Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumPresident Obama: Dealing With Climate Will Not Come At Expense Of Economic Growth
Well, not surprising, but just in case you'd been wondering . . . Also, is "national conversation" the Democratic version of "more studies"?
EDIT
Longer term, he said, a national conversation is needed "to make sure that this is not something we're passing on to future generations."
Obama emphasized, however, that Americans "have been so focused on, and will continue to be focused on, our economy, jobs and growth."
"If the message is somehow we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change," he added, "I don't think anybody's going to go for that. I won't go for that."
But if the plan is to "create jobs, advance growth and make a serious dent in climate change ... I think that's something the American people would support," Obama said.
EDIT
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/14/15168691-obama-i-wont-go-for-climate-action-that-hurts-jobs-growth?lite
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
pscot
(21,024 posts)to anyone who's been paying attention for the last 4 years.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)
hatrack
(59,587 posts)MOCR ENGINEER
- Gene, Gene. We gotta talk about power here...
CONTROL - WHITE
- Whoa, whoa, guys! The power's everything. Power is
everything.
GENE KRANTZ (FLIGHT DIRECTOR - WHITE)
- What you mean?
CONTROL - WHITE
- Without it they don't talk to us, they don't correct their
trajectory, they don't turn the heatshield around... we
gotta turn everything off. Now. They're not gonna make it to
re-entry.
GENE KRANTZ (FLIGHT DIRECTOR - WHITE)
- What do you mean everything?
CONTROL - WHITE
- With everything on the LM draws 60 amps. At that rate in
sixteen hours the batteries are dead, not 45. And so is the
crew. We gotta get them down to 12 amps.
MOCR ENGINEER
- Whoa. 12 amps!
- How many?
- You can't run a vacuum cleaner on 12 amps, John.
CONTROL - WHITE
- We have to turn off the radars, cabin heater, instrument
displays, the guidance computer, the whole smash.
It'll never happen here, of course . . . only in space.
CRH
(1,553 posts)but hey, what an analogy! It puts the problem into a startling yet poignant, perspective.
And so direct even a congressman could see it. You'd think.
CRH
(1,553 posts)That says essentially the same. I'll link the article and include an excerpt, so as not to have two OPs on the same information.
Obama to take 'personal charge' of climate change, as long as we can continue to grow and consume, ... we will do as much as we can.
http://www.guardian.co.uk//environment/2012/nov/14/obama-climate-change-second-term
~snip~
However, the president also made clear that it would be hard to find areas of compromise, and that he would not be pushed by environmental allies into policies that did not have broad support.
"If the message is somehow that we are going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change I don't think anyone is going to go for that. I won't go for that," Obama warned.
"If on the other hand we can shape an agenda that says we can create jobs, advance growth and make a serious dent in climate change and be an international leader I think that is something the American people would support."
The president also seemed, obliquely, to discount any possibility of pushing for a carbon tax, as Al Gore and others have suggested, in negotiations over the "fiscal cliff".
~end~
And so there you have it, as a country the US will continue to pursue growth and jobs using a large mix of status quo energy supplies, that continue to raise beyond previous thresholds of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Apparently the President does not feel a carbon tax is realistic in the present political environment and gave no indication he is willing to push for one. As well there is no indication of a Manhattan project in future plans for clean sustainable energy. It appears the President is trying to stretch the field, when the clock is running out.
What is politically popular will consume our future. 'The line has been drawn the curse has been cast.'
Nihil
(13,508 posts)> However, the president also made clear that it would be hard to find areas of compromise, and
> that he would not be pushed by environmental allies into policies that did not have broad support.
In other words, "Hey guys, I'd *love* to sort out the increasing use of fossil fuels, cut the
subsidies, bring in meaningful environmental regulation but my sponsors, my Democratic teammates
and my honourable colleagues across the floor aren't interested so it's no go again folks!"
I'd love to know what definition of "Change" that guy has been using over the years ...
CRH
(1,553 posts)is being illustrated as, not enough of a change to save us. Small changes around the edges that do not require a contracting economy, that allows for a consumption level guaranteeing our destruction. The new motto as illustrated by the misreading of scientific tea leaves, should read, A Change you will die for.
The most US politics could muster, is a political consensus leading to near extinction. Too bad there won't be much time for poli science courses to teach that record of history, or for future generations to learn from it.
JackN415
(924 posts)CRH
(1,553 posts)allow for more time for gradual adaption, and a convenient cost vs benefit economic adjustment. I hope the science is wrong. The science being presented now, and the growing acceptance of global climate change paradigms, indicate we are out of time and gradual adaption will be at our peril. And many interpret the science to say, the situation, is worse than just being out of time, we are past being out of time and it is time to adapt as best we can.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But what it does tell us is that action is indeed, as soon as possible, I might add, and that the longer we wait the more dire the consequences could become.
One of the hurdles we have to overcome is the still massive amount of disinfo coming out of the deniers and those who enable them; bullshit like "Climate change action will kill the economy", or "We cannot do anything(in either direction!) about Co2", etc.; even some environmentalists have fallen for a few of these traps, it seems(particularly the former of the two examples).
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I'd very strongly encourage you to listen to the lecture and watch the Powerpoint linked in this post (they go together, read while listening).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112728203#post10
Kevin Anderson is the real deal - a top-rated climate scientist, former Director and now Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change at Manchester in the UK.
He describes +2 as the boundary between "dangerous" and "very dangerous" climate change.
He says we're out of time to avoid +2, which is just a transition point on our way to +4.
He's not some blogger, he's an actual working scientist. Please listen to him.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)How do we know that any atmospheric carbon emitted lasts ~100 years? I would imagine that is a variable dependent on the environment's ability to sequester carbon naturally. If you burned every forest on the planet, wouldn't that grow to 100 million years?
To some measure, everyday, we are impacting the planet's ability to process this carbon--I am not sure if this damage is beyond negligible or not.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)As I understand it, carbon has more of a "half-life" in the environment rather than a finite lifetime. Some of it never, ever goes away. This is from an article in Nature:
Instead of pinning an absolute value on the atmospheric lifetime of CO2, the 2007 report describes its gradual dissipation over time, saying, "About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years." But if cumulative emissions are high, the portion remaining in the atmosphere could be higher than this, models suggest.
The main long-term carbon sink is the oceans, and as they warm they lose their ability to hold carbon. The same goes for large, mature forests - both become carbon sources instead of sinks above a certain temperature. Warming of the oceans is a positive feedback, albeit slower than one driven by passing a phase transition threshold like the thawing of permafrost.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)"Long-term return to equilibrium
While the warm surface waters of the oceans have limited ability to absorb anthropogenic carbon dioxide, the coldest surface waters near the poles (2–3% of ocean surfaces) can transfer significant amounts of carbon dioxide to deep-ocean reserves. Over a period of many centuries, this process and the process of calcium carbonate absorption of carbon dioxide on land and in the oceans will remove 60–80% of the excess carbon dioxide.
Igneous rock when exposed to a near surface environment absorbs carbon dioxide through a very slow weathering rate, but weathering increases in a warmer, higher rainfall climate, speeding the process. This geological weathering will absorb the remaining 20–40% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide over the period of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_global_warming
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)In 2010, global fossil carbon emissions were running about 5% ahead of the IPCC's A1FI scenario, which is the highest-carbon scenario they considered.
Another presidential term of no action, and then at least one or two more before we even decide to do anything, and then 20 years after that for any changes to take effect...
Stick a Democratic fork in us - we're done.
CRH
(1,553 posts)from your post yesterday. It pretty much destroys the notion of tomorrow if we continue to grow today. hrh
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cabot/documents/anderson-ppt.pdf
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The two were done at the same talk, and they go together to give you the sense that you're in the audience at that presentation. The commentary adds a lot of context to the ppt.
Bring up the ppt, then play the mp3 - it's easy to know when to switch slides.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2012/11//502497.mp3
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cabot/documents/anderson-ppt.pdf
I agree - Anderson's message is absolutely devastating - especially when it's delivered in the wry-but-dry tone he has. Matter-of-fact doom.
CRH
(1,553 posts)but my antiquated system doesn't allow for mp3, so I am blind or should I say deaf to the presentation as a whole. Thanks for the addition.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Is the fact that he's helping to kill the planet. That part I don't like so much.
Oh, and that drone thing...
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)He has a sense of humor. He doesn't act like an entitled prick. He is an anti-anti-intellectual (being the antithesis of Bush doesn't make one an "intellectual" outright).
Unfortunately, he gets a second and third pass by liberals for his imperial drone policy and environmental issues (but really, most presidents suck because they believe in neoclassical economics and form their worldviews based on that school of thought).
A conservative could never have passed his health care reform or waged vast unilateral strikes in countries all over the globe. He has mastered the art of selling austerity and legislative mediocrity to the people, to such an extent that they embrace it. The social issues he has championed have left a large amount of his questionable policy free of critical review by left wing groups. He has, in fact, killed a wave of left wing momentum and anger that built from Bush's reign (after harnessing such momentum to win); was this after all his "job" as a president? That being, the pacification of the left while advancing predetermined economic and military objectives.
Towards him, I am ambivalent. I am ambivalent towards all politicians anymore (including Jill Stein). The proof is in the pudding, in regards to the ultimate question: are we going to survive or go extinct. All the hand waving in the mean time is fodder for the idiocracy, so its pointless to invest emotionally in it anymore. Unfortunately, that fodder obfuscates the most important issues of our time concerning survival.
BTW: I somehow feel that most 20th Century politicians who solidified their worldviews around civil rights, egalitarianism, labor issues, economic prosperity, etc, will be unequipped to handle the issue of the 21st Century. Their public persona, constituents, past knowledge, economic beliefs, monied interests, etc, will all get in the way of them understanding the system and moving forward to a real solution that ensures survivability. Last century's politicians--products from the fights of liberalism vs fascism--are becoming increasingly irrelevant and we have no guarantee of a replacement any time soon.
CRH
(1,553 posts)Obama's actions and demeanor would guarantee him a legacy as a great president. In another time. But, this is now, so your third paragraph is spot on, and the final paragraph, knocks it out of the park. Said so well, with an economy of words. hrh
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Great insights, well said. You just clarified something I've been trying to understand for a while now about why politicians seem so ineffectual. And of course, when the worldview of the electorate is the product of that same "liberalism vs. fascism" conflict, they don't elect politicians who speak outside that framework. Thus, the resounding success of Green parties worldwide?
cprise
(8,445 posts)...new tools and substances as opposed to milling grain and textiles, then the general public became like a class of lions who were often unaware of the fact. The goal of consumerism as a policy is to borrow the emotional manipulation plank of fascism to keep the lions mollified and distracted-- behaving like lambs.
The downside is that we attack the rest of the planet instead... always growing and externalizing.
Adam Curtis did a documentary about Edward Bernays and how he worked with the American government to create consumerist policy. Its called The Century of the Self.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)A conservative would've vouchered health care and invaded Iran with ground troops. I don't advocate the drone war but I understand why some would advocate it (one DUer pointed out how it's more effective at rooting out "enemies" and objectively speaking Obama has killed 200-500x less people than Bush). And it still polls high with the American public. Nothing is changing that.
I have been ambivalent toward politicians my whole life, I'm just explaining the political intricacies for that part of your post. I agree with your initial response that nothing will be done, however I approach it differently. I think they are fully and completely aware of the issues (they do have their own policy wonks talking to them in private memos that they don't release). I think that they have decided that geoengineering is the solution (particularly sulphate aerosols) and I think that's what they're going to do.
They've been talking about it for 5 years now:
It's their go-to solution.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Instead he signed the SOFA in Iraq, forcing Obama to withdraw according to a timetable.
His presidency was a test in 2 ways: 1) did the US have the military capability of engaging in multiple pre-eminent overt wars to control resources, and 2) would the people tolerate it. Resoundingly, both questions were answered with a "NO". But the US found a way to proceed with (semi) covert military action and a friendlier face for their imperialism. Instead of complete military occupation, its now believed its far more cost effective to balance controlling political situations with the real threat of isolated force (almost resorting back to past doctrine with a heavier, drone-armed hand).
And no, the conservatives would not have "vouchered" health care, as that would cause *more* government aid; they merely want to voucher Medicaid/Medicare but do not have the political "balls" to really do so as it would of been done by now. The people do not trust the Republicans with health care, and thats why it takes the Democratic Party to advance their ideas. What the conservatives have always wanted (shown through Nixon, Dole, Romney's plan) was the general population to be mandated to purchase private health insurance. That is exactly what has happened.
Sometimes what the left says the right wants, and even what the some of the right extremist say they want, is electioneering and about polarizing the population towards a hard 50/50 split. But whenever each party is in power, these things often never come to pass into law; doing so would remove a polarizing election plank. Party's should more readily be judged by what they actually do than say theyll do (or the excuses they give).
But regardless, no matter how blue in the face I become talking about the ridiculousness of American Politics, I've not said a single word about the environment. Its all irrelevant hand-waving. It becomes more apparent every day.
BTW, thanks for link on geo-engineering. I really haven't looked at any of the science of this yet and will try and approach it as unbiasedly as possible (divorced from the history of man's reach consistently exceeding his grasp). Though, I would be very surprised if even half the politicians that understood the crisis would think anything is needed beyond tinkering with neo-classical economic mechanisms and letting the system work itself out (but then this may contradict them actually understanding the crisis).
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)He was well aware of SOFA. However, McCain said he would've kept troops there (even admonished Obama for taking them out) and there was a test of will with the 2009 attacks in Iraq. I have no doubt in my mind that McCain would've renegotiated SOFA. Mandated health insurance is a misnomer, it can never work, and it was always a policy trick to get public health coverage. Either we lose health coverage entirely (it's still possible) or we move to public exchanges. There's no way mandated health insurance works. "Mandated health insurance" was a big political gimmick during the 2007-2008 primaries. We got it, but like I said, there's no way it continues on as a private endeavor. It's only a matter of time before it collapses. I agree that the health insurers wanted it, but only because they saw the writing on the wall and wanted to get paid before their entire industry collapses (I err on the side of optimism and think that public exchanges will happen).
No doubt mandated health insurance was a center-right gimmick, but I still supported it because it can only go one way, politically speaking.
Not that any of this shit matters, really. Climate change is going to fuck us all in the end.
Geoengineering is not a matter of political will or knowledge or "foresight." It's going to be necessary. The temperatures we can expect in the worlds grain belts will reduce crop output by 40% or more. A lot of people will still need to be fed. We can't instantly build out magical climate controlled greenhouses in a short period of time so we'll use sulphate aerosols and just dim the skies. I think that they are fully aware of geoengineering, and are fully aware of the known physical properties of sulphate aerosols. Indeed, looking back at that video David Keith points out that the original governmental solution to climate change was geoengineering not emission reduction! Basically, they are thinking "as long as it's not having actual effects we'll adapt to it." And that's so far what we've been doing. "Sustainability" is actually their long term plan for self-sufficiency because they know fossil fuels will run out eventually. It has nothing to do with the environment but rather necessity. It's funny how all these things are about physical reality.
mrf901
(49 posts)for each US coal mine job at $30 an hour
that is lost, several jobs at $2 an hour will
spring up somewhere else.
job growth, I suppose.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Not due to loss of demand. The corporate profiteers may use renewable energy as a reason they're firing people hand over fist, but that's not why they're doing it. It's all about profit.
Really. We're exporting coal now. 
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)If a drought induced famine or a mega hurricane storm will kill you?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I may be somewhat disappointed with the lack of progress, but we're definitely still making it. The key thing we need to do is keep holding their feet to the fire, and not let up for one second. If I may be allowed, one thing we can learn from is the 2010 elections; too many people either thought that the Tea Partiers couldn't possibly have a chance at winning, or that it was basically hopeless, and look what happened; it ended up contributing to getting our asses kicked. But we can also learn from this year, when enough people took a stand, and did whatever they could to contribute to a positive outcome. I can find a number of parallels between this and how we're currently dealing with climate change.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)for thousands of years. It's just his shift as conductor. The most anyone can do is jump off the train and then watch it go by, because nobody is going to stop it, until it runs out of track.
