Obama og klimaets sidste pust

Diverse — Drokles on November 16, 2012 at 12:00 am

Obama’s sejr på baggrund af stormen Sandy, der ramte New York, har givet klimahysteriet lidt ny medvind ifølge Guardian

Barack Obama’s invocation of “the destructive power of a warming planet” in his victory speech has stoked expectation that he will act on climate change in his second term.

Environmental campaigners are already mobilising to hold the president to that promise.

They argued Obama’s re-election, amid the devastation of superstorm Sandy, was a clear mandate for action on climate change, in stark contrast to Mitt Romney, who turned sea-level rise into a laugh line in the biggest speech of his political career.

Men trods den megen skade dette hysteri endnu kan forvolde naturen, økonomien og den fælles intelligens er der tegn på at det blot er dets dødsrallen. Virkeligheden trænger sig på på 15. år, hvor temperaturen ikke er steget mens CO2 udledningen er eskaleret. Og imens har man febrilsk forsøgt at rykke målstolperne, omdefinere problemet, give klimapåstandene en anden vinkel og et andet indhold. Fra ‘global opvarmning’ over ‘klimaforandringer’ via det kiksede og kortvarige ‘klimaforstyrrelser’, til ‘ekstremt vejr’. Det sidste er det bedste for det foregøgler at man kan blive fri for dårligt vejr over skattebilletten og det kan trækkes hver gang der er for meget eller for lidt regn, slud, sne, varme, kulde, blæst og normalitet.

Men selv ikke omskrivninger af  KlimaforskerNE’s nagelfaste konsensus om at den menneskeskabte klimakatastrofe, som den blev forudset af de fineste computere, ubetvivleligt er uden fortilfælde, er nok i en verden, som ser ægte og alt for længe negligerede problemer, som økonomien, iranske atomvåben, araberne der slås i mellemøsten og araberne der myldrer ind hos os, tårne sig uoverskueligt op. Sidste chance ser derfor ud til at revurdere forholdet til virkeligheden, som Grist Magazine’s David Roberts umiddelbart foruroligende udsagn

All those involved in communicating climate should take a hand in claiming the storm for that narrative. It is, ultimately, immoral not to.

David Roberts argumenterer

Recently New York Times Dot Earth blogger Andy Revkin said this:

In the end, there’s sufficient nuance in the science that a disaster [like Sandy] can, like a Rorschach inkblot, be what anyone with a predisposition on global warming wants it to be.

True. The facts and science of the disaster underdetermine what sociocultural meaning it takes on. But that does not mean that Andy Revkin, or you, or I, or anyone, should be neutral about which meaning it takes on. Because it will take on a meaning. And if Andy Revkin doesn’t take a hand in shaping that meaning — if you don’t, if I don’t, if those who understand climate change don’t — someone else will.

We should not be neutral in this matter: We should prefer the meaning that conveys the gravity of climate change. All those involved in communicating climate should take a hand in claiming the storm for that narrative. It is, ultimately, immoral not to.

Man gyser måske lidt ved gensynet med den postvidenskabelige diskurs, eller hvad den slags de konstruktueret ævl kalder sig selv. Men det er ved nærmere læsning et råb om hjælp. At der nu kaldes til desperat kamp for en bestemt fortælling om virkeligheden er en erkendelse af at slaget om virkeligheden er tabt. Og den er tabt, skønt den ved at bære Obama over tærsklen til Det Hvide Hus ikke er færdig med at gøre skade. Der kæmpes stadig på at holde vanviddet í live som sagt opgejlet af Obamas genvalg, der var så herligt at filmskaberen Michael Moore ifølge Washington Examiner takkede naturen selv for at bringe klimaet tilbage på dagsordenen

“You, Mother Nature, with all your horrific damage, death and destruction you caused last week, you became, ironically, the undoing of a Party that didn’t believe in you or your climate changing powers,” Moore wrote, referring to Hurricane Sandy that hit the East Coast before the election.

Kan vi andre så i samme ånd takke moder natur for at nedkalde sin “horrific damage, death and destruction” over en demokratisk vælgerbase? Uanset at man således skal passe på hvad man ønsker sig så glæder død og ødelæggelse også Chris Mathews, som man kan se hos Breitbart

I’m so glad we had that storm last week because I think the storm was one of those things. No, politically I should say. Not in terms of hurting people. The storm brought in possibilities for good politics.

Og den mulighed for at føre god politik, som Sandy bragte er jo inddirekte Romney’s værk

Romney stod jo ikke alene i ødelæggelsen af klimaet, bag ham stod big oil og den slags er at regne for terrorister og terrorister fører man krig imod argumenterer Tom Engelhardt på Al Jazeera

Last Monday, terror struck again. I know it looked like “nature”, not some al-Qaeda wannabe, and I’m quite aware that no specific, in-your-face weather event can definitively be linked to climate change, but let’s face it, ever fewer people doubt that we are warming the planet, with disastrous weather results. And at the top of the list of those who know what’s going on are the fossil-fuel companies with their unprecedented profits and unbearably overpaid executives and shareholders.

Just like those running asbestos, lead paint and tobacco companies who knowingly continued to do harm for profit after the scientific verdicts on their products were in, energy executives undoubtedly are more aware of what the burning of fossil fuels actually means for this planet than most of the rest of us. They certainly don’t know less than the reinsurance types who have launched a campaign of climate change awareness within the insurance business or New York’s Mayor Bloomberg, whose magazine Bloomberg Businessweek just had the blunt cover headline, “It’s Global Warming, Stupid”.

And if they know and haven’t taken steps to prepare us for a fierce weather future or to switch us over to an alternative energy economy, if they’ve just kept on pouring money and effort and ingenuity into the frizzling of this planet, then let’s face it, they are the business equivalents of terrorists.

In fact, for years they’ve funded a massive campaign to deny the reality of climate change. Only recently, Chevron made a last minute contribution of $2.5 million to a Super PAC dedicated to re-electing Republican members of the House of Representatives (who could, of course, block any legislation detrimental to an oil company).

Realistically speaking, we should think of them as oil-Qaeda, and we already know one thing: The strikes against us that they are at least partially responsible for are only going to grow more devastating.

Eleven years ago, three days after a terrible assault on New York City, a US president arrived in downtown Manhattan, clambered onto a pile of rubble at Ground Zero, grabbed a bullhorn and swore: “The people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” Then, after those who called for police action against al-Qaeda to bring them to court for their crimes were laughed out of the room, he launched a “Global War on Terror”. And you know where that ended up.

Today, people aren’t wearing “I [Heart] New York” T-shirts nationwide, and no one, president or otherwise, is calling for a “war” on oil-Qaeda. Personally, I’m still for the police-and-courts route, but the best we can hope for right now is simply that, after a political season of too-hot-to-handle silence on climate change, the people who had a hand in doing this to us “will hear all of us soon!” It does seem that, dripping wet and stinking of sewage, climate change is crawling out of New York’s subway tunnels and into the political light of day.

Så desperat tegner genoplivningen af klimadebatten sig. Store dele af befolkningen udpeges i skadefryd over almindelige menneskers ulykke, som terrorister eller enablere. Det har åbenlyst en shock effekt, som skaffer tid og plads i medierne, men det dør hurtigt ud og fjerner de sidste rester af troværdighed.

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress