Welcome to Ocala.com Blogs - National Round-Up, The Green Edition.

Opinion

Ocala.com Bloggers

Search Blogs



KeywordsPhrase

Blog Archives

Archive

July 2008

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Monthly

July, 2008

June, 2008

May, 2008

April, 2008

March, 2008

February, 2008

January, 2008

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

National Round-Up, The Green Edition.

Location: Blogs The Green Zone an environmental blog
Posted by: Dave Rhea	4/24/2007 9:30 PM
John McCain, Sheryl Crow, Karl Rove, George Bush, the American people, the Supreme Court, some bad proposed Florida Legislation and Dr. Seuss' "The Lorax" all make this week's national round-up. Click here to find out what's going on in The Green Zone! National Roundup McCain on Global Warming Another Republican politician came out in favor of curbing the effect that global warming is having on our world. Whether or not it is the politics of election-time convenience or truly an epiphanal moment for Mr. McCain, the change is welcome. (From CNN) – “GOP presidential hopeful John McCain called global warming and energy dependence a ‘serious and urgent’ challenge Monday and said it directly threatens America's national security, in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International studies in Washington.” “‘The world is already feeling the powerful effects of global warming, and far more dire consequences are predicted if we let the growing deluge of greenhouse gas emissions continue, and wreak havoc with God's creation,’ The Arizona Republican said.” Crow v. Rove At the recent White House Correspondents Dinner, Songwriter Sheryl Crow got a face full of bad attitude from Bush’s chief advisor, Karl Rove. Reportedly, Crow and Laurie David (“Inconvenient Truth” producer and wife of Seinfeld’s Larry David) approached him with their environmental concerns. David said in a blog entry: “In his attempt to dismiss us, Mr. Rove turned to head toward his table, but as soon as he did so, Sheryl reached out to touch his arm. Karl swung around and spat, ‘Don't touch me.’ How hardened and removed from reality must a person be to refuse to be touched by Sheryl Crow?” (From ABC) – “As the debate intensified, Crow tried to calm things down but was drawn into the debate with Rove instead. “‘You work for me,’ she told Rove, according to the Post column ‘The Reliable Source.’ ‘No,’ was his response. ‘I work for the American people.’ “Heather Lylis, a spokeswoman for Crow and David's global warming tour, said Sunday that Crow's response for Rove was: ‘Yes, and I'm an American citizen.’” Public Threatened (From Washington Post) – “A third of Americans say global warming ranks as the world's single largest environmental problem, double the number who gave it top ranking last year, a nationwide poll shows. “In the new poll, conducted jointly by The Washington Post, ABC News and Stanford University, most of those surveyed said that climate change is real and that they want the federal government to do more about it. “According to the poll, seven in 10 Americans want more federal action on global warming, and about half of those surveyed think the government should do ‘much more’ than it is doing now. “By a 40-point margin, the public trusts congressional Democrats more than it trusts President Bush to handle global warming. More than nine in 10 Democrats in the poll said they trusted their party's leaders over Bush on the issue, as did 54 percent of independents and one in five Republicans.” Supreme Court Win for the Environment (From Washington Post, Apr. 8) – “The Supreme Court rebuked the Environmental Protection Agency for not taking action against global warming. The court ruled 5 to 4 that carbon dioxide, the main cause of climate change, is a pollutant that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. “The decision was a setback for the Bush administration, automakers and electric utilities. It should also provide legal support for efforts by states to curb carbon dioxide emissions, either through regulation or as plaintiffs in lawsuits against polluters or the EPA.” Bad Florida Bill 957 (From St. Pete Times Editorial) – “Florida wetlands protect people from pollution and flooding, and they breathe life into Florida's valuable habitat. But some Florida House members clearly don't appreciate their importance and would lessen the protections of these irreplaceable resources. The Environment and Natural Resources Council has adopted a one-sentence amendment to House Bill 957 that would eliminate local protection for wetlands in 20 counties. These natural filters keep what's left of Florida's precious environment from being completely spoiled by growth. “State and federal policies are supposed to ensure no net loss of wetlands. But an analysis of satellite imagery by the St. Petersburg Times found that 84,000 acres of wetlands have been wiped out in Florida since 1990. Destroying wetlands is not too difficult; it's too easy. Local restrictions are not onerous or cost-prohibitive. Protecting water supplies, the coastal habitat and the drainage basin are vital if Florida hopes to remain a destination and a hot market for developers." Best Book for Kids The Lorax speaks for the trees. Someone needs to. Long before global warming was such a big issue, Dr. Seuss wrote this wonderful children’s book (published in 1971!) subtly warning about run-away development and uncontrolled profit-taking at the expense of the world’s natural resources. A creature, called The Lorax, a personification of a collective environmental conscience, tries to reason with a group of Once-lers, a personification of Big Industry, who are depleting the forest of Truffula Trees to make their jazzy but unnecessary product, the “Thneed.” Sadly, the Lorax fails. The book begins and ends with a child, standing before a dark, spooky polluted building, talking through an old hose to a sorrowful Once-ler who recounts how he caused the demise of a formerly beautiful Truffula forest. The story ends with, literally, a grain of hope – the Once-ler gives the boy one remaining Truffula seed and implores him to go plant the seed in hopes of growing a new Truffula forest. Give this wonderful book a try and see if it doesn’t become a treasured part of your little one’s library.

Permalink \| Trackback

Comments (3) Add Comment

Re: National Round-Up, The Green Edition.

By Wolfgang on 4/27/2007 2:22 PM

Without a doubt, regardless of global warming, energy dependence is a serious issue. Aside from funding unfriendly regimes (which, by the way, often use their sole or predominant export to prop up otherwise unsustainable models of government), continuing to utilize non-renewable resources is short-sighted and ill-advised.
I'm always leery of polls that quote what percentage of Americans THINK something is an issue as a basis for support of that issue. What the average American believes to be true has little bearing on whether something is indeed the case; it is, however, a good test of the effect exposure to the media, urban legends, or pop culture may have. We are fond of pointing out (via polls) that X out of 10 Americans have no idea about important basic knowledge of the structure of government, geography, or fifth-grade science, but then we often quote them as a basis for taking one or another form of political action. Issues in a Constitutional Republic such as ours aren't and shouldn't be based on the popular vote of the uninformed. We instead elect people who we hope to dedicate their time and expertise to become informed, and thus represent our interests appropriately.
As to the Sheryl Crow issue, while I applaud folks for being outspoken advocates, it is entirely too easy to use popularity in one arena as a soapbox in another. The danger is that, regardless of issue, popular spokespersons are often ill-informed. Crow's website suggestions have been reported as over-the-top and almost laughable (the famous "we need restrictions on the number of toilet paper squares people can use at one sitting," and her idea for the designer napkin-sleeve shirt, for example. The same applies when those elected representatives in a Constitutional Republic allow celebrity and popularity to override their duty as trusted bearers of good judgment.
As for The Lorax, excellent book and on point to the discussion. Regardless of whether Truffula Trees were preventing global warming in Suessville, it was clear the world was a better place when they were preserved.
Unfortunately, the global warming debate is becoming polarized between head-in-the-sand recognition of any impact and those whose alarmism knows no bounds. the problem with each is credibility. Act the part of the Ostrich, and people will begin to see you for what you are - closed to the possibility of responsible energy policy. Cry Wolf too often, and any evidence to the contrary threatens to undermine your house of cards, to the detriment of the progression of energy alternatives. The recent UN IPCC report is highly political, seriously flawed, and makes projections that responsible researchers in any field, much less a field prone to the vagaries of Chaos Theory and unpredictabilty such as climatology, should dismiss as unsupportable. In the 1990's, the IPCC made a similar attempt to overstep the conclusions of their climatologist advisors, much to the dismay of researchers and providing evidence of the IPCC's "end justifies the means" philosophy.
Unfortunately, the value of peer review suffers when overreaching conclusions are made from good data. The data may suggest that action be taken, but it is a great leap for a doctor to suggest that your headache today will result in a left frontal lobe aneurysm in 22 years - particularly if there aren't clear diagnostic tools to evaluate or support that statement, and the doctor's salary is tied to the number of "22 years from now aneurysms" he can diagnose.
My concern is that while "worst case scenario" predictions, hyped by activists and reported by the media, can have the positive effect of spurring action on change, they also can have the dire consequence of undermining the credibility and legitimacy of arguments. What if, just if, climatology research develops to the point of showing that those dire predictions were far-fetched in the extreme, or change doesn't occur and surprise - not much happens? Consumers and voters lose faith, and the pendulum swings in the opposite direction to apathy or outright hostility toward the valid proposition that we need to live cleaner, more ecologically responsible lives and be fastidious in our focus on alternative energy sources. Obviously, we need change, we need more focus on alternative and sustainable energy, we need to reduce the rate of global deforestation and habitat destruction - but folks tend to stop listening at all when they see examples of "worst case scenario" reporting based on flawed assumptions, biased agendas, or political considerations.
An ecologically minded friend of mine compared it to the War on Drugs. He pointed out that when we paint a "Reefer Madness" picture of worst-case-scenario brain damage, psychosis- and addiction-inducing empty lives upon someone's first use of a more "minor" illicit drug, and then we are proven wrong via personal experience, the knowledge that a U.S. president had admitted to its use, and the fact that Uncle Larry, the brain surgeon, used it a few times in college, we lose a lot of credibility when we say the same thing about crack cocaine or heroin, drugs for which those statements are much more demonstrably true. It's important for advocates of environmental change to be consistent but moderate, and at all times truthful and intellectually honest, lest the cause as a whole suffer.

Re: National Round-Up, The Green Edition.	By Wolfgang on 4/27/2007 2:23 PM
Almost forgot - kudos on an excellent blog, Mr. Rhea. Keep up the good work.

Re: National Round-Up, The Green Edition.

By Dave Rhea on 4/30/2007 6:07 AM

Thank you Wolfgang. I am a big fan of your Piano Concerto No. 9 in E.

I heartily agree with you on your point about the public’s knowledge of an issue being a poor barometer of how our nation should respond to an issue. By the time the TV-watching public gets a whiff of something "Big & Newsy," (usually from NBC's Today or cable news) it has been common knowledge for news junkies, public servants, attorneys, business owners, etc. for a while.

The point that I am making is that the MORE the American people are paying attention, the more likely the politicians and lawmakers will be to make changes in their legislation. Plato made the clear point his "The Republic" that politicians will treat the public like a wild beast - if the politician feels the public will rise against him (or her), He (or she) will give the public whatever it wants in order to retain power. Usually that doesn't work out so good. In this instance I feel it is a positive acuator.

Also, just look at the Abramoff scandal (one of many examples of scandal these days!). I remember (pre-election) that Republicans Congressmen had somehow collectively agreed that their constituents did not care about these scandals. They would say something to the effect of: “I don’t hear about it when I go to my home district. So to me, it is not a problem.”

Well, we all see how THAT election turned out. The American people spoke and now there is a new majority in both houses of Congress.

So, my point is, by the time the general public clues in – if is something is so big that it has enough steam to catch the attention of the entire population – that is usually a prelude to change.

Thanks Wolfgang!

Your name:
Title:
Comment:

Add Comment Cancel