The Kaine administration has disassociated itself from Patrick Michaels, a University of Virginia environmental sciences professor and state climatologist. “Generally, it is safe to say that Pat Michaels doesn’t represent the governor’s opinion on global warming,” Delacey Skinner, Kaine’s director of communications, told the Charlottesville Daily Progress. "He doesn't speak for the state. He doesn't speak for the Governor."Michaels is known nationally as one of the more vocal skeptics of global-warming alarmism.
Presumably, Skinner's statement means that Gov. Kaine embraces many or all of the global warming fears circulated in the environmental community. As I've explained in an earlier post, the tag "global warming" covers a series of related propositions, some of which are more controversial than others: that average global temperatures are warming, that the warming is caused by human impact on the environment, that rising temperatures will be disastrous for biological diversity and humankind, and that changes in the economies of industrialized nations is called for to slow the pace of warming.
(Update: I checked with Kaine spokesman Kevin Hall, who explained that Skinner's comments cannot be construed as an explication of Gov. Kaine's thinking on global warming. She was simply making it clear that, though designated the state climatologist, Michaels was not a gubernatorial appointee. Accordingly, I have revised some of the comments that follow.)
I would be interested to know Gov. Kaine's views on global warming and the extent to which they inform his thinking about (a) state energy policy, and (b) transportation and land use. Questions:
Does Gov. Kaine accept the estimate that the vast majority of energy consumption in Virginia -- to the tune of 80 percent (see Ed Risse's estimate in "Soft Consumption Paths," August 7, 2006) -- is directly tied to the state's energy-intensive transportation system and patterns of land use?
Does Gov. Kaine accept the proposition that to curtail the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming, Virginia should embrace more energy-efficient transportation systems and land use patterns?
Will Gov. Kaine inject global-warming perspectives into the statewide energy study his administration is responsible for producing next year?
(For the record, while I think that the fears of global warming have been hyped shamelessly in some quarters, I would encourage the state to adopt energy-efficient transportation and land use strategies as a way to reduce Virginians' dependence upon foreign oil, create more economic activity locally and reduce air and water pollution. If we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same time, that's a bonus.)
10 comments:
Good post, but I am also wondering how many and which global warming propositions that Bacon hews to.
I detect a lot of hedging of bets in the back of the Rebellion there.
So is global warming a serious problem needing immediate action or not?
The Green Party maintains it is. I personally think taking Michaels out of the 'state climatologist' position is a good first step.
Does Bacon think we need to wait until Va Beach is hit with a hurricane, Norfolk is underwater, what? What will make a difference to you?
Scott -
Attributing hurricanes or heat waves (extreme weather events) to global warming is one of the alarmist claims that turns people off on Global Warming. Who is to say that a hurricane that hits Virginia Beach is caused by global warming? Maybe it would have hit anyway. Maybe Global Warming increased the chance of it hitting by .5%? We don't know.
As you pointed out, there are many different aspects to global warming. Some appear to be be valid; some may not be.
Governor Kaine's office has said that it is safe to say that "Pat Michaels does not represent the governor's opinion on global warming...He doesn't speak for the state. He doesn't speak for the governor."
I don't know what provoked your flurry of querulous questions on the subject but suffice it to say that it apears the governor's spokesman meant that the governor wasn't going to accept $90,000 to flack for industrial interests over the public interest. He probably thought that one should consider the source when judging the pronouncements of one who has accepted such money.
That ought to hold you for a little while.
Nostradamus, Fair enough, I might have been jumping to conclusions. Rather than assume anything regarding the Governor's position on global warming, I should ask. I think my questions are still valid. But I may find myself amending my "querulous" tone.
Well, it never hurts to be nice about things.
Aaahh. My very favorite words: Create more economic activity locally.
II am all for local action.
I am just saying if locals like Bacon are not willing to recognize the threats caused by global warming, will action happen?
Its great that Orberdorfer and Wilder have signed on to the Sirra CLub's Cool Cities campaign- but lots more needs to be done-
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004798.html
The Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees, who knows something about catastrophes, has called for a multi-billion dollar crash program to bring clean energy technologies to market:
A carbon tax on companies generating the most greenhouse gas could be used to fund the project. "Private companies themselves won't provide an adequate research effort even for technologies that may turn out to be the most important ones, because they're still furthest from market," Prof Rees said.
According to the International Energy Agency, 80% of the world's energy needs will be met by fossil fuels by 2030. Nuclear, hydroelectric, biomass and waste power will provide only 17%, with other renewables such as solar and wind accounting for less than 2%.
Rees calls this a recipe for catastrophic climate change. Lots of others agree, and, indeed, many leading scientists say we need overall planetary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of 60-70% over the coming decades.
One often hears, in discussions about sustainability, that small steps add up. In reality, the kind of changes our societies need to undergo are truly massive, whether we're talking about climate change, reducing our cities' ecological footprint, or making our own personal consumption habits more sustainable. These things are going to require huge investments and fundamental redesigns of major aspects of our civilization, not just minor changes to a few of our daily habits.
While it's encouraging to see such a rapid sea-change occuring in the public perception about sustainability, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that we still have an enormous challenge ahead of us, and the odds are not yet at all reassuring. For instance, while clean energy is having a banner year with the venture capitalists, and some companies are investing heavily in climate solutions, Exxon-Mobile remains the largest and the most profitable company in the world.
Rees is right. It's time to think big, and invest accordingly.
Scott,
Exxon-Mobil, BP and Chevron are among the world's largest investors in "clean" energy.
Do some better fact-checking next time.
These companies also conspired with the car companies to kill the electric car.
Lets keep the spin under control, ok?
"Conspiracy" has a legal context. Are you accusing these companies of criminal activity? If so, you'd better back it up -- or it's defamation, which is also a legal term with legal ramifications.
Post a Comment