Do Voters Care About the Environment? - Panel Discussion
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2008/08/25/The_New_Republic_The_Politics_of_Green
Third Way Vice President Mark Bennett and Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope debate Americans’ willingness to make economic sacrifices for climate change. This excerpt is taken from a panel discussion entitled “The Politics of Green,” recorded at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
FORA.tv coverage of the DNC: http://fora.tv/topic/democratic_convention
The New Republic on FORA.tv: http://fora.tv/partner/new_republic
—–
In conjunction with the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, The New Republic hosted a panel discussion on environmental issues featuring leaders in Congress and from NGOs who talked about the energy and environmental policy of the next administration.
Before co-founding Third Way, Mr. Bennett was Director of Communications for the Clark for President Campaign, where he served as the campaign’s principal spokesman and managed the press, speechwriting, research and rapid response operations. Mr. Bennett was Director of Communications and Public Affairs at Americans for Gun Safety for three years. He went to AGS after serving for the entire second Clinton term in the White House, where he was Deputy Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs, the leading White House liaison to the nation’s governors. Before that, Mr. Bennett was Trip Director and Assistant Counsel to the Vice President, where he traveled with Vice President Gore and managed the traveling staff. Mr. Bennett has served in various capacities on the Dukakis, Clinton ‘92 and Clinton ‘96 campaigns.
Carl Pope is the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, an American environmental organization founded by conservationist pioneer John Muir in 1892. Pope was appointed to his position as Executive Director in 1992, the club’s centennial.
Duration : 0:3:39
(4 out of 5)
Familiar with …
Familiar with hunting at all? When one species, rabbits for instance, over populate, inevitably a disease sweeps through bringing their numbers back into equilibrium. Bird flu to thim the 2 legged bunnies?
As for re-establishing balance, it is, I think, too late. The tundra is thawing as we speak. This is liberating massive amounts of methane. As that happens, global sea temps are rising, witness the destruction of the coral reefs. When rising sea temps liberate the methane hydrates……
If we were to …
If we were to disappear, the planet would go through utter turmoil trying to re-establish equilibrium. This chaos will be far worse if we do stay here but try to return things to how they used to be (it may even drive us to extinction if we do not settle on new planets) because essential components have been lost. Our only hope of salvaging this planet (while keeping it liveable for us too) is establishing a new dynamic equilibrium which suits us. what we don’t know now, we will learn in doing.
While this is …
While this is certainly true, we’ve already opened Pandora’s Box. There is no way that things would return to how they were 15,000 years ago were we to disappear. The problem is that global warming has already started (and will only accellerate, even without any more emmissions), the forests have already been logged , hundreds of speices which are essential to the ecosystem are already extinct or endangered and the crops, livestock, pets and vermin have already speciated off as dependants.
I can appreciate …
I can appreciate your zeal, this is what we so need! But the problem lies in our lack of understanding and lack of complete knowledge of all the components the make up the biosphere. Does anyone truly know what is the components that absolutely can never be touched? Bees are a prime example of one single component having a massive cascade effect. There are surely many more. I would say that before we attempt global bioegineering, we first gain full knowledge of what we are playing with.
Wouldn’t it be far …
Wouldn’t it be far better from our point of view (and a far more interesting and exciting project to be a part of) to invest in a long-term project of modifying the biosphere to our needs? it’d be more expensive, but far more beneficial in the long term and a far more exiting, interesting project to be a part of. After all, it’s nothing new; agriculture has been doing this for 10,000 years. We’d only be doing it bigger, smarter and better informed.
mm, yes, i’ve heard …
mm, yes, i’ve heard it said, although i’d argue it’s happened the other way around (i.e. life evolved to suit the conditions of this planet).
I’m an aspiring engineer, so i like to think of things like these as challenges, projects to embark on. people often talking about preserving mother nature first and then working around her. I think that we are looking at this the wrong way around.
(continued)
…
(continued)
Conservationism is a lost cause, we’ve changed things beyond repair, so let’s take this on as a project?
We can think of it as a sort of a proto-terraforming project, a work of planetary engineering. By structuring nature, genetically engineering some existing species, strategically placing forests, etc. we can build this planet to be whatever we want it to be, and then use it as a template for larger changes on planets like mars.
LOL, sorry if you …
LOL, sorry if you took it that way, but I can be a bit abrubt (I am doing several things at once of the computer)
Gaia is a concept that doesn’t neccessarily mean “Goddess”. It also can mean the sum of the biosphere in the slot of life sustaining parameters including but not limited to orbital track, mean planetary density, land to water surface ratio and so much more. It’s as if the planet WANTS life to be present, it just likes to change things up at times.
no need to get …
no need to get snippy.
look, i agree that we need to take action against climate change and to preserve our planet, but let’s stay pragmatic about this. threatening people with “Gaia” will only make you appear a nut, and weaken your position (as well as the fact that the universe is not a warm, nuturing mother, it’s very hostile to life, see Neil DeGrasse Tyson for more details on that). Let’s take a pragmatic approach and preserve what is worth saving for OUR good, not the earth’s.
Run away global …
Run away global warming, flood basalt otherwise known as ‘traps’, mega ice ages, possible irradiations from directed beam gamma ray irradiation from binary neutron star coalescence, asteroid impact, cometary impact, solar fluctuation, magnetoshere fluctuation, climate upset due to continental drift. The list of suspects is very long and growing. I was just being a bit terse.
Still, Gaia persists, and so does life. Will we?
actually, there …
actually, there have been many more mass extinctions than that, and it was not “Gaia”, it was meteorite bombardment.
Just remember this, …
Just remember this, Gaia can shrug us off like so many fleas and start all over again. She’s done it more than twice before and she can do it again. Don’t tempt her.
Couldn’t they have …
Couldn’t they have sat the pannelists any closer? lol
lol, I think what …
lol, I think what most people don’t get, is that if the environment really is in danger the economy and the people are both irrelevant. Life threatening problems are not something that you debate in a committee, you adapt in accordance with the natural order or you face imminent extinction.