The Secretary of Energy gives us his view of Americans (HT: Drudge):
When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sees Americans as unruly teenagers and the Administration as the parent that will have to teach them a few lessons.
Energy Secretary Chu: A teaching moment (AP)Speaking on the sidelines of a smart grid conference in Washington, Dr. Chu said he didn’t think average folks had the know-how or will to to change their behavior enough to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
“The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.” (In that case, the Energy Department has a few renegade teens of its own.)
And to make us better people, the EPA is going to be explaining to us how we should act starting with actual children:
The administration aims to teach them—literally. The Environmental Protection Agency is focusing on real children. Partnering with the Parent Teacher Organization, the agency earlier this month launched a cross-country tour of 6,000 schools to teach students about climate change and energy efficiency.
“We’re showing people across the country how energy efficiency can be part of what they do every day,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. “Confronting climate change, saving money on our utility bills, and reducing our use of heavily-polluting energy can be as easy as making a few small changes.”
Still, Secretary Chu said he didn’t think that the public would throw the same political temper tantrum over climate legislation has has happened with the healthcare debate.
And why is that? It should be because we only need to make a “few small changes.” But Chu has a better explanation for why we’re all going to go along. It’s good for us:
Asked if he expected a town-hall style pushback, Dr. Chu said he was optimistic the public would buy the administration’s arguments that energy efficiency and caps on greenhouse-gas emissions will spark an economic rebound.
“I don’t think so…maybe I’m optimistic, but there’s very little debate” that a new green energy economy will bring economic prosperity, Mr. Chu told reporters.
That’s right. It’s a free lunch! There’s no trade-off between cleaner air and economic growth.
The story has an update:
An update: Energy Department spokesman Dan Leistikow added: “Secretary Chu was not comparing the public to teenagers. He was saying that we need to educate teenagers about ways to save energy. He also recognized the need to educate the broader public about how important clean energy industries are to our competitive position in the global economy. He believes public officials do have an obligation to make their case to the American people on major legislation, and that’s what he’s doing.”
Boy ami glad I don’t have Dan Leistikow’s job. Very credible defense don’t you think? Here’s what he should have said:
Secretary Chu was not comparing the public to teenagers. You misheard him. He was comparing the public to “tin-edges.” It is well-known that tin edges are very sharp. Secretary Chu thinks the American people are smart, not that their a bunch of immature adolescents who aren’t as smart as he is.
Share
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 275 comments }
← Previous Comments
RE: “But I must disagree with your second paragraph. That most certainly is a reason to not have a standing army, and not a bad one at that.”
It's a FANTASTIC reason not to have a standing army. But this is my point. Now take it back one step further. If you have a “non-standing” army, a temporary army, you bear the very real risk of it becoming a standing army and of having that standing army confiscate guns.
So then is that an argument not to let the Congress raise any army? Of course not.
Slippery slope arguments have their place, but they can't legitimately be used to justify no action at all. I assume you support the Congress's right to raise a non-standing army, right? And presumably you would say “once they move to a standing army I wouldn't support it anymore”. That sounds legitimate to me! That is exactly what I'm trying to say.
You could concoct a comparable slippery slope argument to defend anarchy. It's not a valid point on which to challenge me because libertarianism is susceptible to the same critiques until it becomes anarchy. You can insist that I keep potential future eventualities in mind (and I do), but you can't insist that I defend future eventualities that I wouldn't support in the first place – any more than I can expect you to feel obligated to defend those evenualities.
You miss my point entirely as well.
re: Linzen and Spencer
My point is that, yes they teach, yes the publish in peer reviewed journals, yet the “consensus” side will not listen to what they have to say. It contradicts the notion of consensus, which is their main argument. And another thing about it, is that it demonstrates the politicization of science. For the AGW crowd, if a paper doesn't fit their nice little neat model of humans being the cause of every ill in the world, then they just throw it to the side, in search of data that “proves” their case. Not very scientific is it?
Re:”I doubt you are usually exposed to (or would recognize it if you were exposed to) insults from the other side.”
So what are you trying to insinuate?
Please explain how it's not going well for the skeptics? Did you read the link I posted? How about this one?
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/...
RE: “yes the publish in peer reviewed journals, yet the “consensus” side will not listen to what they have to say.”
The fact that they teach, publish, present, serve on public panels, etc. is PROOF that the “consensus” side WILL listen to what they have to say, that they are NOT being dismissed out of hand. Don't confuse not agreeing with Lindzen and Spencer with not listening to them, Justin.
RE: “For the AGW crowd, if a paper doesn't fit their nice little neat model of humans being the cause of every ill in the world, then they just throw it to the side”
This is barely worth responding to, but I will anyway. (1.) No anthropogenic climate change advocate is saying humans are the cause of every ill in the world, and (2.) nobody just throws this research to the side. they engage it, critique it, and review it. Again – don't confuse “not being convinced by” or “not agreeing about” with “throwing to the side”.
RE: “So what are you trying to insinuate?”
I thought it was pretty clear, no insinuation involved. I doubt you recognize all the times that my side gets insulted and attacked for the conclusions they've drawn. Similarly, I doubt I fully appreciate all the times your side gets attacked. It's the bias of perspective. No insinuation involved – I'm saying it straight.
Excellent job of both missing and making Seth's point at the same time.
WTFO?????? Do you have any understanding whatsoever of control systems? (Obviously not)
Your interpretation of geological history is absolutely wrong – no wonder you're so mixed up. What's obvious from the history is the lack of any “tipping points” or positive feedbacks. The climate system has withstood extreme shocks from external events (such as meteor impacts) and tremendous variability in things such as CO2 levels while maintaining mean temperature within a pretty narrow band. That shows a very stable system that's not particularly sensitive (to things like CO2 for example).
Thanks for the first link that shows human activity being responsible for 4% of global CO2. Since CO2 causes about 4% (if I remember right) of the greenhouse effect, that means at most human activity has a 0.16% impact on the greenhouse effect. The actual effect is less because of the logarithmic characteristic of CO2 absorption.
Oh, and I also noticed how the impact of clouds global temperature was completely ignored. That wouldn't be because clouds have a cooling effect and therefore are inconvenient for AGW proponents?
Do you realize that you've undermined your own position?
WOW! Let's just review the “debate” thus far:
• I have refuted many of your claims in several places on this thread (and others).
• You have not addressed those.
• I have pointed out how small the impact of human activity is on the greenhouse effect.
• You have not addressed that.
• I have pointed out that the geological history of the planet clearly demonstrates a stable system without positive feedback tipping points.
• You have not addressed that.
• Perhaps most significant of all, I have reminded you that the predictions of catastrophic AGW are based on analysis that ignores the role of clouds in the climate system, and clouds have a cooling effect.
• You have not addressed that.
So, to show some proof of substantial AGW you could start by addressing the many points and questions you've continued to dodge.
But instead, you've decided to stick with the dodge-the-question strategy using the tried and true demonize-your-opponent tactic (DTQ by DYO). In this latest installation you try to lump me in with those whose opinions are based on dogma and ideology, evidently without realizing that you appear to base your belief on just those things. Might you be projecting?
From comments you've made I think it's a safe conclusion that I have a much better understanding of science than you. I assure you I'm not being even slightly dogmatic on the issue – I'm doing my part to keep the politics out of the science. So stop the ad hominems or admit you have no argument.
You're still thinking this is some kind of proof? How did those plants magically get under those galciers? Did little Algorian gnomes sprinkle pixie dust on the glacier so they'd form plants underneath?? (Hint: that location was considerably warmer than it is now for at least long enough for plants to grow there before any human industrialization ever happened.)
How does that “prove” AGW? All this demonstrates it what absolutely nobody disagrees with – the planet has warmed lately. Duh!
(Please add that to the list of questions above.)
Are you really not able to understand that this kind of thing undermines your position????
What's not to like?
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed Lamb contesting the vote!”
–Ben Franklin
Smart guy, that Ben.
When it get immodest (and it will) your lack of support will be completely irrelevant. But our liberty will have been reduced by that which you supported. Thanks!
But I must disagree with your second paragraph. That most certainly is a reason to not have a standing army, and not a bad one at that. An even better reason is the temptation to use that standing army is just too much for some politicians to resist. Maybe that's why our founders were so strong in their opinions against standing armies.
(BTW, don't take this too far. I have no problem with having a Coast Guard, Navy and Air Force. The same temptation exists, but to a lesser extent – it's hard to do an occupation without standing army. And, after all, national defense is one of the few things that is in scope for the federal government. But that's definitely OT)
RE: “But I must disagree with your second paragraph. That most certainly is a reason to not have a standing army, and not a bad one at that.”
It's a FANTASTIC reason not to have a standing army. But this is my point. Now take it back one step further. If you have a “non-standing” army, a temporary army, you bear the very real risk of it becoming a standing army and of having that standing army confiscate guns.
So then is that an argument not to let the Congress raise any army? Of course not.
Slippery slope arguments have their place, but they can't legitimately be used to justify no action at all. I assume you support the Congress's right to raise a non-standing army, right? And presumably you would say “once they move to a standing army I wouldn't support it anymore”. That sounds legitimate to me! That is exactly what I'm trying to say.
You could concoct a comparable slippery slope argument to defend anarchy. It's not a valid point on which to challenge me because libertarianism is susceptible to the same critiques until it becomes anarchy. You can insist that I keep potential future eventualities in mind (and I do), but you can't insist that I defend future eventualities that I wouldn't support in the first place – any more than I can expect you to feel obligated to defend those evenualities.
You miss my point entirely as well.
re: Linzen and Spencer
My point is that, yes they teach, yes the publish in peer reviewed journals, yet the “consensus” side will not listen to what they have to say. It contradicts the notion of consensus, which is their main argument. And another thing about it, is that it demonstrates the politicization of science. For the AGW crowd, if a paper doesn't fit their nice little neat model of humans being the cause of every ill in the world, then they just throw it to the side, in search of data that “proves” their case. Not very scientific is it?
Re:”I doubt you are usually exposed to (or would recognize it if you were exposed to) insults from the other side.”
So what are you trying to insinuate?
Please explain how it's not going well for the skeptics? Did you read the link I posted? How about this one?
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/...
RE: “yes the publish in peer reviewed journals, yet the “consensus” side will not listen to what they have to say.”
The fact that they teach, publish, present, serve on public panels, etc. is PROOF that the “consensus” side WILL listen to what they have to say, that they are NOT being dismissed out of hand. Don't confuse not agreeing with Lindzen and Spencer with not listening to them, Justin.
RE: “For the AGW crowd, if a paper doesn't fit their nice little neat model of humans being the cause of every ill in the world, then they just throw it to the side”
This is barely worth responding to, but I will anyway. (1.) No anthropogenic climate change advocate is saying humans are the cause of every ill in the world, and (2.) nobody just throws this research to the side. they engage it, critique it, and review it. Again – don't confuse “not being convinced by” or “not agreeing about” with “throwing to the side”.
RE: “So what are you trying to insinuate?”
I thought it was pretty clear, no insinuation involved. I doubt you recognize all the times that my side gets insulted and attacked for the conclusions they've drawn. Similarly, I doubt I fully appreciate all the times your side gets attacked. It's the bias of perspective. No insinuation involved – I'm saying it straight.
I KNOW RIGHT? I am a riot sometimes. I mean I crack me up all the time.
So evidence that it is warming and warming significantly undermines my claim that it is warming?
OK yep I can't argue with that logic.
Cognitive dissonance is a truly amazing thing!
Thanks for your thoughtful and thought-provoking rebuttal.
You are of course correct that in contradicting Seth's belief that it is “always lost” that “higher efficiency can result” in “a net increase in energy burned,” I both miss and make his point. I miss his point, in that I suggest he is completely wrong and assert that energy efficiency measures would be NPV positive across the economy. I simultaneously make his point, by citing evidence to back my own point.
My further point, which was that Seth's ignorance is illustrative of a broader lack of education about this topic among the general population, is of course negated by the fact that I was completely wrong in my premise. I'll try to be more informed (perhaps less teenager-like) next time. Once again, excellent job of putting me in my place.
YASAFI
You're claiming that human activity is causing the warming. If all you were claiming is that it's warming you'd have no disagreement here.
You should be embarassed by that post, but I doubt you will.
Not at all. The warming is way off from normal and the major change is CO2 levels that are higher then they have been in more then 400,000 years. Nothing else explains this warming.
It all fits… it's all pretty straight forward.
Do you understand that when Dr Hansen stood before congress and warned of major man made warming many of these findings of 4,000 year old vegetation HAD NOT EXISTED or been discovered.
Isn't it a little likely more then a coincidence these discoveries are recent and happened only after the claim was made.
Now if no such finding were available, if the surface data showed cooling or even no warming then I'd be embarrassed to be pushing claims of man made climate change.
But you guys push claims that are just as proposperous. You claim the warming is natural when there is no evidence to support it and a huge CO2 elephant sitting in the room to explain the man made hypothesis.
You guys simply do not want the truth. It's very clear..the truth… but you can't handle the truth. Kicking and screaming and denying and throwing tantrums and being illogical like some of the 2 year olds I see here everyday. It's pathetic.
You really are creationist equivalents and there is just no way for you to see it. Very sad.
We have a radical administration in dc these days that have an agenda for which they are intent on moving forward no matter what. Unfortunately their views are not only anti-thetical to what America stands for, they will destroy this country. If Sec Chu thinks his approach such as cap and trade will spark an economic rebound, he has an arguement to make that has not yet been made. Fixing our economy and crafting an energy policy to bring us back to prosperity is quite doable but it is not Sec Chu's way or intent.
Those plants grew 6500 years ago, and were then covered by glaciers. YOU wrote that. You act as if 6000 years is a long time, geologically.
If Mother Gaia was that warm 6500 years ago, what caused the globe to cool to the point that glaciers covered these plants for 6500 years? Why was the globe warm enough for those glaciers to recede 6500 years ago? It was colder 12,000 years ago than it was 6500 years ago. Why? (Please note that twelve-thousand is a bigger number than six-thousand.)
It's been both warmer and colder on this planet than it is now. Why? It's been both warmer and colder on this planet than it was 6500 years ago. Why?
OK, this may be a waste of time but I’ll address your post – my apologies for the length. Would you do the Café the courtesy of addressing the counter arguments presented to you? Or will you just continuing to insult and dodge?
So you’re saying, “It’s really warm now, and CO2 is elevated so that must be the cause of the warming.” Again, correlation does not prove causation, so your logic is wrong – this is not proof of anything one way or the other. On top of the bad logic, your statement isn’t even true.
As you have pointed out multiple times, woody plants have been discovered under melting glaciers. Obviously, many years ago, the planet was much warmer than now or those plants wouldn’t be there. That proves conclusively that present global temperature are within historical norms.
Next you fall into the fallacy of personal incredulity Daniel mentioned before (i.e. “I can’t see any other explanation, so it must be CO2”). Not only that, but we’re discussing the anthropogenic component of warming not total warming. One of the links you provided earlier shows that anthropogenic CO2 is ~4% of production. IOW, natural processes produce 24 times more CO2 than human activity. When you understand that CO2 has much less impact than water vapor on warming and see how small the impact of human activity is on CO2 it is difficult to believe we have an imminent catastrophe looming before us. Of course, I’ve made these comments before and you’ve yet to address them.
Even further, the hypothesis that the CO2 concentration increases we’ve seen will drive substantial warming has not held up well to reality. Computer models built with those assumptions have consistently been dramatically wrong. The inescapable conclusion from that is the computer models are worthless. Obviously, we do not understand the global climate process as well as you seem to think. I’ve brought this up before on other threads and you’ve never addressed this point either.
What of the missing hot spot in the tropics at mid troposphere levels Sam keeps asking you about. You’ve never addressed that either.
But other than that it all fits. (that was sarcasm in case you didn’t realize it)
This is the kind of argument you find convincing? No wonder you’re so confused.
Funny thing is the surface temperature shows just that for the last decade even though the models based on the hypothesis you espouse show we should have seen steady warming. What that means is we do not understand the global climate system as well as you thing we do – it’s definitely not as simple as you think it is.
Here you try to lump me in with some imaginary group you can demean. I’m not pushing any claims; that would be you. Since the temperatures we see now are within historical variation and we do not understand the global climate process well it is obviously possible that the warming we have now could be natural.
And, as I wrote above, the “CO2 elephant” is more like a miniature jade elephant you bought in Chinatown for $5 (that analogy means it’s small, not huge in case you didn’t understand).
And of course, you have to throw in the obligatory ad hominem hoping to distract readers from the fact that you have no argument. What’s humorous is that (like most of your ad hominems) it describes you fairly well. So please fess up – the parody is intentional, right?
I hoped it would provoke thought, but since it obviously didn't I'll explain it to you.
Here is the point you missed:
The fact is that when people realize energy savings they enjoy cost savings as well. As a result of the cost savings, they often increase other activities (since they more money available). Those increased activities often result in higher total energy use. People's behaviour is not static. That's what Seth meant by “it's not a zero sum game.”
For example, higher gas mileage cars tend to get driven more. The increased number of miles driven uses as much or more gas than efficiency increase saved. The result is and total gas usage is either flat or goes up.
The way you simultaneously made the point was by continuing the efficiency argument while missing Seth's point.
But I'll give you a gold star for excellent snark.
Lest you think I am not replying I can address each of those issues. From your writing it's clear that I have a far greater understanding of the facts on this issues. I've really studied it quite a bit. Read no less then 4 bookd, read most of the IPCC reports, read regularly Science, Narue and the Geophysical Research Letters.
Have you really put in that much study on the issue?
Anyway I'll not let you get away with the claim that I didn't address each of your issues.
If you want to go through this in detail I will respond to your claims one at a time on my blog;
http://ablankspotonthemap.blogspot.com/
See you there.
I had about given up on you! I'm not sure why you don't just post answers here (or why you didn't the several times I've asked before), but I'll swing by your blog to see what you have to say.
Please be patient, I'm fairly busy these days and don't have tons of time so I might be a bit slow to answer.
Frozen winter is coming,do you like to buy ugg to preventing cold and keeping warm.As a pursuer for the most stylish ,is there any ugg boots you have in mind?I think you have no excuse anymore if you don't have a pair of UGG Bailey Button Boots.The Bailey Button UGG can be worn as a UGG classic short Boots or UGG classic mini Boots . Hottest pop style.If you like the UGG tall boots,www.realugg.com can provide high quality of Ugg Tall Boots in low price,Are you straitened for Ugg Boots Insoles,don't worry ,we have the best Ugg Boots Insoles on sale ,many of which are hand made by craftspeople.RealUGG,Inc came up with some new-styles- Ugg Lo Pro Button , Ugg Women's Rainier, We offer a wide range of UGG Boots in different color and styles. Browse the website, we are sure you will find Real UGG to tempt you!
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.