The world needs to prepare for a climate sceptic defeating Obama

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/sep/08/rick-perry-climate-change-sceptic

A year or so ago, the very idea that the most powerful person on the planet could, within just a couple of years, be someone who refuses to accept the science that underpins our knowledge of anthropogenic climate change was almost laughable.

Sarah Palin – who is no stranger to climate scepticism - has long been on people's lips as a future candidate for the US presidency. But most analysts thought that Barack Obama would likely see off any challenge from any Republican who flirted with the extremes of the Tea Party movement and its anti-science agenda. And that was before Obama received a political fillip after green-lighting the assassination of Osama bin Laden in May.

But everything has changed now. The US economy continues to wade through treacle and, as a result, there seems to be growing talk that Obama is destined to be a one-term president. And currently leading the polls as his most likely Republican successor is Rick Perry, the governor of Texas.

Last night, during the first of three televised debates between the current nominees for the Republican presidential candidacy (Palin continues to play her strategic game of "let 'em brew"), we got to see in high definition what it might be like to have a full-blown climate sceptic as US president. Here's the exchange between the moderator, John Harris, editor in chief of Politico, and Rick Perry on the issue of climate change:

[MisterP]

1. yeah, we might get a President who sits on his thumb on global warming,

gives the bird to the Clean Air Act, and approves the Tar Sands Pipeline across the Oglalla Aquifer

[Nihil]

5. It had to be said. (n/t)

:-(

[hatrack]

2. The world also needs to prepare for both President (R) and President (D) doing nothing

I hate to say it, but does anybody really think any politician, facing the choice between discussing an unpleasant and inescapable truth with voters/constituents/business interests, and presenting a rosy illusion to voters/constituents/business interests is going to do anything but the latter?

We're not talking even about the conventional "worst-case" scenarios, like defeat in battle, economic failure or criminality in high places being revealed. We're talking about really bad news, and dilemmas without answers, not "problems" awaiting "solutions".

Sadly, that's how the whole shebang is set up, given the negative sanctions which apply to bearers of bad news, and the infinite human capacity for denial.

[n2doc]

3. The main thing I see is the US ceding scientific leadership on the issue

Because we aren't leading on other fronts already, and that isn't going to change. But Perry will kill the research.

[jimlup]

4. Yes but what can we really do other than work to stop that from happening?

I mean I guess we'll be having to put our bodies on the line to block pipelines.

Honestly if Perry is elected - the only option I could see would be massive peaceful civil disobedience against the carbon entry points into the economy. The stakes are high indeed.