Marketplace

Search

The race is on

This week, Marketplace is taking a special look at the issues surrounding climate change. Whatever your beliefs about that issue, I think you’ll find the project thought-provoking and informative.

Our executive producer JJ Yore puts it this way:

Science is telling us what’s necessary. Politics is figuring out what’s possible.

In other words, the climate race is on — and whether we, as a nation, as a global civilization, win or lose is still very much in play.

At The Climate Race homepage, you’ll find interactive maps, slideshows, stories, interviews and resources about the challenges the planet faces.

Tonight on Marketplace, a look at what governments and businesses are doing to adapt to changes in the environment. Yesterday, lead reporters Sam Eaton and Sarah Gardner told the story of the battle over coal and wind power in West Virginia. I’m sure a few people probably drove off the road when they heard the CEO of the coal company, Massey Energy, say this:

DON BLANKENSHIP: There is no global warming. We went through the population fear. We went through the killer bee fear. It’s just the next phase — it will go away.

SAM: And if it doesn’t, and if legislation passes and coal emissions are taxed and regulated, what then?

BLANKENSHIP: Teach your children to speak Chinese, because if we’re going to play around with windmills and solar panels, we’ll fall behind.

One commenter responded to Blankenship’s remarks this way:

He is so near sighted, does not know China has developed a mess of Solar/wind power stations, and use cars burning nature gas. In some areas, China is much more developed than US. China’s high speed train system is the most advanced in the world.

One advocate for wind power in West Virginia is Judy Bonds. She’s a coal miner’s daughter who’s now pushing for wind:

BONDS: Listen, they’re saying coal is West Virginia’s economy, it’s our prosperity. Well, excuse me, where is the prosperity? We’ve been mining coal for over 110 years and we’re the poorest state in the nation.

But geophysicist Klaus Lackner points out the major obstacle to the alternative energy movement:

KLAUS LACKNER: The giant pool of fossil carbon we still have is 90 percent or more of what we started with. We have just scratched the surface of that. And this will not end in our lifetimes or our children’s lifetimes. So as a result, it sits there and it says, We’re cheap, we’re easy, and just use it up.

Check out the project. Share your thoughts here if you’d like.

Bookmark and Share

Comments (9)

Anonymous | Respond
October 30, 2009 1:11 PM PT

Blankenship and James Hansen (the “father of global warming”) were scheduled to debate global warming in a public forum back in June. Hansen backed out the day before.

And I guarantee you Blankenship knows of China’s solar/wind/etc., but he also knows that China burns about 3 times more coal than the US.

troy whitney: responding to Anonymous | Respond
October 31, 2009 9:37 AM PT

Think there’s a reason why the global warming skeptics nearly all work for the fossil fuel industry in one way or another?

At this point, there are no legitimate, scientifically accepted challenges to the theory that humans are warming the planet

I don’t care if someone backed out of a debate with some coal industry guy, it doesn’t mean anything. The science is there, and it’s irrefutable.

The amazing thing is that it’s recognized that NYC may have to build, at some point, a sea wall costing hundreds of billions of dollars. That’s just one city. How much could we do to change our energy useage for hundreds of billions of dollars? How many wind turbines and solar energy fields would that buy? It would buy a lot, and the more we do this, the more it will drive down the cost of this type of energy and reduce our dependence on dirty, dangerous fuels.

Anonymous: responding to troy whitney | Respond
October 31, 2009 10:06 AM PT

You are an excellent example of indoctrination.

Don Meinshausen | Respond
October 30, 2009 1:21 PM PT

“Science is telling us what’s necessary.” Oh, I’ve always thought that science is about telling what is (i.e. the truth). Who knows what is “necessary”? There is nothing objective about necessary. “Necessary” is not even obvious in hindsight.

Yellow pine needles in Montana prove global warming but a snowstorm in Denver in October doesn’t disprove? Both are infinitesimal events in climate history.

The economic/political destiny of the warming religion is to burn down my cabin because your (figurative) ivory tower is downwind and you can faintly whiff my chimney smoke. Then you can justify it because you are saving the planet. Environmental liberalism is pure misanthropy in sheep’s clothing.

Climates are fluid and dynamic. Climate is change, but the evil of hubris is constant. Fight global hubris! The chasms of totalitarian slavery or lawless anarchy are the destiny of hubris, the most mortal sin of civilization.

troy whitney: responding to Don Meinshausen | Respond
October 31, 2009 9:41 AM PT

You will change your views on this soon enough. The science is truely overwhelming. This doesn’t mean we won’t have any more snowstorms. Cold weather patterns will still happen on a local level, we’re talking about trends. How can you drastically increase ambient greenhouse gas levels and not increase the warmth of the planet over time? It’s just silly the arguments you “skeptics” come up with.

JPM: responding to troy whitney | Respond
November 2, 2009 5:39 AM PT

Yes, that’s why the buzz word was changed from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. The science is polluted.

Anonymous | Respond
October 30, 2009 1:22 PM PT

The best news I saw on climate change this week was that the International Telecommunications Union approved an energy-efficient one-charger-fits-all mobile phone standard that’s 3 times as energy efficient and has a smart standby mode.

This one innovation alone is estimated to reduce 13.6 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year just in the charger operation (not includling all the sales and distribution extra chargers that will be eliminated)

JPM: responding to Anonymous | Respond
November 2, 2009 5:42 AM PT

Unless that “one in all” charger doesn’t work well or breaks often, then it’s just a waste of resources. I guess competition would have played a role in that… Have you read “Atlas Shrugged”?

Jane B | Respond
October 30, 2009 3:36 PM PT

Anybody read Super Freakonomics yet? They have a theory that we’ve lost the battle to reduce carbon sufficient to impact global warming. Their numbers say the more efficient objective is global cooling. Made sense to me…more than cap and trade, anyway.

Post a comment

 


Comment preview will appear below.
If responding to another comment, your comment will appear below the original comment when it's published.

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>


American Public Media © |   Terms and Conditions   |   Privacy Policy