Other Voices: Earth Institute’s Steven Cohen Seeks a Post-Hysterical Approach to Climate Progress.

[AverageJoe90]

Found this excellent piece by Andrew Revkin on DotEarth:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/earth-institutes-steven-cohen-seeks-a-post-hysterical-approach-to-climate-progress/?module=BlogPost-ReadMore&version=Blog%20Main&action=Click&contentCollection=Climate%20Change&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body#more-51943

I encourage you to read “Facing the Climate Crisis without Hysteria,” the latest Huffington Post piece by Steven A. Cohen, who is the executive director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and whose career, including long stints at the Environmental Protection Agency, has given him an excellent vantage point on the mix of regulation, motivation, prosperity and innovation that drives environmental progress.

The piece appropriately decries caricatured, baseless attacks on climate science by conservative ideologues and those seeking to delay a shift away from fossil fuels. But Cohen also criticizes climate campaigners and some in the media for responding with oversimplified predictions of environmental doom. Here’s an excerpt and link, with some more background on Cohen:

I think the questioning of science by the American right wing and the political assaults funded by their rich benefactors are proving to be a distraction to those interested in moving the planet to a path of sustainable economic growth. It is turning analysts into advocates and advocates into hysterics. The IPCC report focused a great deal of attention on solutions, but the media accounts of the report focused on the possibility of food shortages. Here we go again: Chicken Little’s sky is falling in. Climate and ecological impacts are creating deep problems in agriculture. While there is no question that these are real problems, as in the past these will likely be addressed by new technologies and new techniques that will overcome the problems we now face.

The glass is either half empty or half full. I choose to believe it is half full. The history of the technological age we are in is that technology both creates unforeseen problems and then sets about solving them. My bet is on human ingenuity. Maybe the U.S. federal government was not capable of building a website to handle the traffic generated by the Obamacare deadline, but Amazon’s website copes pretty well with the massive traffic it generates in the days before Christmas. Maybe we can’t stop the sea waters from rising, but we can place our utility rooms on the second floor instead of the basement. As for agriculture and the food supply, it is always a bad idea to bet against the technology of food production.

I suspect we will survive, because we are not suicidal.

Like many, I’m sure, I’ve been much more familiar with the climate and energy policy preferences of Jeffrey Sachs, the institute’s director. The best recent representation of Sachs’s views is the paper he and others co-authored with James E. Hansen, the longtime NASA climate scientist who now has a climate policy position at Columbia, in which they build on Hansen’s longstanding call for a rising price on carbon.

To capture the full scope of thinking on this question, I think it’s important to consider Cohen’s ideas, too.

This is probably one of the most balanced climate science blogs out there, on a proverbial 'Net soup full of denialism and skeptics, even if some may be genuine, and with a fair share of needless pessimism and outright doomerism as the froth on top.

[AverageJoe90]

1. *Bump*!

[RobertEarl]

2. Technology will save us?

That's just foolish wish casting.

Anyone can see that our tech, while making a few rich people more comfortable, is being used to destroy the natural world in ever increasing amplitudes.

We have a joke which fits well with the bloke's resume from the EPA.
We call the EPA the Environmental Polluters Agency.
Why? Well, does not the EPA regularly hand out permits to pollute?

If the EPA did not hand out permits to pollute, then they would be protecting the environment. As it is they hand out permits to destroy. Yes, a little here and a little there, but it adds up.

So this bloke of your OP just needs to retire already and go away. He's not helped before, he's not about to help now. He's a polluter permitter!!

[AverageJoe90]

3. " That's just foolish wish casting." On the contrary.

I don't think he means "technology" the way YOU mean it, R.E.; you're thinking of fancy ordinary gadgets like IPhones, Playstations, etc. But he means something else entirely.

"So this bloke of your OP just needs to retire already and go away. He's not helped before, he's not about to help now."

Actually, I could say that about people like Guy McPherson, David Wasdell and certain other people that doomers tout as prophets of "Inevitable DOOOOOOMMMMM!&quot tm). But here's the thing: that would actually be justified.

[RobertEarl]

5. No

Your bloke has made bunch of money handing out permits to pollute. The others you castigate are those who wish to end all permits to pollute. You are on the wrong side, but as you are a tech lover, that makes sense. Tech will save us is the biggest bunch of bullshit ever invented by the deniers.

Science has shown that the earth can and does enter times of rapid changes which result in doom for much of the planet's life. We appear to be in one of those times. Denial of that is just foolish. Denial that man can force such changes is also foolish.

One the one hand you say our tech can save the world, and on the other you deny that our tech is destroying the world. There is a word for that kind of thinking. Besides foolish.

[AverageJoe90]

6. Again, what denial?

Science has shown that the earth can and does enter times of rapid changes which result in doom for much of the planet's life. We appear to be in one of those times. Denial of that is just foolish. Denial that man can force such changes is also foolish.

What did I deny? Where? If you're going to make extraordinary claims of something you think I said, at least TRY to back it up. Otherwise, you're talking out of your ass.

One the one hand you say our tech can save the world, and on the other you deny that our tech is destroying the world. There is a word for that kind of thinking. Besides foolish.

Practical. Level-headed. And factual. Those are words that describe the theory that technology can help mitigate climate change; this isn't about IPhones or Playstations, as most of you doomers seem to think. And frankly, I don't see the point of trying to explain because none of you will listen to factual evidence that contradicts you anyway. Honestly, you guys are almost as bad as actual deniers like Tony Watts, et al., just on the opposite side of the spectrum. That's all.

[TheKentuckian]

4. Half empty or half full all comes out to be exactly a half cup of water.

and that glass gets less full all the time due to evaporation unless some other factor cause more water to find its way into the cup.

The semantics are tiresome and prevent any assessment of where we are and where we can expect to be based on that, especially when all dolled up in "I hope", "I expect", and "I don't think" are substituted for actual facts in testaments of faith in humanity.

"Not suicidal" does not honestly reconcile with observation, if we aren't the balance is close enough that we might get there regardless of conscience intent.

The real message is don't harsh our buzz or make us do anything of substance because it will work is self out in the end.

[AverageJoe90]

7. That's not the impression I got.

But then again, I'm more of a realist than some folks here, but regardless, the facts don't tell us we're at actual risk for extinction, or even inevitable collapse at that, contrary to some *opinions*.

I realize this is a hard pill to swallow for some, but hysteria hasn't gotten us much of anywhere. In fact, if it wasn't for real activism, and a President who actually tries to get things done despite Repub obstructionism, we STILL would be going backwards, as we were under Dubya.

[TheKentuckian]

8. Ok, what is the realistic threat level, joe?

and how much damage to the underlying support system can there realistically be before extinction is plausible?

Also, do we no duty to alleviate extinction events we are contributing to?

Is okay to destroy all but our direct food stocks and ourselves?

[AverageJoe90]

9. Human extinction isn't plausible thru AGW alone.

But things wouldn't be pretty either: rising sea levels displacing tens & tens of millions of people, heat waves becoming more common, more extreme weather, expanding deserts, etc.

Believe me, I get that climate change is a damn serious threat and I'm grateful for whatever progress we can get. But it's also why we ought to be critical of doomsayers no matter how well intentioned they may be; because they've never been helpful. Not at all, in fact.

Also, I think it would be great if we could find a way to preserve as many endangered species as possible. I'm not exactly a PETA type, to be honest, but it would certainly be a shame if we didn't make an effort to save at least some of these animals and plants.

[TheKentuckian]

10. No, not alone but it doesn't come alone.

Also comes acidic oceans with reduced ability to absorb CO2 and produce oxygen, coral is decimated, breeding grounds destroyed, the food web is put into a lurch while on the ground the same thing happens as deforestation runs rampant more carbon is released and less is sequestered, temperatures rise, the ice caps recede, frozen methane is released, the problems compound on themselves. Your hero knows this too which is why to maintain internal consistency he must assume unidentifiable technological advancements and faith that one day before it is actually too late some future people will make changes to balance the equation which is faith rather than science.

All a "doomer" really is a person who looks at current trends and with the knowledge and tools available right now and on the viewable horizon, says what must be done to avert disaster and yes possible extinction and certainly the high potential for massive destruction that could kill millions and even billions along with much of the diversity of life in the world.

You also seem to be painting events that cannot be other than a massive die off while brushing it off as a bit of tough going that is more or less okay because you estimate it won't come to an extinction event.

The cavalier attitude about wiping out species by the thousands with fingers crossed that some will be saved is disturbing and has nothing to do with PETA, one need not be associated with such a group to have some sense of stewardship and the interconnectedness of life.

[AverageJoe90]

12. .....Are you serious?

Your hero knows this too which is why to maintain internal consistency he must assume unidentifiable technological advancements and faith that one day before it is actually too late some future people will make changes to balance the equation which is faith rather than science.

You make it out like it's some sort of totally irrational impulse to speculate on what technological trends may come that may help us mitigate climate change. It is anything but.

All a "doomer" really is a person who looks at current trends and with the knowledge and tools available right now and on the viewable horizon, says what must be done to avert disaster.....

That's not a doomer. A doomer takes scientific research, no matter if it's from the IPCC(whom many of them distrust, btw: they claim they don't tell us the full severity of even current climate change, let alone possible future estimates. Which, TBH, is a load of bull.), or some third party sources, and twists it(or sometimes they'll just lift agitprop pieces from one of their own, as what deniers often do.) to fit a preconceived and actually irrational narrative, that is, that humanity is irreversibly doomed to extinction, that civilization is certainly doomed to collapse no matter what, etc. Now THAT'S a doomer.....I've been around them long enough to know how they typically operate; they are almost the equivalent of the deniers, but on the opposite end of the spectrum.

[TheKentuckian]

13. Yep, I'm serious about not counting chickens before they hatch, especially when there isn't hint of

a laying hen.

No chicken, no eggs, can't count the the chicks, brother. Your technological fixes aren't even in the speculative phase, they cannot be counted as solutions.

[AverageJoe90]

14. Actually, here's one I just found: Carbon Capture.

http://www.weather.com/tv/tvshows/amhq/video/capturing-carbon-dioxide-46971

Of course, it'll probably be a good while before this stuff becomes widespread, but enough companies catch on, it may be able to help somewhat.

I still wholeheartedly support switching away from fossil fuels when, how, and as much as possible, however.

[Junkdrawer]

11. I'm not a Climate Defeatist, but to underestimate AGW is also counterproductive...

Positive Note:

There IS a chance that when the full horror of our situation becomes clear, petty things like international disputes may give way to international cooperation.

Maybe.