictive, our oil does not pollute, in effect saying "our you know what does not stink?"
The only sane way to look at this issue is of course to grasp the reality of the damage which the addiction does, and to stop using the drug no matter who is selling it, because not using the oil drug anymore is the only solution:
In this series Dredd Blog has been exploring the history of massive errors that civilization made long ago, through "captains of industry" and government, when they addicted civilization to non-renewable dirty oil (see The Peak of Sanity - 3).(The Peak of Sanity - 5). The two political conventions are utterly irrelevant, utterly impotent, and utterly lost when it comes to discerning this critical issue.
An addiction which has been polluting the environment in many ways ever since (see A Closer Look ...).
The Dredd Blog System has honed in on the history of climate science as well, and has also mapped the struggle that has ensued once the private oil empire and climate-science-environmentalists collided ideologically (see e.g. The Exceptional American Denial).
And this seems to be how they always have been, otherwise we would not be addicted to substances that are destroying us, wouldn't be so economically troubled, and wouldn't be so utterly divided still.
The democratic convention, as was mentioned in a previous post, gets the reality of the damage which the addiction does, but the republican convention is in denial of that damage:
Let's take a look at the global warming induced climate change aspect of the two political platforms to further illustrate the issue.(U.S. Political Parties And "Political Science"). To the credit of the republicans, however, it was a republican president who stated correctly, in a state of the union address no less, that the nation is addicted to oil.
The Democratic Platform:
We know that global climate change is one of the biggest threats of this generation -- an economic, environmental, and national security catastrophe in the making. We affirm the science of climate change, commit to significantly reducing the pollution that causes climate change, and know we have to meet this challenge by driving smart policies that lead to greater growth in clean energy generation and result in a range of economic and social benefits.(Huffington Post). The Republican Platform:
The environment is getting cleaner and healthier. The nation’s air and waterways, as a whole, are much healthier than they were just a few decades ago. Efforts to reduce pollution, encourage recycling, educate the public, and avoid ecological degradation have been a success.(NeoCon Planet: The Presidents of Kolob). The democrats have the science correct, the republicans have institutionalized ignorance and have given rise to the new science of Agnotology (see Agnotology: The Surge).
The democratic platform points out that we know that "global climate change is one of the biggest threats of this generation -- an economic, environmental, and national security catastrophe in the making."
But the "solution of local oil" is no solution at all, it is a myth, a hallucination, the cognition of a polluted brain that thinks in a fog of political nonsense:
The speed of the Arctic ice melt is astounding, scientists say. "It is a greater change than we could even imagine 20 years ago, even 10 years ago," Dr. Kim Holmen, international director of the Norwegian Polar Institute told the BBC. "And it has taken us by surprise and we must adjust our understanding of the system and we must adjust our science and we must adjust our feelings for the nature around us."(British Broadcasting, BBC, emphasis added). The problem with the model being used til now has consistently been that they use a linear projection when it should have been a model based on acceleration because the global warming equation reality is non-linear (warming rate is increasing, not staying steady).
The melting ice allows the ocean to absorb more heat because there's no more reflection back to space of the light containing the heat, which is like a time warp that immediately has the affect of decades of CO2 damage:
Prof Wadhams calculates this absorption of the sun's rays is having an effect "the equivalent of about 20 years of additional CO2 being added by man".(BBC News, emphasis added). The bi-partisan call to use less foreign oil, replacing it with more local oil, is not a solution, it is simply another business as usual problem.