Comments on: Chris Rock Goes Off Message http://climateprogress.org/2007/07/07/chris-rock-goes-off-message/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:20:26 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Tim Bousquet http://climateprogress.org/2007/07/07/chris-rock-goes-off-message/#comment-4689 Tim Bousquet Sun, 08 Jul 2007 15:10:41 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/07/07/chris-rock-goes-off-message/#comment-4689 Clearly, both individual and societal-wide action are required. But Lieve Earth completely ignored the latter. Here's something I wrote, getting into it in some detail: http://www.thecoast.ca/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2007-06-21&-token.story=150644.113118&-token.subpub= (ah, the server is down. I've mirrored it here: http://www.timbousquet.com/papers/Coast/articles/2007_07_21_Global_warming.htm) Clearly, both individual and societal-wide action are required. But Lieve Earth completely ignored the latter. Here’s something I wrote, getting into it in some detail:
http://www.thecoast.ca/ 1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2007-06-21&-token.story=150644.113118&-token.subpub=

(ah, the server is down. I’ve mirrored it here:
http://www.timbousquet.com/ papers/ Coast/ articles/ 2007_07_21_Global_warming.htm)

]]> By: Green Bandit http://climateprogress.org/2007/07/07/chris-rock-goes-off-message/#comment-4687 Green Bandit Sun, 08 Jul 2007 14:44:39 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/07/07/chris-rock-goes-off-message/#comment-4687 I'm totally onboard with Live Earth's lifestyle choices message. Yes, it is important to find cleaner, less harmful methods of producing electricity, but so long as that remains the primary focus of the anti-global warming movement, it breeds armchair enviornmentalists who talk about climate change, but take no personal responsibility. I've always thought that for any environmental movement to be sucsessful, there has to be a move away from the American culture of getting into your Hummer to go down and vote for an environmentally friendly politician. Reducing energy demand has the added benefit of reducing the profitability of the fossil fuel industry, and thereby reducing their lobbying power -- which increases the chances that the anti-climate change politician you voted for will actually do something about that coal-fired power plant. I’m totally onboard with Live Earth’s lifestyle choices message. Yes, it is important to find cleaner, less harmful methods of producing electricity, but so long as that remains the primary focus of the anti-global warming movement, it breeds armchair enviornmentalists who talk about climate change, but take no personal responsibility. I’ve always thought that for any environmental movement to be sucsessful, there has to be a move away from the American culture of getting into your Hummer to go down and vote for an environmentally friendly politician. Reducing energy demand has the added benefit of reducing the profitability of the fossil fuel industry, and thereby reducing their lobbying power — which increases the chances that the anti-climate change politician you voted for will actually do something about that coal-fired power plant.

]]> By: Tim Bousquet http://climateprogress.org/2007/07/07/chris-rock-goes-off-message/#comment-4685 Tim Bousquet Sun, 08 Jul 2007 14:05:44 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/07/07/chris-rock-goes-off-message/#comment-4685 I saw a brief interview with Al Gore last night, and he mentioned a very clear policy goal: no more coal-fired plants should be built, unless they have carbon-capture equipment installed. This is good, a specific policy point that is easy to understand, and immensely do-able, with enough political will. But then I go and take a look at the Live Earth pledge points. They are: <i>I will change four light bulbs to CFLs at my home. I will ride public transit or carpool one or more times per week. I will shop for the most energy efficient electronics and appliances. I will forward a Live Earth email message to 5 friends. I will shut off my equipment and lights whenever I'm not using them.</i> Now, don't get me wrong-- these are all worthwhile. Everyone should do them, and good on the organizers for including them. But would had it really hurt anyone to include: <i>I will support a world-wide ban on coal-fired power plants, and vote for politicians who support such a ban, and against politicians who frustrate it.</i> I fear the Live Earth message comes down to lifestyle choices, and not political arguments. Individual lifestyle choices are important, but don't accomplish anything without major restructuring of how we generate electricity, and we don't get that without making hard political choices. I saw a brief interview with Al Gore last night, and he mentioned a very clear policy goal: no more coal-fired plants should be built, unless they have carbon-capture equipment installed. This is good, a specific policy point that is easy to understand, and immensely do-able, with enough political will.

But then I go and take a look at the Live Earth pledge points. They are:

I will change four light bulbs to CFLs at my home.

I will ride public transit or carpool one or more times per week.

I will shop for the most energy efficient electronics and appliances.

I will forward a Live Earth email message to 5 friends.

I will shut off my equipment and lights whenever I’m not using them.

Now, don’t get me wrong– these are all worthwhile. Everyone should do them, and good on the organizers for including them. But would had it really hurt anyone to include:

I will support a world-wide ban on coal-fired power plants, and vote for politicians who support such a ban, and against politicians who frustrate it.

I fear the Live Earth message comes down to lifestyle choices, and not political arguments. Individual lifestyle choices are important, but don’t accomplish anything without major restructuring of how we generate electricity, and we don’t get that without making hard political choices.

]]>