Bob Woodruff, Global Warming, Propaganda, and Frogs
Bob Woodruff is hosting a television show on ABC called “Earth 2100.” Environmentalists hope dire predictions and a healthy dose of drama spur corrective action. Maybe more people will reduce, reuse, and recycle.
Neocons who don’t *believe* in global warming are alarmed and complain that ABC is really just trying to scare the shit out of people. And plug for Obama.
Right. The horror.
I don’t give a shit if you believe in global warming or not. The bottom line is this – didn’t you learn as a kid to clean up after yourself? Well, human beings have a miserable track record cleaning up after themselves. Whether such messiness leads to our destruction remains a point of contention and debate, but the facts are clear: corporations and people should do more to clean up the planet.
So many conservatives are religious and it’s heartening to see young evangelicals use the argument I’ve been using for years – if you believe Earth is a gift from God, why the fuck don’t you take better care of it?
Of course, they don’t use my kind of language. But the spirit of the argument is the same.
Side Note: I also use this argument when urging people to take better care of their bodies, drink and smoke less, and put down the goddamn donuts. But that’s another post for another time.
Woodruff was a guest on Daily Show recently where he told that old story about a frog, in cold water that gradually goes up in temperature, and how he doesn’t realize he’s getting warmer until he’s cooked.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M – Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Bob Woodruff | ||||
|
||||
I could hear several friends yelling about how human beings aren’t frogs.
Right. We’re not. We *know* we’re in trouble. And we also know how to fix it. Let’s not argue over the methods that people use to get our fellow citizens off their asses and working toward a solution. Because the solution will benefit all of us.
8 Comments
Leave a Reply
Catherine Durkin Robinson
-
VOTE!
she’s crafty
The issue isn’t whether we know to clean up after ourselves… the issue is whether we (The United States) should clean up after others (China & India).
I am all for making the US economy more green… but let’s not kid ourselves that this isn’t a global problem requiring a global solution. The dumb Kyoto Accord (which was voted down 98-0 in the Senate!) did not include China and India… two very large polluters.
Until everyone is willing to clean up the problem… it will remain an issue.
Oh, and when a major volcano erupts in the next few years plunging us into another ice age, it won’t matter…
Environmentalists hope dire predictions and a healthy dose of drama spur corrective action.
Let me get this straight. Dire predictions (whether true or not) and dramatic TV fiction will spur people to do what you think is best for them. No matter the cost in lives or money (blood and treasure). And you’re cool with that.
Jim – You’re like my son who wants to know why he has to go to bed at 8pm when Alex down the street gets to stay up until 10pm. The United States is a huge world polluter and we should do something about it.
John – No. I didn’t say fiction or death or blood. I’m cool with using drama, humor, irony, sarcasm, etc. to get people off their asses to clean up the planet. Why aren’t you?
You accuse me of putting words in your mouth and in the same breath you impugn my motives. Where did I say people shouldn’t clean up the planet?
Just wondering out loud…it’s what I do.
Any thoughts on the cost of what you you supporting? How much of difference will spending that money make? Could that money be spent better?
I’m open to suggestions and I do believe our administration is as well. For example, the rhetoric has been toned down a bit as far as ethanol is concerned. (At least it was toned down, might be back up for all I know…)
I would first ask you what programs you are against? (Unrelated, I thought of you this morning when NPR was talking about the new tobacco bill, thinking, “I bet John is against this one!”)
Then I’d ask for better ideas.
The right has been awfully slow in admitting there is a problem – it’s therefore no wonder why they haven’t come up with viable solutions.
I would first ask you what programs you are against?
I’m against cap and trade. It is a rent seekers paradise. Ralph Nader and James Hansen (not exactly right wing shills) also think it is a bad idea.
The right has been awfully slow in admitting there is a problem – it’s therefore no wonder why they haven’t come up with viable solutions.
Then you haven’t been paying attention. The right has offered a solution. It’s called a carbon tax. Like any tax, if you want less of any activity, you tax it (similar to tobacco taxes). These kind of taxes are obvious to the consumer. If it costs more, you do it less. That’s the difference between cap and trade and a carbon tax.
Right wing pundit Charles Krauthammer and former Bush economic advisor Greg Mankiw have supported the idea of a carbon tax.
If your goal is to reduce carbon emissions, a carbon tax is the mosst reliable and honest way to do it.