"Clinton wants 'mass movement' on climate change"

[applegrove]

Clinton wants 'mass movement' on climate change

By KEN THOMAS at AP

https://news.yahoo.com/clinton-wants-mass-movement-climate-change-013921131--politics.html

"SNIP.......................



TEMPE, Ariz. (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton says young people understand the significant threat of climate change and that she hopes there will be a mass movement that demands political change.

The potential 2016 presidential candidate says at a Clinton Global Initiative University panel that young people are much more committed to doing something to address climate change. Clinton says it isn't "just some ancillary issue" but will determine the quality of life for many people.

The former secretary of state cited global warming as a major issue that students could face in the future.

She made the comments Saturday during an interview with late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel at Arizona State University. The weekend gathering also features former President Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea.



......................SNIP"

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Here comes Liberal Hillary!

A total friend of the 99%, yet with a steely-eyed realism.

[applegrove]

2. Not a fan? I like her taking bold steps on issues. It is what will cream the GOP.

[dflprincess]

3. She'll talk a good game while campaigning

but Wall Street and the MIC has nothing to fear if she's elected.

[pangaia]

51. Really?

[Earth_First]

4. A Walton family friend and TPP architect is going to save the environment?

Not bloody likely.

[Katashi_itto]

5. Exactly, if she gets nominated, I stay home.

[jwirr]

10. If you do not want to vote for her at least vote for Congress. We needs a full deck.

[Le Taz Hot]

12. There are other options.

I've got to be careful here but there are more parties than just R & D if you don't like the "Democratic" nominee. There are House races and, if you live in an initiative state, state initiatives, judgeships, many other offices that need to be decided. NEVER stay home -- you're giving up one of the ONLY rights you have left.

[Beacool]

44. What a great view of politics!!!

Imagine if the 17 plus millions who chose Hillary in the primaries had stayed home in 2008. We would be in president McCain's second term.

[Auntie Bush]

50. My are you patriotic!

[JoePhilly]

57. Stay home regardless.

Please.

[newfie11]

6. That what scares me nt

[Nay]

7. Not bloody likely indeed. We may all have to hold our noses and vote in

2016, but we don't have to believe this sort of shit. Ms. Clinton is calling for a 'movement' over saving the environment? Right. She had plenty of time to indicate her interest in the subject when Mr. Clinton was president, but IIRC, they never even supported Gore in his efforts.

Secondly, I am tired of powerful politicians constantly calling for a 'movement' from all the poor people they are in the process of terrorizing and impoverishing with shit like TPP, SS changes, etc. Stop already. If you're worried about the goddamn environment, then be a FUCKIN' LEADER for once. Don't act like you have to have a bunch of peons telling you what's the right thing to do or you can't do it. That really pisses me off. We've had mass movements for the environment since the 70's, so open your goddamn ears.

[XemaSab]

24. +1

n/t

[lunatica]

38. I feel exactly that way!

It was the first thought I had after reading 'movement'. They always claim they want the people to mobilize and pressure politicians to do their job, until they're elected. Then they do whatever the fuck they want which more often than not hurts the people.

[pangaia]

53. + !,000,000,000,000,000

She wants votes...

[octoberlib]

63. +1

[randome]

8. I WANT to believe this but Clinton does not inspire me with confidence on anything.

On the other hand, who else is talking about climate change? Obama is somewhat but it's not enough.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Jesus Malverde]

9. The biggest change we could make today to address the creation of greenhouse gasses

Is 100% pollution tariffs on all the dirty goods produced in China and shipped to the united states.

The united states in it's de industrialized state, and with modern pollution controls in place is producing a tiny amount of pollution relative to the products created by american corporations in China.

Free trade is the ability of american corporations to pollute unhindered while any domestic competition is hobbled.

Stop free trade and its pollution.

[proverbialwisdom]

47. Tiny? Not according to UN_CarbonMechs vetted "ClimaLoop Infographic: CO2 emissions by country."

[img][/img]UN_CarbonMechs ?Feb 17
RT @ClimaLoop: #CO2 emissions by country. Which are the countries emitting more #GHG ? #climatechange #infographic http://pic.twitter.com/I7af12UeKK

[img][/img]

[Jesus Malverde]

48. Maybe you haven't seen the pollution in china.

I call bullshit on your info graphic as

With millions of manufacturing jobs shipped overseas, the pollution went with them.

Pittsburg used to have air quality like some chinese cities.

US cars are low polluting. Do tell what we should ship overseas to solve this problem?

Free trade is free pollution.

Pretty sure what she is after are tradable carbon credits, which will make 1%ers billions.

[proverbialwisdom]

58. Just a bunch of jargon to me but the source is the official verified Twitter acct 'UN_CarbonMechs'

GOOGLE: United Nations carbon mechanisms and read up. The chart was tweeted during the great US Senate overnight on climate change by UN_CarbonMechs.

CO2 is invisible. I know little else and on this subject will defer to groups like Sierra Club, NRDC, 350.org, and individuals like Senator Whitehouse, Senator Sanders, Senator Boxer. That's it for me.

[proverbialwisdom]

62. More.

NRDC ?@NRDC 1h
Did you know? In US, #powerplants emit about 2.2 billion tons of CO2/yr, roughly 40% of nation's total #emissions. http://j.mp/1jAKcQM

[jwirr]

11. Okay she put a title on her paper. Now fill in the essay. What are you going to do about climate

change? It is not enough to recognize that it exists. If you want to be president give us a plan.

[Nay]

27. Oh, but don't you get it? Leaders expect the peons to get out into the

streets by the billions to 'tell them what to do,' otherwise they feel free to not do anything. This is an advanced example of "blaming the victim." It lets all these purported 'leaders' off the hook for preparing a plan, making supportive speeches, twisting blue Dem arms, etc. It's all the fault of the 7-11 clerk who didn't fly to DC to gather with other minions to "make them do it."

[jwirr]

34. And then they do not listen to us anyhow. No end to this game.

[Nay]

37. Yes, that's the endgame. No matter how many people come out to protest

(like the 500,000 in DC before the Iraq war, which Clinton voted for, BTW), there's never 'enough.' A mob of 500,000 citizens wasn't enough for Ms. Clinton to cast her vote against that war, so how would we ever believe there would be enough of a mob to make her do, or not do, anything else?

[Throd]

59. That's an interesting thought. Thanks for that.

[hatrack]

13. That's nice - "mass" in this sense meaning "Not me", Mrs. Clinton?

"Hillary Rodham Clinton says young people understand the significant threat of climate change and that she hopes there will be a mass movement that demands political change."

In other news, hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.

[Aerows]

16. That's exactly what I got out of it

"I hope *somebody* puts pressure on the government to address climate change, because I sure as hell won't."

[hatrack]

17. And of course, we all remember how 350.org's mass actions stopped Keystone XL . . .

Oh, wait, I forgot about the opium in my coffee. Sorry!

[XemaSab]

26. Here's my theory, and it's been a while since I floated it

Dem politicians LOVE to talk about climate change because it's a problem that's so vast that they don't actually have to "fix" it, just talk about it.

Whereas if you talk about CAFOs or oil spills or anything along those lines, you might actually have to spend money and encourage real change and shit like that, and that'll never happen.

[tularetom]

39. Yup, jut like republicans and abortion

They really don't want to outlaw abortion because then it's gone as a hot button campaign issue. So they keep dangling it out there in front of the dumdum demographic and the reaction is just what they hoped.

If the Dems actually took action on climate change they couldn't keep insisting that somebody needs to do something about it and they could no longer rope in those who believe in it and want something done about it. Besides, it's such a ginormous problem that once they acted, it would be apparent that only drastic lifestyle changes would produce any results and even a lot of Democratic voters would be unable to accept that.

[Whisp]

14. What a reveal! How daring of her to speak of that!

Such original thinking.

[IDemo]

15. Let's just say I have my doubts about her sincerity

http://www.opednews.com/articles/State-Department-s-Keyston-by-Eric-Zuesse-130326-371.html

[L0oniX]

18. I'd like a 'mass movement' away from anything Clinton.

[pangaia]

54. count me in..

[LuvNewcastle]

19. I expect a lot of talk about the environment in 2016.

Anything to keep people from talking about inequality.

[hatrack]

22. A lot of talk, and not much more, would be my take

nt

[G_j]

20. I wish I could believe it nt

[ProSense]

21. Why

"Clinton wants 'mass movement' on climate change"

...wasn't it a priority when she was SOS?

"Secretary of State John Kerry gave perhaps his strongest climate speech in Indonesia Sunday."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024518548

Secretary Kerry Makes Climate Change Top Priority...Some key actions to deliver on that policy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024650409

White House gets geeky on climate problem
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024693725

[hatrack]

23. A speech, another speech and a website

That's nice.

[ProSense]

28. Well,

"A speech, another speech and a website"

...I knew if I posted actions, someone would be along to dismiss them.

NRDC: President Obama Driving America to Cleaner Energy Future

WASHINGTON (February 18, 2014) – President Obama’s newly announced fuel-efficiency standards for heavy trucks will help such vehicles go farther on less fuel while further curbing carbon pollution from America’s transportation sector, the largest source of carbon pollution after power plants.

The following is a statement from Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, who is scheduled to be a White House guest at this morning’s event in Upper Marlboro, Md.:

“The president’s initiative is an important step driving America toward a cleaner energy future. Strong heavy truck efficiency standards will not only cut carbon pollution that fuels climate change, but also save consumers money every time they go to a store and save truckers money at the pump. Just as clean car standards are revitalizing the American auto industry, which added more than 370,000 jobs, setting the bar higher for trucks will further encourage innovation in the industry. This is a win-win for the environment and the economy.”

http://www.nrdc.org/media/2014/140218.asp

Why Obama’s New Fuel Standards For Big Trucks Matter
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/18/3300031/obama-fuel-standards-trucks/

EPA Makes the Right Move for Bristol Bay, Starts 404(c) Process on Pebble Mine
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024584590

Polluting Appalachia’s Streams With Mountaintop Removal Mining Just Got Harder
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024548910

Thank President Obama for protecting Point Arena-Stornetta Public Lands!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024650005

<...>

But the Union of Concerned Scientists is on board with Obama’s priorities. “The president is confronting members of Congress with a reality they need to face: climate change is already hurting us economically,” said Angela Anderson, the director of the group’s Climate and Energy Program. “Resilience funding is essential to confront the consequences of climate change already being felt. Beyond that, Congress needs to get serious about reducing the risks of the changing climate. Unless and until we start cutting emissions that cause global warming, the problems communities are facing, and their price tags, will continue to grow.”
- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/05/3366331/obama-2015-budget-climate/

[hatrack]

32. It's not that his actions so far are bad on climate per se . . .

Last edited Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Especially fuel economy rules, and ULSD changes have substantially helped air quality, if not climate in a huge way.

A lot of the ARRA funding for alternative energy, especially in solar, and support for NREL and so on - again, all good stuff.

It's just that the scale of what he's done to date, and the scale of what needs to be done if we're going to have a reasonable chance of even blunting the worst climate impacts, are so far out of proportion to one another that it's not even funny.

We briefly broke 400 ppm CO2 last year, we're going to be above 400 this year for about six weeks, maybe longer, and by about 2016, 400 is going to be permanently in the rear-view mirror. That's what no one is talking about at the top, and that's why we get talk of "mass movements" with lots of photogenic young people, and speeches. And websites.

President Obama's best on this issue isn't nearly good enough for the reality of what we're facing - though to be fair, there isn't a single leader of an industrialized economy about whom you could say that it has been good enough. I mean, Tony Abbott? Stephen Harper? Shinzo Abe? The only one I can of who has at least started to move is Merkel, and she's a bit distracted at the moment.

[ProSense]

29. What's interesting

is that the news about the website was ignored, but this statement by Hillary is getting attention, and from some who have been extremely critical of Obama.

[Vashta Nerada]

25. Yeah. Okay.

I can see she's already talking a good game, and she's not even the nominee yet.

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. and you are already railing against her and she's not even the nominee yet...

So you have a problem with Climate Change legislation? Isn't that something you should be giving her props about? Of course not ...how silly of me to think so!

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. OUCH! That'll leave a mark!

[mmonk]

33. Like Obama?

[NickB79]

35. Has she publically condemned Keystone XL yet?

There is a lot of uncertainty over whether or not she supports it's construction, which environmentalists have criticized her for: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/CampaignsElections/a/Hillary-Clinton-On-The-Keystone-Xl-Pipeline.htm

[Iggo]

36. I just wanted to chime in and thank you for calling her Clinton instead of Hillary.

[lunatica]

40. She's floating her talking points and issues to see what sticks and what doesn't

She's working the system knowing every speech she makes will make the news and that people will react. That way she'll pick the issues that the people want. It's the smart thing to do when you're a politician by birth.

[cheapdate]

41. Hillary Clinton is ONE-HUNDRED PERCENT CORRECT...

substantive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions absolutely will NOT HAPPEN WITHOUT A MASS MOVEMENT OF THE PEOPLE.

She is one-hundred percent correct. Nothing will change without a genuine and sustained mass movement representing broad public and institutional support and broad constituencies across the nation demanding serious action.

Hillary Clinton is speaking the TRUTH. Her CHALLENGE is toward THE PEOPLE.

All of the cynics and fatalists and implacable critics of Hillary Clinton can point and jeer and use their cynicism to spread disillusionment, despair and disengagement. Spread the message far and wide! Hillary Clinton is an insincere, lying, fraud! The Democratic Party is using you! Stay home!

What the fuck? Oh yeah, I forgot, this is DU. Where the cynics are king, the critics are prophets, politicians are always lying, and hope is a delusion.

[Nay]

42. Your problem is that the mass ecological movement has already occurred. In the

1970's. The people definitely did not want rivers that caught on fire, Love Canal, etc. Since then, several positive things have happened as a result -- there was some cleanup, kids learn about the ecology and celebrate Earth Day every April 22, some corporations have adopted sustainable practices (only if it saved them money, tho).

Your idea that we have to keep reminding politicians that we don't want to live in a degraded environment is specious. They know that. What they are trying to do is push an emotional hot button to get a vote without having to actually do anything hard like, you know, stopping corporations from trashing the planet, speaking up against destructive pipelines and TPP, etc.

Clinton has not, to my knowledge, shown one iota of interest in or support of major environmental issues or actions. Did she endorse Gore's movie, host showings, and put her money behind his effort? Not to my knowledge. Nor did she listen to the MASS MOVEMENT that told her the Iraq War was unwanted and that the evidence for the war was fake. She supports projects and laws that will ensure we go full speed ahead into further environmental degradation because she is truly beholden to the corporations that give her money. She is so late to this 45-yr-old party that cynicism is the only reasonable reaction.

I won't even get into my diatribe about how leaders should effin' lead, and stop waiting for some vague quota of people to get out into the street to "make them do it." Just do what's right, especially if the cost of doing nothing is so high.

[cheapdate]

43. The 1970s were forty years ago.

Climate change was barely a blip on the public radar at that time. The environmental movements of the 1970s had an impact on public perception and awareness of environmental issues and led to legislative actions that addressed some important problems. That was forty years ago. Times have changed.

The kinds of fundamental, societal, changes necessary to affect climate change completely dwarf anything that was accomplished in the 1970s or any other time in our history. The legislation passed in the 1970s was child's play. Businesses made minor adjustments. New federal bureaucracies settled down to business. Life went on.

Go ahead. Bash Hillary Clinton for having the temerity to publicly suggest that climate change is a significant threat and that she hopes there will be a mass movement that demands political change.

The nerve of that woman! The deception! Shameless! Inexcusable!

It's exactly the same as the Iraq War (no it isn't.) Politicians KNOW what's necessary (no they don't) and they don't need be reminded (yes they do).

What percentage of the general population believes that climate change is not real or a hoax? Twenty percent? Thirty percent? How many think it might be a problem but not one that requires anything difficult or disruptive? Fifty percent?

How many believe it's the most profound global threat ever faced in human history, one that threatens the very existence of human civilization and the living systems on which human civilization depends, one that requires radical transformative action and fundamental changes to how modern people and societies live on the earth? Ten percent?

Who believes that the GOP -- and the millions of constituents they represent -- are ready to sit down and face the difficult choices together? Anyone?

Hillary Clinton is 100% correct. Millions of citizens in this country are either ambivalent, on the fence, or outright hostile to the threat of climate change. Politicians in Washington are generally a reflection of this fact.

Without a massive change in the American public nothing will change. The only real change is from the bottom up, not from the top down.

[Beacool]

45. The responses around here are so predictable.

Hillary can't win in this place. If she addresses climate change, then it must be a fake posture. If she doesn't address this issue, or other ones like the situation with Iran, Crimea, etc.; then people are demanding to know why she's not saying anything on the subject.

[PowerToThePeople]

46. Whoooh.. I just read this as "Clinton wants (to take a giant dump) on climate change."

[polichick]

49. She seems to be floating a bunch of balloons lately.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. Glad to see her speaking out against fracking and the XL Pipeline...oh, wait.

[Iggo]

56. She "hopes there will be a mass movement that demands political change."

Is that like asking us to hold her feet to the fire?

[Nay]

61. It's exactly like that, and will have the same effect. nt

[steve2470]

60. If Hillary is elected POTUS, I really hope she pushes hard on climate change

IMHO it's the most important issue. Survival, it's what's for dinner.