Maui Fire In modern discourse, where soundbites and sensationalism reign supreme, there exists a propensity to leap towards the most captivating narrative, regardless of its alignment with the facts. Such is the case with the recent fire raging on Maui, a tragedy whose origins have been (of course) ascribed to the towering specter of climate change.
Speaking of the Republican Party, I get the impression that many people believe there's some group in charge who have (or had) a reasonably coherent conservative philosophy and could exercise significant influence on who wound up being the candidates as well as enforcing some basic level of party discipline to keep the wackos at bay. Having been involved in my local party organization for roughly 6 years, that's not at all what I saw. At best the party leadership can run to the front of the parade after the candidates are picked and their positions laid out as "Republican" doctrine.
As Niall Ferguson observed, the US has the weakest political parties of any major democracy. Thanks to the "reforms" of the late 70's to give more power to the "grass roots", the nominating process is driven by the very small minority who bother to show up, and those who show up are predominantly single-issue voters who never have volunteered for or donated to the party organization and never will. Many, usually the most vocal, are fixated on their champion, who may also be at the fringes of the Republican rank and file. It's very bass-ackwards. Moreover, the candidates raise the vast majority of their funding themselves while the district and state party organizations run on a pittance. It's got to be hard for a party "leader" to convince a candidate who's already won the nomination and raised or self-funded millions of dollars to toe the line. And, hard not to follow the golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules.
I HATE the thought of having to choose between Trump and Biden. For either party to do better all it will take is for enough normal, thoughtful citizens to do a little research and show up at the caucuses or vote in the primaries and ensure we get better choices in November.
Setting aside what's causing it, setting aside the huge sums being spent helter-skelter to confront it, something is rapidly changing, and DoD budget set-asides for climate-related fixes are in the offing. For instance, National Guard soldiers increased wildfire-fighting hours by 12-fold in five years. The NNSY dry dock had 48 flooding incidents last year. DoD is talking about closing bases...using frequency of severe weather as a column in BRAC determinations.
Concur mostly with your analysis. The tragedy in Maui may have an element of climate change, however there are likely many other mitigating factors. Best to wait for post event comprehensive analysis before fully understanding the root causes. As for the abandonment of long standing Republican policies I wholeheartedly agree.
Here is the NIH on the precautionary principal in environmental sciences:
"Environmental scientists play a key role in society's responses to environmental problems, and many of the studies they perform are intended ultimately to affect policy. The precautionary principle, proposed as a new guideline in environmental decision making, has four central components: taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty; shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity; exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions; and increasing public participation in decision making. In this paper we examine the implications of the precautionary principle for environmental scientists, whose work often involves studying highly complex, poorly understood systems, while at the same time facing conflicting pressures from those who seek to balance economic growth and environmental protection. In this complicated and contested terrain, it is useful to examine the methodologies of science and to consider ways that, without compromising integrity and objectivity, research can be more or less helpful to those who would act with precaution. We argue that a shift to more precautionary policies creates opportunities and challenges for scientists to think differently about the ways they conduct studies and communicate results. There is a complicated feedback relation between the discoveries of science and the setting of policy. While maintaining their objectivity and focus on understanding the world, environmental scientists should be aware of the policy uses of their work and of their social responsibility to do science that protects human health and the environment. The precautionary principle highlights this tight, challenging linkage between science and policy."
I ponder proposed weather modification programs like using atomic bombs on hurricanes to seeding the atmosphere with chemicals to produce rain, to seeding the oceans with iron to make it absorb more CO2, to launching space umbrellas to shade the earth.
I also ponder what is the proper punishment for those who advocate costly solutions to control heating when we find the money was foolishly spent and what is the proper punishment for those who advocate doing nothing that results in a world wide disaster. Interesting pondering.
Terrific, as always, Bryan. And I will definitely check out the Merlin Bird ID app. I've been listening to more and more birds in my walks in nature, and have felt the want of my inability to identify any of them. Thank you!
Interesting you still equate conservatism with Republican. It seems to me that's also a nostalgic recollection.
Also, not a Reagan fan. I lived in CA when he imposed martial law (Berkeley) and remember, he passed gun control laws after the Black Panthers armed themselves
Reagan stated "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act "would work no hardship on the honest citizen"
WSJ article mentioned that the fire scenario was predicted based on factors that have nothing to do a change in climate: change in vegetation, known effects of hurricanes, lack of fire fighting resources.
I am impressed with Will Hurd's attitude about the "Reagan/trad R issues" you mention.
Re: Maui fire. The WSJ ran an article that refreshingly did not make climate change the primary cause. Once again, inattention to good practices and preventative measures are likely to cause problems before global phenomena. Unfortunately, that doesn’t change the horrific outcome for those impacted. https://www.wsj.com/articles/hawaii-maui-fire-risks-plans-government-e883f3a3
Was it fascist? Or racist? So hard to separate all the ists. Additionally, it was a principled approach to the ordering of liberty--and that's why I will wax nostalgic.
A warning about “Reagan conservatism” nostalgia. Since Reagan, there has always been a thread of fascism within the Republican Party. Both Reagan’s, and the first Bush campaigns featured openly racist attacks (“welfare queens,” Willie Horton) on the black community. This was classic fascist scapegoating of a weak group to deflect from underlying issues that were inconvenient for the dominant group. And the ACLU was always busy beating back attacks on civil liberties.
Another excellent and thought-provoking column.
Speaking of the Republican Party, I get the impression that many people believe there's some group in charge who have (or had) a reasonably coherent conservative philosophy and could exercise significant influence on who wound up being the candidates as well as enforcing some basic level of party discipline to keep the wackos at bay. Having been involved in my local party organization for roughly 6 years, that's not at all what I saw. At best the party leadership can run to the front of the parade after the candidates are picked and their positions laid out as "Republican" doctrine.
As Niall Ferguson observed, the US has the weakest political parties of any major democracy. Thanks to the "reforms" of the late 70's to give more power to the "grass roots", the nominating process is driven by the very small minority who bother to show up, and those who show up are predominantly single-issue voters who never have volunteered for or donated to the party organization and never will. Many, usually the most vocal, are fixated on their champion, who may also be at the fringes of the Republican rank and file. It's very bass-ackwards. Moreover, the candidates raise the vast majority of their funding themselves while the district and state party organizations run on a pittance. It's got to be hard for a party "leader" to convince a candidate who's already won the nomination and raised or self-funded millions of dollars to toe the line. And, hard not to follow the golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules.
I HATE the thought of having to choose between Trump and Biden. For either party to do better all it will take is for enough normal, thoughtful citizens to do a little research and show up at the caucuses or vote in the primaries and ensure we get better choices in November.
https://partner-mco-archive.s3.amazonaws.com/client_files/1547826612.pdf
DoD's 2019 climate assessment.
Setting aside what's causing it, setting aside the huge sums being spent helter-skelter to confront it, something is rapidly changing, and DoD budget set-asides for climate-related fixes are in the offing. For instance, National Guard soldiers increased wildfire-fighting hours by 12-fold in five years. The NNSY dry dock had 48 flooding incidents last year. DoD is talking about closing bases...using frequency of severe weather as a column in BRAC determinations.
Something is happening...
The Merlin bird app has been downloaded and installed. Thanks!
Concur mostly with your analysis. The tragedy in Maui may have an element of climate change, however there are likely many other mitigating factors. Best to wait for post event comprehensive analysis before fully understanding the root causes. As for the abandonment of long standing Republican policies I wholeheartedly agree.
Here is the NIH on the precautionary principal in environmental sciences:
"Environmental scientists play a key role in society's responses to environmental problems, and many of the studies they perform are intended ultimately to affect policy. The precautionary principle, proposed as a new guideline in environmental decision making, has four central components: taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty; shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity; exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions; and increasing public participation in decision making. In this paper we examine the implications of the precautionary principle for environmental scientists, whose work often involves studying highly complex, poorly understood systems, while at the same time facing conflicting pressures from those who seek to balance economic growth and environmental protection. In this complicated and contested terrain, it is useful to examine the methodologies of science and to consider ways that, without compromising integrity and objectivity, research can be more or less helpful to those who would act with precaution. We argue that a shift to more precautionary policies creates opportunities and challenges for scientists to think differently about the ways they conduct studies and communicate results. There is a complicated feedback relation between the discoveries of science and the setting of policy. While maintaining their objectivity and focus on understanding the world, environmental scientists should be aware of the policy uses of their work and of their social responsibility to do science that protects human health and the environment. The precautionary principle highlights this tight, challenging linkage between science and policy."
I ponder proposed weather modification programs like using atomic bombs on hurricanes to seeding the atmosphere with chemicals to produce rain, to seeding the oceans with iron to make it absorb more CO2, to launching space umbrellas to shade the earth.
I also ponder what is the proper punishment for those who advocate costly solutions to control heating when we find the money was foolishly spent and what is the proper punishment for those who advocate doing nothing that results in a world wide disaster. Interesting pondering.
And it is free!!!!
Merlin sounds impressive, but it'd be better if it could tell by a picture what species of bird crapped on your vehicle.
Terrific, as always, Bryan. And I will definitely check out the Merlin Bird ID app. I've been listening to more and more birds in my walks in nature, and have felt the want of my inability to identify any of them. Thank you!
Interesting you still equate conservatism with Republican. It seems to me that's also a nostalgic recollection.
Also, not a Reagan fan. I lived in CA when he imposed martial law (Berkeley) and remember, he passed gun control laws after the Black Panthers armed themselves
Reagan stated "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and that guns were a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will." In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act "would work no hardship on the honest citizen"
WSJ article mentioned that the fire scenario was predicted based on factors that have nothing to do a change in climate: change in vegetation, known effects of hurricanes, lack of fire fighting resources.
I am impressed with Will Hurd's attitude about the "Reagan/trad R issues" you mention.
Re: Maui fire. The WSJ ran an article that refreshingly did not make climate change the primary cause. Once again, inattention to good practices and preventative measures are likely to cause problems before global phenomena. Unfortunately, that doesn’t change the horrific outcome for those impacted. https://www.wsj.com/articles/hawaii-maui-fire-risks-plans-government-e883f3a3
Was it fascist? Or racist? So hard to separate all the ists. Additionally, it was a principled approach to the ordering of liberty--and that's why I will wax nostalgic.
A warning about “Reagan conservatism” nostalgia. Since Reagan, there has always been a thread of fascism within the Republican Party. Both Reagan’s, and the first Bush campaigns featured openly racist attacks (“welfare queens,” Willie Horton) on the black community. This was classic fascist scapegoating of a weak group to deflect from underlying issues that were inconvenient for the dominant group. And the ACLU was always busy beating back attacks on civil liberties.