Alabama's future

Alabama’s future Fair Use

It’s good to know that down in Montgomery, the first capital of the Confederacy, they’re still resisting Northern Aggression. “We will not stand for what they are doing to our way of life in Alabama,” declared Twinkle Cavanaugh, president of the Alabama Public Service Commission, on Monday. “”We will take our fight to the EPA.”

Chimed in Commissioner-elect Chip Beeker, “Who has the right to take what God’s given a state?”

In case you haven’t figured it out, what has gotten the PSC to fussing is the federal effort to emancipate America from coal, specifically via President Obama’s proclamation of a 30 percent reduction of carbon emissions from power plants by 2030. Some would say this is too little too late, but in Alabama coal has been a way of life ever since 1815, when soldiers coming back from the Battle of New Orleans found the black stuff alongside rivers in the middle of the state.

Some would also say that Alabama’s way of life is less threatened by the loss of coal jobs and a hike in electricity rates coming from the North than by coal-fired climate change coming from the South. Two months ago, in an article titled “Alabama’s Climate Change Deniers Refuse to Save the State,” Bloomberg Businessweek published the above representation of what the state will look like if present weather trends continue–and yes, it looks like the first capital of the Confederacy will be under water.

But not to worry. the state’s official climatologist, John Christy of the U. of A. at Huntsville, says it ain’t gonna happen.

And just in case, the PSC is doing what it can to make sure God is on its side. Miss Twinkle, who invited her favorite preacher to give the invocation at a PSC meeting on power rates a year ago (he denounced same-sex marriage), expressed the hope that “all the citizens of Alabama will be in prayer that the right thing will be done.”

Amen.

Categories: Politics

Tags:

Mark Silk

Mark Silk

Mark Silk is Professor of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College and director of the college's Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life. He is a Contributing Editor of the Religion News Service

18 Comments

  1. I think it hilarious that you include “(denounced same sex marriage)” in an article you write about energy and “climate change”.

    Do you do the obligatory google on gay marriage positions of every person you write about, regardless of the subject? I bet you do. As if this issue was the most important on the planet.

    Your a smear operator. And your inclusion of this just as a side item, left field, totally unrelated to the topic at hand….fragment infobit….is an attempt to find fault. As long as you get the bulk of your morality for media, which I am sure you do, you can feel “safe” that it will work.

    Congrats. You are a follower. A rehasher of media entertainment as morality.

    • samuel Johnston

      @ L.N.
      Twinkle Cavanaugh, (much like Sarah Palin) invites ridicule because of her ignorant statements (“We will not stand for what they are doing to our way of life in Alabama).
      One assumes that “our way of life in Alabama” includes the “sacred right” of burning coal, regardless of the consequences?
      And your inclusion of this just as a side item, left field…”
      Gee, I would have guessed “right field”, but I agree that it was guilt by association.
      You would never do that -right? “As long as you get the bulk of your morality for (from) media, which I am sure you do….”

  2. Chaplain Martin

    Mark would it help you to know that the Alabama Sierra Club and other Alabama organizations are fighting for cleaner energy? Of course throwing comments about the preacher doing an invocation which included a comment to God about gay marriage will ensure that this article turns into rants about religion. Taking pot shots at the religiously impaired will do nothing for our quest in Sierra Alabama to fight the coal lobby.

    • In fact, your Sierra Club global-warming religion is a dubious “quest” anyway, regardless of any coal lobby. Scientists are well aware that one-sidedness is the defining feature of the global-warming religion.

      “Policymakers need to be aware of the full range of scientific views, especially when it appears that one-sided-science is the basis for promoting significant increases to the cost of energy for the citizens.” — John H. Christy, Alabama Office of State Climatology.

      More facts, more information, can be found at:
      http://nsstc.uah.edu/aosc/docs/ChristyJR_SenateEPW_120801.pdf

      • Chaplain Martin

        Doc,
        Thank you for proving the point I made to Mark. The Sierra Club cannot be a religion because it is not a 501c(3) organization. None of the “tithes” given to it are tax deductible.

      • Nanabedokw'môlsem

        97+% of climate scientists agree that climate warming is real and a danger.

        My friends who live in Arctic Alaska can confirm that the north pole frozen sea is much less so than in the past, with some areas not seeing ice any time in the year. At least a significant part of the ballyhoo’ed expanded ice in the Antarctic area is due to glaciers sloughing into the sea much more than in the past, a process than once begun will not stop.

        Better we lose some jobs in the coal industry, than that the Gulf states loose much of their territory to rising seas. Where I now live at 1200 feet above sea level, I will get to be an interested observer, waiting for dawn to break on marble heads.

  3. samuel Johnston

    So what’s not to like about the new map? Montgomery and all the South Alabama blowhards will be underwater, and my drive to the beach from Hoover will be very short!
    All you smart ass yankees just stay away and let Darwinism solve the problem.

    • samuel Johnston

      It is easy to forget that adaptation is the exception (those who survive), not the rule ( the majority perish). I know of nothing exceptional about those Lower Alabamians in question, except their extreme lack of adaptability! Me, I will consider your suggestion!
      (FWIW my relative, General Joseph Johnston, thought Jefferson Davis a fool,
      and turned down the job that Robert E. Lee accepted. Everybody down here claims a famous relative. That is the game that feeds their ego.)

  4. Thanks for ones marvelous posting! I seriously enjoyed reading it, you may be
    a great author. I will make certain to bookmark your blog and
    will eventually come back down the road.
    I want to encourage one to continue your great posts,
    have a nice weekend!

  5. Leaving the ‘heated’ rhetoric aside, the map of lower Alabama is highly speculative at best, and what about Mississippi, Georgia, and the Florida panhandle? Don’t tell me the waters of the Gulf will respect the borders of these states while inundating Alabama. The map seems as accurate as any speculative claims or models which ‘represent’ what the future holds with respect to climate change. We’ll know when it gets here.

  6. Raymond Takashi Swenson

    Global average temperatures stopped rising 16 years ago. All the computer models that the UN IPCC relies on are getting more and more out of sync with reality, even as China and India pump more and more CO2 into the air from new coal-fired power plants and new cars driven by their prospering populations. How much discrepancy does it take before climate alarmists admit that they don’t know the hell what they missed in their climate programs? They don’t have any idea why nature is not cooperating with their software.

    If they cannot predict 15 years ahead, why should we believe they can predict 100 years ahead? Why should we make drastic changes in our economy, and penalize the use of energy that heats and cools our homes, runs our lights and computers, transports us and powers the companies that employ us?

    If you quantify the actual CO2 reductions that were supposed to be made by Obama’s program of wind farms and solar energy, and now blocking use of coal, they will not even cause a 10% reduction in CO2 in the US. To reduce NEW CO2 production by 50% would impoverish us. And it would STILL not reduce the total CO2 in the atmosphere, because it stays there for years, AND China and India are taking up the slack for ANY possible reduction the US makes by increasing their emissions. On a pure quantity of CO2 basis, nothing short of wiping the US off the map would have even a short term effect on CO2 levels.

    The people who want to make CO2 the measure of all virtue are intent on government controlling energy use, rationing something that is naturally in abundance in order to control every aspect of our lives. Global Warming is the ultimate sopcialist fantasy, because it will always be a threat that justifies anything the government wants to do. It has replaced the perpetual wars of 1984 with a perpetual war that can never be won, because it is not a real war.

    If earth’s temperature actually rises to threatening levels, we already know how to reduce the heat: You emit sulfuric acid aerosols into the stratosphere, just like when a large volcanic explosion does it and reduces global temps by 1 degree for a year. The cost of that intervention could be paid by a 1 cent per gallon gasoline tax hike. But that day is nowhere on the horizon. In the meantime, with every decade we develop more science and technology and the ability to know what we are doing with the climate a lot more accurately, and develop even more options for climate control that don’t require economic suicide. In the meantime, more CO2 means more plant growth, healthier crops and healthier forests. CO2 is the basis of all life on earth, just as much as water.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.