Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

Jessy Tolkan
Activist

Jessy Tolkan

Jessy Tolkan is the executive director of Energy Action Coalition, a leading voice among the youth climate movement. ALL POSTS

Only science-driven solutions can secure our future

Sometimes it is difficult to conceptualize that our actions now can have disastrous implications in the future, but even when the direct consequences to our behavior aren't there in our faces we can't disregard what science tells us is happening. It is the inherent, definitive factor in climate and energy issues. Unfortunately, the efforts of climate deniers to distract the media have worked, because otherwise responsible journalists continue to feel the need to present "two sides" of a "debate" that most people consider to be scientific fact. In Copenhagen, when we should have been signing a treaty to secure a bold new commitment to our future, the American people were subjected to dialogue that took us back a decade while the rest of the world looked on, befuddled. Sadly, we can't get that opportunity back, but we can decide to stay focused on reality going forward.

The reality is that we can do a lot of things - end our dependence on foreign oil, reinvest the war dollars saved in the clean energy economy, create millions of green jobs, remove countless coal plants from communities suffering health problems as the result of environmental injustice - but if our timeline and targets don't match scientific fact, we will fail. Disregarding science means disregarding the millions of people whose homes will be underwater when we experience record sea level rise, the millions of people left hungry when the record droughts set in, or the unconscionable number of young people who will inherit additional catastrophes we could have avoided.

The time is now, because only science-driven solutions can secure our future.

By Jessy Tolkan  |  January 7, 2010; 6:55 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg     Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Sooner than you think | Next: Responding to future impacts

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



Look, I am wary of a "professional activist" attempting to instruct "the youth" of what science-driven solutions, to use her terminology, actually exist.

This Tolkan character has a BA in political science from University of Wisconsin-Madison.
She knows about as much about science as a random person on the street. Perhaps less, if she has dined on an information diet of other ill-informed activists.
Amusingly, her Dad is a planet-destroyer and her upkeep until recently came from evil carbon users buying cars at the Tolkan GM car dealership. Then the family business was forced closed by the GM bailout, with equal credit to GM for messing up and the Obamites which young Jessy is a devoted follower of, for throwing the dealerships over a cliff.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | January 11, 2010 12:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The
global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the
millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” -
Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government
control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the
Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.


“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.


Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

U. S. Senate Minority Report


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

Posted by: AJAX2 | January 10, 2010 3:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"science" tells us we are having the coldest weather in decades. That's what science is telling us. Now you can go back to reading your tea leaves.

Posted by: chatard | January 9, 2010 11:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

First, I totally agree with the premise that we need to take early and decisive action to curb emissions, across the energy-consumption spectrum. It makes good economic sense (let's develop alternative clean energy sources before we have a fuels shortage or climate crisis). However, I disagree that "ending our dependence on foreign oil" is a necessary or even prudent part of that. Let's think strategically - while we should CUT our overall dependence on fossil fuels, and seek economical alternatives, we should preserve and stockpile domestic energy reserves as part of our approach - when the time comes that global supplies dwindle, the more we have preserved here in the US, the less impact the global shortage will have on us because we will be able to draw from domestic sources (which I suspect will be nationalized and not allowed to be sold on the global market).

Second, I would suggest we let science be science and not exasperate the scientific community into becoming pseudo-politicians. If we are so quick to believe so many other scientific "conclusions" about the universe (which we rightly have for centuries), why do we distrust climate science so much? In part because the science has become mired in politics and the blend line between science and alarmist propaganda (from nay-saying politicians) has corrupted the scientific aspects of it. We trust rigorous science, however that trust has been weakened by scientists posing as politicians, and worse yet politicians who'd be lucky to explain simple physics posing as authorities on science.

Finally, the price we must pay today to get on a fast track to curbing emissions (and maybe even remediating some of the damage) will be small compared to the cost of dealing with the long-term consequences, both in terms of money and human suffering. Most likely we will not be able to reverse the damage, only deal with the consequences.

Duh...

Posted by: mblace | January 9, 2010 10:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"environment injustice"

LOL

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | January 9, 2010 7:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment


 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company