Skip to main content

View Diary: Bernie Sanders to make Hillary the next Cantor? (109 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm afraid that isn't true (0+ / 0-)

    Ezra Klein may be more pessimistic than many Climate Scientists, or more than many are willing to publicly admit. The facts he present though are valid though.

    As someone who follows Climate Science for several years now, I can tell you Bill Mckibben and Michael Mann both know that Obama's strategy is not enough, and definitely not in line with a 2°C target. Because thats what the Science shows. But, they are happy that at least something is done to remove Climate Change from political purgatory.

    Read Prof James Hansen's take on Obama's policy.
    Too Little, Too Late? Oops?

    •  klein is a defeatist (3+ / 0-)

      which is just another form of denialism. meanwhile, i'll quote mann himself:

      All in all, it is the most aggressive and promising climate plan to come out of the executive branch in years, and President Obama should be applauded for the bold leadership he has shown in confronting the climate change threat head on.

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

      by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 09:38:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Forget Klein's attitude (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shaylors Provence

        The data he presents is all correct, draw your own conclusions.
        Also, since u ignored it the first time:

        Prof James Hansen: Too Little, Too Late? Oops?
        http://www.columbia.edu/...

        •  Also... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shaylors Provence

          Obama Climate Rules Not Enough to Fight Global Warming
          http://www.scientificamerican.com/...

          "If the measure of President Obama's proposed power plant regulations is their impact on climate change, they would be doomed to failure, according to climate scientists."

          Also, exporting our pollution is not a solution:
          Obama Boosts Coal Exports, Prompting Allies’ Complaints
          http://www.bloomberg.com/...

          Obama even plans to export the pollution stored by the CCS technology of his new regulations. This is an insult.

          Same Obama used NSA spying to kill Copenhagen Climate Change talks
          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          •  tol? (0+ / 0-)

            you link an article that cites tol?

            http://www.theguardian.com/...

            http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/...

            http://skepticalscience.com/...

            http://www.lse.ac.uk/...

            and here's joe romm:

            One of the country’s best wonks, Vox’s Ezra Klein, has gone defeatist on climate change with his piece, “7 reasons America will fail on climate change.” He invites a reply, and this is mine.

            I have praised Vox’s recent climate coverage. But to see how pessimistic this story is, look at a few of the large-type, all caps, pull-out quotes:

                STAND BACK AND WATCH THE WORLD BURN
                CLIMATE CHANGE HAS A “GAME OVER” QUALITY TO IT
                I COULD MAKE UP A MORE OPTIMISTIC STORY. I JUST DON’T BELIEVE IT.

            KMN?

            I asked one of the country’s top climatologists, Michael Mann, who criticized this story in a tweet to comment. He wrote:

            Defeatist framing is not helpful and threatens serving as self-fulfilling prophecy. We all grew up reading not “The Little Engine that Couldn’t.” The only real obstacle to averting dangerous climate change is lack of willpower and imagination. We must avoid messaging that seems to condone that, as the title of the Vox piece unfortunately does.
            get back to me when you know what you're talking about.

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

            by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 09:38:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Climate Targets (0+ / 0-)

              Richard Tol happens to be often quoted, but obviously he is an academic troll. Still, it isn't him making the argument in the articles I mentioned.

              Here are better articles:
              There's a big gap between Obama's climate ambitions and his actual policies:
              http://www.vox.com/...

              America’s Dirty Secret: Shipping coal to China could wipe out the benefits of Obama’s climate-change policy
              http://www.macleans.ca/...

              So, the question is: What target of degree C are we aiming for? The 2°C is practically a fantasy now. The Neoliberals and their "all-of-the-above" strategy will likely push us right to the 4°C threshold.

              Its a simple math of how many gt of carbon we can still burn, and doesnt yet incorporate complex feedbacks. Need I remind also of Scientists' tendency to anti-alarmism has already seen conservative projections fail. Jut a few years ago we were all still discussing 2°C by 2100 and the Arctic wasn't in threat of imminent summer collapse.

              Judging by Obama's actions and many other business leaders, we all see positive momentum for mitigation. Sadly, most still seem to live in some technological fantasy where man will ultimately "overcome nature". What % of Earth's population are we willing to sacrifice?

              •  michael mann and john abraham (0+ / 0-)

                and joe romm understand the science, and neither under nor over estimate. klein doesm't understand the science. you're good at tossing around code words like "neoliberal" or "anti-alarmism." you're not so good at understanding how the words do and don't apply to contexts.

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

                by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 07:20:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I am speaking entirely about the Science (0+ / 0-)

                  I follow the Science very closerly, and even regularly read published research. Joe Romm and Michael Mann both agree with me. Here are Joe Romm's own words:

                  Two Steps Remain Before Obama Can Claim A Genuine Climate Legacy
                  http://thinkprogress.org/...

                  "U.S. natural gas consumption must peak sometime between 2020 and 2030 to preserve a livable climate. So it makes little or no sense to spend any substantial amount of money on new natural gas production, delivery, and power systems"

                  "even very low leakage of methane from the natural gas system wipes out its advantages over coal power for decades. The recent scientific literature — based on actual measurements of methane — reveals that methane leakage is actually quite high."

                  "By The Time Natural Gas Has A Net Climate Benefit You’ll Likely Be Dead And The Climate Ruined"

                  "if Obama can’t leverage his policies and commitments to get a serious international deal, it will be prima facie evidence that he didn’t do enough. And future generations living with the multiple catastrophic impacts of a ruined climate will judge him, and all of us, as failures. "

                  How Does The New EPA Rule Stack Up Against Obama’s Other Climate Actions?
                  http://thinkprogress.org/...

                  "That rule isn’t expected to make a huge difference in terms of U.S. carbon emissions"

                  Again, the scientific community is happy that anything is being done, but nobody is imagining that efforts so far can themselves cause or lead to limiting warming to 2°C or maybe even 3°C.

                  Michael Mann: Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036
                  http://www.scientificamerican.com/...

                  •  whoosh (0+ / 0-)

                    michael mann has praised obama's bold steps on climate. he and romm directly criticized klein, which undermines the exact premise of your post. you might not understand it, but this isn't complicated.

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

                    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 11:20:11 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Go ask them then (0+ / 0-)

                      They have both praised Obama's bold political steps, which is badly needed to at least break the ice. Neither are in an illusion that this is a significant step to remain within a 2°C or even 3°C target.

                      I think you are also ignoring my links. Please read Joe Romm's article directly above. Quote:

                      "if Obama can’t leverage his policies and commitments to get a serious international deal, it will be prima facie evidence that he didn’t do enough. And future generations living with the multiple catastrophic impacts of a ruined climate will judge him, and all of us, as failures."

                      •  i don't need to ask (0+ / 0-)

                        i already know. i also know what they think of klein's concern trolling.

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

                        by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:37:16 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  do u just read my comment subject? (0+ / 0-)

                          Joe Romm's article directly above. Quote:

                          "if Obama can’t leverage his policies and commitments to get a serious international deal, it will be prima facie evidence that he didn’t do enough. And future generations living with the multiple catastrophic impacts of a ruined climate will judge him, and all of us, as failures."

                          •  and he's trying (0+ / 0-)

                            meanwhile, you know, we have romm's actual post dismantling klein's, point by point. i know this is hard.

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

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 04:46:31 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Dismantle his *defeatism* (0+ / 0-)

                            Which I certainly agree with Romm & Mann on. But they don't disagree with Ezra on the numbers or the challenge ahead of us though.

                            Honestly, Ezra is mainstream media guy who apparently just recently woke up & realized how fucked we are and overreacted with depressing pessimism. Hard to blame him if you look at the facts of the Science, and the political roadblocks - there is certainly a lot to be pessimistic about

                            But there is still a lot we can do, and we must do the very best we can. We can still have a very liveable planet. But if we fail to push for radical mitigation, it will be catastrophic, with deaths in the billions. Wall St and the "ecopragmatists" are pushing for no strong climate targets, rather just mitigate gradually as is most cost-effective in their eyes, and hope for the best.

                            Besides, I am not sure why you keep ignoring the fact that I gave u exactly what u originally asked for: proof on the Science (from Joe Romm & ThinkProgress) that Obama and the establishment Dems are not planning to do nearly enough to avoid a horrific future.

                            I wish it wasn't so, but it is. This Neoliberal agenda is identical around the world too, across various countries. Not enough.

    •  There's a difference (0+ / 0-)

      between saying Obama hasn't done enough, which is true, and claiming he has done "little to nothing" which is untrue.

      I have a lot of respect for Bill McKibben but he has made it clear he's got some kind of issue with Obama that goes beyond policy differences. For example, after spending years pushing Obama to put solar at the White House (even though there already was solar on the grounds), all McKibben could do when it finally happened was to shrug his shoulders and act like it was no big deal. WTF?  I guess the issue doesn't matter anymore once it can't be used to make Obama look bad.

      And Keystone XL isn't the most important climate issue to tackle. It's just one of the few that allows Obama to be targeted directly because it doesn't require Congressional action. I wonder if we could have gotten something more through Congress if 350 and others weren't so singularly obsessed with the White House?

      •  Not really (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shaylors Provence

        Obama has made America a fossil fuel empire. Obama oversaw the mass-expansion of fracking, technology that destroys soil and water it touches for generations. Most of those gas pipes seem also to be leaking copious amounts of methane due to lousy regulation he implemented. Lately there is even much talk about how profitable this whole venture was due to declining EROI as the energy gets harder to extract. Now Obama has started his new push for exporting fossil fuels:

        Obama Boosts Coal Exports, Prompting Allies’ Complaints
        http://www.bloomberg.com/...

        Ahead Of New Anti-Coal Regs, Obama Streamlines LNG Exports
        http://www.forbes.com/...

        Obama is even pushing export of the pollution stored by the CCS technology of his new regulations:

        How the U.S. Exports Global Warming
        http://www.rollingstone.com/...

        "While Obama talks of putting America on the path to a clean, green future, we're flooding world markets with cheap, high carbon fuels"

        Same Obama used NSA spying to kill Copenhagen Climate Change talks
        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        •  Copy and paste? (0+ / 0-)

          You posted this same comment before and it seems even less relevant in this thread. None of what you wrote negates his other actions or otherwise makes them magically disappear.

          And to suggest Obama intentionally killed the Copenhagen talks is complete speculation contradicted by many actions he has taken to get agreements moving. Can we stick to facts without the mind reading conspiracy theories?

          •  Yes it does negate (0+ / 0-)

            Obama is expanding our fossil fuels at a time when we should be contracting. Also, he has approved and encouraged the export of more and more emissions in the form of coal and now LNG to other countries. Thats a reduction on paper only.

            Yes, Obama has taken important symbolic steps. But practically speaking, this is still mostly hot air. We need to aim for 80% reduction by 2030, and hope we can get anywhere near that.

            If you don't believe me, thats fine. Please go ask Michael Mann on twitter yourself. I am here to educate, not troll. We have a limited window of time, and the capitalists want to mitigate a lot less than you'd think. Certainly not enough to limit warming to 2°C or 3°C.

            •  Building renewables (0+ / 0-)

              is not symbolic. It's tangible. The stimulus investments and tax credits for renewables got tangible results.
              Billions in energy efficiency spending isn't symbolic.
              Auto fuel standards, truck standards, billions invested in rail, and promoting alternative transportation planning for cities isn't symbolic. A lot of other President would not have made those things the focus of the stimulus or used the auto bailout to get car manufacturers to change. Ultimately, reducing consumption is more important than what we're extracting right now, and Obama is getting results to reduce consumption.

              The CO2 rule doesn't exist in a vacuum. Mercurcy and SCAPR are already pushing announced coal plant closures. Add in CO2 and coal ash rules and you've got something way, way more than symbolic. I've seen announcements of 12 coal boiler closures in just the last two weeks. Hundreds more will come. That's not symbolic.

              Obama needs to do more. I don't see how convincing people that tangible progress is all meaningless motivates people or politicians to do more.

              •  The point is what target (0+ / 0-)

                What target of degree C are we aiming for. The 2°C is practically a fantasy now. The Neoliberals and their "all-of-the-above" strategy will likely push us right to the 4°C threshold.

                Its a simple math of how many gt of carbon we can still burn, and doesnt yet incorporate complex feedbacks. Need I remind also of Scientists' tendency to anti-alarmism has already seen conservative projections fail. Jut a few years ago we were all still discussing 2°C by 2100 and the Arctic wasn't in threat of imminent summer collapse.

                Judging by Obama's actions and many other business leaders, we all see positive momentum for mitigation. Sadly, most still seem to live in some technological fantasy where man will ultimately "overcome nature". What % of Earth's population are we willing to sacrifice?

        •  C'mon (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Willinois
          Obama has made America a fossil fuel empire.
          And it wasn't before?

          "A famous person once said, 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' But as I once said, "If you don't teach them to read, you can fool them whenever you like." – Max Headroom

          by midnight lurker on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 02:31:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site