Tag: greenhouse emissions

Ohio Higher Ed Bill Requires Equal Time For Climate Change Deniers, Racists

Post By Politics , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Ohio state Legislature is taking its own shot at eliminating all the liberal indoctrination Republicans are certain is running amok in universities, with a bill that not only prohibits most diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and “implicit bias” training, but also requires that instructors not promote any particular view on any “controversial topic” like climate change, diversity, abortion, or foreign policy, among others. The bill has already passed in the state Senate, and is now being considered in the state House, which has a Republican supermajority. The official title of Senate Bill 83 is the “Higher Education Enhancement Act,” but I’m just going to call it the Flat Earth Equal Time Act if you don’t mind.

For all “controversial “topics, instructors would be required to “allow and encourage students to reach their own conclusions” and “shall not seek to inculcate any social, political, or religious point of view.” Should be fun when a student sues to have openly white supremacist materials included in a syllabus. Or an oil company sues over climate science being taught accurately.

When he introduced SB 83 in March, state Sen. Jerry Cirino (R-Did We Have To Say?) explained that

it was his idea to include climate change as a “controversial” belief or policy, and that he “didn’t actually consult with climate people.”.

“My agenda was not to use this bill to impact energy policy,” Cirino said. However, he also said, “What I think is controversial is different views that exist out there about the extent of the climate change and the solutions to try to alter climate change.”

So yeah, that translates to “let’s not actually limit greenhouse emissions, because as the copyrighted 2009 cartoon by Joel Pett in USA Today asked, ‘What if it’s a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?'”

Naturally enough, actual scientists are aghast at the bill, pointing out that there really is no “other side” to the fact that humans have caused global warming by burning fossil fuels, which add carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, causing dangerous heating of the planet. There also isn’t any actual controversy over what’s needed: We need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions — and eliminate them altogether — as quickly as possible.

There are plenty of discussions about the best way to achieve that goal, which we suppose may fit Cirino’s suggestion that there’s “controversy” over “the solutions to try to alter climate change,” but not a single one of the options includes “keep burning coal and oil.” Really!

Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, warned that if the law is enacted, it’s “going to have a chilling effect” on science education, since many instructors might decide it’s safer to not say much about climate change at all if they think they have to include climate denial nonsense and “alternative” views. Jeez, you scientists, isn’t some chilling exactly what we need to counteract all this warming?

The bill’s language is particularly vague and circular when it comes to even defining what topics are “controversial” and in need of both-sidesing in classes. It specifies some, but the language is very open-ended:

“Controversial belief or policy” means any belief or policy that is the subject of political controversy, including issues such as climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.

Got it? A controversial topic is any topic that “is the subject of political controversy,” so tread carefully and include all sides. Including, we guess, advocacy of plural marriage and mandatory abortion? And of course, many evangelicals consider evolution controversial, so Ohio biology curricula could be in for a surprise.

Hilariously, though, another provision of the bill makes clear that some “foreign policy” matters should have only one side, since it limits a wide range of cooperative agreements with China, and specifies that Ohio universities “may endorse the congress of the United States when it establishes a state of armed hostility against a foreign power.”

Another section of the bill shoehorns in the now-familiar cookie-cutter prohibitions on “divisive concepts” that must not be taught, like the very ideas of inherent bias, white privilege, or systemic racism.

Previously In The Syllabus:

Georgia Schoolchildren Will Just Have To Learn All History From Confederate Statues

David Duke Thanks Tucker Carlson For Spreading ‘Great Replacement’ Lie

Federal Judge Stops DeSantis’s ‘Stop WOKE’ Law, Because ARE YOU F*CKING KIDDING HIM

The bill’s multi-pronged attack on diversity, equity, equity, and inclusion also led to widespread condemnation, obviously, because most university faculty, students, and officials aren’t consumers of rightwing media who are worried about the Great Replacement conspiracy theory.

That said, Dayton TV station WKRC did manage to scrape up one professor at the University of Cincinnati, criminologist John Paul Wright, who fretted about the school’s diversity and inclusion webpage, and who claimed he heard a colleague say they “will never hire another white male.” Dude is a proponent of some seriously racist “science,” and has called for more research on “the role biology plays in criminal behavior.” I’d say that this guy and his calipers account for all the “intellectual diversity” Ohio universities can stand, honestly.

Shortly before the Ohio Senate passed it, The Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University officially opposed SB 83, stating that it raised First Amendment issues and warning that it could harm the university’s ability to “attract the best students, faculty, and researchers.” It further said the bill could affect “the quality of higher education at all Ohio public universities,” even the ones that don’t insist on having a capitalized definite article in their names.

During debate on the bill, however, Cirino insisted Ohio wouldn’t experience any such brain drain, and would actually make Ohio schools more gooder by attracting … well, people with calipers, basically:

“When all is said and done here, our universities are going to be better,” he said. “We are going to attract more people who have been turned away because of the liberal bias that is incontrovertible in our institutions in Ohio.”

In addition to the gross limitations on academic freedom, which are lawsuit bait if we ever saw it, just like Ron DeSantis’s “Stop WOKE” law, SB 83 would ban strikes by academic workers, require all students to take a course in American history of government — presumably, only the GOOD parts — cut the terms of university and college boards of trustees so they can be replaced by patriots, and would weaken tenure protections.

And if it passes in the state House, will GOP Governor Mike DeWine sign it? How’s this for some impressive waffling? Earlier this month, before it passed in the Senate, DeWine simply said it was still “a work in progress” and that “I have not seen the latest version.” Sounds to us like he wants to follow the spirit of the bill and not take any particular position at all. We’d like to hope the near-universal condemnation of the bill, which will dumb down another great university system, might put his feet to the fire — as long as it’s burning green hydrogen, of course.

[Ohio Senate Bill 83 / Ohio Capitol Journal / USA Today / Ohio Capitol Journal]

Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please give $5 or $10 a month so we can keep you up to date on the vast wave of stupid in this country. And remember, the Wonkette Book Club is reading Kim Stanley Robinson’s 2020 climate novel The Ministry for the Future,so join us Friday to chat about Chapters 2 through 30 (they’re short chapters!) More details and Part One of our book club discussion here!

Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons.

Source link

#Ohio #Higher #Bill #Requires #Equal #Time #Climate #Change #Deniers #Racists

2022 In Energy And Climate: The Transition Is ON

Post By Politics , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Climate and energy stories are always about numbers, so let’s start this review of 2022 with a fairly small one that should give you hope: Nine. That’s nine percent, and according to polling by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, it’s the percentage of Americans who are “dismissive” of the reality of climate change: They “believe global warming is not happening, human-caused, or a threat, and most endorse conspiracy theories (e.g., ‘global warming is a hoax’).” Just nine percent. That’s roughly the percentage of Americans who think Elvis is still alive or that the Holocaust never happened. But because they make so much noise, spreading their denialism at every opportunity, most people would assume the number is a lot higher.

The poll also identified another 10 percent as “doubtful” of climate realities; these folks may say it’s happening, but “do not think global warming is happening or they believe it is just a natural cycle. They do not think much about the issue or consider it a serious risk.” I think that probably describes most Republicans apart from the all-out cranks, and it’s very bad news that many members of those two groups are in positions of political or economic power, of course. But here are the other good numbers from the poll:

Most Americans are either “concerned” or “alarmed” about global warming and its effects on climate, and as those effects become all too visible in our lives, those numbers are only going to increase. We’re finally demanding changes. And those changes are happening — 30 or 40 years later than needed to have headed off the significant worldwide damage that’s now locked in, and we still need to dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions much more quickly to avoid the worst possible effects of warming.

The Paris goal of limiting total warming since the Industrial Revolution to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) remains theoretically possible, but unlikely without dramatic changes in how we create and use energy. That’s the bad news. But every tenth of a degree C of warming we prevent will also prevent progressively worse and worse outcomes. There’s good reason to think we’re finally heading in the right direction. The International Panel on Climate Change reports are going to continue to be grim, but it’s no time to throw our hands in the air and say we’re screwed — I worry that climate despair may be as bad a disincentive to pursue change as denial — and as unrealistic.

For a sobering but grimly optimistic look at where we are now, see this important David Wallace-Wells essay in the New York Times (gift link) published in October. Wallace-Wells explains that, thanks to changes in energy production that are already happening, the hands of the climate doomsday clock have slowed compared to estimates of just a few years ago. The “business as usual” estimates, which assumed no slowing in the rate of greenhouse emissions, pegged the likely increase in global temperatures at four or even five degrees by the end of the century. That would be

a change disruptive enough to call forth not only predictions of food crises and heat stress, state conflict and economic strife, but, from some corners, warnings of civilizational collapse and even a sort of human endgame. (Perhaps you’ve had nightmares about each of these and seen premonitions of them in your newsfeed.)

Now, with the world already 1.2 degrees hotter, scientists believe that warming this century will most likely fall between two or three degrees. […] A little lower is possible, with much more concerted action; a little higher, too, with slower action and bad climate luck. Those numbers may sound abstract, but what they suggest is this: Thanks to astonishing declines in the price of renewables, a truly global political mobilization, a clearer picture of the energy future and serious policy focus from world leaders, we have cut expected warming almost in half in just five years.

Needless to say, that doesn’t mean we can pat ourselves on the backs and throw another endangered species on the barbeque. But the range of outcomes has changed, as Wallace-Wells notes. The nightmare scenarios have been “made improbable by decarbonization,” although the most hopeful options have been “practically foreclosed by tragic delay.”

The window of possible climate futures is narrowing, and as a result, we are getting a clearer sense of what’s to come: a new world, full of disruption but also billions of people, well past climate normal and yet mercifully short of true climate apocalypse.

Go read/listen to the whole thing. It’s a holiday weekend, and you have a gift linky right there.

Part of the reason I’m feeling cautiously optimistic is that people who know climate and energy policy are generally very pleased with this year’s climate bill, aka the Inflation Reduction Act. Independent energy reporter David Roberts has discussed it extensively with energy and climate experts, and while it has some dumb shit in it that was the price of getting Joe Manchin’s support, they say the bill really deserves the praise it’s received.

There’s a perfectly good reason the climate provisions in this bill are so good. They’re taken more or less directly from Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s “gold standard” climate plan from the 2020 presidential campaign, which itself reflected the work of a whole bunch of climate policy wonks. The dollar amounts are smaller, but the effects are going to be significant.

What’s more, Roberts points out, the “green bank” and other research and development provisions in the bill will provide billions of dollars in seed money for new clean energy enterprises, which are likely to lead to even more reductions in emissions over the next decade — but because those companies and technologies don’t exist yet, they can’t be included in any models. That means the total US emissions reductions resulting from the bill are likely to be more than the 40 percent already estimated. Roberts believes this law has the potential to remake large parts of the US economy.

Another reason for optimism came in the form of a peer-reviewed study published in September by Oxford University’s Institute for New Economic Thinking. The researchers explain that a rapid transition to renewable energy will actually cost far less than going slowly, because greater deployment of renewables will drive down the price of electricity enough to save the world $12 trillion, compared to continuing to use fossil fuels. It’s simply not true that the clean energy transition would be too costly to pursue: If anything, not transitioning quickly will cost far more. And damn right you should go give a listen to this Dave Roberts interview with Dr. Doyne Farmer, one of the study’s co-authors. I am just plain turning into a mouthpiece for Roberts is what’s happening.

Want a book to help you be a climate activist and help make change? That would be The Big Fix: 7 Practical Steps to Save Our Planet, by Hal Harvey and Justin Gillis. It’s a handy guide to policies that will move us closer to a survivable climate situation, and how you can be an Active Citizen, like finding or starting a local climate group and, say, showing up at those mandatory public meetings on utility policies that are normally only attended by business reps and utility spokespeople. Well sure, there’s also a Dave Roberts interview with the authors.

One more book: I’m currently reading Kim Stanley Robinson’s excellent near-future science fiction novelThe Ministry for the Future, which manages to make discussions of climate science, sustainability policy, international tensions, and UN agencies an exciting read. It may help that there’s a subplot involving a terrorist group that’s out to assassinate the hundred people most responsible for continued fossil fuel use, which of course you should not advocate in the comments, but ups the ante and tensions in the novel. Some reader reviews found it preachy, if it is, I must be in the choir.

Happy new year. Consume less. Keep up the pressure for change.

[Yale Project on Climate Change Communication / Volts / NYT gift link / Scientific AmericanOxford University / Ministry for the Future (Wonkette revenue-sharing link) / The Big Fix (Wonkette link too) / Image generated using DALL-E 2 AI]

Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, help us keep pointing to the horizon with a $5 or $10 donation. We can get there together.

Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons.



Source link

#Energy #Climate #Transition