The new Green McCarthyism (Joey Romm)
Eric Gisin
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001203-hyper-partisans-green-politics-battlefield [original]
Posted: November 19, 2009, 5:00 PM by NP Editor
Full Comment, Kelly McParland
The always intriguing website Newgeography.com has an article arguing that "hyperpartisans on the
green politics battlefield" are making it impossible to have a sensible debate.
Suggesting the issue has become so divisive that merely questioning politically-acceptable beliefs
is sufficient to attract demonization, the authors argue there is a new McCarthyism developing, in
which climate change "deniers" are dismissed out of hand as know-nothing right-wing extremists,
which conveniently excuses any serious discussion of their views.
Here's a taste:
If you want to understand how it is that the debate over - for example - global warming policies
became so shrill, consider the recent pattern of behavior by the country's second-most read climate
blogger, Joe Romm. We will argue - against those who pooh-pooh his influence - that Joe Romm is, in
fact, far more influential today than Joe McCarthy was in the 1950s, a fact that, unfortunately,
has proven poisonous to creating the consensus needed for serious action on climate.
...
Much has been written about the ideological echo chamber conservatives like Sen. James Inhofe, Rush
Limbaugh, and Glen Beck have created to enforce anti-environmental orthodoxy on the Right. Less
remarked upon has been the creation of its analog on the Left - an accomplishment in which Romm has
taken a leading role. Romm has mastered the echo chamber in its liberal expression and creates a
reassuring green womb for his growing cadre of loyal readers.
Most importantly Romm functions to inform his readers of the partisan identity of any given thing,
whether it be a new technology, policy, or analysis. Thus, when it came time for Romm to criticize
a rather technical piece on the rising carbon intensity of the global economy that appeared in the
journal Nature he attacked it not as inaccurate or incorrect, but rather as Republican:
It will be no surprise to learn the central point of their essay, ironically titled "Dangerous
Assumptions" is "Enormous advances in energy technology will be needed to stabilize atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentrations at acceptable levels," which is otherwise known as the technology
trap or the standard "Technology, technology, blah, blah, blah" delayer message developed by Frank
Luntz and perfected by Bush/Lomborg/Gingrich.
In other words, the Nature article was not what it claimed to be. It wasn't an analysis suggesting
that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change should revisit its assumptions
about decarbonization. It wasn't an argument for stronger technology policies. No, it was a devious
Republican message - one designed by Republican pollster Frank Luntz during the Bush years - to
delay action.
People are always screaming "McCarthyism" when they can't find anyone to listen to their views, but
in this case the accusation may hold more water than most. Read the rest of the article here.
National Post