Skip to main content

I hope I am wrong but I don't think I am. With the midterm elections fast approaching and the Republicans in almost total meltdown over their mismanagement of Iraq, the congress and just about any issue one can think of, it is easy to be a Democrat right now. However, assuming that Democrats win control of the House and/or the Senate in about a month, the easy life will be over. With power comes responsibility and on the issue of global warming, I don't think the Dems get it yet. Whether they will ultimately be up to enacting serious climate change legislation will depend I think in large part on progressives in the blogosphere and elsewhere. I explain my thinking below.

President Bush's policies toward climate change have been a disaster. The republican-controlled Congress has punted on the issue, or worse, put idiots like Senator Jim Inhofe in key environmental positions. Nobody believes President Bush's position of relying on voluntary actions and modest increases in R&D will reduce greenhouse gas emissions anywhere near the amount they need to be reduced. Only government regulations that put a cost on greenhouse gas emissions from utilities and industry, pushing them to transition to renewable resources along with other actions like requiring efficiency standards on buildings and applicances, greatly improved mileage standards for cars, etc. have any chance of making the necessary emissions reductions.

Urgent action is required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. Al Gore's movie "An Incovenient Truth" illustrates why action is required. Dr James Hansen, NASA climate scientist, has recently published results which lay out the case that global average surface temperature is one degree Celsius from dangerous climate change. Global average surface temperature is increasing at a rate of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. To prevent dangerous climate change, it is not sufficient to merely stop at current levels the ever increasing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Emissions, particularly emissions from the world's largest polluter the United States, must be drastically reduced. To reduce the emissions well below where they are now will require massive changes. These changes will affect how we generate our electricity, the kinds of cars we drive and the energy efficiency requirements of our buildings and our appliances. But perhaps most of all, confronting the scope of the changes we must make to keep our planet liveable, will forever eliminate the notion that pollution from our cheap energy lifestyle doesn't come with a cost and can be treated as an externality.

My misgivings about the Dems readiness to seriously address global warming is not that I believe they are global warming deniers or that they don't believe something must be done. I expect most of them accept climate change science and are willing to look at climate change legislation. There has even been some legislation proposed in the Senate and House, Kerry & Snowe , Jeffords (pdf file) and Waxman (pdf file) , that recognize the deep cuts in greenhouse gas emission we must make over the next few decades. My fear however is that many Dems think this is just another environmental issue they need to be on the right side of and have not really engaged on the scope of what must be done, the urgency required, the costs that must be incurred to make the necessary changes to our economy and our way of life or, most importantly, the planet altering impacts of not acting. Furthermore my fear is that since Dems have yet to raise climate change as a priority issue in any election they are not prepared for the political fight ahead.

In addition to many Dems thinking this is just another environmental issue to be handled in due course, the Dems also know it is a controversial issue, due largely to the efforts of companies like Exxon Mobil, the coal companies and allies like those at the Competive Enterprise Institute and the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Think of how hard it has been to get the Dems to show some backbone and take on the Republican spin machine on terrorism or to provide specifics on how to resolve the war in Iraq. Now multiply that by a factor of 10. As soon as it looks like serious global warming legislation might actually be voted on in congress, the lobbyists and special interests from every office and cublicle on K street will be taking our Dem Senators and Representatives aside and "explaining" to them why they don't need to act right now, why their client needs an exemption from the regulations, why there will be an economic crisis if  the legislation passes and wouldn't it be so much easier to support a few piecemeal items like more subsidies for ethanol, which by the way will help the farmers in their district. There will be massive publicity campaigns designed to scare voters into calling their Democratic Senators and Representatives and telling them not to enact this legislation because it will cause the price of fuel, electricity, food, housing etc to go up. And frankly, even though the special interests will totally exaggerate the extent to which people will be affected, there will be a kernal of truth to what they are telling voters. To really address climate change will require affecting the lives of almost everyone in the country because our lives are so dependent on fossil fuels and it will cost money and a longterm commitment to make the transition to renewable energy. And how many people believe the Republicans will join the Dems in trying to enact meaningful global warming legislation? A few might but given their recent history the vast majority of Republicans will choose to use it as a wedge issue and claim that Dems just want to raise your taxes, tell you how to run your business and besides global warming will have many beneficial effects.

The Dems will have quite a headwind to overcome if they are going to enact serious climate change legislation. It is true nothing will happen until Bush is gone but the campaign for 2008 starts on November 8. If the Dems are going to enact serious global warming legislation they will need to campaign on it as a priority issue. The only way to make the kinds of changes that need to be made is to get a mandate in an election. There will be a temptation to enact piecemeal bits of legislation that on the surface appear to be helping to address the problem but in reality do little to stem the emissions of greenhouse gases. If they are going to enact global warming legislation that addresses the issue in a comprehensive way, many will need to feel a greater amount of pressure to act than to not act. They will need to feel it is urgent that they act and that the issue not be allowed to be slow walked to oblivion where in effect, the planet's fate is decided by allowing inertia to set our course. Who will provide that pressure and that sense of urgency that the Dems need to overcome the special interest headwinds and the inertia that would leave us on a dangerouse business as usual course? Are activist progressives up to the job? This will be a test for the blogosphere and other activists as well as the politicians.

Crossposted at BlueClimate

Originally posted to Patrick Kennedy on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 04:19 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Re-title, please (32+ / 4-)

    I am not going to bother reading another diary attacking Dems for "not doing enough"."

    Go join the freaking GOP, or work to displace them. This crap has no place here.

  •  patrick (14+ / 0-)

    you're a serious blogger, and i believe no issue is more important than global warming, but please delete and re-write. rather than making this a concern diary, how about changing the tone and making it an action plan diary- will be much more effective, and will get a much better reception here! thanks!

    © 2006 "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream will never die." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, 12 August 1980

    by Laurence Lewis on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 04:26:40 PM PDT

  •  Sometime in the last year (5+ / 0-)

    I read that McCain and Lieberman were only a couple votes shy of passing their Climate Stewardship Act.

    If the Dems take the House, then the opportunity would be there to move it on to the Senate, where it would likely pass.

    The pressure would then be on Bush to sign it.

    Help Maryland's Ben Cardin Defeat Bush's Homeboy, Michael Steele

    by Naturegal on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 04:28:14 PM PDT

    •  or over-ride (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Naturegal, indycam, Catrina

      with the increasing attention this is getting, the dems could put a lot of pressure on vulnerable '08 repugs!

      © 2006 "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream will never die." -Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, 12 August 1980

      by Laurence Lewis on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 04:32:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I haven't looked at that... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, Turkana, venatrix, Syrith

      piece of legislation for awhile but my recollection is that it was not very ambitious. The Jeffords legislation calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The Kerry/Snowe and Waxman bills have similar goals.

    •  uh, a McCain-Lieberman collaboration? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I had that sinking feeling as soon as I saw the names. Though the act has a nice title, but one can say that about lots of Rethug legislation, too.  

      IMHO, "Climate Stewardship Act" is a bandaid, and if passed, would give the public the mistaken impression that something effective is being done.

      Summary of The Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act

      Target: The bill would cap the 2010 aggregate emissions level for the covered sectors at the 2000 level.  

      The bill's emissions limits would not apply to the agricultural and the residential sectors.  Certain subsectors would be exempt if the Administrator determined that it was not feasible to measure their GHG emissions.  The Commerce Department would biennially re-evaluate the level of allowances. . .

      Though I'm looking from this from the perspective of what's known about climate change as of 2006, i.e. with the perspective of 3 years of bad news. Back then, IIRC, we thought we had 20-50 years to turn things around.

      What I'm hearing now says we've got maybe a decade to get stuff into production.

      Enacting large chunks of our "Energize America" proposal, perhaps with the pro-telecommute and mandated energy conservation practices legislation I've proposed gives our nation a far better chance of survival.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 10:59:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you for keeping this in front of us (6+ / 0-)

    Dems need to make this a top priority, and yet there are so many other fires they'll have to fight and so much bad legislature to overturn. Not to mention investigations to hold, and the list goes on and on. But I agree, we don't have a lot of time to waste in the area of global warning.

    Thanks for posting here, we hope to see you here often.

  •  Cart before horse (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glinda, inclusiveheart, chumley

    First we win the election. Then we can start worrying about which of the Republicans' messes to clean up first. This diary does neither. It should be deleted.

    •  if you wait until an election is won (4+ / 0-)

      to talk about an agenda, you effectively forfeit any influence over it.

      crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

      by wu ming on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:17:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And if you spend all your time (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        debating about what you're going to do when you've won the election, you absolutely won't win the election. That's the only thing I'm worrying about right now.

        •  but winning the election (7+ / 0-)

          isn't going to do anything about social change if you don't have a model for politics outside of the idea of winning elections, as most 20th century history will tell you.  

          so, if there are any "high horses" around here, that need to get "gotten off of", its the "let's win the election first before we think about anything else" horse, that's first in line.

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:59:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No doubt this is true, as all of us who ... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jerome a Paris, alizard, vcmvo2

            ...have been activists with larger agendas than party politics are frequently made painfully aware.

            Four weeks ahead of election day, however, is not the most propitious time to be discussing the details of this model, much of which will be moot if the election is lost.

            I have huge differences on various issues with probably 75% of the Democratic Party. 'twas ever thus. But, salon politics has its own drawbacks, too, and EVERY activist group I've ever been involved in from SNCC, to SDS, to AIM all have their contradictions as well as internal dynamics that  taught me the struggle for a non-hierarchical, cooperative, anti-militarist politics is a very very long-term affair that will outlive me by a century if not millennium. Meanwhile, despite the flaws of the current system, we are cutting off our noses if we fail to recognize that incremental - frustratingly incremental, I agree - changes can be made only if we join in a Popular Front with the Democrats, however flawed the party may be.

            I can bemoan the votes of many Democrats on nominees like Alito, on legislation like the Dungeons and Rendition Act just passed, on the unwillingness of most to offer alternative plans for Iraq, Iran and foreign policy in general, for the failure to address the health care crisis, for a too soft effort on the environmental front, et cetera ad aeternam. But as long as the current crew runs every branch of government, we're screwed, and the screwing is likely to worsen. If the only thing a Democratic majority buys us is some time to shift the paradigm, it's worth the effort.

            •  I guess I forgot to mention it but ... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Meteor Blades, Jerome a Paris

              I still plan to vote for the Dems. I would feel better about the Dems, and us, on this issue if climate change were part of the campaign but as far as I know it is not. On this issue, the incremental approach is I believe, dangerous. I repeat what I said in the post. This is not just another environmental issue. It is on a whole different scale than things we have dealt with, mostly successfully, in the past. We really do have only a short time to take action. Turning U.S. climate change emissions around is not going to happen quickly. It is physically impossible to do unless we shut down our economy. It will take many years. It is also a global issue. We have to re-engage with the rest of the world or anything we do unilaterally will only delay the inevitable.

              I agree Dems need to win for this to happen. However I said what I meant and meant what I said in both the title and content of the post. On the rare occasions I have heard Dems talk about this issue, it has not been encouraging. I was on a online chat session with Russ Feingold as part of his Progressive Patriots Fund operation. I really admire Feingold and I hope he runs for President. However in response to a question about global warming he made some comment about having seen Al Gores film and having to get up to speed on global warming. We have to do better than that.

    •  winning elections (0+ / 0-)

      does next to nothing toward putting social change into action.  Putting social change into action is an entirely different arena from electoral politics and any kind of reliance on the latter (electoral policts victories) is bound to put the more important dimension, the social change issue, into the background.

      How long is it going to take dKossers to "get" that???

      Winning elections IS NOT the primary concern, no matter how important winning elections may be.

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:57:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not concerned with social change (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Except as it relates to changing the asswipes in Congress and turning around this country before it falls off the cliff toward which the Bu$heviki have been heading at full speed these last six years. Everything else can wait.

        And if you're not concerned with winning elections, just how, pray, do you plan on getting your climate change agenda accomplished? The Republicans don't think it exists, remember?

        •  Plan on getting it done (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jerome a Paris, Patrick Kennedy

          the same way any other form of social change has ever taken place, with the hard work of movements, organizing, and slogging through until it becomes enough of a mark on the public consciousness to register in electoral politics.

          That's the same way that EVERY change has ever taken place.

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 12:27:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I just watched "Day After Tomorrow" today (0+ / 0-)

    ... scary, frightening, too-close-to-home movie.  While it might be a BIT far-fetched as to time frame, it's certainly not something that can be completely ruled out.

    I'm afraid.  Is there anyone who can calm my fear?  Democrats?

    •  actually, it is far-fetched (0+ / 0-)

      It's way too optimistic on the basis of what we know now.

      It's assumptions were set in concrete (you have to do this some time, or there's no movie) before it was discovered that the greenhouse gases under the thawing Arctic permafrost were NOT included in the previous climatological calculations that told us that we're in deep shit as a planet.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 11:04:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  how bout some leadership (0+ / 0-)

    from your own self?

    Your judgement is wrong about too many things.

    It's not easy to be a Democrat right now, and control of the House and Senate are far from certain.

    So take your pathetic cliches and stale prose home.

    Come back with some passionate leadership.

    •  While I agree with you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I think that WE need to start being the leaders, as our leaders have done a very poor job the last 6 years.

      My file on Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

      by adigal on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:48:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Talk about "inconvenient truth"... (0+ / 0-)

        if this was the PK of RI my comment was germane to the topic.  Did you troll rate PK for saying that he was bringing out the "crap" in Elwood? Your pronouncement of a donut for my comments was also done quite pompously. The sudden disappearance of my comments is also more than a little Orwellian.  Hadn't experienced such censorship before.

        •  Correction, he called Elwood a "jerk", Adigail (0+ / 0-)
        •  I troll rated you for your comment about drunken (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dave925, vcmvo2, hormiguero

          drivers in a diary by someone with the name of Kennedy.  And is was not Orwellian - I can still see your comment.  Maybe when you earn trusted status, you could see how terrible your commment sounded as well.

          My file on Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

          by adigal on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 07:56:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If you get 2 troll-ratings (0+ / 0-)

          against 0 recommends, then your comment indeed disappears, unless you have TU status (Trusted User).  That's community standards, not censorship by the administrators.

          In a live discussion group, it would be the equivalent of a group of people turning their backs on you for farting.  Would you decry that as "censorship" too?

          Chaos, fear, dread. My work here is done.

          by madhaus on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 01:56:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  exactly (0+ / 0-)

        we should get ourselves elected to be senators and representatives so all the senators and representatives we replace can then senselessly attack us for not saving the environment.

        eep opp ork ah-ah. that means i love you. i took my baby for a ride in space...

        by BiminiCat on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 08:23:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  PK is providing an incitement form of leadership, (0+ / 0-)

      righteous anger.

      Just, perhaps, out of context.

      It's full of stars...

      by ritzl on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 08:14:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We'll have SOME leverage, though, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    if we can gain enough seats in the House to be veto-proof. I know impeachment isn't a popular idea in many quarters, because it's feared we'll look "petty," but I think if we spend three months in committee investigating three different possible branches of impeachment issues--fraudulent manipulation of intelligence going into Iraq, the hundreds of signing statements which make many of Bush's actions criminal, and then possible war crimes--we should be able to initiate impeachment proceedings six months into the new year. And I think we take Cheney and Bush out with that. Then, Pelosi runs the country! Don't know why many seem frightened by that prospect. Personally, I think she'd do fine.

  •  Canada's tar sands are becoming an issue (0+ / 0-)

    and the government of Harper is dithering with little leadership being shown.

    •  I get the impression that Canada ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, Cake or Death

      is actually retreating on addressing climate change. The latest I heard was there was a battle going on between Western Canada (tar sands) and Eastern Canada (auto plants) over who should carry the burden of addressing Canada's Kyoto commitment. Is that true?

      •  what is true is that neocons have taken over (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dave925, Patrick Kennedy

        the government in Canada. And yes they mimic Bush's administration almost always. They do not have a strong hold on goverment yet though  - if they get a strong majority government they will really mess things up.

      •  I think you summarised it perfectly (3+ / 0-)

        Ms. Ambrose is over her head. Accompanied by her new Assistant who was recently   Dr.Dobsons appointed leader of Focus on the Family in Canada they do not appear to have much of any plan or any kind of leadership or much in the way of experience.

        Harper has gone for ideology over substance when it comes to Environment.

        The people of Canada's Arctic are among the first to really understand the impact, them and the threatened polar bears and both deserve better.

    •  The Tar Sands mean that Oil will never go over (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave925, miguelmas

      $X a barrel, and when it approaches that mark, we will be able to rely on our good friends to the North to help us ease our transition to renewables.

      I understand that there is a lot of nuance and assumed context in this statement, but my take is that Canada gives the US an opportunity to shift to renewables at a minimum of short-term dislocation, and this should be embraced by pols on both sides of the border.

      My semi-educated guess is that $X = $130 +/- (gasoline about $6 a gallon), and that is where oil prices will stay/cap until the transition occurs.

      I don't claim to be a dedicated follower of Canadian politics, but the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and perhaps Alberta have huge Wind Energy resources, just like the Dakotas, KS and NE do in this country.  It would seem that there should/would be some debate about this up there as a means to resolve their Kyoto obligations.

      But bottom line, IMHO, is that renewables become increasingly utilized motivated by the confluence of world events and proximity.  In this case, the political/economic marketplace will work to our long-term advantage.  Consumers will lead in this case.

      Sorry for being so long.  Hope I didn't go OT.

      It's full of stars...

      by ritzl on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 08:01:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I suggest you look into (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the environmental consequences and the massive energy consumption required in order to get tar sands oil to the marketplace before you call it an easy answer.

        The initial solution to the energy problem was going to be a nuclear reactor. Now, I understand the plans involve massive coal plants. . . so tar sands mean not only do these fossil fuels get turned into CO2, but massive quantities of coal also get turned into CO2.

        Even cellulosic ethanol from farmed biomass looks safer and more cost-effective than that.

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 11:08:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  NOT easy. Temporary and/or mid-term mitigating (0+ / 0-)

          part of the overall switch to non-fossil fuel alternatives.

          This is an abbreviated comment medium and I do not underestimate the challenges in reducing CO2.  I only believe that the tar sands are a tool to avoid the dislocations in doing so.  Which means to me that they facilitate the transition.

          Thanks for sharpening my awareness.  Sincerely!

          It's full of stars...

          by ritzl on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 11:46:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  It has alwasy been so (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharon in MD, ritzl

    The Repubs make the mess, the Dems clean it up. The public expects it by now, and it should be advertised as such, so that the job of cleaning up the climate, and the political landscape, will be viewed with a more realistic perspective. AND, the Dems must take their repsonsibilites seriously, because the Rightwing wants nothing more than to blame the Dems for all the ills this Adm has created, and then some. The only sure way for the Dems to avoid blame is to convince voters that global warming is a moral issue, and a patriotic isuue, not a political issue, and that all will be required to participate in its resolution, regardless of partisan preferrence. And further, that anyone resisting resolution is doing so for purely selfish reasons.

  •  I don't think this is fair or produtive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, Turkana

    Democrats haven't had power to control the agenda in DC in years, yet you seem to be basing their future actions (once they're in power) on their more recent behavior. Look, WE are the Democrats and if we want them to take up climate change (I sure do!), then we need to let them know it.  

    Now, we can try to do that by saying "Oh, you Democrats still don't get it" thus perpetuating the rw meme/stereotype that Dems are feckless OR we can be positive and support the candidates that favor proactive environmental policies.

  •  Now then- how do we think this -should- be done?? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alfred E Newman, Sharon in MD

    Thank you, Patrick Kennedy, for getting this out there; as and environmental studies BA who is devoting my life to environmental issues, I have been worrying over this as well.

    But let's discuss a best case scenario, as well.  GIVEN that we know what kind of pushback to expect, HOW would our "fantasy congress" take this on? and when?  

    Pelosi has been talking about her plans for "the first hundred hours" of a Democratic-controlled Congress.  At what point in the political process should Global Warming bills be offered, and what strategies should be used to frame them, control the discourse, and drive them through?  

    •  Cough, gasp, sputter (0+ / 0-)

      not yet.  I'm still able to post.

    •  I believe... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, wu ming

      the Democrats need to campaign on major legislation, along to lines of one of the bills I cited in the post, and win a  mandate from voters to enact the kind of comprehensive legislation that will be needed. None of the bills I mentioned will get out of congress while Bush is in office. In fact, I would be surprised if any of them passed in the next congress because global warming legislation has not been an issue in the congressional elections that I am aware of.

      I think the Presidential primaries will be a good opportunity for Dem candidates to tell us and the rest of the world what they would do about global warming. My hope is that all of the Dem candidates will support comprehensive legislation and that the winner will take that to the voters in 2008. I also believe that Congressional and Senate candidates need to run on a platform that favors strong action on global warming, again for the 2008 elections. I see two essential tasks ahead. First getting Dems to make this a priority campaign issue and secondly agreeing on the general outlines of comprehensive legislation.

  •  This is the best diary of 2007 (4+ / 0-)

    Please listen people


    I'm personally haveily involved in this issue via and elsewhere

    here we have an issue which the majority of Americans are in favor of, which clearly Democrats can lead on

    yet we give it zero priority in campaigns

    such a big mistake

    listen people


    •  apology of the misspelling (0+ / 0-)

      I wish there was a way to edit posts here

      I'm heavily involved in this, I meant to say, of course

      so disappointing that this isn't a key issue for Democrats to campaign and rally around

      and it ties right into Katrina and the general inability of Republicans to govern responsibly

    •  We don't win (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      with this item .
      We win and then do some thing about it .

      •  We won't be able... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SarahLee, tzt

        to sneak this one past the voters. It is too big. I believe Dems have to commit on this issue and get a mandate in an election.

        •  Its not about sneaking anything (0+ / 0-)

          Get into office and then do what needs to be done . Get the best and brightest to work on it and then get it done . Don't ask for it to be a big plank . Let it be untill we can do what needs to be .
          I agree that its huge , its now or now and not to be left for latter on . It need fixing . Its just not going to grab voters , imho.  .

    •  me2 full time mags (0+ / 0-)

      looks like there are a few things we could talk about.  check my site please?  :-) Rick

    •  WTF w/ the hyperbole? (0+ / 0-)

      "Best diary of 2007". Oh fucking puh-lease.

      It's like grade inflation in elementary school: "This diary is an A+++++++"

      And you sound like you're hyperventilating as you typed up your deal.

      So, you know, take some deep breathes and chill the fuck out.

      •  it's a big mistake... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        ....that Democrats make not campaigning on this

        huge mistake

        hence the emphasis

        sorry if you disagree

        time to show we know how to lead by taking charge in what's important

        •  It is wise not to campaign on this (0+ / 0-)
          It is a very serious risk to the planetary ecosystem.

          But your values voters who are driving their SUVs, living in their Mac Mansions, air conditioning every room from coal fired electricity generation plants just is not going to vote for a doom and gloom scenario prevention strategy.

          Their brains are too fizzy drink, fat and corn syrup fed to understand complex ideas no matter how simply put.

          So let them vote of the issue of a gay man giving unwanted email attention to boys, and the cover up.  That is fear they can understand.

          Climate change is not a winning issue.

    •  This Diary... (0+ / 0-) just a concern troll diary.  It sucks.

      Baaaa! Baaaa! :::Chomp!::: Beat Doc!

      by InquisitiveRaven on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:33:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Missing from a lot of Global Warming discussion (5+ / 0-)

    is that the US cannot possibly "fix" it all on its own.  It is a global problem that will require deeply committed global cooperation if there is to be any hope for the future of human civilization.  This will require the most intense and deft diplomatic effort ever attempted in human history.

    So, the Dems need not only to start getting serious, like yesterday, about radical changes in internal energy policy, they ALSO need to start getting serious about radical changes in US foreign policy.  Halfway measures either internally or externally simply aren't going to cut it.

    IF the Democrats actually manage to wrest control of the US government from the clutches of the demon horde, their mandate is nothing less than to lead all of civilization on a mission to save itself.

    Goddamn it!  They'd fucking well better be up to it!  And, I agree with Patrick, at the moment I'm not even close to being certain that they are.

    Private life is all about managing pain. In business and government, this means externalizing and deferring costs whenever possible.

    by sxwarren on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:45:18 PM PDT

    •  True, True, True... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SarahLee, sxwarren

      It is a global issue and the U.S. needs to re-engage with the rest of the world to solve this problem. Just this week, the U.S. delegation at the G8 meeting of energy and environment ministers in Monterrey, Mexico was once again stiffing the international community in their attempt to move forward on addressing global warming.

    •  true (7+ / 0-)

      although we're about the worst offender globally, so cleaning our own crap up will be disproportionately effective, and ought to give us more credibility to ask others to join in on solutions, once we've bothered to help out.

      crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

      by wu ming on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:21:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Dems Still Don't Get It" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We get it !
    When we are in power we will do something about it , till then we are stuck with bushcos ideas on the item.

  •  Cart before the horse much? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drgardner, vcmvo2, indycam

    Of the various serious issues that await a Democratic majority, I would say that your "concern" for Congress to "fix" global warming is laughably low on the list.

    I would prefer that, first, we restore Habeas Corpus.

    And the 4th Amendment.

    And the checks and balances inherent in that crazy piece of paper we call the Constitution.

    And then there's whole laundry list of stuff that Congress alone can do.

    Did I mention that we're AT WAR? And losing it badly?

    But putting your Concern Trolling aside, Congress can't "fix" global warming. There's stuff they can do, sure, and the U.S. is a significant contributor to the problem, but fucking wake the fuck up w/ your political priorities.  We're not going to take over the House and/or Senate because of Al Gore's movie. It'll be because of Iraq. And that is Job One for the Dems. As you might or might not know, people are dying there. Daily. So, there's a bigger "time element" involved.

    Anyway, thanks for the CONCERN. Now please go gnash your teeth / rent your clothes elsewhere, thanks.

  •  Are you Rep. Patrick Kennedy from Rhode Island? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    indycam, Lollipops, Marshall Darts

    just wondering.  

    Mel's Musings. True. Christian. Blog.

    by gobacktotexas on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:51:59 PM PDT

  •  OK, how about instead of bitching (5+ / 0-)

    ... about whether Mr. Kennedy is a troll and, if so, what kind of troll he is and, gosh, where did I put that roasted eggplant parmesan recipe, how about we actually discuss the question before us, the one upon which the entire f*cking future of humanity rests, which, in the case you've forgotten, is how do we lead on arresting and reversing global warming?

    If there's enough hubbub around this, Congress will have to do something, and it's past the time we figure out what we want them to do and how to get them to do it.

    Think we can't turn this ship around? Look at how 2 dozen wingnuts with tape over their mouths got a braindead woman on the national agenda. This is about the future of our entire species, people.

    So what to do? Jerome and his gang have addressed a lot of it in Energize America. What I'd add is a radical restructuring in the way we do land use and transportation planning in this country.

    Right now we've got local land use decisions creating sprawl, transportation planners responding with more highways, further inducing sprawl, and on into infinity (or at least until peak oil).

    The legislation that created regional metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) requires coordinated transportation and land use planning, and since ISTEA, MPOs have had a mandate to reduce vehicle miles traveled, but the coordination mandate is terribly weak, locals are loathe to give up their land use powers, and we continue to sprawl and drive more and more.

    That's something we can change. Yes, it will be tough, just like a serious gas tax, but I don't think I'm alone in saying I'm up for a little hard work if it means saving humanity's skin.

    Plain old mother talk ain't nowhere near strong enough to describe such a terrible mix-up as life. -- Mark Harris

    by skeptigal on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:53:02 PM PDT

    •  here are two issues (0+ / 0-)
      1.  the environment.
      1.  is it ok to attack dems?

      these are two different issues.   if everyone is only talking about issue no. 2, then that could be, you know, the diarists fault.

      eep opp ork ah-ah. that means i love you. i took my baby for a ride in space...

      by BiminiCat on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 07:30:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "I don't think the Dems get it yet." (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drgardner, shpilk, Elwood Dowd, vcmvo2

    "the Dems" again. Ah "the Dems."

    I get it. I'm a Dem. So does my wife. So does most everyone I know... including a couple I know in the US Congress.

    Instead of painting all of "the Dems" with a negative brush, which - besides being an inaccurate and inapproprite generalization, continues to do the work of the other side by turning the term "the Dems" into a pejorative, why not be specific?

    After all, since some of "the Dems" get it - many actually - is it no less accurate to say "hey! 'the Dems' really get it on climate change!" No?

    Pick your targets and your words accurately and respectfully. If you mean "the current Dem caucus over all" or "some Dem leaders", just fucking SAY that. Do NOT insult me and the many Dems I know who are busting their butts on the issue with some sweeping pejorative use of the term.

    Get over to the Green Mountain Daily! What are you still reading this sig for?

    by odum on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:56:51 PM PDT

    •  its still okay for me, however (0+ / 0-)

      because unlike everyone else at dKos, I'm NOT a Dem. I'm a citizen, and a radical, and a leftist, and so many things that have nothing to do with the Democratic party.  But I do, very, very often, vote for people who have (D)'s after their names on the ballot.

      When will people ever "get" that this is important?

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 07:01:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "its still okay for me, however " (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Help me out, here. Which part of it is okay for you exactly?

        1. It's okay for you to insult me in a sweeping generalization, just because that sweeping generalization doesn't apply to you?
        1. It's okay to aid the right in their propoganda war and make the term "dems" a pejorative the way we let them make the word "liberal" one in the late 80's-early 90's and marginalize us by redefining the language to their purposes?

        Take your pick.

        Get over to the Green Mountain Daily! What are you still reading this sig for?

        by odum on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 07:09:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "aiding the right in their propaganda war" (0+ / 0-)
          don't you find that just a tad hyperbolic? pointing out the things the Dems don't get, is precisely the only thing that WILL help defeat the right in their propaganda war, because the Dems have yet to understand that these arenas aren't symmetrical.  

          and if you are "insulted" by statements which point out what Dems (or Americans, or liberals, or middle class white folks, or anyone else for that matter) "don't get" then how do you ever expect to learn anything or see old problems in new ways?

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 12:32:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are you intentionally avoiding my point? (0+ / 0-)

            don't you find that just a tad hyperbolic?


            pointing out the things the Dems don't get, is precisely the only thing that WILL help defeat the right in their propaganda war,

            That whirring sound is the point flying wayyyyy over your head.

            Here's some logic for you. You support arguing that "the Dems don't get it" on climate change. I'm a Dem - until recently I was a county chair. And I work for an environmental group that works on climate change.

            And yet, according to your logic and your statement, "I still dont get it" on climate change.

            and if you are "insulted" by statements which point out what Dems (or Americans, or liberals, or middle class white folks, or anyone else for that matter) "don't get" then how do you ever expect to learn anything or see old problems in new ways?

            I'm insulted by someone making sweeping, derogatory statements about what I do or don't "get." Who wouldn't be?

            Oh - y'think maybe the diarist didn't mean me personally? Well the is it too fraking much to ask for him to say specifically who he DOES mean???? And is it too much to ask people like you why people like me are sick of this crap??? If he means
            "elected Dems in Washington" let him SAY that (even though many of them DO get it, and even that is an unfair characterization - why the hell acn't we name names, or point at the leadership). This kind of catch-all condemnation is at the best, pure intellectual laziness.

            And if you can't see that the term "the Dems" is ONLY used as a pejorative (when Conyers and company proposed impeachment, I didn't see anyone saying "the Dems are finally coming out for impeachment!" on this blog... rather, "the Dems" were the ones like Pelosi who distanced themselves), try googling it and see what comes up.

            ...and if you don't see why continuing to use the term only as a term of derision, then you're too young to remember what happened when Dukakis abandoned the term "liberal" to be turned into a pejorative. We're still paying for that one.

            Get over to the Green Mountain Daily! What are you still reading this sig for?

            by odum on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 11:36:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  This is a good diary -- troll raters be damned (11+ / 0-)

    this is a good diary, and understandable.  I don't think Elwood Dowd's little snit did anybody any good.

    The fact is we do have an issue:  yes we need to win, but we also need to govern, and we need to govern from our values.   All the people here are forgetting that corporate lobbysts have plenty of ties into the dems; and will have even more so when we take back Congress.

    PK is right-- if we go back to the old model, we will fail.  This is the Rahm Emmanuel / Hillary Clinton model of corporate democrats-- yes far better then our corrupt disaster at present, but not willing to lead on values.

    The more we go into this with our eyes open the better, and that's what PK is trying to do.

    I think for one thing, a full fledged attack on Exxon / Mobil for false information is a start.  Irresponsible carbon use has to become as toxic as smoking-- it is in fact worse.  In this case, it's not just smokers who die for tobacco companies' profit, it is entire million year old ecosystems that are sacrificed for just twenty years of short term profits.   it is as if we have people who are heating the Louve by burning the canvasses on the wall.

    This is an issue we need to frame and lead on, and it is not simply another "interest group checkoff".

    "Ah, what an age it is when to speak of trees is almost a crime for it is a kind of silence about injustice" (Brecht)

    by tsackton on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:58:48 PM PDT

  •  I disagree. The Democrats undestand the urgency (0+ / 0-)

    of global warming.  However, assuming they win a House, they will still face a President who is hostile to the environment.  Remember, this is a President who rolled back the progress Clinton had made.  It also may not be in the Republicans favor going into '08 to land the Democrats a victory (not that that should matter). I think the initial plans the Dems have laid out (restoring oversight, pushing for completion in Iraq, expanding healthcare, redistributing some of Bush's tax cuts for millionaires to the middle-class, and controling spending) are the most plausible.  I do think they will enact some positive legislation in terms of global warming, but to what extent is unclear.  I think they will debate it alot more because most Americans understand how dangerous global warming is, and how in ties into so many other issues facing Americans (for example, it's a health issue, it poses a excellent opportunity for the economy and job creation, it's a pocketbook issue, it's a national security issue, it's a global concern).  I think the state's have started taking the lead on the environment.  People seem to be talking about the environment, renewable energy, solar, wind farms, etc., everywhere.  I don't remember that ever being true before.  I've watched a bunch of debates on C-Span from all over the country and everyones talking about it, but with Bush in office and perhaps only one House I'm not sure how much they can get done in the next two years.  

  •  We do need to lead on climate change (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Plan9, Bob Guyer

    ... but we should not expect Democratic office holders to lead for us.

    If they try to enact policies that the population does not understand, they will be out of office in the next election.

    The emphasis needs to be on getting the population to understand the depth and gravity of the problem first. Once that is accomplished, the government can act.

    How do we do that? Wish I knew. But the Democrats are the only ones who can help, just as they are the only ones who can deal with Iraq. Because they will start with the truth, and stick with it.

    IMO climate change and the rest of the sustainability crisis is the #1 challenge of the century.

  •  WTF? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, vcmvo2

    Dems don't get it?  What, the Republicans do?

    Listen, even if we get majorities (small chance, that), nothing is going to be veto-proof or signing statement-proof.

    Peddle it elsewhere.  I'm ashamed for your diary.  I'm sure you get tired of being thought to speak for a generation, but you sure as hell do not speak for me.

    We're at least 5-10 years from undoing this disastrous Administration.  And I'm sorry, I think Iraq ranks as a priority in there as well.

    Shame on you.

    Baaaa! Baaaa! :::Chomp!::: Beat Doc!

    by InquisitiveRaven on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:32:10 PM PDT

  •  Hoping for a landslide...Lets make it happen.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    When we win both houses. The fun will just begin..We have to have a good majority or those turncoat dems like lieberman, Pryce etc will shake us down every chance they get..For real change we have to get the incumbent dems out..No progress until that happens..Then we have a president that doesnt listen to congress anyway so we need some dems. with balls.. A lot of dems. with balls..I expect we will be in good shape next year..Unless we get a landslide.  Then watch out Mr. president..

  •  There are so many things that (0+ / 0-)

    the Democrats don't get, global warming is but one of a long list of issues, and a long series of conceptual and tactical approaches that seem, simply put, to be beyond their grasp.

    That's a hard thing to say to a family member of a Democratic dynasty, but its necessary,  it seems to me.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:50:48 PM PDT

  •  The Most Important Agenda Item For This New Congr (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Guyer

    Congress will be to limit the role of special interests in setting the agenda of Congress.  Until and unless we limit their role we will not see concrete progress on environmental issues.  Further, this election will only give us a two year window, if we move too aggressively we run the risk of achieving some short term progress only to be stalled by a return to narrow-sided right wing politics two years hence.

    I see our opportunity as a chance to build consensus, get the easy bills passed, emphasize educating the public and develop a strategy to win the presidency while retaining both houses of congress in 2008.  If we can do that then we take on GW full speed ahead.

    The good news is even the easy bills currently on the table can make a difference.  We can agree to fund alternatives, we can agree to increase gas milege, we can agree to clean up coal, we can agree to give incentives for passive design in construction.  In short there is a lot we can do, but the most important thing we need to do is get the public behind us.

  •  A Piece of Advice? (4+ / 0-)

    Simmer down, take one minute out to mediate, drink a cup of herbal tea and rejoin what I hope will be a CIVIL conversation.  

    This is an important diary and quibbling about titles, phrasing, and whatnot isn't very useful.  The most important reality, whether we like it or not, is the present, next 30-day political reality.  Global warming will not win us this round of elections.  And, as far as I can see, as important as this issue is, the Dems can't really do anything substantive until we can elect a Dem President in 2008.  May we have the wisdom to find a truly visionary candidate.

    When we have political control in both our individual States and the Federal government, may we hope we have the will to make the sacrifices that will necessary to harness our consumption beast, and bring so many of our energy-guzzling behaviors under control.

    Strangely enough, when we do step up to the plate, we will have some strange bedfellows, including many right-wing Evangelical churches.  But right now we have a 30-day window and what we have to do is win as many seats as we can, both in our states and our Federal government.

    dress for dinner and be discreet.

    by moodyinsavannah on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:51:49 PM PDT

  •  of course (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Jerome a Paris, vcmvo2
    Hidden by:

    this diary had to get on the rec list.

    allow me to point something out:  a lot of people (are they even democrats?) STILL don't get it.

    what's a damn shame here is the issue here is definitely high priority.  a crucial issue that i wholeheartedly agree with.

    but i've sworn never to support anyone and even acknowledge the issue itself as long as the person advocating for that issue can't -- out of sheer lack of imagination, most likely -- figure out a way to advocate for that issue that doesn't include taking a giant shit all over the party i support.

    so.  sorry.  here goes.

    fuck the environment.

    fuck this diarist.

    don't like my little tirade.  troll rate me.

    but this is bullshit, it's a month before an election and this is bullshit.   i was told by a great many people here at dkos that we can fight over shit during the non-election years... that that's what hearthy parties do, but we pull our shit together come election time.  well.  apparently that's bullshit too!  cause we're not!!!

    it was requested above, it was a simple request to simply change the title of the diary.  that's all that had to be done and instead of saying the offensive things i said above, i'd be saying:

    1. save the environment.
    1. recommended!

    eep opp ork ah-ah. that means i love you. i took my baby for a ride in space...

    by BiminiCat on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 07:00:44 PM PDT

  •  First priority. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Guyer

    If by some remarkable effort and luck BOTH the Senate and House go Dem,impeachment of the criminal in charge of the unitary executive is job 1.

    If one part, the House goes, there will be a series of paralyzing moves and votes for the next two years, since the unitary executive has been aggrandizing the means and ways to make the Congress irrelevant.

    The global warming/re-assertion of US leadership on these issues will be a bone of contention between the thug in the White House and his armies of lobbyists and connected friends and the Democratic Party.

    Subpoenas, investigations,all the skeletons and corruption will be up for examination for a start.

    Getting to lead  on the key issue means changing the election cycle into public funding exclusively, no sugar daddies or corporate lobbying allowed. That is key to having some representation that will not be beholden to select large donors as we have now.

      Without it, no agenda for progress has a chance.
    The money will swamp and drown the progressives on the airwaves and every other way. Wall Street Journal wants its biggest players to continue to be puppetmasters. They have to be broken away or they will suffocate us all.


    OK............ Next!

    by Pete Rock on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 07:12:41 PM PDT

  •  Disagree with your spin, but do believe the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    environment and global warming are becoming more of a mainstream fear.  

    The NYT had an excellent article the other day regarding what the author called an "Energy Diet."  It was well written and went through simple ways that individuals can reduce wasted energy.  Of course, this was the New York Times (some, um, Presidents seem to not trust East Coast, urban papers ), but the fact that this was one of their "most emailed articles" indicates that this issue is in the nation's focus.  Not sure if this is well known, but the author also mentioned, a companion website with An Inconvenient Truth with suggestions on minimizing personal energy waste.  

    I completely agree that Dems need to get on top of this issue, but perhaps not for the midterms.  One of the things going for us right now is not only are people increasingly aware of global warming, but the GOP is losing credibility faster than they can pin their problems on the Dems!  Lets keep the momentum going, focus on taking GOP seats, and then worry about the work ahead.  It is a huge, scary problem that the Repubs have contributed to, but it doesn't make sense to bash the Dems before we are in office. . .  

    "Some look at things that are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?" George Bernard Shaw

    by Andrea S on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 07:21:18 PM PDT

  •  KATHA POLLITT said it best (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Plan9, draftchrisheinz, Bob Guyer

    On NARAL

    Stories like these are the reason I prefer to support individual candidates. They may betray you and break your heart, but at least you are not canceling your own vote, and funding your own funeral.

    I prefer to back individual Democrats for things like National Health Insurance or hiking up CAFE standards and committing to Kyoto. When you say The Democrats don't get it, there is no such animal. Unlike the GOP, which will firmly toe the line on almost every issue, the Democratic Party doesn't have unanimity on anything except disliking Bush. But where else are you going to turn to solve climate change? There is guaranteed to be no progress while Republicans are in power. There might be progress if Democrats are in power. That is the sorry state of affairs in America. Period.

    Given a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, Americans will choose the real Republican every time - Harry Truman

    by tiggers thotful spot on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 07:26:02 PM PDT

  •  Shocking titles get people to read diaries (6+ / 0-)

    Sad but true.

    But what gets me is that some trusted users act like trolls when a diary or a title doesn't fit into their view of what's appropriate.

    It's one thing to politely ask someone to alter something about a diary.  It's another to start flaming the author over a title.

    I thought the full moon as last night, LOL. ;)

    Seriously though, this sort of response erodes away at the civility of a community.  Disagreement is great so long as that disagreement doesn't lead to uncivil behavior.

    Also, this title kerfuffle falls into the "Life's too short" category. Let's expend that energy on campaigns and elections, rather than attacking one another.

    •  Well stated (0+ / 0-)

      And lecture accepted.

      Now: what is your suggestion for dampening the onrush of 'shocking' titles, which on this site means, titles that attack Democrats? Because we are seeing a lot of them, more every day.

      •  My advice for that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        would be to not reward people for shocking titles.  I have the tendency to avoid really bizarre/shocking titles.  IOW I try not to read or recommend those. I may be only one person, but if others do the same thing, eventually there is no advantage to having a shocking title.  Also, I try to make my titles such that may generate interest without being sensationalistic or shocking.  I try to take a more journalistic approach, harkening back to my high school days in journalism class. LOL.

        Otherwise, maybe there needs to be a diary on people's views on what makes a good diary title and what doesn't.  I'd be curious to know what gets people to read a diary and what doesn't......(besides being shocking)

        PS...Sorry for being preachy....I have that bad tendency, LOL. ;)

    •  i hope the diarist (0+ / 0-)

      read your response.

      eep opp ork ah-ah. that means i love you. i took my baby for a ride in space...

      by BiminiCat on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 08:33:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm a Democrat and what I don't get (0+ / 0-)

    are people who claim to be Democrats who think their primary purpose in life is berating the party. I've taken to calling it the James Carville syndrome (Paul Begala would work equally well).

    The fundamental point is that the Democratic Party does get it. The Party -- for those who think it's some nebulous, abstract construction like "society," of which they're never a part when demonizing -- may not "get it" exactly as you would like. However, "the Democrats" will never get the opportunity to act on it as long as we have blame-Dems-first Democratic pundits, and diarists like this one.

  •  I'm sick of Pyrrhic moral victories (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tryptamine, callmecassandra

    And Climate Change has the pyromainiacs drooling.

    Wake up!

    Climate Change is important, but Climate Change is a losing paradigm.

    If you want to do something about it, start talking the bread and butter issues that people actually vote on:

    • The War
    • Terrorism/Security
    • Integrity
    • Economics

    All four of these can/should/must be framed to convince voters to cast ballots for Democrats.  Then, and only then, will we be able to address Climate Change.

    You can't steer the car from the backseat.  You have to be driving it first.

  •  Question for Patrick... (0+ / 0-)

    Are you doing any volunteering for any of your local races?  I am simply curious.  Phone banking, door belling, they're pretty easy things to do.  Just cut out internet surfing or blogging a couple of hours a week and you can make a difference.

    And, of course, it goes without saying that if you don't do these things, then you don't get it.  Because ground game is absolutely essential.  And complaining on a blog is not remotely close to as valuable as volunteering for local Democrat campaigns.

    Put it this way... if on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is of no help to the Democratic Party, and a 10 is a grand slam you helped Democratic candidates get elected, then the rankings are something like this...

    0.5 - complaining on blog which motivates Dem candidates and strategists to change their game.
    10 - doorbelling and phone banking.

    2 great women for WA: Cantwell & Burner

    by rustydude on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 08:06:18 PM PDT

  •  Dems ARE laying a foundation for DOING something. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, mikolo

    There is not an overnight solution to this problem.  It will take years to move in the right direction.  

    Gore made a huge impact with his presentation. Translating that into policy will take a fight, coupled with the underlying motivation of continually rising gas/energy prices.

    It is unfair to expect a snap turnaround on this issue.  Many, many jobs are dependent on the status quo, and Dems have to manage their support for new ways (renewables) with their renewed (NPI) support of working people.

    It is NOT so easy, IMHO.

    It's full of stars...

    by ritzl on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 08:11:55 PM PDT

  •  Dem president & congress then... (0+ / 0-)

    Let's get dem president & congress and then let's get on their asses to do the right thing. work for most progressive in primary, then beat any Repug.

    When we did have pres & congress, briefly in early Clinton years... well the Dems sucked due to too many DINO (remember carbon tax that got shot down by big oil dems?). So I grant you not always working...

    But infinitely worse until we control all branches. We have seen what happens when Repugs control all.

    DrSteveB "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." PK Dick

    by DrSteveB on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 08:20:51 PM PDT

  •  Democrats represent (0+ / 0-)

    a diversity of opinion. That alone, makes us better able to deal with a changing world.



  •  Future historians will look back (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NeuvoLiberal, Bob Guyer

    and ask, "why WERE these people sitting on their asses when they had such obvious and immiment need for action?"

    Grass roots will only go so far, as systemic change will require charasmatic leadership in a place of power.  It's amazing how people only are looking at the next five years when making decisions about their own welfare.  It's not just our grandchildren, it's sooner than that.  scheesh.

    yes, please.


    vote al gore.

  •  Other pressing concerns... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I’m from a poor family. As a child, in the seventies, we were still using outhouses. We aren’t using outhouses anymore, but we’re a long way from having enough time on our hands to be concerned about global warming. Money tends to free up time for such worries. We don't have that kind of money, therefore, we don't have that kind of time.

    To be blunt, we (speaking only of my family which is considerable in size and varied in race and income) don't care about this shit or rather, it's not a pressing concern, it's not why we vote Democrat. We aren't ignorant about it. We realize that the weather is changing, that there's something very wrong, but unless our pressing concerns are relieved in some way, then you ain’t gonna get much excitement on this issue.

    Our pressing concerns:

    Living paycheck to paycheck. Debating whether to take your kid to the ER for a sprained ankle because you have no insurance. Getting out of debt which has been made more difficult with the bankruptcy bill. Finding child care that’s affordable and safe. Taking out a loan to pay a $400 electric bill every winter month while Mr. and Mrs. Half-A-Million-A-Year-Income pay half that much. Taxes.

    To the working poor, environmentalists are seen as having too much time on their hands. May not be a fair or correct perception, but there it is. Save the whales, save the spotted owls, save the g-damn tuna, stop global warming. If environmentalists spent half as much time into saving the children, you might get people more concerned about environmental issues.

    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

    by callmecassandra on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 08:29:20 PM PDT

    •  Cassandra (0+ / 0-)

      I might disagree although I can't change the way you personally feel. Cancer will kill one in three people, Cancer has visited my own  family. Pesticides, chemicals, heavy metals, nuclear waste, all are carcinogenic. Pesticides have been particularly nasty.There are so many toxic waste sites its hard to even imagine how bad it is. Are you familiar with Hanford?

      In 2000 more than 550,000 people died of cancer in the US. It is one of the leading causes of death in children. Asthma rates are skyrocketing. So perhaps the people who fight for clean air and water are fighting for your children and their future because you don't have a lot of time.Don't criticise them, be thankful for their efforts.

      •  I appreciate the response. (0+ / 0-)

        Many in my family have asthma, including myself, which has worsened for some over the years. And I'm not suggesting that people stop caring about this. Nor should they stop fighting.

        I majored in Biology so I'm very much aware of the issue and understand the urgency. But I'm speaking from the perspective of the working poor who aren't as concerned about this issue because we can't afford it. Environmentalists say they are working for the children and we'll ask what are you doing right now, something somewhat tangible that is, because that's all someone without money and resources care about at this point.  We don't vote on the environmental issue. It's not the reason we vote Democrat.


        Living paycheck to paycheck. Debating whether to take your kid to the ER for a sprained ankle because you have no insurance. Getting out of debt which has been made more difficult with the bankruptcy bill. Finding child care that’s affordable and safe. Taking out a loan to pay a $400 electric bill every winter month while Mr. and Mrs. Half-A-Million-A-Year-Income pay half that much. Taxes.

        is why we vote Democrat. We believe that the Democrat party could relieve us at least one of these concerns.  And if we're relieved of just one, raising the minimum wage for instance, this would free up more time to be concerned about global warming and climate change. And I criticize environmentalists because some don’t seem to get this. I'm very worried that Democrats will lose out this November. The diarist took a lot of time with this diary, put a lot of work into it, but frankly, it's just not a winner in the booths. It wouldn't gain us a single seat. This is an issue that can only be addressed if Democrats win this November.

        Global warming and climate change aren't winning issues in this election...not with regards to conservatives of course, but not to the working poor either who unfailingly vote Democrat.

        The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

        by callmecassandra on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 10:11:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  environmentalists ARE allabout saving children my (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Guyer

      environmentalists ARE all about saving children my freind, that is how real, serious, and personal many of the issues are. And it is fair to say that in general they are also very concerned about health care for those who can't afford it, a fairer tax system,  and a reduction of poverty. It's all about community really, working together and caring for each other.  By the way, many environmentalists become poor as a result of their efforts, and still stay with it.
      This wasn't meant to be argumentative - your other 'pressing concerns' are no less valid. But Climate change and Chemical change issues, are about every individual now.

    •  do you want to see your (0+ / 0-)

      grandchildren die in the next cycle of oil wars? Even if they have a choice not to serve in the military, some of these wars are likely to be nuclear.

      Or would you like to see them die in weather events that make Katrina look trivial?

      Then, there are little things like cancer and other responses human bodies have to massive environmental insult.

      The future horrors which are the direct consequences of global warming have already started. Coastlines are already starting to rise. Do you live in an area where the trees are dying?

      Finally, there are two problems here from an energy standpoint. I've discussed the effects of burning fossil fuel above. The other one is. . .

      The oil is running out.

      At this point, without petroleum, we don't have mechanized agriculture. The reason why North Korea has gone as far as cannibalism in terms of starvation is that Russia cut off their oil quite some time ago. Are your kids more important than spotted owls to you?

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 11:20:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, (0+ / 0-)

        it's more likely that my kid would die in a war next year if Democrats don't take one or both houses. So I'm more concerned with that right now, not the environmental issue.

        First off, I was speaking in regards to the elections.

        And like I said, when you're poor, when you're living paycheck to paycheck, when you have to decide whether to pay the car note, the rent or electricity from meager wages (and you can only pay one mind you), when you have to decide whether or not to take your kid to a hospital b/c you have no insurance, when RIGHT NOW, you are having problems making ends meet because of Republican policies, why would you think that this person should or would have the environment issue uppermost in his/her mind?

        When it's a choice about protesting wrt to climate changes versus protesting for raising minimum wages, I'm supporting the latter. When it's a protest wrt to global warming versus a protest for universal health care, I'm supporting the latter. You get the minimum wage raised or implement universal healthcare, then I'll be able to work with environmentalists wrt regards to climate changes and global warming-cause I'll be able to afford the time.

        This issue isn't first in the minds of the working poor and it won't be as long as immediate concerns burdens them. You have to alleviate some of their immediate concerns (not all, but some), you have to alleviate some of their pressing burdens NOW if you want them to care, if you want us to care. I'm not trying to insult anyone here.  Just stating reality in which I live and in which many of the working poor live.

        Nyceve does a series about the lack of affordable, adequate healthcare. PK does a diary about the environment. Take a guess which one would be of greater interest to the working poor.

        The environment issue won't be a winner or a factor for that matter whether Democrats win or lose.

        And I don't understand your last question. Of course, my kid is more important than spotted owls, that's what I thought I got over in my first post.

        The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

        by callmecassandra on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 11:56:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How... (0+ / 0-)

          do we reconcile these competing goals? You make a compelling case that climate change is not an immediate concern of yours. I believe there is an equally compelling case that climate change is a very dangerous concern that for all of us. What do we do?

          •  that's what political coalitions are all about (0+ / 0-)

            I fully support her goals and I'm sure you do as well.

            If people like her help us achieve the goal of making sure that there is a world for her kids to inherit, I have absolutely no problem with getting a livable minimum wage (how about the original minimum wage from the first version of the law updated to 2006 dollars??).

            Though the kinds of jobs a real energy program are going to create are the kinds of jobs in which nobody even tries to pay minimum wage for.

            Construction is going to do well, somebody's going to have to do the physical work needed to upgrade existing housing for energy efficiency, we can't exactly offshore this to a Bangladesh call center. Or building whatever facilities we need to process whatever it is we're going to grow into energy.

            America needs more than just service industry jobs to become a viable economy again. No nation can survive on flipping each other's burgers and wiping each other's butts alone, and that's the direction in which America has been led by the GOP and their corporate sponsors.

            Replacing our energy infrastructure is going to be labor-intensive.

            This, of course, means decently-paying jobs.

            Other than that, we probably WON'T be able to afford to do what needs doing if we don't get the share of GNP allocated to health care under control, and single payer health care is the only way I know of to do it

            The war on Iraq? It's sucking up the money we need to get in order to do ANYTHING about America's problems, no matter how one defines them.

            It's supposed to be a big tent, and we have to deal with at least most of the factions of the progressive movement to get an agenda we can all live with.

            Who gets pushed out? The DLC corporatists among us who are most likely to try to stop either her priorities or ours in order to please their corporate donors.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 01:00:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  For the most part, (0+ / 0-)

            I was speaking in the context of winning elections this November. Some issues bring voters to polls, other issues don't. It just depends on certains factors such as race and incomes.

            I wish I was smart enough to come up with a solution. As it is, I'm only able to give you an idea about what may be important to the working poor.

            But I do know that if there is some lessening of burdens, such as repealing the tax cuts, repealing the bankruptcy laws and the disastrous medicard plans, you'd have a better chance of getting more of us to care about global warming. Of course I don't expect Democrats to alleviate all burdens. That's not realistic. However, certain burdens would be alleviated under a Democrat controlled Congress, especially if we have a solid majority.

            By no means am I suggesting that we all forget about global warming or that you should stop what you're doing as the issue is important. But just keep in mind that this issue isn't as important to the working poor as other concerns wrt elections.

            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

            by callmecassandra on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 01:05:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  our agendas aren't all that bad a fit (0+ / 0-)

              the two big money sinks the GOP have screwed up America's finances with are the War on Iraq and tax cuts.

              Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

              by alizard on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 01:20:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agreed.n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                by callmecassandra on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 01:29:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thanks, this thread is very productive (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Too often we don't see all the connections in our issues and instead see them competing for attention, time, and money. Global over heating isn't about the environment in an abstract sense, it is about human health and welfare.

                  Global overheating is caused by our economic system and so  is the marginalization of the poor, and working poor. The goal of our econmic system is to extract wealth from the natural capital of the earth (environment) and labor (people) and concentrate it in the hands of corporations. The centralization and concentration process extracts and depletes these primary sources of wealth creation in the service of upward wealth redistribution and concentration.

                  We need to change that entire system to one that doesn't deplete, but continually restores, both the natural environment and the poor, working poor, and middle economic classes. This will have to come at the expense of the economic elites. Patrick, in part, is pointing out that this will be difficult.

                  The real issue is not as the economic elites would have us think. We can afford to solve the problems of immediate human dignity and survival and to solve the problems we are creating in our natural habitat. What we can't afford any longer is an economic system that harms more and more people and our environment to enrich a few of us.

                  At base it is all about food, shelter, water, sanitation, and health care being available to everyone, because it is benefiting all people that any sane economic and political system should be about.

                  Patrick, Alizard, Cassandra, I think it is yes to all of your points put together that is the start of a winning formula for change.

                  Cassandra, thanks for your honesty, bravery, and clarity, making this issue real. We can't seperate the issues you raise from environmental issues because at base environmental issues are about food. As global over heating gets worse and decreases food production, who will be hurt first and worse. The order of pain will be, first the poor, then working poor, then what's left of the middle class. This week and next week are the driving force for most of us, but we still have to look farther into the future because the effects of global warming could make some next year a lot worse if we don't act soon.

                  Alizard, great systhesis and insight. Tackeling gobal warming in a real and agressive way can, and will benefit the poor, working poor, and middle classes if done with that goal in mind. There are many oportunities to weave these needs together because they are not in any way fundamentally at odds with each other.

                  Patrick, despite all the critisism about your title and timing, this diary has promoted good discussion, particularly in this thread. I think it is not just democrats that don't get global overheating but it is our whole system and it's globalization. There is a tremendous ammount of momentum in that system and little time to turn it around. Your other diaries on the subject show you to be a sincere and very thoughtful person and I don't think your intent was to derail or hurt Democratic chances of victory in November. I think that line of critique was off the mark.

                  One of the best threads I've seen in a global warming diary because it brought Cassandra's issues into the discussion and it starts a challenging and important dialog that should be expanded as we go on after the November election.

                  Our economy sucks up our environment, people, and government. Redesign it at Beyond Political Center

                  by Bob Guyer on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 06:31:22 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  One of the major criticisms of the (0+ / 0-)

                    environmental movement is that it hasn't been making connections with progressives with other primary interests. To get working coalitions, one has to connect the dots and use this to show others that their interests are aligned. . . and be willing to horsetrade.

                    This will have to come at the expense of the economic elites.

                    Yes, but they will actually make more money in a sustainable scenario (who else is going to provide the capital for replacing the energy infrastructure?) and their grandkids will live long enough to spend it. Done properly, what they wind up with is a smaller slice of a much bigger pie. What they lose is a chunk of their control over society.

                    . The goal of our econmic system is to extract wealth from the natural capital of the earth (environment) and labor (people) and concentrate it in the hands of corporations.

                    Corporations used to try to increase profits by working on making markets as a whole grow. Now, they're trying to extract as much profit as they can from existing markets and figure they'll go somewhere else when the market can no longer support them. (e.g. growing Indian and Chinese middle classes)

                    Largely because of a Reagan-era change in the tax laws that favored C-level compensation in terms of bonus and option-based quarterly compensation, companies and increasingly, the government itself is based on a 90 day perspective.

                    Add in the general tendency of CEOs to have no more than 5 years at any given company, and we get companies run in any way that can extract short-term profits from its market regardless of what the methods might do to the company's future growth or even future viability.

                    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                    by alizard on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 03:10:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  The people must lead. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Guyer

    Politicians will only follow.

    We need a MetaPolitics.

    In other words, what do THE PEOPLE do when the legislators are drag-assing their way to our doom?

    Electoral politics are but one dimension of Citizen Power, not the be-all or end-all.

    Focusing on Washington, and votes, and scheduled dates of possible power shifts is a "Flat Earth" or two-dimensional view of Citizen Power.

    Martin Luther King, Jr. did not run for Congress.

    Gandhi did not try to get appointed ambassador to the U.N.  (I know, they didn't have it then -- OK, ambassador to Britain.)

    Governments exist to protect citizens, streamline their mutual efforts at well-being, and bring together the resources and ideas for needed change.

    "When any government becomes destructive of these ends..."

    We are long, long past the point where this regime -- and any future replacement that follows in its footsteps -- deserves our total NON-COOPERATION until it heeds the dictums above.

    Why do the "celebrity names" in progressive politics only remind us of our need to "study more" and "get out the vote" and "try to reform the Democratic Party"?

    All good and necessary prescriptions, but on their own -- or even in total -- insufficient.

    Why did Dr. King write his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, and not from the Senate cloakroom?

    If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State...

    by HenryDavid on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 08:34:13 PM PDT

    •  wonderful concept .. (0+ / 0-)

      on another planet.

      Meanwhile, we are inches away from the fascists that are ruling our country running through the streets, breaking windows and making people wear yellow stars, so they can be rounded up on cattle cars and hauled away to dentention camps.

      In today's world Dr King would be rotting jail, without habeas corpus, and no one in the press would report what he said. NO ONE. Do you get it?

      They are killing people wholesale in the name of corporate profitability.

      Please wake up.

      The War On Terra will be won when Republicans are removed from power

      by shpilk on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 10:45:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I'm talking nonviolent Civil Resistance.

        Sounds like you're calling that inadequate.

        King was in jail, but not alone.  Millions knew where he was, and, possibly, so did President Kennedy and his brother, Bobby.

        We are trying to talk now about what a majority can do in its actions, wielding its power, prior to any necessity to invoke the revolutionary violence supported in the Declaration of Independence.

        I was talking about taking a step FORWARD in our present stagnant insane loop of "doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result".

        Are you talking about taking two steps onward?

        Your diagnosis: correct.
        Your prescription: remove Fascists from power.  Correct.
        Question is of the means to attain that end.  Right?

        (Your rhetoric borders on personal confrontation.  I do not respond to that, or vent frustration at a careless reading of my attempt to jointly brainstorm strategy and tactics and improve the level of discussion here.  I welcome contributions to raise our level of communication.)

        If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State...

        by HenryDavid on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 11:26:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  fucking embarrasing thread (6+ / 0-)

    I'm really sorry you were treated shoddily by some on this thread after putting effort into your diary, Patrick. Your grammar was corrected & pecked at, ideas dismantled & dimissed. Your timing was wrong, you have it all backwards, etc.

    I've seen countless diaries with far less effort put together with far less thought pass by with no comment or controversy.

    There was a real thought police feeding frenzy & weirdly self-congratulatory conformity enforcement attempt here but luckily, some people defended your right to express yourself & for that, I am grateful.

    Some confusion a little prisoner/guard going on here. Sorry to see it.

    •  but (0+ / 0-)

      the time was wrong.

      eep opp ork ah-ah. that means i love you. i took my baby for a ride in space...

      by BiminiCat on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 10:18:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  it doesn't accomplish anything (0+ / 0-)

      except get people shouting at each other.

      The bottom line is that given what we have to work with, Democrats are the only answer, right now.

      Rather than whine about it, let's get them in power, and then work the issue from the inside out - we have a whole lot of very sympathetic honest people working already in the Democratic Party .. why shit on it?

      The War On Terra will be won when Republicans are removed from power

      by shpilk on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 10:39:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Of course Democrats don't get it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jerome a Paris

    Most human beings refuse to get it.

    Most people are conservative by nature; we are cretures of habit. It's going to take a hell of a shock to smack most of us awake. Maybe a couple of years of really awful weather changes, some new diseases {and old ones returning} due to climate shift ..  perhaps some coastal areas disappearing.

    It's going to happen - it's already too late.

    The best we can hope to do now is to mitigate the damage to future generations. It requires trust in science, to do that.

    Now, there are things we can do, even though most of us human beings still refuse to get it. I include myself in this group that refuse to get it, even though I have taken what I think are big steps to reduce our families 'footrpint' for energy use, waste and harzardous material production .. it's still woefully inadequate. I know we have already passed the point where awful things are going to happen, and yet I still have not done enough.

    But meanwhile, you complain about the Democrats; I have news for you. There is no other viable alternative right now. Greens are not going to be elected; there is no knight in shining armor coming to resue us.  

    I have more news for you. Democrats are more likely to listen to you, especially if you try to not sound like a raving lunatic. They'll listen, while Republicans would just as soon tie you to the back their SUV and drag you on the road.

    So, get off your high horse and work to get the Democrats in power, because it's the best we can do right now.

    The War On Terra will be won when Republicans are removed from power

    by shpilk on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 10:26:29 PM PDT

  •  Thanks ... (4+ / 0-)

    for all of the great comments and thank you to the people who challenged my approach to motivating the Dems to take climate change seriously.

  •  global warming scares me, big (0+ / 0-)

    but it is also a topic that tends to paralyze with fear.

    I have a feeling that all our concerns as a nation, from Mark Foley to terrorism to health care, etc., will be dwarfed when the truth about how close we are to world disaster becomes clear to the average joe.

    but before that point, if you are not Al Gore, how do you bring the subject before the voters without a) boring them or b) scaring the hell out of them, which in turn shuts down the dialogue.

    One has to find the right note between warning and solutions.  Hard to do that in short sound bites.

    A member of the demonizing, hating, virulent, character- assassinating left of the Democratic Party...or am I?

    by marjo on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 09:46:43 AM PDT

  •  Real Change is always harder than we think (0+ / 0-)

    I agree with Patrick Kennedy in that I think that while Global Warming is the top environmental issue of our century (and will continue to be so for better or worse) I doubt that any political figure other than Al Gore, has the will or passion to see it through.

    Al Gore has the vision and the leadership to make real change happen but no one else either Democrat or Republican has the spine or the passion for the issue.

    Perhaps we will have the spine or the passion at some point, but I sincerely believe that by the time we realize how important it is ... it will be too late.

    Aside from Biblical predictions, if we want to make a significant change there will always be resistance ... then we have to calculate the resistance ... we always tend to underestimate the resistance to change.  When we do that, like Hilary's Health Care plan, nothing gets done.

    Every year we make New Year's resolutions, and look how effective those are.

    We think sure, if we just get a Dem in power then it will happen.  Not so...

    Any Dem will not do in this case ...

Meteor Blades, skybluewater, colleen, Sidhe, davej, paradox, tsackton, Ed in Montana, nolalily, Rayne, SarahLee, Oregon Bear, Liberal Thinking, lrhoke, Delaware Dem, gaspare, saraswati, KumarP, Shockwave, jabb, wu ming, CupaJoe, SanJoseLady, Jay C, Doofus, LynnS, GayHillbilly, d3n4l1, frisco, exNYinTX, Jerome a Paris, silence, Eternal Hope, dpc, bara, Microangelo, rwsab, Xeno of Elia, bronte17, wonkydonkey, understandinglife, susakinovember, nudger, magicrusslc, ATL Dem, demokath, Rupert, mhale85, mrblifil, taonow, cognitive dissonance, larryrant, standingup, bincbom, Miss Blue, cbathrob, Shaniriver, matt2525, splashy, arkdem, celticshel, wader, nio, webweaver, normal family, Winnie, MKS, commonscribe, TXsharon, besieged by bush, Blank Frank, churchylafemme, Black Maned Pensator, Penny Century, lawstudent922, kalmoth, dkmich, Bluefish, AllisonInSeattle, zerelda, Lefty Mama, mtzjack, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, Steven D, mad cow, BigBite, Flann, Limelite, environmentalist, Gowrie Gal, sxwarren, MichDeb, Fabian, humphrey, Bluesee, farleftcoast, ManOnTheBench, pattyp, Elise, blueyedace2, Kestrel228, LarisaW, LisaZ, PBen, Jashugan, JoMo DemKim, panicbean, TN yellow dog, boofdah, Blissing, Michael Alton Gottlieb, chicagovigilante, washingtonsmith, RedCharlie, ladybug53, lotlizard, loloc, Natalie, foxglove, Marcus Junius Brutus, miguelmas, wulidancer, Cannabis, dsteffen, jilikins, Unduna, Gjermund E Jansen, empathy, murasaki, roubs, the cubist, xaxnar, trashablanca, ravenwind, vigilant meerkat, Rippe, BlueInARedState, trentinca, venatrix, ameri, Russgirl, ActivistGuy, buhdydharma, Magnifico, dewey of the desert, goodasgold, SherriG, MJ via Chicago, Rachel in Vista, imabluemerkin, CTLiberal, Preston S, Ningen, CA Nana, zeke7237, va dare, grokgov, MarketTrustee, Bernie68, bstotts, kidneystones, Friend of the court, brian77, slksfca, DBunn, One Pissed Off Liberal, davewolfusa, Bobby McGee, Cronesense, oklacoma dem, Bob Guyer, Tailspinterry, moodyinsavannah, BruceMcF, 0wn, Mary Mike, profmom, greenchiledem, DWG, epppie, Thought I Was last Screamin Liberal, Syrith, noaccuser

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site