Posted on 11/06/2015 12:15:45 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Today, three Iowa politicians signed a pledge calling for “a World War II-scale mobilization†to fight climate change. Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie, State Rep. Dan Kelley, and State Senator Rob Hogg, a leading candidate for US Senate, all Democrats, signed a document calling on the US government to reduce emissions 100 percent by 2025 by “enlisting†tens of millions of Americans to work on clean energy projects—creating full employment in the process.
It’s likely the most ambitious pledge to fight climate change put forward this election cycle, even if right now, it's a symbolic gesture aimed at drawing attention to climate policy during the high season of presidential campaigning.
“It is our unique opportunity as Iowans and our unique obligation as Iowans to talk to the candidates about climate change,†Hogg said in a statement. “Every presidential candidate in the 21st century needs a plan to address climate change… if we led an urgent, all-out effort globally on this issue, we could slow down, stop and reverse the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and safeguard our people and our property from the real dangers of climate change.â€
The “WWII-scale mobilization†framing has been around for years now, at least since the environmentalist Lester Brown argued that the world needs to see “climate action on the scope of WWII mobilization†back in 2008.
The argument is, essentially, that the scope of the climate change crisis is so great that the only way humanity might hope to stave off dangerous levels of warning is to “mobilize†an industrial-scale effort of the likes last seen in the WWII era, to mass manufacture and deploy solar panels, wind turbines, and other clean energy implements. Not only would such a major effort hasten the decline of greenhouse gas emissions and boost the rise of clean power, but it would create millions of jobs in the process. Of course, like the WWII war effort, it would require massive government investment.
A grassroots campaign called Climate Mobilization has taken the framework to heart, and has been organizing around the concept. Their pledge had previously attracted a handful of state-level politicians and a much longer list of scientists, celebrities, and authors. Organizers with the group helped draft the pledge that the Iowa Democrats signed.
“Top environmental analysts have known for decades that our best hope to save civilization from runaway global warming is a massive, WWII-scale mobilization of the economy delivered at emergency speed,†Ezra Silk, the Deputy Director of the Climate Mobilization told me in an email. “The problem is that many within the environmental movement think a Climate Mobilization is politically unrealistic and have instead advocated market-based reforms that simply cannot decarbonize the economy quickly enough."
"Today’s event demonstrates that mainstream politicians can and will embrace a realistic approach to saving the climate if we demand it,†he added.
As ambitious and far-reaching as the agenda sounds, it’s goals are in line with the carbon reduction levels that scientists say we need to achieve to avoid catastrophic warming scenarios.
To prevent temperatures from rising to a degree that scientists say could destabilize human civilization—a threshold usually pegged at 2˚ Celsius—the whole of humanity would have to limit carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million. Currently, we’re at just over 400 ppm, and gaining about 2 ppm per year.
To avoid 450 levels, large-scale effort to drawn down fossil fuel use and build up renewable sources would indeed be necessary, WWII mobilization or no. It’s an interesting metaphor, and one that may draw on the hawkish inclinations of Americans, even if the prospect of significant government funding for climate programs is light years away.
The signees and organizers are, naturally, hoping that the urgent climate message will be amplified under the glare of the Iowa primary circus. So far, the only candidate to articulate a climate plan that approaches the ambition laid in the pledge is Martin O’Malley, who aims to run the US on 100 percent clean energy by 2050—organizers say that neither Republicans nor Democrats have articulated plans that would reduce pollution enough to avoid catastrophe.
“The science is clear—we must urgently act to safeguard our people and our property from the dangers of climate change,†Hogg said in a statement. “The good news is we have many solutions that work for our businesses, our workers, our farmers, and our health. Every Presidential candidate should put forward plans that address climate change and explain how effective they will be in limiting future damage from climate change.â€
“They are doubling down on this criminal scam.”
And we should call them out on it.
Really? You have to label it 'symbolic' when the pledge is to reduce 100% within 10 years and you say this WITHOUT a '/sarc' tag?!?
I guess that they need to as the Democrats are VERY GOOD with symbolism! But reality and complex interactions with multiple variables ... eh, not so much! And, pray tell, how are you going to convince the 3rd & 4th world peoples that they need to stop burning EVERYTHING!?! Good luck with that!
Lower the CO2 and Iowa corn stops growing.
Thanks for the condescension, but no thanks. I'd just as soon sublimate those "hawkish" tendencies by stringing up a few eco-nazis myself. It'd be more productive.
What do they mean by "saving the climate"?
IA sucks donkey balls. F’em!
I’ll sign up if the Mass Mobilization includes fighting warming kooks. It’s turned cold, cold, cold here (SF Peninsula) the past few days. Autumn and Winter are arriving right on schedule.
Absolutely!! The question is never asked — “What will you do? How much will it cost us? What do we have to give up to stop your (mythical) climate change?”
They will never say “We are going to cover 1/3 of the U.S. with windmills and solar plants which will wipe put most birds, bats, and insects. You are going to live in a hut with no heat or A/C. You will never own a private vehicle. All travel more than fifty miles from your birthplace is banned. Refrigeration is banned, so give up all pharmaceuticals. And, oh yeah, the population is ten times higher than we can support, so 90% of you please board those box cars over there.”
The single biggest effect on carbon dioxide reduction would be achieved by destroying steel smelters and electric power plants in China. Is that what they are advocating?
We have these FEMA camps available to put the climate change advocates in. They should be happy behind fences with armed guards, because that is what they wanted America to become.
Unless, of course, they are hypocrites.
How much do you wanna bet the rationing we had during WWII would be a big part with this?
?
Oh bless their hearts.
They wanna make a hippie wermacht.
Can’t help but think of how right Jonah Goldberg got it in his book Liberal Fascism. There’s something in the liberal psyche that craves centrally orchestrated mass action on a wartime scale.
>>>Kill 50 to 70 Million People ?<<<
They obviously have Globull Warming confused with Communism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.