Stickybuffalo.com

Apparently there is word of “backsliding” at the latest in the ongoing world tour of climate change conferences (seriously, I should do up a T-shirt design illustrating this concept at some point). There is also at least one person insisting that “progress had been made,” but I know which perception seems more plausible to me.

I have to imagine the complete failure of the United States to even begin cleaning up our carbon-belching Great Satanic Mills, after trying just about every realistically possible party configuration at the federal level of our government, may be discouraging the climate diplomat community to some extent. (I know it discourages me.)

Thinking about this led me to a somewhat tangential question today, though: just what is the current opposition party’s position on climate change, anyway? Granted that Mitchy & pals seem unabashedly indifferent to requests for specific policy positions on most issues, right now. (And I’d like to condemn them more forcefully for this, except that Nance & Harry basically brought the Democrats back into power just four years ago via a similar, if more-supine and less-obstructionist, “we aren’t them” platform.)

Still, I honestly have a difficult time identifying even a de facto climate change position in today’s Stupid Party. For practical purposes, obviously, it seems (like so many other issues) to add up to “no no no no.” However, this particular obstructionism seems, unusually, to be lacking any kind of unified script or talking points.

So far as I can tell, right now the GOP “thinking” on climate change seems to be a free-for-all between any of the following:

• “It isn’t happening.” (“Climategate,” “Greatest hoax ever,” etc., etc.)
• “It is happening but it isn’t caused by human activity.” (Sunspots, or something.)
• “It might be caused by human activity, but needs more research…”
• “…and more debate.” (i.e. the familiar responses to near-complete legislation of “scrap it,” “start over,” “let’s slow down.”)
• Various shades of the inefficiency argument, from the pseudointellectual, Bjørn-Lømbørg-ish “the costs of inactivity are exaggerated and global development will be better served by expending resources in other ways” (though serious proposals for any of these alternatives are never mentioned), to the aggressively, defiantly shortsighted soundbite versions, e.g. “c(r)ap and tax,” “job killer,” etc.
• “Those damn dirty Red Chinese have to shut down all of their cars, utilities, etc., first.”
• edit: I shouldn’t leave the out the possible trend of the future, “their plan is a disaster but ours will be the greatest things since sliced bread;” their plan generally consisting of handing container ship loads of money to dirty industries.
• What passes for right wing “humor,” e.g. “gee my yard is full of snow in January, better do something about that global warming” or “Al Gore’s mouth is the top source of harmful emissions.”

But, I guess it is an increasingly confusing issue with nearly all of science (no matter how hard one tries to deflect this fact), an increasing number of big businesses, and even the occasional sub-federal-level Republican calling for government efforts to minimize this threat.

Fortunately, it seems that you can still maintain near-perfect party discipline so long as 1) no one thinks about the issue too hard (not a problem), 2) everyone reaches the same do-nothing conclusion, and 3) the “liberal media” give you a free pass on the matter.

And that’s how you make a “big tent” strateg(er)y work, kids.

First, everything not fairly closely-related to environmental issues:

• “Krugs” throws old, familiar charges of alienating his primary base of support, in a futile quest for “postpartisanship,” at President Obama. Charges still stick.
• While subjecting Facebook and its pimple-faced kid billionaire to growing scrutiny, let us not forget about that other Great Cyber-Satan.
• Optimistic (or worried?) that Americans have learned a new and lasting sense of thrift? Rejoice (or despair).
• Flipboard: I wonder if this is anything like how John Henry felt while watching technicians set up the version 1.0 steam drill.

This one is borderline: A Times op-ed calls the much-ballyhooed, and much taxpayer-subsidized, Chevy Volt an overpriced flop. (“W” encouraged talk of the “hydrogen highway,” and now electric cars are having their moment… bets on whether the next administration will raise flywheel technology to the rank of automotive savior?)

And the rest:

• The Economist arrives about a week late with coverage of the fizzling out of climate change legislation, apparently hoping to make up for the delay by publishing two largely interchangeable articles. The picture is, of course, bleak, but hey! Schadenfreude: “a patchwork of different rules in different states… may leave big energy firms regretting their opposition to cap and trade.” (Though we’ll probably just end up bailing them out, as we do with everything else that big businesses have cause to regret.)
• NPR’s science blog seems to spend a lot of time indulging in elliptical ruminations on the authors’ personal unresolved issues about science and non-secular philosophy. But this item was one of the rare breaks, and remarkably poignant; I thought about posting some sort of commentary, but there’s probably no just no real need.

Is it me, or has a sort of gray haze descended upon things of late? There is news, there are things happening, but it all seems to have an air of “haven’t we been here before?”

I did manage a pithy little post last night about corporate bribery and BP’s latest cute little trick, but then this amazing free content management platform which I have done nothing but praise turned on me and ate everything I’d written. Oh well.

Meanwhile congress passed some sort of financial reform bill, which probably should be getting more attention, but most people are probably like me afflicted with serious MEGO syndrome. And it’s awfully hard to feel like it would make any difference if more of us did have a strong, well-formed view of that issue.

(more…)