[ROCKMAN]

And one might also ask why political leaders who acknowledge peak oil & climate change are willing to expand the production of fossil fuels by promoting their development in sensitive offshore regions? Maybe the same motivation by the deniers: to make their constituencies happy and foster their elections:

"As part of President Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy to expand safe and responsible domestic energy production, the BOEM) announced Monday that the bureau will offer more than 21 million acres offshore Texas for oil and gas exploration and development in a lease sale that will include all available unleased areas in the Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area. Proposed Western Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 246, scheduled to take place in New Orleans in August of 2015, will be the eighth offshore sale under the Administration’s Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017 (Five Year Program). This sale builds on six sales, already held in the current Five Year Program, that have netted nearly $ 2.4 billion, and supports the Administration’s goal of continuing to increase domestic oil and gas production. The seventh Gulf of Mexico sale, Central Planning Area Sale 235, will be held on March 18, 2015. Sale 246 will include approximately 4,000 blocks located from nine to 250 miles offshore, in water depths ranging from 16 to more than 10,975 feet. BOEM estimates the proposed lease sale could result in the production of 116 to 200 million barrels of oil and 538 to 938 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

“The decision to move forward with plans for this lease sale follows extensive environmental analysis, public comment and consideration of the best scientific information available,” said Hopper. “This proposed sale is another important step to promote responsible domestic energy production through the safe, environmentally sound exploration and development of the Nation’s offshore energy resources.”

{Hmm...I wonder if the same folks evaluation the environmental impact of the KXL permit are the same one's that gave a passing grade to the lease sale?}

[Lore]

I believe our political leaders represent less of the people that support them then those that finance them.

You also have to consider that most US citizens have an average equivalent of a sixth grade education in science. Add to that the devisive nature of our present politics which our politicians and media promote on single issues along with the natural unwillingness for most people to commit to any kind of distant sacrifice for future well being that they personally will not participate in.

This time of course will be remembered as a brief holding pattern as attitudes change quickly driven by future events. The problem is that peak oil and climate change are not going to be as fixable as a responce to Perl Harbor was.

[ennui2]

When I stepped into the library this afternoon, the most current issue of National Geography covered the "War on Science".

Here it is online.

These macro-level issues start to verge into both identity and religious politics. It's identity because it talks about personal responsibility (i.e. human footprint). It's religious because it assumes we are capable of ending humanity of our own accord rather than your chosen eschatology. With either of these, we're prone to want to bend reality to make us feel better. That's why Al Gore's film was called "An Inconvenient Truth".

I had to go through my own stages of denial/grief because I had already been indoctrinated into BAU. And yet having done this, I've come out the other side really not living that differently from how I was when I took the red pill. All I've really accomplished is to emotionally/psychologically process the information. But for the longest time I was stuck in the bargaining stage of denial, either at the individual level (i.e. survivalism) or group (activism/transition-town). Now I just accept that these issues are too big to solve. I don't expect our leaders to solve them because there's no way to build enough of a solidarity to do what would need to be done to have any measurable impact. We're already heading straight towards Al Bartlett's left hand column where the treatment becomes worse than the disease. That's why I get annoyed at bright green stuff like Graeme's postings because they are all one flavor of magical thinking over another.

Expecting some ex deus machina on the part of a president like Obama is also magical thinking. Or thinking that if he just vetoed drilling across the board it would really give the planet that much more of a lease on life. One person can not hold back the tide of human consumption. It's like the war on drugs. We're addicted to fossil fuels and it needs to be fed one way or another. We've met our enemy and it's us.

[Ibon]

I've come out the other side really not living that differently from how I was when I took the red pill. All I've really accomplished is to emotionally/psychologically process the information.

Which in and of itself is a big task. I am sure what you have learned will flavor your decisions going forward even if you are still tied into living and working within the same structures as before.

[dinopello]

WashPost: Florida has banned public officials from uttering the terms "climate change" and "global warming"
HuffPost: In case the first link is behind a paywall

It is one of the profound ironies of climate change that a state besieged by its effects — where coastal islands face existential threats and daily floods render major thoroughfares difficult to navigate — is also populated by powerful politicians who express deep suspicion of the relevant science.

This is Florida, the state of Sen. Marco Rubio (R), who said last year he doesn’t “believe human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate.” This is Florida, the state of former governor and Republican presidential contender Jeb Bush, who in 2009 called himself a global warming “skeptic.” And this is Florida, the state of Republican Gov. Rick Scott, who has punted on the issue. “Well, I’m not a scientist,” he told the Miami Herald’s Marc Caputo last year when asked if he was becoming less skeptical of man-made climate change.

According to a Sunday report from the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, Scott’s aversion to discussions of man-made climate change have been brought to bear on a department charged with protecting a state that already exhibits many of the changes scientists predict will overtake other coastal regions. Officials with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), reported writer Tristram Korten, have been restricted from using the term “climate change” or “global warming” in official correspondence.

But the fact the state’s highest elected office may have reservations about climate change has outraged some local academics. “You have to start real planning, and I’ve seen absolutely none of that from the current governor,” University of Miami geologist Harold Wanless told the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting. “It’s beyond ludicrous to deny using the term climate change. It’s criminal at this point.”

[kanon]

I believe our political leaders represent less of the people that support them then those that finance them.

Our political leaders do not discuss climate change or PO because it is a lose/lose discussion. Either you get serious about Climate Change and ruin your entire economy in partial remediation, while watching dozens of other countries wallowing in rapidly disappearing fossil fuels, or you ignore the issue and the exact same Climate Change arrives a month earlier and ruins your economy for you. . . Best avoid the whole discussion, as it might impede you getting into political office.

And one might also ask why political leaders who acknowledge peak oil & climate change are willing to expand the production of fossil fuels by promoting their development in sensitive offshore regions? Maybe the same motivation by the deniers: to make their constituencies happy and foster their elections

These points talk about the maladaptive societal condition of hierarchical elites who need to destroy the environment to maintain their position. I do not think it is a question of ruin your entire economy. I argue it is a question of ruining the social status hierarchy; i.e. the elites depend on doing the things that ruin the environment and their only concern is continuing to be the elites. The mainstream politicians are exclusively focused on maintaining the overall status quo and advancing their client special interests within that framework (despite any contrary rhetoric). It is a somewhat macabre fascination I have with observing the whole ridiculous exercise.

This link and video discusses the Vikings of Greenland, perhaps a good story line for our own society. http://transitionvoice.com/2011/08/five-bummer-problems-that-make-societies-collapse/

[Prof. Jared] Diamond thinks a big problem was that the rich and powerful were so into keeping up with the Joneses — “flogging” the land (that’s over-farming to you and me) to compete with other chiefs for who could bring in the most crops and support the biggest posse of loyal retainers — to do anything to stop the madness.

Or, as Diamond puts it, there was a conflict between the short-term interest of the elites and the long-term interest of the whole society. And, since the chiefs and bishops were largely insulated from the problems that their reckless consumption created, they didn’t see how messed up things were getting until it was too late.

The point is peak oil & climate change cannot be dealt with under our current status quo hierarchy. Since maintaining the status quo is the primary goal, denial makes perfect emotional and psychological sense. We need a new establishment, new economic model, and new status criteria. I know -- it ain't gonna happen. I would like to think we have the ability to adapt our society, but it does seem unlikely. I think it is possible that the events in Brazil will be instructive, if the drought continues and we have good enough information to see what is actually done there in response.

[ennui2]

Which in and of itself is a big task. I am sure what you have learned will flavor your decisions going forward even if you are still tied into living and working within the same structures as before.

It's about learning to let go of the idea of infinite progress. Even as computers get faster and we get our UHD 3D TVs and FIOS streaming video, I am not wrapping my identity around this orgy of high-tech lasting forever. When the music stops, whether it's a year from now or 10 years from now, I will have already processed my existential disappointment.

[Keith_McClary]

Florida's unspeakable issue leaves climate change official tongue-tied

The latest victim of Florida governor Rick Scott’s unwritten ban on state officials using the words “climate change” is his own disaster preparedness lieutenant, who stumbled through verbal gymnastics to avoid using the scientific term in a newly surfaced video.

(2 minutes)

[dinopello]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson Has Some Choice Words For Anyone Who Votes For A Climate Denier

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson had choice words for the state of Florida Monday, saying he was “astonished” by Gov. Rick Scott’s administration’s alleged ban on using the words “climate change.”

Speaking as part of a lecture series in Sarasota, Florida and at a press conference before it, the renowned scientist and science communicator said that he thought that the U.S., as a country, was above using science as a political debate. Tyson also said voters held responsibility for electing lawmakers like Scott, which points to the need to better educate voters about issues like climate change.

“I don’t blame the politicians for a damn thing because we vote for the politicians,” he said. “I blame the electorate.”

Amen brother.

[Lore]

It all works for politicians as long as it doesn't hit the fan while they're in power. And who doesn't want to be told that everything is just fine? Especially when it coincides with your preconceived ideology.

[KaiserJeep]

Something that we all know but sometimes forget to factor into our thinking:

[Keith_McClary]

The 5 psychological barriers to climate action
Excerpted from Per Espen Stokne's What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming: Toward a New Psychology of Climate Action.

[ennui2]

That's one of the best articles I've read on this issue and I agree with all of them! I also like that it isn't capped off with some sort of panacea, because there is none.

[Lore]

I agree with them too. We've been discussing them for years here.

I'm left a litte flat though with the author clearly identifying the problematic reasons, but lacking any clear focus on any remedies to solving them. Maybe because humans are reluctant to change their beliefs until events dictate that they do so.

[ennui2]

lacking any clear focus on any remedies to solving them.

Why does there have to be remedies? It's a dilemma, right? I've personally had my fill of prescriptive ecological manifestos, all of which die on the altar of being politically impossible to execute or only being the equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I mean, if I hear one more essay calling for vertical farms and pinwheels on skyscrapers I'll puke, or some Zeitgeist call for the end of money as we know it in favor of us all joining hands in utopia.

[Keith_McClary]

Poll: Americans Starting to Worry About Climate Change Now That It Affects Their Lawns

A new poll shows that Americans who were unconcerned about climate change as it wreaked havoc around the world are beginning to worry, now that global warming is affecting the appearance of their lawns.

According to the poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, rising sea levels, the destruction of habitats, and catastrophic weather conditions, such as hurricanes and tsunamis, have not served as the wake-up call to Americans that their lawns’ unsightly barrenness has.

In interviews across the state of California, residents expressed anger and outrage that climate change had been allowed to worsen to the point that it has now severely limited their choice of ground cover, shrubs, and other decorative plantings.

“We are being forced to create a front lawn out of stones and, yes, cacti,” said Harland Dorrinson, a resident of suburban Sacramento. “I’m not sure that this is a world I would want to leave to my children.”

“Right now we’re looking at a situation where we have to choose between saving our climbing hydrangeas or our roses,” said Tracy Klugian, of San Diego. “We are no longer living like humans.”

Carol Foyler, a San Mateo resident who has watched her lawn turn from a gorgeous green to a hideous brown during California’s drought, said she blamed scientists “for failing to warn us of the true cost of climate change.”

“They always said that polar bears would starve to death,” she said. “But they never told us our lawns would look like crap.”

[Lore]

Poll: Americans Starting to Worry About Climate Change Now That It Affects Their Lawns

A new poll shows that Americans who were unconcerned about climate change as it wreaked havoc around the world are beginning to worry, now that global warming is affecting the appearance of their lawns.

According to the poll, conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute, rising sea levels, the destruction of habitats, and catastrophic weather conditions, such as hurricanes and tsunamis, have not served as the wake-up call to Americans that their lawns’ unsightly barrenness has.

In interviews across the state of California, residents expressed anger and outrage that climate change had been allowed to worsen to the point that it has now severely limited their choice of ground cover, shrubs, and other decorative plantings.

“We are being forced to create a front lawn out of stones and, yes, cacti,” said Harland Dorrinson, a resident of suburban Sacramento. “I’m not sure that this is a world I would want to leave to my children.”

“Right now we’re looking at a situation where we have to choose between saving our climbing hydrangeas or our roses,” said Tracy Klugian, of San Diego. “We are no longer living like humans.”

Carol Foyler, a San Mateo resident who has watched her lawn turn from a gorgeous green to a hideous brown during California’s drought, said she blamed scientists “for failing to warn us of the true cost of climate change.”

“They always said that polar bears would starve to death,” she said. “But they never told us our lawns would look like crap.”

The CA drought certainly qualifies as an event.

[Plantagenet]

April Fool.

The survey and the quotes about the lawns being hurt by global warming aren't real.

It was written by a comedian for the New Yorker magazine.