Going Cheney on Climate
Well I should have posted this last night, but after I read it I went to bed with my jaw on the floor. So now it seems, according to the article, that
Cheney had a good idea. That good idea was how to deal with a "new problem" which he referred too as a "low-probability, high-impact event".
Cheney used this as a way to justify the wars and the situation of Pakistani scientist and Al Queda working together to get a Nuclear Weapon. The idea
is that even if the probability is only 1% we should treat it as a known.
Okay so you might be saying what does this have to do with the Climate. Well none other than Cass Sunstein(Obama's Regulatory Czar) pointed out that
Cheney was acting how environmental activist are responding to the threat of "Climate Change". How is that you might add, well this is what Sunstein
wrote in his blog:
"According to the Precautionary Principle, it is appropriate to respond aggressively to low-probability, high-impact events — such as climate
change. Indeed, another vice president — Al Gore — can be understood to be arguing for a precautionary principle for climate change (though he
believes that the chance of disaster is well over 1 percent)."
Okay so I got it! Republicans and Bush are horrible horrible people that ruined the economy and got us into never ending wars, but wait let's use one
of his strategies that he used to deal with the war to deal with "Climate Change". I'm sure that will work out very well, just look at Afghanistan.
Okay, okay, lets see what else the author of the article has to say.
Frankly, I found it very disappointing to read a leading climate scientist writing that he used a "trick" to "hide" a putative decline in
temperatures or was keeping contradictory research from getting a proper hearing. Yes, the climate-denier community, funded by big oil, has published
all sorts of bogus science for years — and the world never made a fuss. That, though, is no excuse for serious climatologists not adhering to the
highest scientific standards at all times.
That said, be serious: The evidence that our planet, since the Industrial Revolution, has been on a broad warming trend outside the normal variation
patterns — with periodic micro-cooling phases — has been documented by a variety of independent research centers.
Yes, folks you read that right. Almost sounds like Iraq doesn't it? Let's go invade a country off of not so good intel? According to some people
that was a horrible horrible thing to do and it shouldn't have been done, but this guy is advocating we adopt the same strategy for deal with
"climate-change". Hrmm, I though the people voted for "change"? Oh well, guess the policies of old are okay when they can be used to further your
Okay moving on. So this is why he says we should take this seriously and legitimate reason to use the "Cheney Method" to deal with
When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is "irreversible" and potentially "catastrophic," I buy insurance.
That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.
If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during
a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of
our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a
bull's-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a
country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.
But if we don't prepare, and climate change turns out to be real, life on this planet could become a living hell. And that's why I'm for doing the
Cheney-thing on climate — preparing for 1 percent.
So basically, what he is saying is hey if we are wrong we get a whole bunch of stuff that will ween us off of oil, but electricity will be
outrageously expensive in the "transition period" but hey we will be powering a homes, with wind and solar, and cars with batteries. We will also
have nuclear and second-gen biofuels. How we are supposed to afford any of this stuff is beyond me. But that is okay because Cheney came up with a
good idea and I think we should use it.
This is just an Op-Ed column written by Thomas L. Friedman, but I thought it was particularly insightful when Cass Sunstein's name popped up. So my
conclusion from this is, damn the evidence and rational justifications for doing things to further an agenda, knee-jerk reactions and emotions will
suffice and we will even adopt strategies from the people that we have demonized for 8 years, after all a good idea is a good idea.