Walter Cronkite - Ominous silence on the environment

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/8074115.htm

President Bush's recent State of the Union address has awakened environmental activists such as they haven't been for some time. They are concerned not by what he said but by the lack of public reaction to what he did not say.

He spoke of the nation's problems and the dangers it faces, particularly in regard to national security, but he gave no indication that he recognizes the dangers of global warming.

Surely it has been brought to his attention that scientists are increasingly alarmed over the rapidity with which the world's environment is being poisoned by the refuse of human endeavor. Climate change and the extinction of species are the focus of their deep concern. They warn that there is no time to spare: Unless we begin a major effort by the end of this century, further efforts will be too late.

However, it is not just Bush's lack of interest that bothers the environmentalists; it is that the news media - and the public - have made so little of it.

More at link.

that it simply doesn't believe in the warnings about climate change and intends to do exactly nothing about it.
Quite some time ago (a couple of years or so) someone wrote an article for either Harper's or the Atlantic asking the question, "what will it take before climate change will be accepted as more than a nutty, sky-is-falling theory?" and, after careful investigation and consideration of the issue, concluded that Miami will have to be literally underwater before the right wing faces the truth.

>>after careful investigation and consideration of the issue, concluded that Miami will have to be literally underwater before the right wing faces the truth.

I doubt that even "positive proof" would be enough to convince many people. It's always possible (easy, in fact) to shift blame where it doesn't belong. Fundamentalists might chalk it up to the "end times", or god's latest punishment for whoever is offending them that week.

Consider the public's lack of outrage at the failure of tax-cuts to fix the recession. The closest thing to an explaination the administration bothered to give was to wave it's hands at 9-11 and/or fighting terrorism. That doesn't stand up to any kind of analysis, but most people are willing to trust what they're told.

of the media not doing their damned job. Maybe it will take "another Pearl Harbor" in environmental terms for Americans to wake. The PNACers proved they were good at that on 9/11. Maybe we could enlist their help? Naaahhh, I guess not. Wouldn't be in their interests.

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

Thanks! I've been lurking around DU for three years, guess I couldn't keep my mouth shut any longer...

I think that they Bush and his backers believe in whatever will make them money within their lifetimes without doing real work. If I were a super-wealthy Bush backer I would be looking at the evidence of global warming with an eye to make money off it.

I would be investing in "privatizing" water supplies in population centers that are dependent on glaciers which are rapidly melting.

I would be investing in current energy sources and preventing preventing the development of alternative energy sources that are not capital-intensive.

I would be investing in armaments preparing for global warming upheavals that spark wars over vanishing resources.

I am thinking that the rich Bush backers are way ahead of us. They accept the reality of climate change, they have been receiving the latest research from the Pentagon (that we pay for but don't get) on likely scenarios, and are positioning themselves to take advantage of global warming.

They are insiders, and have inside information.

They have no incentive to publicly acknowledge global warming-it would interfere with business plans and create unnecessary investment competition.

Maybe we should be following the money.

I think it is quite possible that one incentive Tony Blair had for the Iraq invasion was the UK research indicating that global warming would likely turn off the Gulf Stream-plunging the UK into a new glacial age and making Iraq oil almost a necessity.

I agree, they could very well be "insiders".

One disturbing explaination for the (mis)behavior of this administration is that they've secretly given up on trying to fix anything. They're in "harvest" mode, basically over-driving all the systems (economic, environmental, etc) for as long as they can, and milking it for all it's worth before the radiator blows and the cylinders lock up.

And, of course, one of the primary goals of an insider is to make sure that everybody else is an outsider. It maximizes return on investment, you see.

and probably correct, at least that's my take

Welcome to DU!