This is going to be a bit of a climate change rant, but I am so tired of Americans viewing climate change as something they don’t need to pay attention to, or something that is ‘just happening’ and won’t impact them, or our way of life. They don’t know how wrong they are about that, and everyone will pay for their denial – most especially poor, minority women and children.
Why are people in the US so reluctant to accept information that is viewed as mainstream in Europe. Again, in a parody of American exceptionalism we are the only Western nation to even question the science. Of course, we’re the only country in the Western world to incarcerate 25% of our population, but that’s another diary for another day. Of course, we're the only Western Country to hold one quarter of the world's incarcerated individuals, far more than any other in the Western world, but that's another diary for another day.
Follow me below the equator for more...
http://edition.cnn.com/...
Not exactly striding boldly out of the gate:
Obama had been planning to attend the early stages of the Copenhagen summit that could lay the groundwork for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions well into the century.
But the White House announced last week that he would come at the end instead.
Obama will be in Europe twice. He will now go to the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen after the Nobel Peace Prize Award ceremony in Oslo, rather than before.
That’s a bit disappointing, and as NPR pointed out this morning, his two flights to Europe, less than a week apart will certainly increase the President’s carbon footprint.
"President Obama needs to be there at the same time as all the other world leaders -- December 18," said Mike Townsley, a Greenpeace spokesman. "This is when he is needed to get the right agreement."
The stakes could not be higher, the head of the conference said as it opened
.
http://www.npr.org/...
Nearly 100 world leaders are expected to appear at the global warming talks that open Monday in Copenhagen. This is an unprecedented showing of leadership for the issue. Yet at the same time, public opinion of climate change is souring — particularly in the United States.
Perhaps this is why President Obama doesn’t feel a pressing need to be there for the whole conference? We’re telling him, ‘it’s not a priority.’ But, isn’t it?
I mean, yes, people need jobs and that’s very important but if we give them jobs that further erode climate stability, isn’t that going to end badly? Those jobs will disappear eventually, because without an environment, a job is pointless. I'd question the wisdom of putting the economy before the environment, especially now.
http://www.npr.org/...
And of course, the wild disconnect continues. Greenhouse gasses are terrible for human health, but climate change ranks dead last on peoples’ list of concerns? What good is a booming economy without breathable air?
The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded greenhouse gases are endangering people's health and must be regulated, signaling that the Obama administration is prepared to contain global warming without congressional action if necessary.
http://www.google.com/...
US President Barack Obama is hoping to push through a new deal after the United States -- the world's biggest economy -- rejected the Kyoto Protocol under his predecessor, George W. Bush.
But the US Congress is still hammering out legislation to cut emissions, and Obama's opponents have been emboldened by a scandal over hacked emails from British academics that they say raises questions on the science behind climate change.
***
"Given the wide-ranging nature of (climate) change that is likely to be taken in hand, some naturally find it inconvenient to accept its inevitability," Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told the conference.
"The recent incident of stealing the emails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts, perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/...
It would be laughable anywhere else. But, so everyone says, the Waxman-Markey bill which is likely to be passed in Congress today or tomorrow, is the best we can expect – from America.
The cuts it proposes are much lower than those being pursued in the UK or in most other developed nations. Like the UK's climate change act (pdf) the US bill calls for an 80% cut by 2050, but in this case the baseline is 2005, not 1990. Between 1990 and 2005, US carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels rose from 5.8 to 7bn tonnes.
They’re right. It is laughable, but it’s simply the best we can do at the moment – and it’s not nearly enough.
Is it an improvement over Bush? Yes. But that's not really saying much, is it? Denying a problem is one thing, but knowing about a problem and deciding not to take all the necessary steps still ends with the same outcome. Disaster.
There are mind-boggling concessions to the biofuels industry, including a promise not to investigate its wider environmental impacts. There's a provision to allow industry to use 2bn tonnes of carbon offsets a year, which include highly unstable carbon sinks like crop residues left in the soil (another concession won by the powerful farm lobby). These offsets are so generous that if all of them are used, US industry will have to make no carbon cuts at all until 2026.
http://www.boulderweekly.com/...
Todd Stern, the U.S. negotiator, said that the U.S. hasn't decided whether it will say how much it intends to reduce emissions.
"If we do, it will be contingent on the enactment of our legislation," he said in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers.
All other industrialized nations have unveiled their emissions reduction plans. Some other large emerging markets have done so, as well, including South Korea and Brazil. Many other countries, however, are waiting to see the United States' long-term plans before they agree to make firm offers and commit to them under the force of an international accord.
They're waiting on us, and we're? Leading? No. Stalling.
While I appreciate the Administration’s desire to find middle ground to make everyone happen, in some cases some things are just not up for negotiation. Well, okay, maybe they are up for negotiation, but in this case it’s like trying to negotiate for an extra 5 hours of float time before the Titanic sinks. Sure, you can try but the end result will remain the same. The ship will sink, unless something radical happens.
And that’s what we need. Something radical. Only it doesn’t look like that’s what we’re going to get.