Skip to main content

View Diary: Michael Mann: 'The most aggressive and promising climate plan' from 'executive branch in years' (125 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  no, it makes things worse (5+ / 0-)

    http://www.theverge.com/...

    President Obama's plan to fix climate change is fatally flawed, experts say

    Why the White House's proposals for curbing pollution may be mostly smoke and mirrors

    "It's amazing how little this all actually does," said Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University. "In many ways, this makes things worse."
    How does it make things worse???
    the White House's seemingly bold objective to curb carbon pollution by 3 billion metric tons by 2030 actually equates to cutting about one-fortieth of all pollution produced by the US energy sector each year. "The numbers are so trivial, it's almost like a gimmick," he said. Another part of the White House's plan, to increase the amount of renewable energy projects on federal lands enough to power 6 million homes by 2020, is "embarrassingly trivial," in a country of over 130 million housing units, said Jacobson
    it is a gimmick.  it is a charade!!!  will it actually do ANYTHING to prevent the coming global catastrophe we all face today?
    Jacobson also takes specific issue with part of the president's plan that calls for the US Energy Department to provide $8 billion in loan guarantees to what the plan calls "advanced fossil energy projects."
    That there is carbon sequestration research a way to keep the old coal plants running.

    This policy is based on some wheeling and dealing with vested interests without realizing the absolute certainty that our entire society will not be able to adapt to the coming climate catastrophe that, in 20 years of continued business as usual (or the pathetic reductions and efforts outlined in this current plan), will produce by 2065.

    we have 20 years to reduce our TOTAL co2 emissions by 80% anything less will lead to total societal collapse by 2065.

    •  it's a big step in the right direction (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      citisven, doraphasia

      is it enough? no. but even joe romm is pleased:

      http://thinkprogress.org/...

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

      by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 02:19:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is a symbolic step (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, veritas curat

        in the direction that a big step MUST be taken for our future generations to survive.

        what part of 350 don't you understand?

        •  What part of.... (0+ / 0-)

          ...."Republicans control the House of Representatives" don't you understand?

          And don't say "experts say" and then quote the same guy over and over.

          "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

          by sagesource on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:19:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  why don't you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            veritas curat

            look up the term "executive order"

            and quit making baseseless accusations, I was quoting the linked article, if you bothered to look at it then you would know that.

            the simple fact is that this isn't even a token gesture when it comes to what is going to happen to our society and future generations within only a few short years.

            it is ALREADY happening.  to act like this will do ANYTHING to prevent it is not only foolhardy, it is suicidal.

            •  What is environmentally necessary (0+ / 0-)

              is, as so often the case, politically "impossible". Because this is one of those areas where "democracy" and "going slow" are important. The president doesn't have the power to fix this currently, but he does have the power to cut down on new fracking, which he clearly isn't doing.

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

              by AoT on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:53:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  yes he does (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                veritas curat

                he has executive powers that allow him to make policy decisions based on the fact that this is a clear and present danger to the American society and way of life.

                you act like he doesn't have these powers.  he does!

                http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/...

                Franklin D. Roosevelt Executive Order #9276
                Establishing the Petroleum Administration

                (c) (1) Obtain from the Departments of War and the Navy, the Office of Lend-Lease Administration, the Department of State and the Board of Economic Warfare, the several divisions and branches of the War Production Board, and such other Federal departments and agencies as may be appropriate, estimates of the amounts of petroleum which will be required from the United States, its territories and possessions, to meet direct and indirect military, and essential industrial and civilian requirements; and compile and analyze such estimates and submit them to the War Production Board with recommendations for the allocation of petroleum to meet such requirements.

                (f) Be advised of all plans or proposals which deal with the civilian rationing of petroleum and consult with rationing authorities in the development of such plans or proposals; and, in those instances where rationing is for the purpose of maintaining adequate supplies of petroleum for war and essential industrial and civilian requirements, determine, after advising with the War Production Board, the areas and the times within which such rationing should be effective and the amount of petroleum available for such purpose.

                •  That was during a war (0+ / 0-)

                  And believe me, I've argued for rationing before. But we aren't in a declared war and I don't think he could pull off rationing in the current environment.

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

                  by AoT on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 05:28:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  .025% in one step is not trivial. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doraphasia
    •  Al Gore disagrees with you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doraphasia, New Minas
      This was a terrific and historic speech, by far the best address on climate by any president ever.

      Al Gore's Blog

      Enjoy the San Diego Zoo's panda cam! Now with new baby panda! And support Bat World Sanctuary

      by Fonsia on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 05:29:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site