Skip to main content

View Diary: Strong speech from President on Climate:US will lead UPDATE:Obama to request XL pipeline be rejected (141 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  don't see that in short fact sheet and looks (28+ / 0-)

    like it's going in for fracking in a big way..

    Stop funding new coal plants overseas, and help other countries switch to anything but coal, even if that means natural gas or nuclear power.
    it's a bit better than i expected but gets the ball rolling the rest is up to us.

    Macca's Meatless Monday

    by VL Baker on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:29:16 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  even if that means natural gas or nuclear power (9+ / 0-)

      not excited about that at all

      Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

      by greenbastard on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 07:35:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then you're not serious about reducing C02 (11+ / 0-)

        If you want to be a purity troll, fine. But at least admit your position keeps the world on coal for decades more.
        I told people in 1993 that anti-nuke positions would keep us on coal, and look where we are today. Now it's 400ppm. Happy?

        Either C02 is the real battle or it isn't.  

        •  you are the one purity trolling (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Blicero, Joieau, CA Nana, Kombema

          Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

          by greenbastard on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 09:05:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nope, I'm not nuke only (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            duhban, 6412093, polecat

            I'll take any energy source that is C02 free.  You on the other hand would rather have more C02 today, tomorrow and the decades to follow if you can't get the exact renewable option you want.

            •  Here's how I know you are the purity troll (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CA Nana, RocketJSquirrel, Kombema

              You keep telling me what I think, what I would rather have, and you also keep telling me that I must believe as you do, or I am not serious about climate change.

              Go troll somewhere else. I don't need it.

              While you may be for anything at all, I am not. Given that climate change means increased strength and frequency of storms, given that water shortages will only increase, given the industry-govt buddy-buddy relationship currently and historically between the nuclear industry and govt (and the lax oversite due to this), given that tax payers have to insure these projects, and that humans are fallible, and nothing is 100%, I see nuclear as a bad option. that's my opinion. No test for anyone. No purity, as I stated in my original comment that you attacked me as a purity troll for: I am not excited about the promotion of nuclear, If my opinion means I don't pass your purity test. Fine.

              Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

              by greenbastard on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:32:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  The coal industry kept us on coal (9+ / 0-)

          Not anti-nuclear movement.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:07:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Demand for electricity kept us on coal (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            I love OCD, antooo

            40 years ago, when nuclear power was widely rejected, demand for electricity didn't go away.  And with new nuclear power no longer an option, the coal industry stepped in to fill the void.

            Wind and solar weren't available 40 years ago.  It was nuclear or coal, coal was chosen as the default power source and our course was set.

            •  Solar and wind most certainly were an option (5+ / 0-)

              We had both that long ago. They were more expensive than they are now, although that could have been changed quickly in the case of wind if we had actually put money into research. Even so, we chose to go with coal because it was cheaper, and subsidized. It was not a requirement. We've always had a choice. Concentrated solar has been around for decades.

              We could have been replacing all that dirty coal for decades. That we didn't was not because of engineering problems but because of politics.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 11:10:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Nuclear brings unacceptable costs (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ivote2004

              that are potentially much higher than climate change. In fact one of the worst challenges of climate change will be the dozens of Fukushima-like situations that will come.

              Nuke advocates are in favor of cutting off our nose to save out face. What's the damn point, and will you be here in 5000 years to face the consequences of nuclear power use now?

              Life on earth will bounce back once we are gone if we don't leave the planet as a radioactive hell hole.

              Humans have had our turn. What a sorry commentary on our supposed "intelligence."  We fouled our own home.

              •  There are no costs that are higher (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PeterHug

                than climate change.

                Do I like nuclear? No

                Would it buy us time while we figured out something better? Probably.

                A balanced approach is needed to the ultimate phasing out of carbon-based fuels, but we don't have one. In the meantime, nuclear power, despite it's attendant problems, might buy us some time in a less catastrophic manner than the current energy production facilities.

                I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                Who is twigg?

                by twigg on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 02:25:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The 4 biggest costs/risks/threats: (0+ / 0-)

                  * Climate collapse from global warming from greenhouse gasses

                  * Genepool collapse & climate collapse (nuclear winter) from nuclear causes

                  * Genepool corruption from toxins/carcinogens/teratogens, including chemical, nuclear, and bio-hacking (intentionally-engineered genetic (GMO)).

                  * Ocean acidification, atmospheric oxygen depletion, and other ecosystem-scale chemical changes incompatible with aerobic lifeforms.

                  #3: ensure network neutrality; #2: ensure electoral integrity; #1: ensure ecosystemic sustainability.

                  by ivote2004 on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:21:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  You are wrong (0+ / 0-)

                  A radioactive biosphere.

                  The two are not mutually exclusive of course. The problem of baked-in climate change flooding existing reactors is already grim.

                •  Oh you mean for HUMANS? (0+ / 0-)

                  We are done for. In thinking about what's best for what comes after. Evolution can adjust to heat better than to an irradiated world.

                •  Absolutely agree. In the short term (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  twigg

                  we need to stop emitting CO2 any way we can.  Some of the alternatives have issues that will probably prevent them from being long-term solutions, but if we don't get through the next 15 years, that won't matter one little bit.

        •  False premise (7+ / 0-)

          Your bottom line is more nukes, as currently marketed by the nuclear power industrial complex.

          Our rejection of that doesn't mean that we're not serious about reducing CO2.

          Again, your conflation and thread disruption smells like trolling.

          You've been called out on this before. Why do you persist?

          Please stop.

          “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

          by ozsea1 on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:19:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because 400ppm C02 (0+ / 0-)

            Want me to stop telling you why C02 levels keep going up, up, up?  Fine, I'll stop telling the truth. But don't expect the truth to change.

            •  We ALL know this! (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Calamity Jean, Kombema, ivote2004

              But nukes, in its current state of the art, are not the answer you so desperately seek.

              So, stop waving that number like it's a blank check for your favored solution. Because it ain't, and your persistent trolling won't change that.

              “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

              by ozsea1 on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 11:12:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Keystone XL will be approved next week (0+ / 0-)

                Mark my words.  Maybe when C02 is 500ppm, you'll be interested.  Wind and solar will not 100% power the world.

                And PS, the reason that 1950's and 1960's reactor technology is still considered to be "state of the art" is because it's been made virtually impossible to get any real engineering R&D done.  No one is going to invest engineering effort in a new, better reactor design that no one will allow to be built.  So catch-22, enjoy the C02.

          •  Because he can do math (0+ / 0-)

            And understand science?  The fact is that leaving nuclear out delays dealing with climate change at minimal risk.  We might as well ask you to stop trolling diaries with your scientifically dubious talking points from the anti-nuke industry.

            Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

            by Mindful Nature on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:27:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Minimal risk (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ivote2004, ozsea1

              except to all life on earth that is.

              •  Wrong (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mindful Nature

                Nuclear power doesn't raise C02 levels.  It doesn't melt the ice caps.  It doesn't cause methane releases.  It doesn't cause floods and droughts and massive huricanes and climate shifts that can wipe out all agriculture on Earth and toss 7 billion people into starvation.

                Over 1000 people in India, just India, are dead this week from floods caused by man-made C02 emissions.  Can you point to 1000 people who died this week from Fukushima?  And that was a shitty old 1950's design with spent fuel stored on the reactor roof because no one would allow it to be moved and recycled.

                And right now, today, if you stood downwind of a coal power plant and a nuclear power plant with a geiger counter in your hand, you'd get more radiation from the coal plant, from the Thorium in the ash.  So your position isn't even reducing radiation emissions.

                C02 is the true global killer.  Accept that or deny it.

              •  This is exactly the kind of thing (0+ / 0-)

                I was talking about.  Overblown, scientifically illiterate hysterical claptrap pretending to be intelligent debate.  Thank you for proving my point that a lot of the opposition to nuclear power simply doesn't begin to know the first little but about the subject.  Almost as bad as anti vaxers

                Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

                by Mindful Nature on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:59:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Um, no (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kombema, ivote2004

              "scientifically dubious talking points from the anti-nuke industry."

              Anti-nuke industry? Really? There is one?

              You surely have mistaken me for someone else.

              “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

              by ozsea1 on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 01:51:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

                There is a whole cottage industry of people setting out scientifically dubious talking points or falsehood based on misunderstandings of epidemiology.  Unfortunately, the anti nuke movement doesn't have a history of scientific rigor.  

                Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

                by Mindful Nature on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 02:12:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  ok dokie (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JBL55, ivote2004

                  In particular, I carefully watch the nuclear waste storage and disposal issues  - which are ongoing for more than forty years. I live near and downwind of Hanford, so yes, I have an acute interest in this business.

                  Spin all you want, but those events can't be wished away.

                  And you are dead wrong, I belong to no anti-nuke group.

                  “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

                  by ozsea1 on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 02:25:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Did I say you did? (0+ / 0-)

                    My position is that there are significant issues, especially waste (although Hanford is a whole other kettle of fish from civilian power facilities on many levels, some good, some bad), but that both the nuclear power industry and the rabid environmental movement both have been caught with their pants down falsifying information or disseminating misleading or totally misrepresented information.  As a former scientist, I have a dim view of both

                    My sense is that there are good arguments both for and against and presenting either isn't trolling and shouldn't be shut down.  We need a rational, factual debate on the role of nuclear and the trade offs in the medium term.  Right now, there are no good options.

                    Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

                    by Mindful Nature on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:36:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  and you're flat (7+ / 0-)

          wrong:

          Nuclear power would only curb climate change by expanding worldwide at the rate it grew from 1981 to 1990, its busiest decade, and keep up that rate for half a century, a report said on Thursday.

          Specifically, that would require adding on average 14 plants each year for the next 50 years, all the while building an average of 7.4 plants to replace those that will be retired, the report by environmental leaders, industry executives and academics said.

          that's a thousand plants over 50 years- as in five decades- including the environmental costs of building them. and ge energy was part of the group involved in the study.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:32:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Well, we could have thorium power, except (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        6412093, Kombema, polecat, Norm in Chicago

        some asshole in the navy had it banned because he needed enriched uranium for subs and we are too stupid to un-ban it, because nuclear power is complicated, so other countries are going to eat our lunch.

        Thorium is stardust.  A fist of this plentiful element can provide a lifetime of power one person.  This results in a pea sized piece of radioactive material that decays in 400 years.  It uses molten salt cooling so it can't melt down.

        ...Son, those Elephants always look out for themselves. If you happen to get a crumb or two from their policies, it's a complete coincidence. -Malharden's Dad

        by slowbutsure on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 09:08:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nuclear power is too expensive. (8+ / 0-)

        Not gonna happen.  

        Natural gas is kinda pricey too.  Fracking isn't cheap, and the resulting wells have to be refracked every five years or so, or they slow down to producing only a dribble of gas.  

        The cheapest way to replace coal is wind, wind, solar photovoltaic, wind, solar thermal, and more wind.  Maybe hydroelectric if there's a good river nearby, and maybe geothermal if it's a volcanic region.  

        Renewable energy brings national global security.     

        by Calamity Jean on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:02:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And climate change is cheap? (0+ / 0-)

          We're still burning coal, and we'll be burning coal 50 years from now.

          •  PV + Li-ion can do *everything* (0+ / 0-)

            that nuclear claims (dreams) that a completely overhauled design of nuclear could someday maybe do.

            And PV + Li-ion will do it in less than 25 years, compared to the 50 years it would take to bring the required 1000 new nuclear plants online.

            Even better, PV + Li-ion can team with Wind and other renewables and other storage systems and microgrid innovations, so the transition will be faster and smoother.

            Dramatically superior to any conceivable nuclear approach.

            With less capex.

            With far less opex.

            With far far less risk.

            With more reliable science.

            With more reliable technology.

            With more reliable economics.

            With far more reliable financial model.

            With far more reliable marketing model.

            #3: ensure network neutrality; #2: ensure electoral integrity; #1: ensure ecosystemic sustainability.

            by ivote2004 on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:36:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not if we don't get serious (0+ / 0-)
              And PV + Li-ion will do it in less than 25 years, compared to the 50 years it would take to bring the required 1000 new nuclear plants online.
              PV and wind energy have reduced in cost radically over the last decade with minimal investment. We keep dragging our feet to be polite to the flat earth society and the death dealing captains of industry elites. Unfortunately, our President doesn't seem to be in a hurry.

              -7.5 -7.28, A carrot is as close as a rabbit gets to a diamond.-Don Van Vliet

              by Blueslide on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 05:17:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, and seriously, (3+ / 0-)

                The PV + Li-ion synergy has hit a stage in the adoption curve where not even the strongest of opponents can stop it.

                And the Nuclear entropy has hit a stage in its industrial decay curve where not even the strongest of allies can restart it.

                #3: ensure network neutrality; #2: ensure electoral integrity; #1: ensure ecosystemic sustainability.

                by ivote2004 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 05:00:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Climate change is infinitely expensive. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            beach babe in fl, JeffW

            Because it holds the potential of making humans extinct.  

            The wind and solar technology that we have now is sufficient to completely replace fossil fuels for electrical generation within ten or fifteen years IF it's installed widely enough.  Two wind farms, 300 miles apart, can provide "baseload" power 85% of the time.  Adding more wind farms, well separated geographically, increases the reliability.   The wind is always blowing somewhere.  The sun is shining somewhere every day.  We need to put the equipment to catch that power all over the country so we can get it wherever it is.  

            How long does it take to build a nuclear power plant?  Ten years?  The same money and time, used for multiple wind farms, will deliver more power sooner.  

            We will not be burning coal 50 years from now.  Either we will have made the transition to renewable energy, or ecological collapse will have destroyed society and killed so many people that the few survivors won't be using electricity any more.  

            Renewable energy brings national global security.     

            by Calamity Jean on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 07:57:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  What are the best things (30+ / 0-)

      that we can do to get that ball rolling?

      Environmental activists are being painted as terrorists.

      More than a million comments were submitted for the KXL pipeline, numerous marches and protests and reams of things written.

      Gore made a movie and did a world tour.  Activists are tireless and have been for a decade.  Scientists are talking themselves hoarse and writing and doing everything they can think of to get the message out there.

      What else can be done to convince this president, who used climate change as a way of getting elected not once but twices? What else can be done? Serious question.


      "Justice is a commodity"

      by joanneleon on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 07:35:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Invest in engineering (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        I love OCD, TheLizardKing, cocinero

        Want clean power?  It has to be better and cheaper.  Just like wind power now. The GOP govt of my town loves it, because it saves them money.

      •  Reject the label of terrorist! (10+ / 0-)

        Reject it every time you hear or see it!

        Environmental activists are citizens who have the right to have their voices heard!

        They are farmers whose land is being seized to make way for pipelines. They are retirees who meant to live out their golden years in peace and quiet and beauty, only to have their dreams destroyed when a compressor station is put in their valley.

        Environmental activists include the First Nations and Native peoples (and indigenous peoples everywhere)  whose stewardship of the land preserved so much for so long, and whose lands, water, and sacred places are now at risk.

        Environmental activists include the people of Mayflower, Arkansas who cannot yet return to their homes; the people of the Gulf States who have yet to see their livelihoods return.

        Activists include scientists and artists, all of whom see into the future, unlike those whose only incentive is making money in the here and now, without regard to consequences unless forced to by law and regulation. Even then, harm is done.

        And activists include those who want to protect our water, yet are treated as criminals, at the same time that the rich and corporations are buying up water rights worldwide, to sell water back to the people.

        Then there are those who are unable to act in defense of our environment, but stand to suffer the most extreme damage of all. These include every form of wildlife, flora and fauna, that lies in the path of destructive exploitation.

        And our children, who instead of standing to inherit the beauty and blessings of a mostly pristine planet, will face the rubbish, waste, and ruin of what could have been.

      •  here is what we can do... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        I love OCD, cocinero, JBL55, ivote2004

        I think Obama's plan gives us a way forward as I said it's no drama but it's real nuts & bolts.

        This is what needs to be done some elements of this in plan.

        Macca's Meatless Monday

        by VL Baker on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:20:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Fracking is good (4+ / 0-)

      for the resources monopoly gangs as a sort of "future investment" that'll pay off not far down the road. Once all of the entire fresh groundwater/aquifer supplies of the United States have been hopelessly polluted, there's a regular killing to be made in bottled water for more than just yuppies and people unlucky enough to live in Florida...

    •  Anything that makes a significant move (0+ / 0-)

      away from coal and the tar sands is a major step forward.

      In some sense I rather think that fracked natural gas has a built-in expiration date, in that the depletion curves I've seen suggest there will be real problems with expanding that supply past 2020 or so...although unfortunately I'm sure we'll destroy huge chunks of our remaining wilderness first.

      Here is a link that I found interesting.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site