About “Climate Hawks”

I love a lot of what Dave Roberts has to say, but this seems… well, stupid.

1. Every time someone goes about trying to “rebrand” the problem, the denialosphere and Republican right (that’s a Venn diagram that’s closely approximating a single circle if there ever was one) rant and jeer about how it’s just underhanded tactics to fool the gullible public.

2. If I wanted to pick a name for group that was justifiably viewed as all bluster with no supporting evidence, given the political events of 2001-to-present, would I have any other option but to choose “Hawks”?

“Hawks” on both sides of the aisle sent American and allied soldiers to die over non-existent WMD “evidence”. Deficit (and Fiscal) Hawks are routinely shown to be shrieking hypocrites who refuse to go after things like military spending, while opposing deficit reducing measures like Health Care reform, all the while funneling pork back home and promoting tax cuts for the super-rich. [edited to add] Not to mention their ceaseless cries of “Wolf!” They promoted fiscal austerity in the face of a liquidity trap, FFS!

Was there no more discredited a label that Dave could come up with? I mean, really. Why not Climate LaRouchite?

[edited to add:]

Although I read the article from Dave on my own, h/t to Keith Kloor whose post motivated me to actually comment.


10 responses to “About “Climate Hawks”

  1. Christ, and as if on queue Watts publishes think tank nonsense proving your #1!

  2. I agree that the military conotation of the word ‘hawk’ is problematic. That said, I do think there are things to recommend it. It is concise and comprehensible. It doesn’t seem too closely tied to any particular political philosophy. Just as somebody almost anywhere on the political spectrum can be a ‘deficit hawk’, it should be possible to be a serious supporter of action on climate change regardless of your other political beliefs. Finally, I think it could be useful that the term ‘hawk’ is normally applied to people who you wouldn’t think of as natural environmentalists. We need to be making the point that dealing with climate change is of interest to everybody; it is as much of an issue for someone concerned about the geopolitical stability of Southeast Asia as it is for someone who wants to preserve the beauty and biodiversity of Canada’s boreal forest.

  3. Re point #1, rebranding:

    Absolutely. And this comes when they haven’t even finished hyperventilating over “climate disruption.” What were these people thinking?

    Trying to rebrand anything to do with climate is a terrible idea. No matter how accurate it is, and how much better than the original label, it won’t work, and it’s just cannon fodder.

  4. Pingback: My first and last ?climate hawk? follow-up « Political News Online

  5. Pingback: Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Hens | The Way Things Break

  6. Pingback: Hurricane Sandy and the Climate Hens | Planet3.0

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s