Global Warming: Another of Smith's Leadership Failures
Jeff Alworth
Yesterday, a serious debate about global warming finally reached the
floor of the US Senate. 
The proposal is a cap-and-trade law proposed
by Joe Lieberman, Barbara Boxer, and John Warner regarded by most as a
decent step forward. But the discussion, like so many in Washington,
features two debates. One is a serious policy debate about the effects of global warming and how to stop it. It highlights science and fact, cause and effect, and is a genuine effort to confront a very real problem. The second debate is a game of misdirection, in which facts are stripped from context and used to gin up fear about phantom worries. It assiduously avoids fact and science, flees from causality, and is a genuine effort to avoid confronting a very real problem.
Guess which debate Gordon Smith wants to have?
"This bill as it looks now is enormously expensive in terms of slowing down our economy and increasing the cost of energy." Smith said. "Having said that, I think it's important that we reduce pollution, develop technologies, encourage renewable energy so we can become energy independent."
Let us parse. As Smith well knows, global warming is an economic catastrophe. The costs of global warming are real and getting worse fast. Various studies have tried to place a figure on them, but suffice it to say that thanks to water shortages, worsening wildfires, erosion damage, increased weather severity, food production costs, and increased health costs (to name a few), we stand to loose trillions by not acting. This is the fact and science part.
Real leadership at a moment like this requires, well ... leading. Oregonians elected Smith to tackle tough issues affecting our economic and physical well-being. He has a staff to brief him on this very complex constellation of issues, unlike the average voter. Right now, our fisheries, forests, and farms are in immediate jeopardy. How does he plan to address this problem? Real leadership would require him to get out in front of this and bring Oregonians up to speed on the issues. Instead, Smith offers phantom worries of the "cost of energy" and "slowing down" the economy.
Parsing on. In the classic Smith formulation, the statement of standard-issue conservatism is followed up by a mavericky-sounding rhetorical flourish: "it's important that we reduce pollution, develop technologies, encourage renewable energy...." You think? Reducing pollution--bold! Devolop technologies--innovative! Encourage renewable energy--green! This substance-free comment is really intended to shift the focus away from global warming (which Smith avoids) and put the discussion on more comfortable footing.
It's ironic that Gordon Smith is currently running an ad that highlights his bipartisan cred (and which fades to a green, gorgeous Oregon forest). And yet here, once again, we have an example of an opportunity missed, when Smith fails to step up and lead and sides with George Bush and Senate conservatives. He is not a bold, bipartisan leader willing to take uncomfortable positions for his constituents. Like the debate on global warming, the maverick Smith is a rhetorical misdirection, a fact-free version of our senator designed to distract attention from the real one.
(Incidentally, what do you think of my new, crude graphic? Too obvious?)
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jun 3, '08
Don't you just LOVE how Charles Pope and Scott Learn of The Oregonian called him "moderate" in their article today.
gag me
11:57 a.m.
Jun 3, '08
Uggghhhhh.... They actually ditched that formulation about a year ago. Guess we need to go back to square one, now that there are new reporters in the mix. Read "Not a maverick, not a moderate" by Russell Sadler.
Jun 3, '08
So 31,000 respected and knowlegable Scientists sign a letter verifying that there is NO proof Humans are causing this climate change. We have had many changes before Humans.
Yet you guys beleive a V.P. who did nothing about it for 8 years while holding the #2 position in America and is NOT a scientist and you trust Hollywood Actors who are H.S. dropouts instead?
Meanwhile the D's running Congress are already hurting the working people with $4/gal. gas based on unproven theory. And the HUNGRY of the World are paying more for Corn & Rice becuase of Ethanol, while we get worse m.p.g.
I guess your Communist plans are working, make energy and health care unaffordable and the people will fall for "free" stuff from the D's and forget that nothing is free, somebody has to pay.
12:14 p.m.
Jun 3, '08
So 31,000 respected and knowlegable Scientists sign a letter verifying that there is NO proof Humans are causing this climate change.
Totally bogus.
Jun 3, '08
On one hand, I figure Smith might vote for this bill with a wink and a nod towards his oil and coal company campaign contributors, knowing the Senate won't likely get 60 votes to override a Bush veto. Under this scenario, Smith could have it both ways ways - he casts the vote that makes him look good in Oregon, but it doesn't have any meaning for the industry interests he really represents since it won't go into law.
But then again, the stakes are high enough that the industry might not let him get away with a vote against their interests and a wink and a nod this time. Oil, coal, timber, and industrial agriculture all strongly oppose the actions in Lieberman-Warner, not to mention Barbara Boxer's substitute amendments. With the next president likely to enact climate change policy, they are probably freaking out about even losing Smith on a symbolic vote.
Will Smith have the cajones to even give a floor speech during this debate, or will he duck and cover? Will he continue to be mealy-mouthed and noncommittal on one of the most important policy debates of our time, or will he take a clear position? Will he go along with the Republican strategy of unlimited debate (while never getting to a vote), or will he support an and to the debate after a reasonable time so voting can begin? How will he vote on amendments to encourage nuclear energy, or to make the bill stronger than it currently is?
Smith will have a lot of chances to show his true colors in the coming days and weeks and it will be fun to watch him squirm and twist himself into knots.
Smith avoiding facts and science? That's just par for the course.
Jun 3, '08
Kari, I sent an email to those "reporters" asking for facts, links, information to support their contention that Smith is a moderate. Think I'll get a reply? We have so much work to do on our side. Establish think tanks and more. But getting the media to stop lying to us should be job #1. I was quite nice in my email....didn't even mention little Scottie McClellan and his "revelations" that the media are a bunch of scribes.
4:23 p.m.
Jun 3, '08
Various studies have tried to place a figure on them, but suffice it to say that thanks to water shortages, worsening wildfires, erosion damage, increased weather severity, food production costs, and increased health costs (to name a few), we stand to loose trillions by not acting.
I'm worried about food production costs--witness the rice shortage and price increases, which have been partly caused by droughts caused by global warming--but am also worried about drastic shortages of food caused and even famine by rapid warming that causes food-producing plants to become confused about when to flower.
4:28 p.m.
Jun 3, '08
OK, that comment doesn't make much grammatical sense, but I hope you know what I meant to say.
8:31 p.m.
Jun 3, '08
I know exactly what you are saying--and that's the reference I was making, too.
Jun 4, '08
The Senate "debate" was unbelievable. I was especially 'touched' by the Republican's concern for low-income citizens. Sheesh!
Jun 5, '08
Hey Jeff - Where is all this cataclysmic climate stuff happening? The weather has always been unpredictable. We've always had droughts and floods, always had tornadoes and hurricanes. Where are the facts that prove human emissions are causing an increase in severity? The answer - there are none. You're guilty of spreading propaganda to drive a liberal, socialist agenda that will produce an immense growth in government, cause serious damage to the US economy and produce absolutely no environmental benefit. The facts show global temperatures declined in May and have shown essentially NO net change in the past 30 years! Why do you deny this FACT and insist that climate armageddon is approaching?