Rick Snyder calls on environmentalists, skeptics to find common ground
Gov. Rick Snyder, speaking to a room full of “green chemistry” experts in Ann Arbor today, called on supporters of environmentally friendly technologies to stop arguing with opponents and start educating.
“The call to action I give you, in addition to all the hard work you’re already doing, is to find that common ground, to sit down and find a common illustration that you can explain to them why there are no losers with green chemistry,” Snyder said.
Gov. Rick Snyder, shown here discussing his road improvement policies Wednesday in Southfield, addressed "green chemistry" issues this morning in Ann Arbor.
Associated Press
Snyder, a first-term Republican and former member of the Nature Conservancy’s Michigan Board of Trustees, exhorted the crowd not to fight with people who are skeptical of green technologies.
“All of you believe in green chemistry, I believe in green chemistry, it’s a wonderful thing,” he said. “The world out there doesn’t fully agree with that. There are people out there that are challenged when they hear the terms. It’s largely one of additional education. It’s not about arguing with them about why they’re different.”
In a brief interview after the event, Snyder declined to address the partisan divide between conservatives and liberals on environmental issues. But he said it’s natural for people to “resist the concept of change" until they understand issues thoroughly.
Asked whether he believes that people are causing climate change, he said: “I’m reinventing Michigan, so I just stay focused on a lot of key issues right in front of us, but climate change is an issue we need to be concerned about.”
Snyder’s address came a day after the former Ann Arbor venture capitalist unveiled a broad range of proposals for reconfiguring how the state funds road construction and infrastructure projects.
Snyder today said that road agencies should consider replacing steel rods with carbon fiber rope in bridge construction projects. He said carbon fiber rope, which is more durable and expensive than concrete reinforced by steel, could remove the need to construct 8- to 9-inch concrete bridge decks.
“Although it costs more, it never rusts, it'stronger than steel and will last for many more years,” Snyder said today. “It costs more Day One, but 10 years later you don’t need to do that replacement. The context we talk about is saving money for a bridge, but it’s green chemistry to create more sustainability.”
At U-M, which hosted the event at the former 174-acre former Pfizer site it bought two years ago, students are extremely interested in energy technologies and environmentally friendly issues, said U-M President Mary Sue Coleman.
“When I meet with my fellow university presidents, I’m constantly struck by how many report that today’s students are totally captivated by creating a sustainable planet. It’s an enthusiasm and urgency that I haven’t seen since” the space race, Coleman said.
Coleman described U-M as “a powerful arsenal for confronting climate change.”
“This is not about the survivability of one country but of the entire globe,” she said.
Contact AnnArbor.com's Nathan Bomey at (734) 623-2587 or nathanbomey@annarbor.com. You can also follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's newsletters.
Comments
omniskeptic
Fri, Oct 28, 2011 : 10:33 p.m.
People who can actually read and understand science coming together with those who won't? Um, as the old catch phrase goes, I decline to join your collective hallucination.
Mick52
Fri, Oct 28, 2011 : 4:19 p.m.
My opposition to green industry is its viability. For example I do not want the government investing in companies due to a wish. Solyndra is an example. If a company cannot draw private investors, that is a clue. That means people looking for successful business to invest in are not satisfied this industry will be profitable. I do not however oppose the govt giving grants to universities for research, just not to businesses that may fail. The loan to Fisker at least was a loan, but if Fisker fails I doubt we will get those tax dollars back. I am not sold on electric cars, they are too expensive and just not as reliable as gas run cars. Also forcing auto manufacturers to continually producing fuel efficient vehicles runs up the price of the autos. Fuel efficient vehicles create unintended consequences, one being a huge reduction in gas taxes that are used to improve roads. That is causing grief for many states, some of which are thinking of dropping gas tax for a mileage tax, applied to how many miles you drive: <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/04/nation/na-gas-tax4" rel='nofollow'>http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/04/nation/na-gas-tax4</a> If the govt wants people to drive less to lower carbon emissions and push people to alternate transportation like walking, biking and mass transit, they should spike gas taxes. That makes people healthier too, lowers the cost of health care. It works, that is what they do in Europe. Putting the solution on business without putting some on people makes no sense.
G. Orwell
Fri, Oct 28, 2011 : 1:50 p.m.
@David You are asking the wrong question. Since warmists are claiming CO2 is destroying the earth, you should be asking, how is CO2 destroying mother earth? We, the deniers that can think for our selves and not get into group think, never said higher levels of CO2 is good for the planet. Although there is significant evidence that higher levels of CO2 are very beneficial to plants. They grow much faster in high CO2 environments. What we, deniers, have been saying, along with tens of thousands of scientists, is that CO2 does not cause global warming and it is not detrimental to our planet. David, please tell us how CO2 is destroying the earth. And don't tell us the earth is warming since Phil Jones admitted that global temperatures peaked in 1998. He is the same scientist from East Anglia University that was caught manipulating global temperature data on behalf of the UN IPCC. In order to "hide the decline" in global temperatures. I don't know how much more obvious it has to be that this whole global warming fear mongering is to impose carbon taxes on every man, women and child on earth for breathing. I think breathing should be free.
RayA2
Sat, Oct 29, 2011 : 3:23 a.m.
G, tell you how CO2 is destroying the earth? Are you serious? The science has been explained so many times and in so many ways that I feel ridiculous repeating it, but for the sake that maybe there's one of you global warming deniers out there with even the smallest opening for the truth, here goes. Higher concentrations in the atmosphere of CO2 cause less of the sun's rays to refract back out into space. This is as indisputable a physical law as there is. When more of the sun's energy is trapped in the atmosphere, the earth's average temperature goes up. Evidence that that both CO2 levels and global average temperatures are increasing is also indisputable. There are parameters to this relationship that will speed up or slow down the rate of temperature increase in specific locations aound the planet. But only energy company sponsored research, in full denial of the facts, has suggested that global warming either is not happening or is not related to human activity.
David Briegel
Fri, Oct 28, 2011 : 4:28 a.m.
I just wish the deniers would clearly state how it is that more man made CO2 makes the world a better place.
Ron Granger
Fri, Oct 28, 2011 : 1:49 a.m.
If it's Rick Snyder, there must be some new tax on the working class in there somewhere.
Dcam
Fri, Oct 28, 2011 : 12:57 a.m.
If human activities are the primary cause of climate change to greenhouse conditions, does it then follow that had there been no human industrial gases and CO2 pollution we'd be heading into an ice age?
Jack Edwards
Thu, Oct 27, 2011 : 8:24 p.m.
The climate scientists ARE educating folks. Here is an example of what the real problem is: Anthony Watts (one the better known climate change skeptics) decided he liked the methodology that Professor Richard Muller (another skeptic) was using in the Berkeley Earth Project. Mr. Watts was very enthused about the Berkeley Earth Project. Like Watts; Professor Muller was tired of climate research being polluted by "political and activist frenzy". Frustrated by shoddy science Muller launched his own comprehensive study to set the record straight. Mr Watts had this to say: "And, I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I'm taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let's not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results. I haven't seen the global result, nobody has, not even the home team, but the method isn't the madness that we've seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren't any monetary strings attached to the result..." -- Anthony Watts <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/" rel='nofollow'>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/</a> This would measure the planet's temperature over the last few centuries. The Berkeley project would be a good refutation of the NOAA and NASA data on global warming. Good news, the results are in! The Berkeley project showed the same results as NASA and NOAA (<a href="http://berkeleyearth.org/)" rel='nofollow'>http://berkeleyearth.org/)</a> Of course now that results are in, Mr Watts has decided he DOES NOT like the methodology. "I consider the paper fatally flawed as it now stands, and thus I recommend it be removed from publication consideration by JGR until such time that it can be reworked." --- Anthony Watts That is a real world example of how the global climate change deniers approach science. Don't like what the data tells you, ignore the data. Don't like what the results the agreed upon methodology tells you; change
Enso
Thu, Oct 27, 2011 : 8:10 p.m.
How do you find common ground with people that deny reality?
RayA2
Fri, Oct 28, 2011 : 12:30 a.m.
Donbee, what could the mars ice caps possibly have to do with the human caused continuous increase in atmospheric CO2 that is so definitely causing this planet to warm? (and why did you have to repeat this irrelevant fact 3 times?)
DonBee
Thu, Oct 27, 2011 : 11:18 p.m.
Enso - Reality is the ice caps on Mars are shrinking at the same rate as those on Earth. But, many scientists discount that fact. Climate change is a reality, but the causes can be debated. The fact that we can do a better job taking care of our planet is not an issue, and most people are willing to take better care of the planet, if they are shown how.
DonBee
Thu, Oct 27, 2011 : 11:18 p.m.
Enso - Reality is the ice caps on Mars are shrinking at the same rate as those on Earth. But, many scientists discount that fact. Climate change is a reality, but the causes can be debated. The fact that we can do a better job taking care of our planet is not an issue, and most people are willing to take better care of the planet, if they are shown how.
DonBee
Thu, Oct 27, 2011 : 11:16 p.m.
Enso - Reality is the ice caps on Mars are shrinking at the same rate as those on Earth. But, many scientists discount that fact. Climate change is a reality, but the causes can be debated. The fact that we can do a better job taking care of our planet is not an issue, and most people are willing to take better care of the planet, if they are shown how.
Forever27
Thu, Oct 27, 2011 : 5:15 p.m.
It's hard to find common ground with someone who refuses to accept facts such as climate change. there is no common ground on that. Either you look at the research and accept what they have discovered, or you continue to dismiss any evidence that runs contrary to your preconceived opinion about partisan (in regards to climate policy) politics. This is akin to saying that those who claimed the Earth was round should have found common ground with flater-earth believers. there is no such common ground.
Mick52
Fri, Oct 28, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.
You know there are other areas other than climate change that can be on the table. Air pollution for one. I think no one denies too much carbon emissions causes air pollution. In 1977, I went to California to go to the Rose Bowl, and for the first time I saw that stuff I had been hearing about, "smog." Hovering over downtown LA was this orange haze. In some cities in India that are way overpopulated and the streets are clogged with vehicle traffic that is virtually uncontrolled, the air pollution is so bad people are seriously ill. The problem with climate change is there are equally qualified experts on both sides. One big blow was that scandal that arose a couple years ago that revealed some experts were misleading the public: <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/" rel='nofollow'>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/</a>
Ed Kimball
Fri, Oct 28, 2011 : 1:59 p.m.
Mr. Orwell, the "proof" is that energy at the wavelengths emitted by the sun pass through CO2 (and other gases) in the earth's atmosphere and reach the ground. There it is absorbed radiated back, but at longer wavelengths that are blocked by CO2 and thus stay in the atmosphere, warming it.
DonBee
Thu, Oct 27, 2011 : 11:13 p.m.
Forever27 - I find that if I frame the discussion in other reasons to change how we do things, that the issue of climate change never comes up, and people are very willing to look at alternate solutions. If you have a business case that purely relies on Climate Change - it is a loser to start with. Find the rest of the benefits in doing what needs to be done.
G. Orwell
Thu, Oct 27, 2011 : 5:42 p.m.
Where is the scientific proof that CO2 causes global warming? Please show me the evidence. Also, how do you explain past temperature and CO2 levels that were much higher than they are today and the fact that other planets in our solar system are going throughout the same warming and cooling as our earth? Could it a natural cyclical process? I'd say so.
lumberg48108
Thu, Oct 27, 2011 : 5:17 p.m.
as I wrote in a reply above - that is simply not the case of course climate change is real - the earth is constantly changing - warming and cooling over millions of years --- the question is - is man causing it? For every expert you can cite - others can cite the same amount on the other side - so the question is hardly settled the zealotry that man-made change proponents embrace hurt their cause more than anything and turn people off ... I no longer take Al Gore serious because to him, global warming in the ultimate elixer - blamed for everything good or bad. More hurricanes - global warming. Less hurricanes - global warming etc. My college professor decades ago told me one volanic explosion does more damage that we can in 100 years ... I read this recently ... changed my views a little <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/" rel='nofollow'>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/</a>
RayA2
Thu, Oct 27, 2011 : 4:15 p.m.
Is it just me or does anyone else pick up on the fact that Slick is telling environmentalists not to fight his republicon party's anti-environmental, anti-regulation agenda? The "green chemistry" Slick has in mind has everything to do with putting more green in the hands of his super rich real constituency, and nothing to with the environment.
Mick52
Fri, Oct 28, 2011 : 3:56 p.m.
All I can say is when you show no respect for a person, such as calling the governor "Slick," your comments are easily dismissed. I think it is perfectly acceptable to disagree, but using nicknames like that is juvenile and credibility suffers. Justify your second sentence. Do you have any evidence that the Governor is "putting more green in the hands of his super rich constituency?" I would think any environmentalist would be relieved the Governor does not completely reject the green industry and suggests cooperation.
alterego
Fri, Oct 28, 2011 : 2:19 a.m.
It seems to me that the super rich tend to have lots of money to pay for these things. Why shouldn't they see a return on their investment?
Mike K
Thu, Oct 27, 2011 : 3:46 p.m.
Kudos to Governor Snyder? We'll see what the liberals have to say about it. I'm sure they will find fault somewhere. Either that or deflect.
RayA2
Fri, Oct 28, 2011 : 2:32 a.m.
Mike, what's awesome? Thanks for repeating my statements you flatterer. The faux condesencion was a little heavy though, you might want to go a little lighter on that. I know that faux noise teaches otherwise, but why not try challenging the facts if you really want someone to take you seriously?
Mike K
Thu, Oct 27, 2011 : 4:51 p.m.
That's awesome. I don't know if man has changed the climate. Most say we have. It appears Ray uncovered a more sinister plot though, "Is it just me or does anyone else pick up on the fact that Slick is telling environmentalists not to fight his republicon party's anti-environmental, anti-regulation agenda? The "green chemistry" Slick has in mind has everything to do with putting more green in the hands of his super rich real constituency, and nothing to with the environment." And evidently many agree.
ex734
Thu, Oct 27, 2011 : 4:21 p.m.
I'm a liberal and I think this is a step in the right direction. What say you? Do you believe in man made climate change?
KJMClark
Thu, Oct 27, 2011 : 3:13 p.m.
And Richard Muller, Physicist at UC Berkeley, head of the BEST project to evaluate climate research, and a former prominent climate change skeptic, has now concluded that climate change is real. That question seems to be settled. Kudos to Gov. Snyder for at least acknowledging that it's a problem. Double kudos to President Coleman for recognizing that UM has a role to play. Now, about all those single-occupant commutes and parking lots...
G. Orwell
Fri, Oct 28, 2011 : 2:04 p.m.
I apologize if I misspoke. Obviously, I meant emissions since 2/3 of the CO2 in our atmosphere is naturally occurring. However, reducing CO2 emissions to ZERO means, no manufacturing, no cars, no heat for you homes, etc. He wants us living in huts and walking everywhere. That is what it comes down to. While he and his elitist friends (Maurice Strong, Rockefellers, Al Gore, Prince Charles, etc.) own numerous mansions, yachts, planes, etc. Why don't they lead by example and donate all their wealth to Africa to end starvation? Why do they get to keep all their toys they got from screwing the middle class and the poor? I cannot believe people trust these greedy propagandist and willingly march to their orders. What do you think OWS is all about? The average person is sick of being screwed by those in power. People pushing AGW are in the top of the 1% and they want more of your money through carbon taxes.
Ed Kimball
Fri, Oct 28, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.
Mr. Orwell, Bill Gates wants to reduce CO2 EMISSIONS to zero, not CO2 LEVELS. CO2 levels are already higher than they have been in hundreds of years. There will be no shortage of CO2 for plants to use! Your comment shows either carelessness or ignorance - a trait I see in many other deniers of climate change.
G. Orwell
Fri, Oct 28, 2011 : 4:36 a.m.
Bill gates also funded the study. Bill Gates is a hardcore warmist and he wants to reduce CO2 levels to ZERO. Which means no manufacturIng, no cars, no breathing since humans exhale CO2. Plants need CO2 to live so I guess Bill Gates doesn't wantplant on our earth. Look it up! It is a fraud.
Jack Edwards
Thu, Oct 27, 2011 : 8:42 p.m.
-> G. Orwell "Richard Muller is a fraud." Oh, I suppose that is why the Koch brothers funded his study to the tune of 150,000 dollars? I'm sure the Koch brothers much careful with their money than that. Of course, now that the study is finished the Right Wing Newspeak folks are trying to redefine the message. Now that the results don't agree with their predefined belief system Professor Muller is a 'swindler'. <a href="http://theothermccain.com/2011/10/23/berkeley-professor-swindles-kochs-out-of-150000-for-global-warming-project/" rel='nofollow'>http://theothermccain.com/2011/10/23/berkeley-professor-swindles-kochs-out-of-150000-for-global-warming-project/</a> I find your username deeply ironic considering how much disinformation is spread by the climate change skeptics. I'm sure you know what the CW skeptics would be saying if the results actually agreed with their agenda.
Dcam
Thu, Oct 27, 2011 : 4:57 p.m.
You can download a book on climate change, published 1922, that insists The Big Dipper (Plough) causes sunspots which in turn causes climate change. There are many other ideas put forth as well, of course. Given it's written by well-respected Yale, Harvard, etc. scientists, one must give it some credence. "Climatic Changes" by Ellsworth Huntington and Stephen Sargent Visher
lumberg48108
Thu, Oct 27, 2011 : 4:46 p.m.
of course climate change is real - the earth is constantly changing - warming and cooling over millions of years --- the question is - is man causing it? For every expert you can cite - others can cite the same amount on the other side - so the question is hardly settled the zealotry that man-made change proponents embrace hurt their cause more than anything and turn people off ... I no longer take Al Gore serious because to him, global warming in the ultimate elixer - blamed for everything good or bad. More hurricanes - global warming. Less hurricanes - global warming etc. My college professor decades ago told me one volanic explosion does more damage that we can in 100 years ... I read this recently ... changed my views a little <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/" rel='nofollow'>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/</a>
G. Orwell
Thu, Oct 27, 2011 : 4:38 p.m.
Richard Muller is a fraud. He only claims he was a skeptic. It has been confirmed over and over that the global temperature has not gone up since 1998. As you can see, we are now in the coolng phase. Temperatures in many parts of the world are hitting record lows and the glaciers are once again expanding. CO2 has nothing to do with global temperatures. Nada.