Skip to main content

Julia Gillard
Julia Gillard (MystifyMe Concert Photography, Troy)
Here in the City of Roses, the annual Rose Festival celebration will have to proceed without the roses. For the second consecutive year, there has been record rainfall on the Portland parade. The weather finally turned, but locals are wondering whether there will be more than a few random days of Spring before the advent of Summer. It's just another example of what Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe describes as "global weirding":
An upsurge in heavy rainstorms in the United States has coincided with prolonged drought, sometimes in the same location, she said, noting that west Texas has seen a record-length dry period over the last five years, even as there have been two 100-year rain events.

Hayhoe, other scientists, civic planners and a manager at the giant Swiss Re reinsurance firm all cited human-caused climate change as an factor pushing this shift toward more extreme weather.

While none would blame climate change for any specific weather event, Hayhoe said a background of climate change had an impact on every rainstorm, heat wave or cold snap.

Beyond Portland, April saw the most tornadoes ever recorded for a single month, more than doubling the previous record. In different parts of the United States, May saw record heat or record cold, record rainfall and flooding and record droughts. Global warming does not mean that everything everywhere will grow hotter. The science denialists mistakenly and often dishonestly misuse those record colds or record rains as proof that the planet is not warming, but they don't understand or don't want you to understand that climate is complicated. It's not about everything getting hotter. It's about the extremes. The weirding. The new normal. But the surface of the planet is getting hotter. Globally, April was the seventh hottest month on record. It already is being estimated that 2012 will become hottest year on record, breaking the previous high which was set all the way back in 2010.

Among scientists, there is no debate about anthropogenic climate change. A few rogue loons with some level of scientific credentials can be found to make just about any claim denying any scientific facts, but the climate denialists only get attention because they are well-funded by the industries most responsible for anthropogenic climate change, and because they too often are enabled and coddled by incompetent and at times corrupt and complicit major media. The corporatist tools and intellectual stooges that comprise elected and nominated Republicans have done exactly what one would expect, attempting to undermine any and all efforts even to study, much less to address, climate change. Every Republican Senate nominee from the 2010 election cycle bought into some level of climate denialism. We know that. We expect that. But Democrats are supposed to know better. Democrats are supposed to do better. And the vast majority of Democrats in Washington, DC are aware of the science, accept the science, and claim to care about the science. But that's not enough. Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions last year set a new record, leading the International Energy Agency to open pessimism about the prospects of limiting global temperature to two degrees centigrade, which would itself be catastrophic. But what are the Democrats doing about it? To its great credit, and against the usual opposition from Republicans and a few right wing Democrats, the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency has moved forward to regulate greenhouse gasses. But as the New York Times editorialized as the climate bill died last year in the Senate, even after the disastrous BP oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico:

Mr. Obama never fully committed to the fight. He raised hopes here and around the world last year when he pledged in Copenhagen to reduce United States greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent. Until a couple of months ago, he talked a good game, praising the House bill that aimed at the 17 percent target and promising to make every effort to get the Senate to follow.

Then, despite the opportunity offered by the oil spill to press for a bold energy policy, the president essentially disappeared. What has passed for advocacy by the White House in recent days has consisted largely of one op-ed article by the energy adviser, Carol Browner, and daily assurances from the press secretary, Robert Gibbs, that the White House was “working behind the scenes.”

Can the country hope for better in the months ahead? It must. The danger of global warming is not going away just because Washington’s politicians don’t want to deal with it.

That's not even close to being good enough. Nothing less than Manhattan Project urgency is good enough. This is a crisis and this president is uniquely gifted at presenting and promoting a message, but his occasional speeches aren't anything close to being good enough. People can be awakened to the urgency of addressing a crisis, and no one in the world is more capable of awakening the American public than is President Obama. He needs to treat this crisis as if it were a crisis. He needs to galvanize the Party he leads to treat this crisis as if it were a crisis. He needs to make clear that dithering and compromising are not acceptable. He needs to call out the Republicans as a threat to our collective future. He needs to make climate change the most important issue in politics because it is the most important issue humanity has ever faced. He can use science. He can use facts. He can appeal to the emotions of everyone who hopes to be alive in half a century, or who cares about anyone who hopes to be alive in half a century.

How bad can it get? Is it hyperbole to call climate change the most important issue humanity has ever faced? Do other issues even compare when climate change itself encompasses almost all of them? How important are the issues of war and mass violence and human rights? The geopolitical consequences of climate change are almost unimaginable. There will be droughts and losses of vegetation, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has warned of potentially catastrophic impacts on food production. Imagine 200 million people displaced, worldwide. Where will they go? How will they survive? How will the less endangered people and governments cope with such an unprecedented torrent of refugees? Think of the reactionary xenophobia already resulting from immigration in the United States. Consider that the wonder of Europe's open internal travel is about to end, as nations there prepare to close their borders, as their own reactionary response to the increasing numbers of refugees fleeing the violence in revolutionary North Africa and the Middle East.

Does health care matter? How will nations cope as climate change expands the territories of everything from dangerous diseases to deadly insects? One need only consider the effects of record tornados and increasingly severe hurricanes to begin to realize the human costs of climate disasters. And then there are the impacts on forests and ocean acidification, the latter threatening the base of the marine food chain, and all whose livlihoods or lives depend upon it. Back on land, the disruptions to agriculture could undermine the food supplies for billions.

If all this isn't enough, and for those that care only about money, the economy often is an excuse for doing little or nothing about climate change. The presumption is that what's good for the environment is bad for the economy. It's another of the fundamental lies used by the narrow special interests whose riches do indeed depend on harming not helping. But however politically dominant the fossil fuels industries may be, their business strength does not translate into wider economic strength or even stability. Climate change is an economic crisis. One cannot honestly discuss the future economy without giving climate change primacy. The Stern review on the economics of climate change could not have been more clear, and the economic bottom line says it all:

Lord Stern of Brentford made headlines in 2006 with a report that said countries needed to spend 1% of their GDP to stop greenhouse gases rising to dangerous levels. Failure to do this would lead to damage costing much more, the report warned - at least 5% and perhaps more than 20% of global GDP.

But speaking yesterday in London, Stern said evidence that climate change was happening faster than had been previously thought meant that emissions needed to be reduced even more sharply.

This meant the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would have to be kept below 500 parts per million, said Stern. In 2006, he set a figure of 450-550ppm. "I now think the appropriate thing would be in the middle of that range," he said. "To get below 500ppm ... would cost around 2% of GDP."

Two percent now or five to twenty percent later. And from a political standpoint it also isn't hard to sell the truth that responsibly addressing climate change not only would prevent that GDP disaster, it would stimulate the economy in new ways and begin to define what should be a new modern economic model for the future. If only someone somewhere in a position of serious authority would only make the effort to sell it.

On so many important issues, the impacts of climate change overwhelm other factors. Climate change is about war and peace and human rights and poverty and hunger and immigration and health care and natural disasters and in more ways than can be counted, climate change is about the economy. No other issue has ever had so many ramifications in so many areas. The Republicans have their collective heads buried in something other than mere sand, but for the Democrats being better than the Republicans is not nearly enough. Acknowledging the existence of climate change is not nearly enough. If anything, it highlights an even more disturbing level of irresponsibility and negligence, because unlike the Republicans, most Democrats at least know to some degree what is happening. They have no excuses for not doing absolutely everything in their collective power to awaken the ignorant and to galvanize popular support for the radical changes that are necessary, lest even more radical and much more dangerous changes become inevitable. This moment in history demands leadership, and leadership does not mean a wink and a nod and business as usual. Imagine if President Obama had the vision of Australia's Prime Minister Julia Gillard:

Friends, the second US President John Adams once famously said that “facts are stubborn things.” No opinion poll can change the fact that climate change is real. It is caused by human activity. And we must cut carbon pollution. In a nation rich in fossil fuels, I wish it were not so. But it is. Greenhouse gas levels are one-third higher than before the Industrial Revolution,and higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years.

As a result, global temperatures have risen 0.7 degrees celsius over the past century and continue to rise. The last decade was the world’s hottest on record, warmer than the 1990s which were in turn warmer than the 1980s. In fact, globally 2010 was the equal warmest year on record, tied with 2005 and 1998. 2010 is the thirty-fourth consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th Century average. In Australia, average temperatures have risen almost one degree since 1910,and each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the one before. That warming is real. Its consequences are real. And it will change our lives in real and practical ways. More extreme bushfire conditions and droughts. Falling crop yields. Loss of species. Increased cyclone intensity. More days of extreme heat. Coastal flooding as sea levels rise. Bleaching of our coral reefs. And a substantial decline in alpine snow cover. Indeed, Professor Garnaut’s latest report indicates that the need to act is greater than ever. And the scientific consensus is stronger than ever....

I learnt to have faith in the creative and optimistic spirit of this nation and its people. To believe that we are a smart, competent, resilient nation. A nation that has done great things in the past, and which can do even greater thingsin the future. A nation that understands when the soft options are gone, only hard choices remain. That is why we choose action over inaction. We will cut carbon pollution. We will not leave our nation stranded by history. We will not live at the expense of future generations. We will get this call right and get this job done: For our nation. For our people. For our future.

But as Joe Romm commented:

Obama, sadly, now refuses to explain to the American public the high cost of inaction, the myriad benefits of swift action, and the shameful, pitiful strategy adopted by the pro-pollution, anti-science deniers in the GOP political leadership — although he did give pieces of what needs to be said in various speeches back in 2009 (see links at end).

Gillard’s speech is an excellent combination of substance and rhetoric.  The whole thing is worth reading since we’re unlikely to hear such a blunt and courageous speech in this country by any major U.S. political leader for a long time.

But it's even worse than that, because as Bill McKibben just pointed out, President Obama has actually pursued a policy of expanding coal mining and oil drilling. Which continues to be staggering, given that the man is smart enough and aware enough to know what is actually happening. We need his leadership. The world needs his leadership. No one else can do what he can do, but not only is he making only partial efforts to help, he is also making partial efforts that exacerbate the problems.

We as Democrats, as activists, and as political junkies cannot stand silently by. On the most important issue humanity has ever faced, and with disruptions to our very way of life looming and perhaps now unpreventable, our president and our leaders are not leading. We have to make them. We have to change the nature of how we live, but we also must demand better from those we send to Washington. Every important issue is trumped by climate change. Every important issue is impacted and many will be defined by climate change. We must find those Democrats who have the courage to lead on this unprecedented issue. We must make climate change the issue by which we define Democratic leadership.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:00 PM PDT.

Also republished by Environmental Foodies, DK GreenRoots, The Amateur Left, and Climate Hawks.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  Until the Democratic party (42+ / 0-)

    weans itself from the corporate teat and the junk food of the banksters, we're not going to see leadership from our leaders on this.

    We have to lead. We have to drag our leaders into acting for humanity.

    •  What exactly do you mean? (14+ / 0-)
      We have to drag our leaders into acting for humanity.

      The individual with undeniably the MOST power to educate the people and instill a real sense of urgency is the President, and for apparently venal electoral calculations, has chosen not to rock the climate boat.

      How do we, as a supposedly progressive community, actually bring pressure to bear upon the President to do his god damned duty?

      Yo, CoC, ‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›

      by WisePiper on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:18:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Only ONE way to "make" him... (13+ / 0-)

        ...and that's to liberate him from being hostage to right wing majorities in Congress, and give him the back up, or the jack up, that he needs, to do the right thing, with actual real progressive/moderate Democratic Majorities in the House and Senate that are NOT rotten with Blue Dogs...and on their coat tails, on down the ladders of power to the state and local levels, to the greatest extent possible, in 2012.

        That's the Only way to call Obama's bluff, if that's what it is, about "make me", and it's the only material way to substantially change Anything, on this, or any other issue.

        It's on us, really, whether the Prez or the Party help us enough, or even like it or want it or not.

        This is ALL about the relative right/left plurality, plain and simple.

        Bring the Better Democrats!

        All Out for 2012!

        Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

        by Radical def on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:53:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We should have primaried him, is what we should (5+ / 0-)

          have done. Now it's too late. If nothing else, a true progressive challenge from the left would have forced him left. Now, with media consolidation and a one-sided "debate" on issues like deficit reduction vs. jobs, we are stuck with the eternal "pragmatist" who will not do crap unless he's forced to.

          Without actual vision and leadership, that will never happen. It's already too late, as far as I can see.  Yeah, we've got to keep trying, but in this extreme "climate" where the moneychangers (neolibs, mush head corporate media, and psycho right) run the Temple (Beltway), we're screwed because we have no leader on the horizon who's not been beaten down, co-opted (e.g., Howard Dean), or dismissed.

          Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbraith

          by Vtdblue on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 03:41:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, baloney we should primary Obama! (2+ / 2-)
            Recommended by:
            Radical def, happy camper
            Hidden by:
            expatjourno, WisePiper

            The cost to Obama, the financial cost of a challenger, the loss of face over that, the physical, emotional, and mental cost of dividing the Democratic Party in order to accomplish your goal is not worth the cost.

            You people with Obama Derangement Syndrome, people who can't see that good he's done, can't recognize the danger that your hatred, disrespect, dismissiveness and/or demeaning comments pose make me sick.

            •  It defies logic, and is thus...suspect, I think (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happy camper, DollyMadison

              The syndrome you describe is irrational, as is their premise that they have some "right" to the "opinion" that it's OK for them to refuse solidarity and troll us with relentless attack.

              This will only intensify going into 2012, and community moderation, as well as admin will be needed to resolve this contradiction more better, I think.

              Photobucket

              Photobucket

              Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

              by Radical def on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 09:11:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Horse shit. There is no "Obama derangement... (8+ / 0-)

                ...syndrome." There is a focus on issues rather than on hero worship and pretty speeches. And there is an especially stromg focus on issues like the economy, war, the Constitution and the environment -- all areas where Obama is mediocre at best, as bad as Bush at worst.

                Of course Obama is better on some social issues -- though not until backed into a corner, as he was on DADT and DOMA. Those issues don't cost the plutocracy anything.

                It's the same old shit. Just like Clinton deregulating banking and broadcasting and fighting like hell to pass NAFTA while passing as a social liberal. Those things were great for the plutocrats, pretty shitty for ordinary Americans. And Clinton has been turned into a multi-millionaire many times over as a reward, just like Obama will be for selling the American people down the river.

                Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

                by expatjourno on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 10:03:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Obama is hostage to right wing majorities (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DollyMadison

                  You keep forgetting to acknowledge that realpolitik, as being the cause of his administration's shortcomings.

                  Seemingly asserting absolute non-viability of the Party, it would seem you refuse solidarity in crushing the Republicans.

                  So...what freakin' good are you?

                  Anyone who would hand moar power to the Republicans is my enemy.

                  Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

                  by Radical def on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 10:38:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Horse shit. Pure, unadulterated horse shit. (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    wbgonne, bryduck, Vtdblue, LouisMartin

                    There are PLENTY of things that have nothing to to with "realpolitik" or 60 votes.
                    *Persecuting whistleblowers
                    *refusing to prosecute torturers
                    *expanding offshore drilling
                    *failing to improve supervision of offshore drilling after Bush-Cheney gutted the department
                    *escalating in Afghanistan
                    *defending DOMA (now, finally stopped)
                    *campaigning for Blanche Lincoln and directing funds her way in her primary battle with Bill Halter even though she threatened to filibuster a public option
                    *setting up the Catfood Commission and appointing only people like Alan Simpson, Erskine Bowles and Alice Rivlin, who hate Social Security
                    *appointing two of the architects of the biggest rip-off in human history, Geithner and Bernanke, to his economic team
                    *having a prominent, homophobic backer of Proposition H8 give the invocation at the inaugural. Out of all the clergymen in the world
                    *caving in to the right-wing noise machine instead of confronting it on ACORN and Shirley Sherrod
                    *Cutting taxes on the richest people in the country just to get a temporary extension of funding for unemployment benefits -- because that's what turning the Bush tax cuts into the Obama tax cuts meant
                    *Increasing the deficit and undermining the dedicated revenue stream of Social Security, because that's what that unholy deal meant
                    *Not taking the side of the American people over powerful corporations. Not on prescription drug reimportation, not on prescription drug prices, not on the BP oil disaster, not on the Wall Street bail-out, not on cramdown, not on prosecuting the fraudsters who caused the banking crisis (but the U.S. attorney in North Carolina is prosecuting a guy who lied on his mortgage application), not on war profiteering.

                    And over and over and over again portraying the Republicans as reasonable people who are negotiating in good faith.

                    The ONE person who has done MORE to bring the Republican Party back from the dead is your very own Barack Obama. HE is the one who has been making sure that the Republicans have more power. By YOUR standards, HE is your enemy.

                    You quite obviously know little or nothing about the issues in play. And anyone who supports Obama on those issues is no better than a Red State Republican.

                    Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

                    by expatjourno on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 01:07:08 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Laundry list only confirms right wing majority (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      DollyMadison

                      It does not reflect what the outcome would have been with actual real progressive/moderate Democratic Majorities.

                      In each instance, the results would have been, even so, no doubt, less than ideal, from a left perspective, but nevertheless relatively "better" than what we got.

                      Stronger relative right/left plurality, more better.

                      Everything is relative.

                      I have never declared Obama my BFF, lol, nor ideal, by a long shot.  

                      However, I do declare the Republicans, and anyone who brings them material support, such as by promulgating electoral boycott and splitting, to be the enemy.

                      What you and your ilk seem unwilling to accept is that there is any difference whatsoever between the two parties, and that millions of lives will be effected adversely by allowing the Republicans to prevail.

                      Electoral boycott virtually guarantees nothing, or worse, while progressive/moderate Democratic Majorities would at least deliver...something better...which will make a real difference, even between life and death, for millions, and some prospects for progressive motion, going forward, rather than further entrenchment of the most regressive, degenerative, harmful policies and practices of the right.

                      Substantial real Democratic pluralities, for example, would allow simple electoral, campaign financing and media reforms, which would allow more viable democracy to emerge...and this will never happen with right wing majorities, except in the negative, as exemplified by  "Citizens United".

                      The draconian hysterical freakout on the right, calling for political assassination, mass murder and civil war, clearly indicates that the right sees the writing on the wall better than many elements of the left, I think, in terms of what direction solid Democratic Majorities will take the country, as compared to the direction the right wants to take us.

                      Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

                      by Radical def on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 07:24:10 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Obama Derangement Syndome Is Just Like (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  expatjourno

                  Bush Derangement Syndrome. The term was invented by those blind followers who suffer from it and misapplied to those who don't.

            •  HR'd for "Obama Derangement Syndrome." (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WisePiper, Vtdblue

              If "Obamabot" is HR-able, so is "Obama Derangement Syndrome."

              Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

              by expatjourno on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 10:05:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, no (0+ / 0-)

                And given your comments elsewhere in this diary, where you decline to give Obama sufficient credit where credit is due, where you indict him when he doesn't deserve the blame, and where you dishonestly discuss the issues, you clearly suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome.

                The truth is not an insult. Unfairly targeting the President or unfairly giving him blame (or credit) he doesn't deserve is wrong.

        •  Opportunities lost in 2010 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Radical def, greengemini

          Like electing good environmentalist senators in NH, OH, NC, MO and such the like.
          The 2012 and 2014 elections will be saturated with Democratic incumbents. So the next big chance is in 2016.

          •  Indeed, 2010 a serious loss, protracting struggle (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            scott5js, happy camper

            Going into 2010 the power was hanging by a thread, with only half a dozen vacillating, half-stepping, back-stabbing Blue Dogs standing between us and real actual Majorities.

            We could have dealt the coup de grace to the right, and actually seized the power, for real.

            But some "comrades" on the left decided to direct their fire at the Prez and the Party, instead of at the enemy, contributing to low voter turnout, the fools.

            Oh well, it seems to look good, for 2012, so far.

            I don't even know how this situ compares with, like, '06, or '08, in terms of the number of seats needed for Majorities in each chamber going into 2012.  

            All I know is that there needs to be enough progressives and moderates to vote down the right wing Blue Dogs and Republicans.

            It's ALL about relative right/left plurality.

            If it takes to 2016 to achieve real actual Democratic Majorities sufficient to kick right wing ass all up and down both sides of the aisle, then so be it.

            That will suck, because meanwhile the whole world will be more or less screwed.  

            If the electorate is mobilized to rise up and seize the power in 2012, for real this time, explicitly to purge and suppress the right for blocking everything that needs to be done...we could do it in 2012, no doubt.

            But, indeed, it's not over yet, and the struggle continues.

            Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

            by Radical def on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 08:59:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is a lie. (4+ / 0-)
              But some "comrades" on the left decided to direct their fire at the Prez and the Party, instead of at the enemy, contributing to low voter turnout, the fools.

              No. The big difference was swing voters, not voters on the left.

              Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

              by expatjourno on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 10:07:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you deny that many elements of the left... (0+ / 0-)

                attacked, and relentlessly agitated for electoral boycott and splitting?  

                I think this had substantial effect on the electorate, and if it had been reversed, likely Democratic voter turnout would have substantially increased.

                And then, there was that huge surge of over 60% increased voter turnout by rich old white men in 2010, a demographic disproportionately tending to the right.

                Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

                by Radical def on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 10:31:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Show the exit polls to back up your claim. n/t (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mightymouse, Pintlala

                  Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

                  by expatjourno on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 11:51:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No such polls, that I'm aware of, specific to 2010 (0+ / 0-)

                    But previous polling has shown that the main reason people don't vote is a perception that it will not make any difference in their lives.  And, the demographics of that sector are predominantly likely Democratic voters.

                    Therefore, any propaganda line that asserts a meme of "no difference" and absolute non-viability of the Democrats helps suppress likely Democratic voter turnout, and thus, materially supports the Republicans.

                    We'll see what happens in 2012.  

                    I predict that "left" boycott and splitting line, as well as right wing line, will again be kicked to the curb, as it was in '08, by another mass electoral uprising to purge the right for their obstructionism.

                    However, the outcome would be a lot better, in terms of the pluraltiy of that, if more elements of the left would get on the bus, in this regard.

                    Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

                    by Radical def on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 07:35:49 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  to fix a problem you need to understand it (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pintlala, wbgonne

              Leftists directing fire at the party was not the problem in 2010. We've been through this 1000 times. Yet you still bring back this silly talking point.

              And of course, our mission for a better America led by better Democrats is still in its early stages. -- Markos Moulitsas, 5/26/11

              by mightymouse on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 03:43:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You merely illustrate the intransigence... (0+ / 0-)

                of some left elements, who want it both ways, to influence the electorate, with their prolific agitation, and yet to deny any responsibility for the results of that.

                And so, around and around it goes.

                See responses to expat.

                What none of you seem willing to articulate is why you think it will be "better" for the Democrats to lose, and the Republicans to win.  I'd call that "silly", except it will make the difference between life and death, for millions of people, all over the world.

                If you think this issue has been so decisively settled (1000 times?), in favor of left oppositionalism, maybe you could link to, or puke back up the definitive "explanation" of how relentlessly attacking with subjective oppositionalist hyperbole, projecting absolute non-viability of the Party and Prez, have "helped" anyone but the Republicans.

                Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

                by Radical def on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 08:01:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  elections were lost because (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LaughingPlanet

                  hard core GOP voted more and swing voters that went our way in 2008 less so.

                  blaming "the left" is dumb.

                  And of course, our mission for a better America led by better Democrats is still in its early stages. -- Markos Moulitsas, 5/26/11

                  by mightymouse on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 09:20:44 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, what's dumb is siding with the right... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...to hurl vile, subjective, oppositionalist hyperbolic invectives at the Prez and Party, like some kind of evil twin reverse mirror image doppelganger of Faux "News",  ultimately only contributing to a general atmosphere of confusion, lies and slander...which can only serve to help suppress likely Democratic electoral turnout.

                    Direct your fire to the right.

                    Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

                    by Radical def on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 11:02:30 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Hear, hear! n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Radical def

          The price of apathy toward public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. ~ Plato

          by jan4insight on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 08:11:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  How Do U Plan to Liberate Obama From Obama? (0+ / 0-)

          Because Obama is the problem. On climate change, as on every other core issue, Obama is a neoliberal. He ran as a post-partisan rationalist but governs like a Right Wing ideologue. You can blame Joe Lieberman but that dog don't hunt no more for anybody except the Obama worshipers. The rest of us have figured it out. Obama is a fraud. And climate change/energy is the nadir (so to speak).

      •  The Pelosi House passed a bill that was DOA in (6+ / 0-)

        the Senate.  Even some coal state Senate Dems opposed it.

        If we use natural gas with the 50-70% carbon levels of coal/oil the anti-fracking people would object.  The President will have 44 Senators filibustering his new green Commerce Sec choice.

        I agree the problem will be disastrous but six billion people on earth today don't care or are actively working to make it worse.

        "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

        by shrike on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:55:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What did the Pelosi bill require China to do? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shrike

          I ask b/c China emits 20% more CO2 than the US, and the country has stated that under a best-case scenario, it will emit 74% more CO2 by 2020, compared to 2005 levels.

          So, did the Pelosi bill require China to cut CO2 emissions by the same percentage as the US?

          And if China refused to comply with the Pelosi bill, did the bill provide for trade sanctions, such as prohibiting US travel to that country, or prohibiting US multinationals from engaging in commerce with China?

          Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

          by PatriciaVa on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:15:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Obama could LEAD, but chooses not to. Solar is (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WisePiper, expatjourno, wbgonne, Pintlala

          clearly the way forward, but Obama is instead pandering to the "clean coal" lobby and shrugging his shoulders about making the vast investments we need in alt. energy -- particularly solar. He's pissing away his WH bully pulpit for short term political gain, and, well, just because he's actually a conservative, after all.

          Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbraith

          by Vtdblue on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 03:44:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The misinformation being spouted here on DKos (4+ / 0-)

            is, at times, baffling.

            The Obama Administration has done more than any administration to boost solar and renewables in general.

            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

            by Lawrence on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 03:57:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lots of misinformation, but Obama is a clean coal (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              r2did2, aliasalias, 2020adam, wbgonne, Pintlala

              supporter, and has not done nearly enough to support alternative energy.

              "More than any other" is a pretty pathetically low bar, especially given the dire state of the policy situation, and in tandem with the administration's failure to aggressively back climate legislation.  Ask Bill McKibbin is he agrees with the tenor of your characterization, maybe?  

              Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbraith

              by Vtdblue on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 04:20:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ok, so explain to me how the U.S. is going to (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DollyMadison, A Siegel

                ramp up to 100% renewables within the next 30 years without some kind of ng or clean coal plants to bridge the gap until then.  Technically and logistically, how would you do it?

                I'm no fan of C.C.S. clean coal, but C.C.R. might be worth a go.

                And it looks like that is exactly what the Obama Administration D.O.E. is trying to find out:

                Honeywell’s UOP Awarded Cooperative Agreement for CO2 Capture and Reuse Through Algae Growth and Biofuel Production

                $1.5 million cooperative agreement to demonstrate capture of and beneficial re-use of CO2

                DES PLAINES, Ill., Mar. 2, 2010 – UOP, a Honeywell (NYSE: HON) company, announced today that it has been awarded a $1.5 million cooperative agreement from the U.S. Department of Energy for a project to demonstrate technology to capture carbon dioxide and produce algae for use in biofuel and energy production.

                The funding will be used for the design of a demonstration system that will capture carbon dioxide from exhaust stacks at Honeywell’s manufacturing facility in Hopewell, Va., and deliver the captured CO2 to a cultivation system for algae.

                Algal oil can then be extracted from the algae for conversion to biofuels, and the algae residual can be converted to pyrolysis oil, which can be burned to generate renewable electricity.

                The project, managed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, will realize further environmental benefit because wastewater from the manufacturing facility will be used in the algae cultivation system, allowing the algae to consume nitrogen in the wastewater.

                “This project will demonstrate integrated concepts and technologies that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions while showing the viability of new sources of energy,” said Jennifer Holmgren, vice president and general manager of UOP’s Renewable Energy and Chemicals unit, which develops and licenses process technology for the production of biofuels. “Integrated approaches such as these are our best hopes for creating economically sustainable renewable energy solutions.” At the demonstration site, UOP will design cost-effective and efficient equipment to capture CO2 from the exhaust stacks of the Hopewell caprolactam facility and deliver it in a controlled and efficient process to a pond near the plant, where algae will be grown using automated control systems from Honeywell Process Solutions and technology developed by Aquaflow Bionomic Corp.

                This project supports ongoing development efforts from Honeywell’s UOP for a range of process technologies to capture carbon dioxide and produce green fuels and chemicals. UOP has already commercialized the UOP/Eni Ecofining™ process to produce Honeywell Green Diesel™ fuel from biological feedstocks, including algae and demonstrated process technology to produce Honeywell Green Jet™ fuel.

                The project will also support the independent evaluation of the use of RTP® rapid thermal processing technology from Envergent Technologies, a joint venture between UOP and Ensyn Corp. The RTP system can be used to convert waste biomass from the algae production into pyrolysis oil, which can be burned to generate renewable electricity.

                http://www.uop.com/...

                As for all the things that the Obama Administration has done for renewables and cleantech in the U.S., it's increasingly clear to me that many critics, including this diarist, just have no fucking clue about all the things that this admin has done to boost renewables and cleantech in the U.S.

                And they really don't even seem to be interested in finding out.

                Which is a damn shame, as it prevents them from avtually being able to fully join in with the effort to do something about climate change.

                "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                by Lawrence on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 04:37:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  WHY? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Vtdblue, Pintlala

                  Why do we need to "ramp up" to some future estimate of power consumption craziness? Just how many kilowatts are you going to eat?

                  •  It's not about ramping up energy use, in the U.S. (0+ / 0-)

                    it's about holding energy use to its current levels and reducing them as we move towards 100% renewables.

                    But neither you, nor anyone else here, has demonstrated to me how we can do this without highly efficient NG plants and/or carbon capture and reuse coal or NG power plants replacing some of the old, very dirty, and highly inefficient coal plants.

                    In the developing world, however, it is indeed about finding ways so that they can ramp up energy use in a sustainable manner.  They're going to ramp up energy use one way or the other, after all.

                    It seems pretty clear to me that this Administration has realized that the only way to accomplish sustainable energy ramping up on a global level is by making renewables price competitive with fossil fuel sourced energy production.

                    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                    by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 01:33:50 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  You forgot about conservation. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Pintlala, Vtdblue

                  Since most of the energy produced is wasted, it isn't necessary to produce more. It is necessary to waste less. The advantage of energy efficiency is also that it produces results much faster than increasing production.

                  Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

                  by expatjourno on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 10:14:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nope, I didn't forget about conservation. (0+ / 0-)

                    Conservation and efficiency increases are a huge part of what we need to do, and this administration's policies reflect that.

                    In fact, the biggest potential gains in efficiency could be achieved in the industrial and energy production sectors.

                    And Carbon capture and reuse, as exemplified in the link that I provided above, would result in huge gains in efficiency.

                    So do increased CAFE standards and the greening of the federal fleet.  Things that this administration has also done.

                    Conservation is, however, no magic wand.  It's a major piece needed for solving the climate change puzzle, but it's still just one piece.

                    I'm still waiting for someone here to demonstrate for me how we are going to ramp up to 100% renewables within the next 30 years without using highly efficient NG peaker plants and/or some kind of clean coal technology.

                    And 30 years is a tight timeline, btw.  It can be done, but it sure the hell ain't happening with knuckledragger Republicans controlling Congress.

                    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                    by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 01:20:48 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Since you are obviously trying to tell us (0+ / 0-)

                  about the "need" for a "clean coal" future that exists only in your mind, Big Coal lobbyists, and politicians who pander to the wealthy and the ignorant (which category do you fit into?), I'll dump some unwelcome facts into the discussion.

                  Scientific American Solar Grand Plan
                  "By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions."

                  I think 40 years is close enough to 30, and I"m fairly sure that the plan can be accelerated by increased funding.

                  Mass producing wind turbines isn't exactly rocket science.

                  Peak Oil is NOW! Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                  by alizard on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 12:40:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  "in general" ain't nearly enough. (0+ / 0-)
              •  HR'd for "Obama Derangement Syndrome." (3+ / 0-)

                Or "ODS" as you wrote it this time. If "Obamabot is HR-able, so is "ODS."

                Insults are always HR-able and uprating insults is always ratings abuse.

                Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

                by expatjourno on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 10:16:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Fully agree. It amazes me that ODS (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  expatjourno, Vtdblue

                  is peachy-keen with some, while Obamabot is some horrific HOS atrocity just because MB once used it as an example of an insult.

                  Memo: they are both insults.

                  "Space Available" is the largest retail chain in the nation.

                  by Free Jazz at High Noon on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 10:46:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, they aren't both insults (1+ / 1-)
                    Recommended by:
                    boriquasi
                    Hidden by:
                    expatjourno

                    The truth is not an insult.

                    •  HR'd for ODS. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Vtdblue

                      If "Obamabot is HR-able, so is "ODS."

                      Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

                      by expatjourno on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 10:25:29 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I didn't even say that in that post (0+ / 0-)

                        Yet you think that you can HR it? Really?

                        And then, on top of that, now you and I are in a discussion, and so you can't HR me - you have to leave it up to the community at large to HR me, if they determine it's appropriate, yet apparently even that widely-known rule has been cleverly concealed from you for years, a person with a User ID of 16704.

                        Reported for site rules violations.

                        •  No, if you call someone a n****r... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          MixedContent, Vtdblue

                          ...it is not a defense to say it's true. Moreover, saying it's true would just be a repetition of the same slur and just as HR-able.

                          If you called someone an anti-semite or a racist, that, too, would be HR-able, unless you substantiated your claim.

                          Even more obviously, if I called you an asshole, it would be HR-able. If I tried to defend my use of the term "asshole" by claiming it accurately described you, I would be repeating the insult.

                          What you did was make a broad, unsubstantiated insult and then repeat the slur by claiming it's not an insult because it's true. You might have had a defense if you provided evidence for your claim, but you opted not to.

                          The trouble with claiming that I broke the rules by HR-ing you here is that first of all, we have not been having a discussion. You have simply repeated the same insult by saying it's true. I have simply repeated my HR of the same insult.

                          Second, the way you apply the term, the only people who would be eligible to HR you would be people who agreed with you, since it is clearly meant to apply to the people who would most object to the term being applied to them, rendering them all ineligible to HR. You may think that you have created a clever paradox that immunizes you from being HR'd for insulting people who disagree with you, but we shall see.

                          I suspect you will get little sympathy for going around insulting people and objecting to being HR'd for it.

                          Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

                          by expatjourno on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 12:13:56 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No one is a "n*****r" (0+ / 0-)

                            But some people are assholes, based upon their behavior, and so calling them an asshole (or calling them a murderer or a pedophile, when they've demonstrated that behavior) isn't an insult. Just like some people are racists, based upon the content of their posts! This really ain't rocket science. Some people are trolls, based upon the content of their posts and the clear intent behind those posts. And some people suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome, based upon the content of their posts.

                            And you have been in a discussion with me.

                            Therefore, you can't HR my posts anymore. The first time you HR'd me, you could do it - after that, you can't. It's a pretty simple rule that somehow, even with your low UID, you seem to not understand - or you think you're not obligated to follow that rule.

                            I am not trying to abuse the rule, or twist it to suit my purposes - not at all. But, yet again, we see evidence that when one can't actually debunk anything I've said, they'll (you) will try to rely upon personal attacks as though they're a legit substitute for actual refutations.

                            I don't apply the term in any dishonest way - here's the rule from the FAQ's.

                            2.Do not troll rate someone you are actively having a fight with. If you are in a heated argument with someone, you should not be judging whether or not what they say is trollworthy. Leave it to others to decide what behavior is or isn't over the line.

                            And so other people not directly involved can judge, if need be, how offensive the comment is. Once you get inot a back and forth with another poster, then you can't continue to HR their posts. It doesn't mean that

                            the only people who would be eligible to HR you would be people who agreed with you

                            That's a ridiculous leap in logic you've just made here, in an apparent desperate attempt to defend the indefensible - your HR'ing of my posts after you began an interaction with me!

                            I've made this argument (that it's not an insult if it's true) many times, and I will continue to do so, because it makes sense and is realistic.

                          •  It wasn't a discussion when I HR'd you. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MixedContent, Vtdblue
                            Therefore, you can't HR my posts anymore. The first time you HR'd me, you could do it - after that, you can't. It's a pretty simple rule that somehow, even with your low UID, you seem to not understand - or you think you're not obligated to follow that rule.

                            Nope. That dog won't hunt. You repeated the insult, you got additional HRs. You are simply trying to take advantage of what you think is a loophole in the rules.

                            But thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

                            Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

                            by expatjourno on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 01:11:17 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It sure WAS a discussion (0+ / 0-)

                            After the first reply you made to me!

                            Yet, after that first reply, you continued to HR me.

                            And it wasn't until AFTER THAT FIRST INTERACTION that I said that you couldn't HR me. I swear, this ain't rocket science, you fool - all you have to do is go back and read the posts to know that what I'm saying is undeniably accurate!

                            I am not taking advantage of any rule.

                            Once you start talking to me, you can NOT HR me anymore. It doesn't matter if I keep saying the same thing over and over again (which I didn't do, btw - it's just that your reading comprehension apparently isn't too good, and so you seem to think that asking about ODS is the same as throwing out the accusation of ODS!), once you start talking to me, you can NOT HR me anymore.

                            Really, it's very, very, very, very simple. And how it is that someone with a UID under 20000 could NOT grasp this simple fact is baffling.

                    •  LOL. "reality based" huh? eom (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Vtdblue

                      "Space Available" is the largest retail chain in the nation.

                      by Free Jazz at High Noon on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 11:43:59 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yeah, reality based (0+ / 0-)

                        Calling a person who had stalked and raped women a sexual predator isn't an insult. Calling Bill Clinton a sexual predator is an insult.

                        That's reality.

                        Describing the behavior of some here as being that of people who suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome, when the people being described exhibit that behavior, isn't an insult.

                        I fully understand that most people wouldn't want to be called out like that - just like most sexual predators, when being released from jail, would prefer that they not be labeled as a sexual predator! Too bad, so sad.

                •  Since when is ODS HR'able? (1+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  boriquasi
                  Hidden by:
                  expatjourno

                  Oh, that's right, it's not.

                  But because it fits your agenda, you HR it.

                  The term's been used on DailyKos for years, by hundreds of DK users.

                  The ODS on display by some posters here is clear, present, dangerous, and undeniable.

                  And no, you're 100% wrong that uprating insults is always ratings abuse. A post that solely contains an insult is always eligible for an HR, and it shouldn't be uprated, but accurately describing people isn't an insult.

                  Calling Scott Peterson a murderer isn't an insult. Calling an abortion provider a murderer? Now, there's an insult.

                  Calling people who clearly suffer from ODS "ODS sufferers"? Not an insult.

                  This ain't rocket science.

                  •  HR'd for ODS. Keep it up. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Vtdblue

                    If "Obamabot is HR-able, so is "ODS."

                    Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

                    by expatjourno on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 10:25:58 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Asking if ODS is HR'able isn't equivalent (0+ / 0-)

                      To leveling that accusation against someone else.

                      Yet you seem incapable of grasping that, or else your personal animus towards me is so strong that despite the fact that I wasn't insulting anyone, you still violate site rules by HR'ing me.

                      This comment and your HR has been reported also.

                      I'm quite happy to live with the site adminstrators guidance here. I know for a fact that you HR'ing me after we got into a discussion is against the site rules. So should you.

            •  The Obama team ... (9+ / 0-)

              has both done an amazing amount and not a fraction of what is required.

              By what standard should we judge action? From comparisons with the past, by which the investment in ARRA/otherwise are impressive, or by the standard of what is required ... where we see that we are not nearly enough and far too pandering to fossil-foolish ways.

              Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

              by A Siegel on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 08:40:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank you for the constructive comment. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                A Siegel, DollyMadison

                I'm going to have to judge by the standard that includes viewing things both in the global context, and also the U.S. political context.

                In terms of the U.S. political context, the Obama Administration operates in a tougher environment than any other leader of a western, industrialized nation.  That's a reality that many here ignore.  The Obama Administration can only do so much when the Republican climate change denialist knuckledraggers control the House.  And it can also only do so much when the economy is the issue of main concern to your average American.

                In terms of the global context, renewables are set for a course of massive growth.  The Obama Administration's most important job in this context is to contribute to that instead of blocking it.  And this they are doing.  In essence, the Obama Administration seems to have adopted the goals of the German Greens that created the F.I.T. in Germany:

                make renewables competitive or even cheaper than fossil fuels.  Imo, that is, indeed, the one thing that could save our ass, because it will not only lead to massive growth in renewables in the U.S., it will also lead to renewables being the main choice as developing nations ramp up their energy use, which is arguably even more important than the U.S. cutting down on its energy use.

                In terms of natural, proven carbon sequestration methods such as using hempcrete in construction and agrichar in agriculture, the Obama Administration is lagging... but so is every other country in the world... probably because many politicians don't even know about the potential there.

                "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 02:32:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Since our disagreements are on margin ... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Lawrence, Vtdblue

                  Again, while I do see achievements and have great respect for many of the players, I see so many signs of faltering and hesitancy that cannot be blamed on Republicans (even though I know where "the" blame should fall).

                  * Secretary of Energy Chu entered the Administration knowing the power of cool roofing.  18 months into the Administration, cool roofs are ordered for the Department of Energy.  DOE advises them for the rest of government but they aren't policy.  Cool roofing is, well, perhaps one of the most effective win-win-win-win paths that can be justified, without problem, without discussing climate change even while having meaningful impact to reduce climate change impacts.  It would take a Presidential signature to mandate cool roofing not just on USG roofs, but on many of the roofs rented by the USG, on buildings earning money off USG (such as state & local prisons), etc ...

                  *  Green Schooling is the single most cost effective path to improve student performance ... improved results while saving money.  Yet, please show me the Department of Education office that is paying attention to facilities and the impact that greening schools has on performance.  Again, something that has tremendous benefits without even mentioning climate change.

                  *  Obama gave a speech about reducing gas prices. Putting aside the important discussion as to whether this is the correct policy, he focused the speech on increasing drilling as a path to cut prices.  WTF????   I am sorry, but improved CAFE standards will have greater impact on gas prices through reducing demand faster than we can increase production. This rhetorical choice was the White House's and the President's ... not House Republicans.  

                  * Etc ...

                  There are so many arenas where the choices aren't because of the House Republicans and anti-science syndrome suffering haters of a livable economic system.

                  Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

                  by A Siegel on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 05:26:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Once again, the key to almost everything is the (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    A Siegel, DollyMadison

                    competitive price of renewables and cleantech.  That includes cool roof systems(which only make sense in parts of the country) and green schools.

                    The CAFE standards were tightened under the Obama Administration.

                    The drilling decision, although controversial to me, likely has something to do with peak oil and energy security.

                    BTW, I did read about a green schooling program initiated by the Administration a while back:

                    Department of Education Starts Award for 'Green' Schools
                    April 26, 2011

                    The U.S. Department of Education announced today the creation of the Green Ribbon Schools program to recognize schools that are creating healthy and sustainable learning environments and teaching environmental literacy. The new awards program will be run by the Education Department with the support of the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

                    http://www.ed.gov/...

                    BTW, you're one of the genuine people who actually suggest and offer solutions... which is something that I don't see happening much in this diary.

                    The continual, non-sensical attacks on the Obama Administration in the area of renewables and the environment without offering solutions or alternatives by many here on DailyKos are, however, highly counterproductive.  In fact, they are a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, and they demonstrate that many actually have no clue as to what a monumental task it is to shift a huge, unsustainable economy like the U.S. to becoming a sustainable economy.

                    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                    by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 05:54:46 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Couple things ... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Vtdblue, Lawrence

                      1.  Re cool roofs, they are beneficial more or less throughout the continental United States.  In Chicago, not exactly the hottest/sunniest of locations, there was a test of a split building with traditional on one side and cool roof on the other side. The cool roof side had huge fiscal benefits.  Wal-Mart has found that cool roofs have roughly a three-week payback (when a new roof is installed or redoing a roof) for the additional cost of "cool" vs traditional asphalt. (That three-week is based on comments to me by the relevant Wal-Mart exec a few years ago ... He told me: "the payoff is so good and clear that we'd likely put in a cool roof if we ever put a store at the North Pole. We might lose out there but we will win with cool roofs at every single place where we do have a facility.")

                      2. Thank you for the Dept of Education Green School reference.  I had, in fact, queried the Department of Education's media people multiple times re green schooling over the past two years with crickets in response. I'd called on Race to the Top to include green schooling.  Well -- I didn't know about this announcement until you let me know about it.  Thanks.

                      3. Re CAFE: Yes, the Administration did tighten CAFE.  That could have been a prominent part of the 'gas prices' speech but wasn't.  In part, I think, because they haven't really internalized how CAFE standards will contribute to lower gas prices for everyone.  (See Valuing demand destruction … critical to understanding value of clean energy action.  Truly, this is an important issue / item that I haven't been able to get the WH to pick up.)

                      Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

                      by A Siegel on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 08:09:28 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Mea culpa ... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Vtdblue, Lawrence

                        Better post re CAFE standards:  Understating the Value of New CAFE Standard Targets? (in part because the formatting of the other is totally messed up, I just realized).

                        See also Valuing Cutting Oil Dependency: And the new auto standard deal

                        Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

                        by A Siegel on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 08:11:38 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Thanks for all the info on cool roofing. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        A Siegel

                        That does, indeed, look like a low-hanging fruit.  Good to see that the D.O.E. is on it and that it became a part of the ASHRAE 90.1 building code in 2010.

                        Cool roofs having greatest benefit in air conditioning-heavy climates makes logical sense. The idea also jibes with an important change to the most recent version of the ASHRAE 90.1 energy code. The 2010 version makes cool roofs a prescriptive requirement for Climate Zones 1 through 3. Roofs in those areas — the South, Southwest, and most of California — that adopt the code must install roofs with a minimum three-year weathered reflectance of .55, and three-year weathered emittance of .75. Infrared emittance is the measure of how much radiation a surface re-emits to the atmosphere.

                        http://blog.restoreroofs.com/...

                        It also seems to be included in the Obama Admistration's Better Buildings Initiative, which is a long-overdue initiative, imo:

                        To drive energy efficiency improvements in buildings, the Obama administration has developed the Better Buildings Initiative, a package of proposals designed to cut energy use in commercial buildings by 20 percent by 2020, which would save companies $40 billion a year in energy costs, in today’s dollars, according to the administration. The strategy is to take steps that encourage private-sector investment in building efficiency.

                        The Better Buildings Initiative is in line with the Obama administration’s overall strategy of strengthening the economy by “out-competing, out-educating and out-building” other nations, Moore said.

                        http://www.facilitiesnet.com/...

                        Once again, though, the current political landscape is an impediment to progress, with Congress having to approve the funding aspects of the initiative.

                        Another low-hanging fruit that I would like to see more emphasis put on is solar hot water heating and solar-assisted heating.  The roi rates are very good with solar hot water heating and it should be a standard throughout the southern part of the U.S. and in the Rockies, imo.  And for the north, district-level solar heating seems like a really promising approach:

                        The first of its kind in North America, DLSC is heated by a district system designed to store abundant solar energy underground during the summer months and distribute the energy to each home for space heating needs during winter months.

                        The system is unprecedented in the World, fulfilling ninety percent of each home’s space heating requirements from solar energy and resulting in less dependency on limited fossil fuels.

                        http://www.dlsc.ca/...

                        Quite fascinating... imagine just how much fossil fuel we could save if that were widely implemented...

                        In regards to CAFE standards lowering the price of gas... I think they can indeed mitigate the price of gas, but the main driver for gas prices seem to increasingly be the developing nations, which is another reason why I appreciate the Obama Administration thinking globally in regards to cleantech and renewables.  If developing nations don't massively implement renewables and cleantech as they ramp up energy use then all our efforts in the U.S. and in Europe will not be nearly enough, after all.  And the only way that they'll do this is if the price of renewables continues to drop.

                        In general, the more one digs in and does research, the more one realizes that the efforts of this administration are vastly underreported and thus often under the radar.  It is thus kind of frustrating to see it being underreported and undervalued here at DKos, which is supposed to be an enlightened community.

                        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                        by Lawrence on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 02:46:09 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  P.S. (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't really understand your complaint here in light of the Obama Adminstration's Better Buildings Initiative and President Obama signing an executive order "directing federal agencies to achieve net zero energy by 2030 and employ high performance and sustainable design principles for all new construction and alterations. At least 15% of existing buildings need to meet theses guiding principles by FY2015."

                    That amounts to a massive shift in paradigm, especially for the U.S.

                    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                    by Lawrence on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 03:17:37 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  "Better than nothing" is a very low bar. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wbgonne, Vtdblue
              The Obama Administration has done more than any administration to boost solar and renewables in general.

              The amount of funding is a drop in the bucket compared to fossil fuel subsidies.

              And whatever he's done to boost renewables is more than outweighed by authorizing a pipeline to help exploit Canada's tar sands.

              Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

              by expatjourno on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 10:11:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's far from "better than nothing". (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DollyMadison

                In fact, in regards to renewables and cleantech, it's likely to be the best ever of any administration in the history of the U.S.

                But if you are not keeping up with what is happening in renewables and greentech in the U.S., then your attitude is understandable.

                "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 02:06:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  "Best ever of any administration in the history... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mightymouse, Vtdblue

                  ...of the U.S." MEANS better than nothing.

                  Something ALWAYS beats NOTHING. Duh. And it is a drop in the bucket compared to the subsidies for fossil fuels, which are many, many times larger.

                  Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

                  by expatjourno on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 02:15:16 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I get the impression that you're not even making (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    DollyMadison

                    an attempt to be objective here.  We're not going to get anywhere when people just try to win an argument instead of attempting to make a sound judgement based on what is actually happening.

                    In regards to the subsidies for fossil fuels... the Obama Admin. and the Dems just tried to get rid of those, but the Republicans killed it in the Senate.

                    You're blaming the wrong crowd there....

                    And it demonstrates why making renewables and cleantech cheaper than fossil-sourced energy production probably is the only viable strategy both in the U.S. and globally at this time.

                    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                    by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 02:37:03 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Obama didn't make much of an issue of it. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Vtdblue

                      And he also has expanded drilling and authorized that pipeline to help exploit Canada's tar sands. In light of that, the effort on renewables is even more pathetic.

                      How about oil companies don't get any more leases until they give up their subsidies? How about holding the oil patch senators feet to the fire?

                      I'm not impressed by crumbs when they are so outweighed by giveaways to the other side.

                      As for objectivity, your cheerleading is certainly no more objective than my critique.

                      Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

                      by expatjourno on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 02:49:17 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  If you think the effort on renewables is pathetic, (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        DollyMadison

                        then ... as I've said before... you are neither attempting to be objective nor aware of what is actually taking place.

                        That you stoop to using insulting terms like "cheerleading" pretty much cements that impression.

                        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                        by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 02:55:57 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You got personal first, Lawrence. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Vtdblue

                          You accused me of not being objective and of just trying to win an argument.

                          My response that you are just cheerleading about the minimal improvements this administration has made was exactly what you had coming.

                          Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

                          by expatjourno on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 06:39:28 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm just stating a fact. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DollyMadison

                            You're not being objective.

                            And it's likely because you just plain don't know much about the field of renewables and clean tech.

                            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                            by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 07:03:40 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's only necessary to know that fossil fuel... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Vtdblue

                            ...subsidies remain much bigger than subsidies for renewals. And further, that a large part of the subsidies for renewables are for corn ethanol.

                            You can cheerlead all you want, but detailed knowledge is unnecessary to refute you. The relative size of the subsidies speaks for itself.

                            Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

                            by expatjourno on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 07:30:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ah, ok...if that's all you need to know.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DollyMadison

                            Your mental world is obviously not that differently structured from those on the far right then, though, and it's pretty obvious that renewables and cleantech are a field that you don't really care enough about to inform yourself, but instead just see the issue as another venue for bashing Obama.

                            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                            by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 07:58:57 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The facts about the subsidies demolish your case. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Vtdblue

                            Deny that all you want. Make as many insults as you want. Facts are facts.

                            You are the one whose mind is structured like those George Bush dead-enders, buddy. You want to praise Obama for renewables while he's doing as much or more than George Bush to subsidize fossil fuels.

                            Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

                            by expatjourno on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 08:04:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Simple equations for simple minds. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DollyMadison

                            It's telling how you never back up your sweeping statements with links and completely ignore that the Dems and Obama have been trying to get rid of oil and gas subsidies while the Republicans continually block even that.

                            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                            by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 08:20:09 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, please. No one disputes that subsidies for... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Vtdblue

                            ...fossil fuels are many times the size of subsidies for renewables. You want a link for THAT?

                            And I'm not ignoring "that the Dems and Obama have been trying to get rid of oil and gas subsidies while the Republicans continually block even that." You are begging the question.

                            If it makes you feel better to believe the kabuki, go right ahead. However, given that:
                            1) Obama put Salazar in charge of Interior,
                            2) the permit process continued the way it had under Bush-Cheney,
                            3) the second Sara Palin started her drill-baby-drill thing Obama opened up the whole eastern seaboard, more of the Gulf of Mexico and more of Alaska to drilling,
                            4) the administration let BP dump massive quantities of toxic dispersants into the gulf to cover up the scale of the disaster,
                            5) the administration has failed to hold BP fully responsible for the damage it did,

                            I think it's pretty obvious that this administration is just as fossil-fuel friendly as the Bush Administration. Efforts to cut subsidies are all for show.

                            Oh, and that's not even counting Obama's stated support for "clean coal."

                            And what have you got? A bunch of insults and the assertion that because this administration has done more than previous administrations to support renewables we should just shut up and clap louder? Pretty clear who the simple-minded one is.

                            So are those solar panels back on the White House roof? Or would that offend the memory of Ronald Reagan too much? Has Obama addressed the nation and called ending dependence on fossil fuels and addressing climate change "the moral equivalent of war"?

                            When it comes to proposing an energy policy, Obama couldn't carry Jimmy Carter's jock.

                            Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

                            by expatjourno on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 10:21:56 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yep, I'd like to see where the link is for oil and (0+ / 0-)

                            gas receiving more subsidies/financial assistance than renewables and cleantech during the first two years of the Obama Administration.

                            Can you also give me an analysis of what part of those subsidies were already in place and which are new ones, or would that run counter to the narrative that you are trying to sell here?

                            Clean coal can make sense, but only if the proper C.C.R. technology is implemented.  C.C.S. makes no sense, imo.

                            Solar panels are to be installed on the White House this year... and the news about that will likely be launched at an opportune moment, in order to enhance the symbolism of the moment.

                            BTW, the U.S. provided more subsidies for renewables in 2009 than any other nation.  That doesn't necessarily mean that they were more effective subsidies, as the devil is in the details, but it sure shows the vacuousness of your "Obama sux and no facts will change my mind on that" argument.

                            Obama is not perfect on energy matters, imo, but he's very far from being the idiot that you are trying to make him out to be.

                            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                            by Lawrence on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 01:18:41 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  And btw, you just proved that you are not keeping (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        DollyMadison

                        up.  The following statement is factually wrong:

                        "...he also has... authorized that pipeline to help exploit Canada's tar sands."

                        Alberta tar sands pipeline project delayed

                        The Obama administration ordered additional environmental reviews before a final decision, due at the end of the year

                        http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

                        If you can't even keep up with what is happening with that, how can you keep up with the more nuanced and complex developments, such as the Administration's targeted boosting of renewables and cleantech R & D projects?

                        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                        by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 03:05:42 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  That's certainly good news. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Vtdblue

                          But let's see what happens, shall we? Last fall, Clinton said that the state department was inclined to approve it and I have yet to see Big Oil not get something it wants.

                          As for nuance, there is nothing to be nuanced about. You claim that this administration is doing wonderful things with renewables. Your argument is based on the fact that it is doing more than previous administrations, which have done basically nothing.

                          My argument is that subsidies to the fossil fuel industries are so much more massive, especially when you count the free ride they get on environmental devastation, that the few billion that is going to renewables is a pittance. Further, I point out that something is always better than nothing, so the fact that this administration is doing more than previous administrations does not, in itself, mean anything.

                          Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

                          by expatjourno on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 06:34:42 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  That's the general problem with your view on (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DollyMadison

                            things here:

                            doing a considerable amount to further the advancement of cleantech and renewables = "it does not mean anything".

                            With that line of argument, you can pretty much argue away anything, even if its staring you straight in the face.

                            It's not exactly an enlightened method of reasoning, though,.

                            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                            by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 07:02:24 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  "Solar is clearly ..." (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jeffersonian Democrat

            Let me say that I find any / all "X is the Silver Bullet" statements discomfitting, at best. ...

            Now, I agree, writ large, with too much of your comment otherwise.

            Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

            by A Siegel on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 08:38:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, the IPCC clearly thinks that it is the most (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pintlala

              viable solution of all. Not that it's a silver bullet: Nothing is. But they're not the only ones who see the need for far more massive investment in solar, compared to the many and deep flaws of most of the other alts. i assume that's the part you agree with?...

              IPCC publishes Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation

              Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbraith

              by Vtdblue on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 09:19:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wasn't disagreeing with (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Vtdblue

                solar as part of path forward ... I was just in reaction to the Silver Bullet nature of the phrasing.

                In near term, efficiency (and other demand destruction) is critical.  There are also so many 'non-energy' related elements, such as land practices & bio-char & ..., to put into the equation.  We need 'all of the above', even as some elements are more valuable / powerful than others.

                Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

                by A Siegel on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 09:06:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Agreed that it's a multi-faceted solution. But the (0+ / 0-)

                  money needs to be put into the pipeline, and in reliable streams that are not just episodic, before substantial private investment will take a chance. The Obama money was just a start, but he's decided that deficit reduction and dubious pandering to existing energy interests such as coal and oil/gas is a far higher priority than genuine green techno investment by gov't.  That's what pisses me off the most.

                  Conservatives are] engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; ...the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. JK Galbraith

                  by Vtdblue on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 02:25:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  What I really want to know. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Vtdblue

              were all those scary headlines " hole in the ozone layer"      " accelerants in spraycans decreases ozone layer "Satelite photos prove that hole in ozone layer getting larger"and the best one " hole in ozone layer will bring new ice age" was all that just bullshit?

      •  Apparently You're Not Listening!! (6+ / 0-)
        "Clean-energy jobs are the jobs of the future. I don't want other countries to win the competition for these technologies and jobs. I want America to win that competition. I want America to win the future."

        National View: Now is the time to fuel the new green economy

        But that's not surprising when one spends life on chat boards and not research!!

        Climate change is just the most important of many issues as to even more then clean energy and is the new meme of denial used by the same forces that locked out innovation as it was started in these area's some thirty to forty years ago. I know I grew up in and was living in the post war rapid advances as we were envied by the world and  had started working in the industry that would have advanced the idea's and actual products while advancing same!!

        CCR:"If you're a torturer, be careful in your travel plans. It's a slow process for accountability, but we keep going."

        by jimstaro on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:42:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It doesn't matter what he says. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wbgonne
          "Clean-energy jobs are the jobs of the future. I don't want other countries to win the competition for these technologies and jobs. I want America to win that competition. I want America to win the future."

          Words backed only by tokenism. It matters what he does.

          Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

          by expatjourno on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 10:18:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  "We have to lead"? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, jan4insight

      Good comment. It relates to Lawrence's title which I somewhat agree with, though I would change it slightly to something along the lines of...

      Climate change is the most important issue humanity has ever faced, aside from letting a few hundred or thousand so-called leaders around the world off the hook by putting up with the crap they dish out

      ... if I could shorten it and retain the meaning.

      I have a feeling that everyone knows somewhere inside themselves what this is going to come down to, and no one wants to be the first to say it.

      But there is a book. And there is a review of it. And there is a question... When did, or do, we begin to fight?

      The climate is probably finished and our environment is probably toast, unless an American Awakening happens somewhat like the Arab Awakening the US Government is doing their best to help crush.

      For example, in the US alone...

      There are 100 senators, 435 congressional reps, a handful of people in the White House, and maybe a few hundred people on Wall Street and a few thousand corporatists 'operating' those senators, reps and White House staffers.

      And there are 310 million Americans who so far are acting like they are outnumbered - but the more they are hit in their wallets and the more their children are threatened the sooner an American Awakening and Uprising should begin.

      Remember the Revolutionary War?

      Humankind is being systematically killed off by the capitalist class, via their poisoning of the air, water and food chain, as well as their heedless imposition of catastrophic climate change. Jensen poses the very reasonable question: are we willing to retaliate violently to save our own lives and those of our children and grandchildren?

      -- Pacifism as Pathology - Book Review

      Antemedius | Liberally Critical Thinking

      by Edger on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 03:19:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is bigger... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jan4insight, A Siegel

      Than just Democrats or Progressives.  The Global Warming/Climate Change denialists are just as vocal, with more numbers, than the birthers.  The road to tackling something as pervasive as climate change is going to require a whole lot more education, especially if you consider how many people don't know quite how science "works".

      Leadership on this particular subject is going to require leadership on both sides of the fence, as well as in our allies around the world.  Every person who can do something to help should help.

      You can't drag leaders into acting for humanity when humanity shows little (or no) interest in acting for itself.

      It is not stupid people that scare me, it is their proclivity for breeding.

      by kaotikzen on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 03:51:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Junk Food of the Banksters (0+ / 0-)

      Oh.  This could be the title of a book.  

      This is a terrific turn of phrase.  Please use it again, I know I will!  :)  Thanks!

      "We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike.” -Adolf Hitler, May 2, 1933

      by bekosiluvu on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 06:30:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  funny (0+ / 0-)

      And, if you're not a christian or don't go to a christian church on Sunday to make some kind of show...it will mean something.  Otherwise, why post something like this unless it's accepted here by the predominant number of posters that say they're anti-christian or agnostic or atheist.

      That what is the case here?

      Askin.  Otherwise, this kind of post should get a significant number of people saying it's out of bounds.

      Oh...and if you're gonna go to the "fundamentalist" argument...nice try.

      I'm an agnostic and I don't have a clue if the christian beliefs are true or not true...but, I do know that this kind of presentation is wrong.

      Give me hell if ya want.  Won't mean squat to me...and, I'm betting that it won't mean squat to most here...except those that do defend those that trash me and my post...which will be a small number.  Others will just not post, but ya gotta know why, of course.

      -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

      by r2did2 on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:22:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ya wanna know what I think? (4+ / 0-)

        I think the Republicans and the corporatist forces that fund them are unconsciously on board with End-Times teleology.  The save-your-soul theology of most christian sects fits well with the corporatist doctrine of profits first, followed by a golden parachute into retirement.

        Otherwise why would so many corporations not be interested in keeping our species alive for thousands of years to come, the better to exploit, enslave and profit from?

        Freedom isn't "on the march." Freedom dances.

        by WarrenS on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:30:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  WOW ! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WarrenS, r2did2

          Now, THAT' comes from a dedicated liberal/progressive DKos poster.

          hahaha...thanks, I needed that.

        •  How Does Rapturist Eschatology - (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          too many people

          Differ that greatly with warmist eschatology?

          Both are beliefs of moral absolutes.
          Both are profoundly anti-intellectual.

        •  I'll keep you company out on that limb, (3+ / 0-)

          Warren. Republicans have shown time and again they don't accept responsibility for any mistakes or misjudgements. They like to promote the "God will provide' strategy, but what if God is a small government believer and thinks we should pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps?

          "Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing." - Thomas Paine

          by blueoregon on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:56:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Boo (0+ / 0-)

          "Save-your-soul theology?  

          Corporatists don't give a shit about that.

          Silly.  But, that's just silly to me.  If you truly believe this...well, again, it's silly to me but probably won't be to you.  You're not in any kind of majority on your thinking, though.  

          Look, if ya hate corporations and big employers and so forth, just say so and say why.  Thanks.

          It's not about anything religious and/or has anything to do with any religious philosophy and such.  We all know this.

          -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

          by r2did2 on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:06:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Perhaps you don't recognize... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jantman, RunawayRose, iceweasel

            ...an analogy?

            An eminent musicologist once remarked that the crash-bang thunderous endings of classical symphonic music could only have been developed by a culture that believed in an Apocalypse (music of predominately Hindu cultures, by contrast, just fades away, then fades back up, with occasional climaxes midway).

            Whether we like it or not, in a mainstream Protestant culture, the notion of end-times eschatology is inescapable, and its influence can be seen in many aspects of our culture.  Children's stories in other cultures don't end with "and they all lived happily ever after," just so you know.

            So given that this bizarre end-of-times viewpoint has been warping our culture ever since it became popular, why wouldn't it influence our economic thinking?

            Look at the behavior of some millionaire asshole who trashes companies, cuts thousands of jobs, ruins the stock value and gets a bazillion-dollar retirement package....and tell me you don't see a fiscalized version of an ordinary everyday asshole who fucks up the lives of other people but doesn't give a shit — because he's been promised eternal happiness from his personal savior.  I sure see a similarity.

            Freedom isn't "on the march." Freedom dances.

            by WarrenS on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 03:24:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  It's a CARTOON! (3+ / 0-)

        r2did2, this is a joke. I don't seen any religio/political angle here. It's not all that funny but it's still a joke. I don't think anyone's making a point about religion; it's more about stupid human behavior and stupid human solutions to problems created by stupid humans.

      •  Most incoherent response to JekyllnHyde... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jeffersonian Democrat

        that I've ever seen.

      •  well, because (0+ / 0-)

        JekyllnHyde has been posting political cartoons since... well, since this site friggin started

        JekyllnHyde is a very well liked and respected poster here.

        JekyllnHyde has made many contributions to this site for years.

        Run your mouse over her name, see that number that says 915?  That means she was the 915th person to sign up here.

        You, on the other hand, are 307,236.  Which makes me want to ask the question: do you always make new friends then shit on their living room floor?

        "What's disgusting? Union busting!" 17.02.2011 Madison, WI

        by Jeffersonian Democrat on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 02:25:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm gonna buy that super jacked-up truck (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      too many people

      in the display room down at Ford's to deal with the floods!

      "Our 'neoconservatives' are neither new nor conservative, but old as Babylon and evil as Hell" - Edward Abbey

      by stormserge on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:43:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It Is Well-Recognized (21+ / 0-)

    That rising wheat prices contributed to thepolitical upheavals in North Africa, the Levant and the Gulf this year.

     But I haven't heard a single commentator suggesting that anything was to be done about it.

    Find me fast on Daily Kos by following me.

    by bink on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:17:13 PM PDT

    •  And three years ago. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bink, sethtriggs, ms badger

      We both wrote about it.

      Shilling for Asinus Asinum Fricat!

      by Patric Juillet on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:18:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My Food Prices Have Gone Up a Third (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ms badger, Glic, Patric Juillet, antirove

        Since I first started watching this issue (2008).

        American households spend far less of their income by percent than people do in the developing world, so -- despite the tough times that I have personally had -- I have been able to absorb it.

        But when your outlays for staple goods make up most or all of your income, what do you do when the price of wheat goes through the ceiling?  You either go hungry, or you overthrow the government.

        Find me fast on Daily Kos by following me.

        by bink on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:27:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Wheat Prices (0+ / 0-)

      You're quite right. Interestingly, I watched a National Geographic special this week on the catastrophic weather we've had in the last year and the bigger picture over the last 30 years. One of the final points made was exactly this. The climate changes have affected crops in Russia, China and now probably the Southern US due to the recent floods. One of the points they made about the crop failures was the direct effect it had on the Arab uprisings being sparked by higher food prices.  But that's the only mention I've heard recently. The climate is out of control and the next level will be crop failures on a scale that could spin the world into chaos and anarchy with massive die-offs. Is it just too scary to talk about? Can we really do anything to change it at this point or is it inevitable.

    •  The President's comment on the matter... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jeffersonian Democrat, bink

      indicated that he believes the proper response is the further liberalization of trade policies. So if you get a thrill up your leg when you think about race to the bottom regulation and an end to those troublesome labor strikes in Egypt, you'll looove the neoliberal trade assistance we're about to use in the wake of those upheavals!

  •  excellent! bravo! cheers! (23+ / 0-)

    there are more impacts from climate change that some don't consider. We are eliminating species, some that have existed for hundreds if not thousands of years or more. Like the polar bear, 40,000 years on this earth until climate denier madness takes over DC.

    There are also traditional cultures that face extinction of their way of life for a 1,000 years or more is wiped out due to global warming. Plants they used for medicine gone. Migrations they took for years delayed or wiped out due to melting ice.  

    And there are places around the world threatened. Historical architecture that has survived years, but can't survive in hotter temps. Historical sites facing wipe out from flooding from higher sea levels or extreme weather events.

    As your diary so thoroughly covered, climate change affects all aspects of our lives...even those we might think about until we see it happen.

    Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

    by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:19:05 PM PDT

  •  Amen. (15+ / 0-)

    More on the front page about the most important issue humanity has ever faced, please.

  •  Add to this... (13+ / 0-)

    ...the unknown unknowns, as Rumsfeld once put it, and the fact is inescapable: we are going to face a shitstorm the likes of which our civilization cannot imagine.

    I seriously doubt it'll be only 200 million refugees.  I'm gonna bet probably 1-2 billion people displaced, once secondary effects are ongoing.  There is going to be starvation and ruin like we've never seen before, and it'll be well under way before I die.

    Freedom isn't "on the march." Freedom dances.

    by WarrenS on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:25:07 PM PDT

  •  Most likely outcome, in my opinion (10+ / 0-)

    Humanity will do squat. Entire populations and societies will be effectively annihilated over the next century or two. The eventual result will be, ta dah, reduced green house emissions from the remainder. But it will require thousands of years at that point for the environment to turn around, during which time homo sapiens will be further reduced in numbers. After that, will we have learned form our mistakes or start the whole mess over again? Depends if all the survivors are descended from the uber rich Dumbfuckistan segment of the population.

  •  Nothing less than Manhattan Project urgency (10+ / 0-)

    "Nothing less than Manhattan Project urgency is good enough."

    If this is the case, there better be a Plan B. Manhattan Project urgency is simply not in the political cards—not here, not in China, not even in Germany or Denmark. Any number of projections will tell you that timely prevention of whatever temperature rise is coming is not remotely possible. The sooner all efforts are directed toward mitigation, the better. Anything else is idle dreaming and a sheer waste of time.

    •  That Wouldn't Be Remotely Enough. (3+ / 0-)

      Almost the entire American economy was not involved.

      In climate change, the entire economy needs to be involved. Absolutely, positively, every activity, because all activity contributes to the problem and the solutions will impact energy and possibilities for everything.

      First day of school, boys as they said in Close Encounters.

      There's no precedent for this.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:43:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agree, this is as urgent as any war... (3+ / 0-)

        ...and requires full mobilization of all national resources, immediately.

        And this is not going to occur, as long as we are subject to right wing majorities in the House and Senate, period.

        They had a majority after '08, JUST BARELY, with just a few Blue Dogs in there, and it's worse now.

        Oh well, 2012 is looking pretty good, potentially.

        Indeed, this could be our last, best shot, to save the planet.

        Do or die!

        Bring the Better Democrats!

        Seize the Power!

        Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

        by Radical def on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:16:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  WWII is the best precedent for us (0+ / 0-)

        And of course, our mission for a better America led by better Democrats is still in its early stages. -- Markos Moulitsas, 5/26/11

        by mightymouse on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:47:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The writer knows that.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jan4insight, DollyMadison

      He or she just wants to bitch about Obama.


      "I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD"
      - hatemailapalooza, 052210

      by punditician on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:55:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How dare he or she... (0+ / 0-)

        ...not wave his or her pompoms and cheer louder.

      •  I have to agree, diarist is...incorrect (3+ / 0-)

        ...in seeming to blame Obama and the Party, for what the right wing majorities, the Republicans and their sponsors in the Chamber of Commerce, and a relative few Blue Dogs are doing.

        The only thing wrong with the Democrats is the extent to which they are subject to the coercion of right wing majorities, and, yes, co-optation, and even corruption...from the right...which is the source of the evil.

        Displace enough Blue Dogs and Republicans with progressives, and reasonable moderates, who are NOT Blue Dogs, and the tables will be turned in 2012 for a change, and it will be the right bashing their brains out in frustration, against a brick wall...as we roll out the new green paradigm, put everyone back to work, bring the troops home, etc. etc.

        Instead of attacking the Prez and the Party for being hostage to right wing majorities, fire needs to be directed at the real enemy, with such withering intensity that even the Blue Dogs, and other Democrats, as well, will be compelled to step back, to avoid association with the right wing line and policy.

        This does not mean "no criticism" of the Prez or the Party.

        But it does mean recognizing who the enemy is, and not breaking ranks to shred each other in the midst of what could be a decisive struggle to wrest power from the right.

        Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

        by Radical def on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:30:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Dems have shown no interest in this: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mightymouse

          "fire needs to be directed at the real enemy, with such withering intensity that even the Blue Dogs, and other Democrats, as well, will be compelled to step back, to avoid association with the right wing line and policy."

          So, if our "leaders" refuse to lead, what do you suggest? We should elect more of them so they can also not "lead" on the most important issue we have ever faced?

          How far to the right do the Dems have to move before you stop calling them Dems?

          by Diebold Hacker on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 05:41:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I propose we find, bring forward, run, elect (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jan4insight

            ...more better Democrats.

            What do you propose?  

            Please tell me, how YOU propose to stop the ice caps from melting, stop them from from building nukes all over the place to "fix" that, how you are going to stop the wars, put everyone back to work by going green, etc. etc., with right wing majorities in charge?

            Do you imagine this will be accomplished by boycotting elections, or splitting the vote?

            Do you imagine that by slagging Obama and the Party, that this will somehow "make" them do right?

            Do you imagine that Republicans will somehow be "good" for the revolution that you imagine will be just around the corner, if they get elected?

            WTF is your point, really?

            Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

            by Radical def on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 07:43:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  This President (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wbgonne

          has more power on this issue than anyone else. But he doesn't act like it. He could do WAAAAY more. Promoting coal, oil, and nuclear the way he has done makes you wonder what he is doing.

          •  No matter what he says, right wing majority rules (0+ / 0-)

            ...so it doesn't really matter much, does it?

            What matters is if we elect sufficient progressive plurality to "make" him do whatever we want, and to be in a material position to replace him, should that prove necessary..whether he, or the Party like it, want it, or help us to do that or not.

            It's on us.  Obama and the Party are not your daddy.

            Until we achieve sufficient plurality, there's no other material way to call his bluff, if that's what it is, about "make me".

            Why not press the contradictions of purported democracy, by putting him on the spot, for real?

            I think once the EPA is fully funded and staffed, they will put a report on his desk informing him that there's no such thing as "clean" coal or "safe" nukes, and that we have to go green, all the way, immediately.

            And he will say "OK, lets do it", because there will be  progressive/moderate Majorities behind him to make it happen, for a change, or to kick his ass out if he won't.

            Any other scenario is unacceptable, to anyone but the most craven misanthropist.
             

            Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

            by Radical def on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 08:00:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Climate change is the most important issue (28+ / 0-)

    the next few generations will face...because if we don't adapt to it, the next few generations will be all that there is.  

    I'm exaggerating a bit.

    I hope.

    Today's dose of grim: carbon release to atmosphere nearly 10 times as great as during Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, the last global warming/mass extinction event in geological history.

    Join/follow Climate Hawks and Public Lands; @RL_Miller

    by RLMiller on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:31:22 PM PDT

  •  Technological Silver Bullet Is Our Only Hope (7+ / 0-)

    We're probably looking at extinction in 200 years.

    It's all so clear to me now. I'm the keeper of the cheese. And you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.

    by bernardpliers on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:32:33 PM PDT

  •  "Clean Coal" per Obama (14+ / 0-)

    President Obama as a presidential candidate said that "clean coal" is how we as a country should be go to help our energy needs.

    The progressive radical liberal democrats avoid mentioning that and just avoid ever bringing that up.

    Coal is a big contributor to the detrimental affects in our environment.  There is no such thing as "clean coal" and no true supporter of the environmental causes supports anything like this.  But, because Obama is a democrat, this gets no play in the media or anywhere else.

    Coal is not any less detrimental to our global environment than oil or fosil fuels.

    •  Nice, independentman (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      And, by the rec's, it looks like a lot of folks here agree with ya.  

      Obama, just being a democrat, shouldn't get a pass on this kind of thing.

      He has been wrong in this and few people don't know he said these things with regard to clean coal for "coal campaign dollars" and "mining union dollars".  

      It is how we've become.  There is no difference between the republican or democratic politicians in Washington..or not even in the presidency.  It's a shame, really.

      -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

      by r2did2 on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:26:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Coal is detrimental to the environment (0+ / 0-)

      in its current forms of extraction and energy production, but because there is no such thing as clean coal today doesn't mean we can't come up with a way to use the most abundant natural resource we have in the US in a responsible way (in extraction and energy production). When people want clean energy such as wind and solar, they have to realize that even in one or two decades, wind and solar will only be responsible for about 20% of our energy needs. Where will the rest come from?

      How come the dove gets to be the peace symbol? How about the pillow? It has more feathers than the dove and doesn't have that dangerous beak. Jack Handey

      by skohayes on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 04:19:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  meanwhile Obama opens up vast tracts of land (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, wbgonne

      in Wyoming for mining coal and there is a plan proposed to build North America's largest coal port terminal app. a hundred miles north of Seattle ( at Ferndale,just north of here in Bellingham).
      The main goal is to ship 24-50 million tons of coal annually from Powder River Basin in Wyoming  to China and I'm happy to say that I was told via an email (then I saw it in the local newspaper) that our Mayor, Dan Pike was opposed to the endless coal trains noisily rambling thru town polluting the air, water, and blocking access to the waterfront ( thereby killing waterfront development).

      This won't be easy,  as Congressman Rick Larsen (D) supports this travesty, and unfortunately Sen. Murray's husband works for one of the culprits in the agreement , SSA Marine.( I need to add that I've yet to hear of any comment on this by Sen. Murray, if someone else has please post it)

      Sponsors of 'The Gateway Pacific Terminal' include Goldman Sachs, the largest coal company in the world 'Peabody Energy Corp., Berkshire Hathaway (which bought Burlington Northern/ Santa Fe) and SSA Marine ( Seattle based multi-national company).

      This fight has just started.

      without the ants the rainforest dies

      by aliasalias on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 08:35:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Has Anyone Read? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RJP9999, FrY10cK

    Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb"? - - 1968

    In it, Ehrlich made all kinds of extreme predictions - -
    Hyperbole of hyperboles.  With dates, no less.

    I would argue that continued human population growth with its implied increased consumption and destruction of natural habitats will destroy more species far more quickly than climate change.  However, Ehrlich's outrageous predictions had the opposite effect of what he intended.  Rather than focus greater attention on issues of human population - it set back discussion of population issues for a generation or two.

    It's not that any of the fundamental concepts Ehrlich outlined are wrong.  In fact, they are truer today than ever before.  But it was the manner in which he presented them.

    A small caveat - -

    •  Can we solve a problem by ignoring it? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      antirove, RunawayRose

      I don't think so.

      Reasoning by rough analogy can at times be instructive, but it should never be used in place of careful and deep reasoning of other sorts.

      E.g., I've done my own research on what happens to precipitation as world temperatures rise, and nature seems to have already caught up with the projections I've made for the future.  Somehow people are still acting surprised that there has been so much rain and snow in the world and in their locations in the past few years.  No one major rainfall event can be completely attributed to climate change due to increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, but it's not like we're looking at just one or two or even only a few dozen unusual precipitation events lately.  Things have gotten extreme, and the use of a bit of objective thermodynamics indicates that it's going to get worse.

      "Trust only those who doubt" Lu Xun

      by LookingUp on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 03:53:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  While some people are drowning (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        antirove

        we're drying up here in the southwest, more fires, erosion, less humidity and the loss of plant life.
        Here in western Ks, it's drier than it was during the Dust Bowl days.

        How come the dove gets to be the peace symbol? How about the pillow? It has more feathers than the dove and doesn't have that dangerous beak. Jack Handey

        by skohayes on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 04:23:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Heart of the Matter Is Shown By The Dedication (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno

    to war Obama has. Wars for oil must go before the green house gases ever will. Count on it.

  •  Water Fluoridation on steroids (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WarrenS

    The EPA is the only thing that can save us
    backed by Obama vetos against the deniers
    Our politics are already paralyzed and this will have to be jammed down people's throats.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    •  Will. Never. Happen. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bush Bites

      Such an approach would be political suicide -
      Not to mention that it wouldn't have the full support even of one party.

      You really do sound like Ehrlich -
      Proposing human sterilants in water and food.

      Let's really aim for permanent political insignificance.

      •  SCOTUS says the EPA regulates GHG (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shaggies2009, LookingUp, mightymouse

        and Obama backs up EPA with vetos if necessary.

        The fact is about 50% of the country will see the need and the GOP will never accept it and persuasion isn't going to work on them.

        Is political suicide worse than actual suicide?
        A lot of  Democrats committed 'political suicide' by supporting ACA but the Ryan plan will help them rise from the dead.

        Sometimes, principle is more important than popularity even for politicians.

    •  Please explain (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sethtriggs

      This a very bizarre comment or strategy. How would this "work"? Would China and India or other high birth rate nations join? How do you manage the giant societal transformation that would take place if the world's birthrate suddenly plummeted?

      Remember, this isn't a science fiction novel. This is real life.

      "We are stardust, we are golden, we are caught in the devil's bargain, and we got to get ourselves back to the garden." - Joni Mitchell

      by shaggies2009 on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:04:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How dare you criticize Obama! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Words In Action, aliasalias, wbgonne

    He's the best of all possible presidents. Nothing is ever his fault.

    He only decided to expand drilling and authorize that pipeline to Canada's tar sands because he couldn't wave a magic wand and convince himself to just say no.

    Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

    by expatjourno on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:37:26 PM PDT

    •  plus the planned 'Gateway Pacific Coal Terminal' (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      expatjourno, mightymouse

      here in the NW (I posted about this above). That must be stopped, it means shipping thru here (everywhere from Wyoming to B'ham) 24-50 million tons of coal a year to China.

      without the ants the rainforest dies

      by aliasalias on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 09:23:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, for God's sake. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aliasalias

        Change we can believe in, my ass.

        Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope... --RFK

        by expatjourno on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 09:53:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  believe me there is opposition here (3+ / 0-)

          and the Mayor of Bellingham announced his opposition, but the RR and SSA Marine have acted (according to the Mayor's email) like the town is irrelevant.

          This will be the largest coal terminal in North America , and will store on-site 2.75 million tons next to 460 acres of wetlands. Of course, coal dust will be spread across inland farms, streams and wetlands'.

          Cherry Point (proposed site) Pacific Herring are crucial for the food web that supports endangered salmon, Orcas, and migratory birds. At an all time spawning low, the herring depend entirely on this area for spawning-and coal dust and diesel fuel are toxic.

          There is a lot more to this but to keep it short,... this must not happen.

          without the ants the rainforest dies

          by aliasalias on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 10:37:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Well We Have One of the Worst Systems of Gov (11+ / 0-)

    to address such a huge yet slow-acting threat, and we've just finished 35-40 years making it weaker for the required types of policies than any time since the Depression.

    Of course we should do what we can to pressure government, but it would take a revolution to get this government or some other system strong enough to act strongly and quickly enough.

    We can't even prevent rolling back modest priced programs that majorities of voters support.

    This case simply has to be taken to global economic ownership and all the enterprises that aren't vested in big dirty energy. Those are the forces that are going to have to execute most of the steps needed regardless of who makes the decision to take them; and they're the only forces with the ability to weaken the grip of big dirty energy.

    Putting most of the effort into convincing the political process would be criminal negligence. Some yes, but not most.

    Our system as-is might be able to address it if it could become a declared war. The MIC would accept this because it's effectively an eternal war. But the right and the present global economy would never allow the votes to pass.

    This has to go directly to ownership.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:40:36 PM PDT

    •  Agree. (0+ / 0-)

      Even when the congress or the executive branch does something that makes sense, five wingnuts on the Supreme Court can overturn it at the drop of a hat.

      Founding fathers weren't that sharp, apparently.

      Ideology is an excuse to ignore common sense.

      by Bush Bites on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:41:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  desertification in houston (7+ / 0-)

    hasn't rained here since February.

    "Our 'neoconservatives' are neither new nor conservative, but old as Babylon and evil as Hell" - Edward Abbey

    by stormserge on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:41:06 PM PDT

  •  Blair Mountain Rally (5+ / 0-)

    Is something anyone here can do next weekend

    I recieved an e-mail from 350.org may28th
    I have posted this in a number of open threads

    Early this June, many of our friends in Appalachia will embark on an amazing journey.

    They will join hundreds of people from Appalachia and across the nation for a historic event: "Appalachia Rising: March on Blair Mountain." The march will take place in the heart of southern West Virginia.

    We'd like to invite you to join them on June 11th at the culminating rally to call for an end to mountaintop removal, stronger labor rights and sustainable jobs in Appalachian communities, and the preservation of Blair Mountain.

    http://marchonblairmountain.org/

    http://marchonblairmountain.org/...

    I'm going, I signed up Wednesday

  •  Less worried about the roses (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Siri, shaggies2009, Laurence Lewis

    ..than I am about food crops.

    "Global Weirding" or "Climate Chaos" -  It's more than semantics in my back-yard garden.

    And probably in the farmer's fields a few miles away. We had no Spring.

    An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics - Plutarch

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:43:37 PM PDT

  •  The fierce urgency of later...much. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaggies2009, wbgonne

    That's Obama's policy.

  •  Let's stick with "Climate Change" (0+ / 0-)

    Let's eliminate "Global Warming" as part of our discussion politically.  I know, Meteor Blades hated me saying this, and he/she is pretty much a big-time liberal/progressive..and anything said against "global warming" is like sticking a hot stick in his/her eye.

    Just a link...just some things I know to be true are that we, as liberals, should be banging on the "climate change" door...NOT "global warming".  Just too much disagreement in the science of it.  Yeah, yeah..I know, MB..you're arguing this with asking about links to my beliefs...

    Some scientists argue that there is not sufficient data to conclusively support global warming (ex. http://www.pbs.org/...).

    This is but ONE link.  You will argue it and any other link as being ludicrous and wrong and politically motivated....I know.  

    Look, all I'm sayin' is that we, as democrats, should be talking about "climate change" rather than "global warming" simply because just about E V E R Y O N E knows and acknowledges that "climate change" is occuring.

    D U H !!!!

    -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

    by r2did2 on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 01:58:30 PM PDT

    •  How about "Global Boiling"! Rolls off tongue nice (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LokiMom, skohayes, aliasalias

      boiling

      Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

      by Radical def on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:01:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mine is "Global Weirdening", tm. (0+ / 0-)

        How far to the right do the Dems have to move before you stop calling them Dems?

        by Diebold Hacker on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 05:57:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh yeah...that's a good one... (0+ / 0-)

          Indeed, everywhere I've been (all over the country) in the last many years, people have been talking about the weather being weird...as in the diary, which is an excellent one (except for the one flaw I mentioned elsewhere).

          Everywhere I've gone it's the "most" or the "least" rain, drought, cold, heat, storms, etc, etc, that people can remember...

          No doubt, from my own anecdotal experience, it's definitely changing, and weirding, for sure, and the science confirms that it's true, and accelerating, like the melting ice caps.

          All the more reason to seize the power in 2012, seems to me, whether Obama or the Party help us, like it, or want it, or not.

          Bring the Better Democrats!

          All Out for 2012!

          Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

          by Radical def on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 08:10:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Please define (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes, Jeffersonian Democrat

      the differences between the nomenclature global warming and climate change in order to make your argument.

      " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:04:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Chaucer2...an answer (0+ / 0-)

        I honestly don't want to get into a pissing match with ya...but will answer your question with a link that pretty much says what I would say on this issue.

        I'm thinkin' you'll want to argue this with maybe your own link or personal belief...but here's how I feel...."

        http://www.grinningplanet.com/...

        -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

        by r2did2 on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:13:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not interested (4+ / 0-)

          in links -- especially one called "grinningplanet."  I'm an environmental attorney -- I get my information from credible scientific sources.  If you can't define either, that's fine, just don't provide a backhanded slap at MB who knows a hell of a lot more than you do -- because if I asked him that question, he'd answer it himself.

          " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

          by gchaucer2 on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:19:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pete and repete (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            independantman

            You asked for a link, I provided one.  

            I won't discuss this as a "Pete and rePete" thingy.  Meteor Blades puts some excellent diaries here and I am not interested in "slapping" him.  

            I have my opinion, you have yours.  Those opinions don't coincide.  So be it.

            We've both liked each other's posts along the way and I'm not interested in any more disagreement on this.  We just don't feel the same way on this and nothin' said will change that, my friend.

            -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

            by r2did2 on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:54:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There are legitimate opinions (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gchaucer2, Jeffersonian Democrat

              And then there are opinions that don't have facts to support them.

              As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan is often quoted as saying, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

              What that means is that it isn't legit to build and hold an opinion that isn't based upon facts!

              And an example of that would be YOUR claim that linking to some blog post should have satisfied the demand that you provide a link.

              What you provided doesn't satisfy the demand that was placed upon you, yet apparently you're too clueless to grasp that.

              I find it telling that you think it sucks to figure out that you're on the losing side of an argument.

    •  "Some" scientists (2+ / 0-)

      and you quote one.
      There are thousands of other scientists who not only study this for a living, but have poured over the evidence and concluded that not only does climate change exist, but it is caused by human activity.

      PCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].

      Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).


      http://www.sciencemag.org/...

      So, in your game of illogical appeals to authority, I'm afraid I win.

      How come the dove gets to be the peace symbol? How about the pillow? It has more feathers than the dove and doesn't have that dangerous beak. Jack Handey

      by skohayes on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 04:33:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

        Never...EVER...let it be said that r2did2 believes anything except that human activity is a very big cause of climate change in our world.

        I believe that and will ALWAYS defend that.  

        My issue is with calling "climate change" ... "global warming".  That is something that is challenged by many...supported by many.  Climate change is accepted by just about everyone.

        I just don't get it that just because some notable democrats...liberals...use the term Global Warming...it is somehow a breach of support by saying that we, as dems and progressives and liberals and, yes, even we moderate dems...should be going all out to resolve our world's human-caused climate change issues.

        I'm not a lock-step democrat that wears blinders and just "goes along" with everything and anything said by "popular" left-leaners.  I go further into every issue than just what's on the surface.   I'm seeing more of that here on DKos lately.  Does my heart good.

        -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

        by r2did2 on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 04:43:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ???? (0+ / 0-)
          My issue is with calling "climate change" ... "global warming".  That is something that is challenged by many...supported by many.  Climate change is accepted by just about everyone.

          I just don't get it that just because some notable democrats...liberals...use the term Global Warming

          Global warming is supported by almost all people who know what they are talking about. It's the correct term - the planet's surface is getting warming, which drives climate change.

          And of course, our mission for a better America led by better Democrats is still in its early stages. -- Markos Moulitsas, 5/26/11

          by mightymouse on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 03:57:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I know I'm not part of this discussion (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mightymouse

            But I thought I'd weigh in with my opinion as to why "global climate change" is a preferable term to "global warming." From a purely scientific perspective, educated person talking to an educated audience, "global warming" is perfectly fine.  The problem is that, to the non-educated, unaware, and skeptical person, it misleads; because it may contradict their personal observation. They don't believe you when you say "global warming" because it still gets cold in the winter and their weather may be cooler now than it was in their memory.

            Now, it obviously is true that global warming is what's going on, and in our current situation it appears to be largely if not entirely anthropogenic. MIT, for example, projects that the median surface warming by the end of the 21st century (2091 to 2100) will be 5.1°C, more than double that (2.4°C) of a previous study.

            While the degree of warming is still a matter of prediction based on a substantial suite of unknown variables, few reputable scientists dispute that global warming is occurring.

            With that acknowledged, to the average non-scientist a rise of 2.4 to 5.1 °C over the next 80 to 90 years, which translates to as little as 0.027 °C per year, is all but insignificant.  They think: So what if the day is a little warmer than it would have been?  What's the big deal?  Why should I threaten my job or my way of life or my nation's economy over something so insignificant?

            That's because when they hear "global warming" they think only of warming, not of all the concomitant effects that accompany it.

            They don't realize, or are unwilling to accept, that global warming will most likely cause a wide range of profound changes in the world's climate, its land, its vegetation, its hydrology, its ocean chemistry and circulation, its sea life, and its global biodiversity. All they hear is that it's warming, and frankly, when it's -10 degrees in January a little warming -- no matter how "slight" -- doesn't sound that bad.  It even may sound a little good.

            The term "Global Climate Change" is less vulnerable to this lazy kind of thinking.  It drives home that the climate is changing, and many other things that are influenced by climate are going to change too.  It also better explains to an inattentive lay person why Europe, which is kept relatively warm by the Gulf Stream's pushing warm water far to the north, may turn out to have a climate more like Alaska than it currently does if the Greenland ice sheet melts into the ocean and disrupts the Gulf Stream.

            Count me as one earth scientist who believes Global Climate Change is the better term, because it better communicates to the average person what is really happening and what its observable effect on them in their lifetime may be.

  •  The Administration (10+ / 0-)

    fails to consider (other than the EPA/Science Advisory Board study which just started last year) that its commitment to natural gas means the following:

    1.  6 million gallons of fresh water per well;
    2.  700 plus toxic/carcinogenic chemicals added to the fracking fluid;
    3.  40 % of that fluid plus subsurface brine water is backflow.  There is no viable place to discharge or impound that amount of water.
    4.  Use of injection wells for backflow -- there's not enough data as to whether this toxic soup will contiminate acquifers;
    5.  Methane gas released into the environment from each well -- into the air -- adds to global warming -- into the subsurface, contaminates local wells.

    This shite won't stop in my lifetime because there is a goldmine of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale alone.  After I'm dead -- there will be all and all out battles for potable water in this country because of climate change and incredibly ill-conceived policies by this and every single other administration.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:01:30 PM PDT

  •  Truth is that financial crisis (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    too many people

    killed any attempts to deal with climate change. There is no painless way of dealing with climate change and it is politically infeasible to pile on pain on top of financial hardships people are facing.

    •  Not dealing with it (4+ / 0-)

      is ultimately going to be much more painful.
      We always seem to find the scratch in the treasury to go to war.
      This is a war against a deadly ignorance.

    •  Don't give up! (0+ / 0-)

      Note that world investments in renewable energy increased by about 30% in the past year, even with the poor economy.  While much of that investment was in China, which wasn't affected as much by the economic collapse as the rest of the world, clean energy investments were up sharply in most of the world.

      While there is a denial machine operating in full gear, there are also many people, governments and nations that have started to make real progress to address the problems.  

      Look for ways to support these efforts, and don't feel hopeless.  We can still do a lot.

      "Trust only those who doubt" Lu Xun

      by LookingUp on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 04:01:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's a good point (0+ / 0-)

        However, 30% of a very small number is still a very small number...and that is what we're looking at, to be honest.

        My feeling is that at every possible opportunity, governments all across the globe...especially in the U.S....should be doing their "spending" in the area of retrofitting government facilities and buildings with solar and wind energy.  This can bring a HUGE number of jobs to our economies and will create many new businesses that supply and service these installations.  

        If we "spend", this is where I'd want to see my taxdollars going.  The benefits will be many-fold from jobs creation to new businesses to generating new innovation for green energy sources to energy cost savings for government to lowering our dependence on foreign oil.

        How can ANY of that be bad?

        -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

        by r2did2 on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 04:10:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Clean energy jobs (0+ / 0-)

      created by developing new technologies and building and maintaining these technologies would help the economy, not hurt it.
      Because of all the wind farms being built out here, the local community college got grant money from the stimulus to start teaching classes for construction and maintenance of wind turbines.

      How come the dove gets to be the peace symbol? How about the pillow? It has more feathers than the dove and doesn't have that dangerous beak. Jack Handey

      by skohayes on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 04:36:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Manhattan Project (0+ / 0-)

    Was the whole country clued in during the Manhattan Project?

    The White House says the President is working behind the scenes and we know Obama plays his cards close to the vest.  Perhaps there is a Manhattan-type project in the works.

    I for one don't assume that just because he's not broadcasting his every move that he's doing nothing.

  •  thank you - yes, we need his leadership (4+ / 0-)

    he won't provide it, though. so we wait for something to give.

    I would say "WWII" level commitment rather than "Manhattan Project."

    And of course, our mission for a better America led by better Democrats is still in its early stages. -- Markos Moulitsas, 5/26/11

    by mightymouse on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:14:59 PM PDT

  •  Democrats? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bush Bites, sethtriggs, Lawrence

    Really?
    Please just get off the ''we as democrats bull shit''
    we can not, and our President can not, do a damn thing unless we get back the house

     and get 65 """progressive""" senators,

    not blue dogs, progressives. Progressives, other wise the republicans will just vote it down, please stop playing 'the president did it' game,
    what hogwash.

    The republican party is our enemy, not the fucking president.

  •  The Austrailian PM, was positive about 'her' (6+ / 0-)

    people, but the US population is just the opposite, wedded to ignorance, apocalyptic religious fantasy, and the worship of wealth, we're screwed.

    May you live in interesting times--Chinese curse

    by oldcrow on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:17:02 PM PDT

    •  If you lived here in Australia you'd find that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jeffersonian Democrat

      we aren't too dissimilar.  The leader of the Liberal Party is trying as hard as he can to blow up this issue and get Julia to hold an early election (one he hopes to win), and of course the Murdoch press is right along with him, as well as the right wing radio stations.

      The small protest which they held was dwarfed by the pro-carbon tax supporters, but guess which one was reported more?

      It at least blew up in their faces a little when people saw just how crazy some of the people at their rally was, but not enough.

      Also, google "Australian Tea Party" if you want a laugh.  So funny, especially since Australia never had any rebellion to do with tea.  They should have called it the Australian Rum Party, and linked with our history of the Rum Rebellion but then I guess they didn't want to be thought of as a bunch of drunks.

      We also have our very own group of Larouchites here too.  Good times.

      I'd cry, cry for the future, but I wouldn't get anything done - 'When the River Runs Dry' - Hunters and Collectors

      by TDP on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 09:06:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  brilliant rant, Thanks Lawrence, more please. (5+ / 0-)

    We need to read more of this on DKos.   It's amazing to me that many here are not on board as to the urgency and if they are on board to the urgency it doesn't translate to meaningful action.   There is potential here but it needs to be galvanized.

    Here in the UK it's reported that the Obama administration is working to lead in climate talks so I think his low profile in the US on the issue is over cautious political posture.   As the 2012 campaign heats up I think we will see him take a stance on energy  which will contrast with his opponent when that opponent is revealed.

  •  I'm going to go back to RLMiller's diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vacantlook, denise b

    Revise-your-f*cking-questionnaire,-Kos!Updated-w-Markos-response. If the issue is the most important one humanity has ever faced, then why the fuck was it not on the fucking candidate survey two fucking weeks ago? I mean, seriously!

    "We are stardust, we are golden, we are caught in the devil's bargain, and we got to get ourselves back to the garden." - Joni Mitchell

    by shaggies2009 on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:25:55 PM PDT

  •  It's too late. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jeffersonian Democrat

    And it was probably too late before Obama even became a national figure.

    Ideology is an excuse to ignore common sense.

    by Bush Bites on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:27:58 PM PDT

  •  Wow, what a surprise (11+ / 0-)

    to see Julia on the front page of DK.
    She's been taking a lot of heat for her plan for a carbon tax, but Aussies are starting to come around. The carbon tax would affect about a dozen industries, mainly the mining, steel, aluminun, and cement manufacturers.

    you don't believe in evolution, you understand it. you believe in the FSM.

    by Mathazar on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:27:59 PM PDT

    •  Quite ballsy when you consider that a lot of (0+ / 0-)

      Labor's support comes from Unions, most of whom don't want this to come in if it affects their industry.

      I still think Kevin Rudd would be PM if he had of stuck to his guns over this.  And it is great to see the National Broadband Network plan still being rolled out across Australia, which shows great vision.

      The thing I dislike greatly though is Labor's current policies towards refugees.  They are trying to win over the ignorant masses that are firmly in the Liberal Parties camp (or other right-wing groups like the CDP) with a scheme which won't see any solution at all.   Which is the reason why I vote Green, but give my preferences thereafter on my voting slip to Labor.

      I'd cry, cry for the future, but I wouldn't get anything done - 'When the River Runs Dry' - Hunters and Collectors

      by TDP on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 09:12:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We're in a position where President Obama (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bush Bites, ms badger, skohayes

    is the only possible source of measures to address global warming/climate change.

    Congress will not act this year, or this decade.  Big Carbon owns it.  They owned the Senate between 2008 and 2010, and that Senate was far more progressive than any Congress we'll see in the coming years.

    I'm pretty much over the idea of him educating the public--the only time the American people really cared what he had to say was when he announced the killing of bin Laden.  Other than that, 45% of the country will assume he's lying and take the opposite position, the 45% that agree with him will think it's just empty words, and the other 10% will forget what he said within ten seconds.

    America is not up to the task.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:30:45 PM PDT

    •  we will never know (4+ / 0-)

      if america is up to the task unless he tries. meanwhile, he could just stop with the enabling of the fossil fuels industries.

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

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:33:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dude, you're writing a feature on the FP of DKos (0+ / 0-)

        on climate change and yet you make ignorant statements like that.

        we will never know if america is up to the task unless he tries.

        In what bizarre, twisted world is issuing executive orders to green the entire federal fleet by 2015, upping CAFE standards, and directing federal agencies to achieve zero net energy by 2030 "enabling the fossil fuel industry"?!

        Sheesh, with friends like you, who needs enemies...

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Tue Jun 07, 2011 at 03:07:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  using the oxymoron 'clean coal' doesn't help (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wbgonne, drnononono

      in fact it makes the fight much harder, considering it's a (Democrat)President using the meme of the petroleum industry.

      without the ants the rainforest dies

      by aliasalias on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 09:51:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nice posting, but the name (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    Julia Gillard doesn't yet ring immediate bells for me upon seeing it. I had to read almost to the bottom before I could figure out why that woman's picture was up top.

    Better in future to include title or some other identifier in the cutline under the picture.

    Thanks.

    Amount of federal money to National Public Radio in 2010: $2,700,000 / Amount to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University: $446,000,000 / Source -- Harper's Index, June 2011

    by Mnemosyne on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:33:34 PM PDT

  •  "World Environment Day" (4+ / 0-)
    Includes release of a New Forest Report
    Jun 1, 2011 - Worldwide events and the release of a new report supporting the Year of Forests 2011 takes place on World Environment Day.

    On Sunday, June 5, 2011, global events supporting the 39th World Environment Day will continue the year-long celebration of the United Nations-sponsored “International Year of Forests.”

    India will be the host nation for the worldwide event and the UN Environmental Program will release a new report during a ceremony in New Delhi that outlines the green economy potential of global forests.

    "We need a strong ethic of conservation and in this role, World Environment Day is a powerful catalyst and voice,” said Jairam Ramesh, India’s Minister for Environment and Forests. “There must be limits on how and where we encroach on the natural world for without them habitats will be paved over, rivers ruined, corals bleached and forests unwittingly plowed for agriculture."

    This year's World Environment Day theme is “Forests: Nature at Your Service,” and is meant to draw attention to “the crucial environmental, economic and social roles played by the world's forests.”

    snip

    UNEP will release the Forests in a Green Economy {13page pdf - a synthesis} report in New Delhi on Sunday, June 5th just as a week-long international summit on the sustainable management of tropical forest ecosystems in the Amazon, Congo and Mekong Borneo basins wraps-up in Brazzaville, Congo. {continued}


    CCR:"If you're a torturer, be careful in your travel plans. It's a slow process for accountability, but we keep going."

    by jimstaro on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:35:14 PM PDT

  •  Douglas Adams' great book Last Chance to See... (4+ / 0-)

    ...had a great parable about man and the environment. I'll attempt to recreate it here, but I highly recommend you pick up the book (and if you can find two of them, send one to me, as it's the only one of his books I don't have).

    There was once a prosperous, busy, thriving city. An old woman came to the city with sixteen large volumes of text, which she said contained all the knowledge of the world, and it could all be theirs for just one sack of gold, but if they did not want it, she'd have to burn half of it.

    The people of the city laughed at the old woman. "We have everything we need! What could we possibly need with whatever's in those books?" The woman shrugged, sat down, started a fire, and burned eight of the books. Then she left.

    The following year, the city was still thriving, and the woman returned with her eight volumes containing half of the world's knowledge, and offered it for two sacks of gold. The people of the city laughed at her and said "Clearly you don't understand the laws of supply and demand. If one sack of gold wasn't worth it for sixteen books, why would we give you two sacks of gold for eight?" The woman shrugged, sat down, and burned four of the books.

    Another year went by and the woman returned with her four books. The city wasn't quite as prosperous, and this time she was met at the city gates. "Four sacks of gold," she said sweetly. The people of the city said "How about this. We'll have our wise men take a look at the books, and determine what a fair price is. It won't be in the sacks of gold range, but it'll be fair." The old woman looked at them sadly, sat down, and burned two of the books.

    The next year when the woman reappeared, the city was showing definite signs of decay. A famine had ripped through the land and the people were starving. "There's still two books left," the woman said, "But they'll cost you eight sacks of gold." The hew and cry from the people was intense. "We can barely feed ourselves, much less give eight sacks of gold for those books." The woman shrugged, sat down, and burned one of the books.

    Another year went by. The people of the city had been saving all year and had put together sixteen sacks of gold when the woman appeared, and the city showed the signs of that neglect. But when she showed up, she named her price: Thirty-two sacks of gold. The people demanded to know why the price was so much more than they'd expected. The old woman just shrugged, sat down, and lit a match. "Wait just a minute!" one of the people said, and they managed to scramble to get the rest of the required gold. As they handed it over, they said "For thirty- two sacks of gold, this better be good."

    The woman just looked at them sadly and said "It is. And you should have seen the rest of it."

    Republicans like to whine about how the debt is unfairly saddling our children and grandchildren with owed money, but when they're in power, they move aggressively to make that woman burn her books.

    "I set up a stage, put up a few banners, stuck a podium up there, and started shouting 'Yes we can.' Next thing you know there's 150,000 people here." -Joe

    by Geiiga on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:43:52 PM PDT

  •  I love how any responsibility for this crap (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lawrence

    is never placed squarely on the shoulders of the corporate owned and operated Republicans.  Instead of screaming about getting rid of the corporate shills in Congress by electing more, better Dems and then cheering our asses off when President Obama makes a national announcement that everyone will be paying a carbon tax for use of fossil fuels of any kind, which immediately becomes the law of the land, due to the majority of Democrats in the Senate stopping what's left of the corporate Republican shills from filibustering that legislation.

    Republicans are to blame for America's refusal to do anything substantive about global warming.  Democrats are to blame for not voting in large enough numbers to get rid of these f'rs.  President Obama may be super at doing loads of things for average Americans, but fighting the fossil fuel industry all by himself is not one of them.

    Best. President. Ever.

    by Little Lulu on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:45:12 PM PDT

  •  CLUE: There are few activists in Congress (0+ / 0-)

    Not sure why we're discussing this?

    anything that might make the poor, put upon corporations more "nervous" about their future (F*** our future, I guess) is OFF the table-- by both "democrats" and repugs in congress.

    Fugget about it.

    "I don't feel the change yet". Velma Hart

    by Superpole on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 02:48:16 PM PDT

  •  Great Diary! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Desert Scientist, Laurence Lewis

    I would call this the second most important issue humanity has ever faced.  Imho, overpopulation is the root cause of global warming and many other problems we face.

    There is only one planet suitable for human habitation in our solar system.

    by too many people on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 03:02:57 PM PDT

  •  Oh Please (0+ / 0-)

    Danger, Will Robinson! DANGER!! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

  •  That's why calling it Global Warming is dangerous (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    r2did2

    for environmentalists.  It givers the false impression that Climate Change is all about hotter temperatures, and its not.  I've gotten in too many arguments with well meaning liberals that Climate Change is the better term.  Those that disagree usually make the case that conservatives use the term to downplay its scariness.  I disagree, making it sound scary may have served the movement well at one time, but it's now more important to accurately portray the phenomena, so that we can explain why extreme heat, lots of tornadoes and blizzards are all manifestations of the same phenomena.

    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

    by ecostar on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 03:40:57 PM PDT

    •  Be careful here on "Global Warming" (0+ / 0-)

      If you question Global Warming in any way, shape or form here, you're being seen as being against Al Gore and Michael Moore and liberals and progressives and unless you can come up with some kind of website or link to a website that can't in any way be disputed (and there is no such thing regardless of the topic), you're an idiot and not a good democrat and...well, you get the picture.

      Watch it.  Just some advice.  :-)

      -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

      by r2did2 on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 03:52:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Climate change...however (0+ / 0-)

        is an acceptable term for nearly everyone because it's so obvious that this is happening...very few people including scientists argue this.

        Just SOOO much disagreement on "global warming".  Don't ask for a link because you've already seen the ones you disagree with and that'd be what I'd supply to ya.  

        If we, as democrats, want there to be efforts to help climate change, then we should call it that...not "Global Warming".  It's too convenient to argue against Global Warming and few, if any, will argue against Climate Change.

        I am amazed anyone on this forum argues this.

        -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

        by r2did2 on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 03:57:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Did (0+ / 0-)

        you even read his comment?

        •  Um...yeah, fox, I sure did (0+ / 0-)

          Did you read mine..and did you understand what I'm saying?

          I agree with ecostar completely...are you thinkin' I don't?

          -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

          by r2did2 on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 05:53:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            r2did2, mightymouse

            don't think the problem is calling it Global Warming vs Climate Change or Climate disruption. I think the problem is the the boastful ignorance of a large segment of the American people. The past 40 years of corruption has ruined this country. We are freaking doomed.

            •  I think you miss my point (0+ / 0-)

              The term Global Warming is a scientific oversimplification that is now subject to ridicule by conservatives in certain circumstances, such as Blizzards.  Whenever there are blizzards, which there will be increasingly more of b/c of Climate Change, environmentalists now have to explain why blizzards are consistent with the concept climate change.

              Political conservatives are now using environmentalists own term as the means to ridicule the concept and the movement, and too many on this site haven't woken up to that reality.

              The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

              by ecostar on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 09:00:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not questioning "Global Warming" (0+ / 0-)

        per se.  I don't personally think it is a sufficiently accurate term.  It is an oversimplification that in today's political climate is used as a bludgeon to undermine support for the theoretical validity of the concept. It gives a false impression in certain contexts.

        Using the word Climate Change makes it easier to make points regarding violent storms, changing rainfall patterns, and blizzards.   Even though Blizzards are consistent with Climate Change, those that insist on using Global Warming have to explain why.  Meanwhile self-serving conservatives will use the term GW as an excuse to demean or dismiss the theoretical validity of Climate Change whenever there is a blizzard, in part b/c a blizzard is counterintuitive to what GW sounds like, hotter temperatures.

        The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

        by ecostar on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 08:53:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  they're both fine & correct terms (0+ / 0-)

      climate change is a consequence of global warming.

      And of course, our mission for a better America led by better Democrats is still in its early stages. -- Markos Moulitsas, 5/26/11

      by mightymouse on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 04:22:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm just saying Climate Change is more accurate (0+ / 0-)

        and easier to make points regarding violent storms, changing rainfall patterns, and blizzards.   Even though Blizzards are consistent with Climate Change, those that insist on using Global Warming have to explain why, while conservatives will use the term GW as the means to dismiss a Blizzard as inconsistent with what GW sounds like, hotter temperatures.  

        And it's not Global Warming that causes Climate Change, it is the Greenhouse Effect, and yes there is a difference.

        The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

        by ecostar on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 08:43:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  yeah (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    beach babe in fl

    some mistake criticism of the president for deluding oneself into believing there is a better alternative next year. we need to get him another four years, and then demand that he live up to this historic moment. and meanwhile also do all we can to empower those democrats that are up to this moment.

    several years ago, while staying in stratford, i read a local magazine that may have even been called "cotswold magazine," and it had an article about the fine tradition that is hunting. i didn't know whether to laugh or vomit.

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

    by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 04:11:51 PM PDT

  •  Climate Change is, indeed, the biggest long-term (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    r2did2

    danger to humanity.

    The Obama Admistration's plan for addressing it is, however, different from the diarist's.... and imo probably more likely to be effective in the long run.

    While the diarist would like President Obama to use some kind of weird and probably ineffective mixture of a mythical bully pulpit which sometimes turns into an educational lectern, the Obama Administration is attempting to help make renewables and cleantech cheaper than fossil-fuel driven energy sources via surgically-placed R&D grants, tax credits for renewables, stimulus funds, executive level federal mandates such as greening the federal govt. and the military, etc., etc.

    Considering the fucked up state of U.S. politics, the Obama Administration's approach probably has a far greater chance of success than the approach espoused by the diarist, as making renewables cheaper than fossil fuel sources of energy would not only have a massive impact in the U.S., but also globally.

    Very few people in China and India have ever hear of the mythical bully pulpit, after all...  

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 04:18:46 PM PDT

    •  At least read the McKibben link, would you? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drnononono

      None of the President's efforts on renewable energy make a dent against the pipelines and coal fields he's approved.

      •  I read it. (0+ / 0-)

        I just happen not to agree with Bill McKibben on his take on things in this instance.

        When renewables become cost competitive or even cheaper than fossil fuel sourced energy, then nobody is going to want to mine those coalmines and especially not those tar sands.

        And that moment is coming alot faster than many realize, thanks in part to the actions that the Obama Administration has taken.

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 02:14:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  CO2 below 350 a must (0+ / 0-)

          What is there not to agree with Mc Kibben or Hansen with CO2 at 350ppm?

          All through the Holocene - the last 12,000 yrs, C02 was at 280ppm- now since the start of the Industrial age it has risen to nearly400ppm.

          C02 at 500ppm is a disaster. C02 sustained at 400ppm will  lead to very bad outcomes.

          C02 must be brought back to 350ppm or below-asp.

          •  I don't disagree with that. (0+ / 0-)

            I just disagree with their take on what the Obama Administration is doing.  They don't have a firm grip on understanding the role that economics will play in all of this, imo.

            "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

            by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 03:01:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  economics? (0+ / 0-)

              we live in an unsustainable economy - based on the production of consumer goods- produced though fossil fuels

              those fossil fuels are the cheapest way to produce those products

              the use of renewals right now is far too expensive to   produce in order goods to maintain a consumption based our current economy.

              obviously something has to change- or the planets coughing will ultimately make that change for us

              C02 at current levels will lead to 2 degrees warming C

              With C02 rising 2ppm a year for the foreseeable future we have a problem- capitalism as we have known it cannot be sustained.

              •  You also don't have a firm grip on economics. (0+ / 0-)

                In many parts of the world wind power already is competitive or cheaper than fossil-sourced fuel and solar power is rapidly approaching that point.

                The key is to enhance and accelerate that development, which the Obama Administration very clearly is doing, despite a massive pushback from the fossil fuel industry and its Republican cronies.

                The hugely successful feed-in-tariff for renewables in Germany was created with the goal of making renewables cost competetive with fossil-sourced fuels, btw.

                "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

                by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 03:37:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  nature and the economy will force the issue (0+ / 0-)

    Stop Prohibition, Start Harm Reduction

    by gnostradamus on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 04:38:04 PM PDT

  •  103 degrees in Houston (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    Global warming is just a myth. The bank thermometer on North Loop must have a liberal bias.
    Now it is raining in parts of Houston. A few weeks ago Gov. Rick Perry issued a proclamation calling on Texans to pray for rain. Houston did not vote for Perry, so it must not have been he who brought rain.

  •  CLimate Change -- So What? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    r2did2

    This is going to be a controversial posting, but here goes.

    I believe that the climate is changing/warming and that it is caused by humans.  The problem I have is understanding the consequences of that.  "The Most Important Issue Humanity Has Ever Faced"?  Really?
    Where in the diary or even the 129 postings to this diary have the consequences been identified?  Other than a description of record droughts here and record rainfall there and worse tornados and hurricanes, I don't see the end of the world consequences.  I can imagine that if some places become less habitable, then other places like in the far North may become more habitable.

    There is a reason to take this posting seriously. Changing policy will not occur unless everyone is educated on why this is the "most important issue humanity has ever faced".  This diary, like every other discussion on this issue, cites a few problems like dying polar bears or bad weather, concludes that this is the end of the world,  and then immediately skips to condemning politicians for not doing something about it.
    That is bad politics and will not work.  

    Bottom line: You must tell us why "this is the most important issue to face humanity" and those reasons had better be truly calamitous, or you're just crying wolf and won't change anything.

    ITLDUSO Honk "Hello" when I drive by!

    by caroman on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 05:09:35 PM PDT

    •  I have a considered opinion, if that's okay (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greengemini

      I certainly can provide links on what I'm gonna say on this and, as in all cases, there would be counter-links...so, this is an opinion...but, I've got a post-graduate degree and have been around for more moons than I care to share so most of what I'm going to say is from that perspective.

      Asthma and other types of respiratory diseases have grown in the past few decades exponentially.  Now, I know the argument can be made that this is more an environmental problem than a climate change problem, but the two go hand-in hand, in my opinion.  Poor control over our stewardship of the environment is causing the climate to become different than in earlier years.

      CO2 emissions have increased in a big way as well in the past few decades.  The industrial growth in the U.S. and now in China and India and elsewhere around the world has created a huge increase in demand for electricity and a large portion of that is coming from coal-burning power plants.  China is building coal-burning power plants at the rate of one per week currently.  This increase in emissions is growing and there is no plan for this to stop.

      The rainforests are being lost at an alarming rate from cuttings to provide land for growing food, providing acreage for homes and for the wood involved.  These forests are a primary source for eliminating CO2 in the global atmosphere...just a Google search on the issue will explain how that works.  Because of this, our climate is realizing storm surges unlike anything we, as humans, have ever seen or documented.   I know that this belief has been questioned by some, but I personally believe it to be true.

      I could discuss other issues in this regard here but there's a limited amount of time and space.  If nothing is done to change these trends then our planet, in my belief, is at risk of getting "out of balance" and humanity is at risk.

      Now, we can just stick our collective head in the sand and do nothing until these concerns prove themselves out (or don't...and I acknowledge that's a possibility also).  Or, we can do something now to avoid the tragedy of a planet that has succumbed to the demands of human greed and lack of concern about our responsibility for maintaining our globes climate.

      -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

      by r2did2 on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 05:45:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why is it important? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greengemini

      Because we are threatening the lowest strata of our food chain. When we manage to kill that (plankton, etc.) we will have then effectively destroyed the entire environment.

      Comments like yours are why I don't really care if all humans die off. Enjoy your bloody ignorance.

      How far to the right do the Dems have to move before you stop calling them Dems?

      by Diebold Hacker on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 06:26:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  yeah who cares about a canary in a coal mine? (0+ / 0-)

      without the ants the rainforest dies

      by aliasalias on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 10:06:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What's all this bitching about cholesterol? (0+ / 0-)

      Fine, I can't feel my fingers every once in a while, but I'm certainly not dead yet. And if I'm not dead yet, then.. um... cholesterol can't kill me! So... there.

    •  I assume you live way up hill? (0+ / 0-)

      See, when the ice melts, the water level goes up and billions of people's homes go under water. And the land that the might've moved to before is now less habitable, due to the drying up of some rivers and the flooding of others. Massive areas of the planet once perfect for farming turn to desert, so food is scarce.

      And all of it leads to conflict. People would move inland, but there's often someone else living there already (so... we've refused to take refugees from our mess in Iraq, but we're going to throw the doors wide open to climate refugees? hah!). Rivers run dry, so the folks upstream will tend to piss off the folks downstream when they divert more of the remaining trickle for their own uses.

      Plus there's the plain, boring fact that whether you're in Pakistan or Darfur, you've already seen widespread death due to climate change. Then again, that's there, not here, so... well, as you eloquently put it, so what?

    •  Climate Change, per sé, is not the problem. (0+ / 0-)

      Rapid climate change, to which species(including our species) can't adapt fast enough, is the motherlode of all problems.

      You are, however, correct in describing how diaries like this one are not the most psychologically adept, as the diary is strong on pointing out the problems yet very weak on pointing out solutions.

      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

      by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 03:10:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Imagine if Obama had needed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lawrence, drnononono

    The Green Party in order to become President of USA, then its likely he would be making speeches much like Julia Gillard.

    For Julia Gillard to become the Prime Minister of Australia she needed the support of The Greens. She now has the vision to make speeches that are in alignment with the policies of The Greens.

  •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

    Obama. Hero to the fools.

  •  Rain in June in SF (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    I've lived in the Bay Area 21 years, and this is the first June I've ever seen a rainstorm dumping inches of rain. This is late February weather around these parts. I'm not complaining, it's greener than ever, the wildfire season is delayed, and I could be living in Portland (where the beer is better but the weather is not). Is this going to be a Mark Twain summer?

  •  It all depends on if all the methane goes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Steve Bloom

    With the permafrost melting, that is really bad news.

    We can adapt, to an extent.  So long as we can grow crops, we can survive.

    If the methane goes, it gets too hot to grow crops, and its game over.

    We are currently living through the greatest redistribution of wealth in our nation's history. The rich and the corporations are using their money and power to obtain even more money and power. We must fight back while there is still time.

    by Keep Oregon Blue on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 07:16:39 PM PDT

  •  Thank you for this post ... (4+ / 0-)

    on multiple levels ...

    Now, I have a question.  Your last paragraph.

    We as Democrats, as activists, and as political junkies cannot stand silently by. On the most important issue humanity has ever faced, and with disruptions to our very way of life looming and perhaps now unpreventable, our president and our leaders are not leading. We have to make them. We have to change the nature of how we live, but we also must demand better from those we send to Washington. Every important issue is trumped by climate change. Every important issue is impacted and many will be defined by climate change. We must find those Democrats who have the courage to lead on this unprecedented issue. We must make climate change the issue by which we define Democratic leadership.

    Consider this paragraph.

    Consider the questions and structure of the Orange-to-Blue questionaire and criteria.

    Please explain to me how I can donate a penny via Orange-to-Blue if your last paragraph is true?

    Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

    by A Siegel on Sun Jun 05, 2011 at 08:34:58 PM PDT

    •  You make a good damn point (0+ / 0-)

      Maybe we make our own list of candidates, using local Sierra Club-endorsed candidates or some other source like that.  I'm not sure.

       I have a recurring donation to Act Blue, but I don't really know how they choose candidates.

      At this point I don't have a lot of faith in Congress, even if it turns blue in 2012, to act in a meaningful way on climate.  

      It's clear to me that the ball on renewable energy is moving forward much more quickly due to action at the state level -- renewable electricity standards, incentives, and such.  There's an economic benefit that they realize happens on the local levels from both energy efficiency work (= blue collar jobs) and renewable energy (= attracting new companies).

      Maybe THOSE are the legislators we need to focus our donation dollars on.

  •  Adaptation is the key (0+ / 0-)

    As a senior geologist, with over 40 years studying the earth and it's history, I believe the only constant is change.  The top of Mt. Everest and Mt. Denali were covered with sea water before they were uplifted.   Change is going to happen, embrace it, and adapt to it.   When seas rise, move away from the seas.  Species have always done what was necessary to survive.  To hope that carbon dioxide, a very important key to life on earth, is controllable on a short term basis is impractible.  If man is part of nature, a creature of earth, then these changes we are causing are natural and governed by the feedback processes that have evolved the earth to date.  

    Denier's will not survive, and neither will panic-stricken masses.   Gradually move populations to where life can be sustained!  There is an economic cost, of course.  But evolution is the key, not revolution or crisis over-reaction.  

    Those who don't accept change or keep it from happening are arch-conservatives.

    Those who strongly deal with change are superior species.  The earth doesn't care one way or the other.

  •  Correction and suggestion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lawrence

    FYI, Laurence, the 500 ppm CO2 level (from Stern) is a guarantee for disaster.  IIRC Stern himself has since adjusted it downward.  But regardless he's not a good source for such a thing since he's not a climate scientist.  Jim Hansen is a good source, and says that the maximum is 350 ppm if we are to avoid major and catastrophic climate change.  

    In a nutshell, the reasoning is that much over 350 ppm was a CO2 level last seen during the mid-Pliocene (~3 million years ago), when global temps were high enough to result in +25 meters of sea level rise.  (We can get away with skating above the danger line briefly as long as we return below it quickly, but as it stands we're pushing our luck.)  Note that at 390 ppm we are already departing that climate territory.  

    Just to be clear, the catastrophic part isn't because a mid-Pliocene-like climate, or indeed much warmer climates prior to that, would be inhospitable to humans (although at some point the tropics get too nasty to live in), it's the rapidity of the transition from here to there.  Speed kills.  

    This Hot Topic blog post includes Hansen's recent work and thinking.  Come to think of it, would it be possible to get the video onto the front page here?  

    •  C02 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wbgonne, mightymouse

      C02 at 394ppm has not been this high in 15-20 million years when the planet was still cooling from the 'Eocene Optimum' 55 million years ago.

      The mid Pliocene C02 levels where 'around 375ppm'- we are higher today. In the mid Pliocene temperatures where 2-3 C higher then today- and sea levels where 15-25 meters higher. The American mid west and great plains where a desert. This was sustained over time these C02 levels.

      We will breach 400ppm C02 in 2015- which is when Hansen said we will have crossed a major tipping point into dangerous climate change and a 2 degree rise in global temperatures by the 2030s.

      C02 will go beyond 450ppm around 2035- this is when Hansen says the western antarctic ice sheet could begin to melt quickly.

      Right now Hansen feels 1 degree C additional warming would be disastrous- and 2 degrees a 'prescription for disaster' as well.

      We are in deep deep trouble- and the man of hope and change does nothing (Obama)
      .

      •  As much as I sympathize with your general stance (0+ / 0-)

        on Climate Change, I don't see how spouting off stuff that is factually incorrect contributes anything to the discussion or the search for sulutions to the challenge of preventing catactrophic climate change.

        We are in deep deep trouble- and the man of hope and change does nothing (Obama)

        That statement is just plain ignorant.  It does not exactly lend credibility to your general stance on climate change, as it is not based in reality and offers no insight into what we can do to mitigate climate change.

        So I'm going to ask here, what policies of the Obama Administration in regards to cleantech and renewables do you agree with and which do you disagree with.  And with those that you disagree with, tell us how you would change them.

        I'll give you some examples:

        Do you agree with the fast-tracking of solar and offshore wind projects?

        Do you agree with the stimulus funds going to renewables R&D?

        Do you agree with the raised CAFE standards?

        Do you agree with the greening of the federal fleet and buildings?

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 04:03:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama's loss (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wbgonne, drnononono

    The Democratic party of 2011 has long sold its heart and soul to the corporate interests, joining the GOP.

    Climate change will be the most important issue human kind has ever faced, and Obama the man of hope is agreeing to build a pipeline from the Canadian border for the highly polluting tar sands.

    The best thing for the Democratic party is for Sarah Palin or some other right wing nut to win next year. This will send the country over a cliff, probably permanently. Lets see if a new political party can rise up and begin to rebuild a nation that will begin to be ravaged by climate change.

    •  Please get your facts straight before posting. (0+ / 0-)
      Alberta tar sands pipeline project delayed

      The Obama administration ordered additional environmental reviews before a final decision, due at the end of the year

      Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
      guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 16 March 2011

      A controversial pipeline project to pump crude from the tar sands of Alberta to the refineries of Texas has been delayed after the Obama administration ordered additional environmental reviews.

      The state department, which has final say on the $7bn pipeline, said it would seek further public comment on the project before making a final decision at the end of the year.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

      As for the bit about it being better if Sarah Palin gets elected... sorry, but that statement is just plain braindead.

      "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

      by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 03:16:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ok (0+ / 0-)

        Lawrence

        with Obama basically giving the green light on more oil drilling- I find it hard to believe he would not agree to the tar sands pipeline. Just my humble opinion.

        H Clinton has also given the Canadian Government a 'wink wink' for approval. The pipeline will succeed, or Obama would be roasted by the energy lobby. the GOP and many Democrats.

        •  The pipeline may, or may not, be approved. (0+ / 0-)

          The reality right now, however, is that it has been delayed by the Obama Administration.

          When driving electric cars that are charged with wind power becomes cheaper than driving icu engine cars, that pipeline would, however, become a massive money drain and won't exactly lead to a good return on investment.

          And that moment is not too far off, as long as technological advances in renewables and economies of scale continue to move forward at the pace that they currently are.

          And that right there is the element in all of this that McKibben is not factoring in to the equation.

          "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

          by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 03:43:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pie in the Sky (0+ / 0-)

            Fossil fuels will remain the cheapest energy for the the next 20 years- perhaps after that.

            I may agree with you that over time it may be an expense- but that is away off in the future. Renewables right now are simply not a good investment to supply the massive amount of energy we need.

            Mc Kibben is a pragmatist- as is Hansen. The power of the fossil fuel industry is incredible.  We should be peaking in emissions by 2015. not going to happen.

            As I see it there will not be  a peak in emissions till after 2030- as Joe Romm sees it over at climate progress.

            Why? by then the  real problems of climate change will be too hard to ignore- right now they are.

            •  Do you realize that this is exactly what the (0+ / 0-)

              climate change denialists say about renewables?:

              Pie in the Sky

              I'm going to stop the conversation with you now, as that statement in regards to renewables clearly demonstrates that you just plain don't know all that much about the current state of the renewable energy industry.

              For a greater understanding, I'll refer you to my last diary:

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

              by Lawrence on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 04:10:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  yeah (0+ / 0-)

      and the best thing for the democratic party was for bush to beat gore in 2000. or something.

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

      by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jun 06, 2011 at 09:39:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Crimes Against Humanity (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drnononono

    If, as the diarist posits, climate change is most urgent matter facing humanity, then what do we say about those is power who refuse to act and/or act to make things worse? Are they not committing crimes against humanity? While the catastrophic and deadly effects of these crimes are delayed and diffuse, they are just as real as genocide. Indeed, we have to create a new category of mega-crimes for those who harm the entire planet and endanger humanity in toto.

  •  Act TODAY against the tar pipe: Hansen (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lawrence, wbgonne

    Deadline for comments is today.  From Hansen:


    Silence is Deadly

    03 June 2011
    The U.S. Department of State seems likely to approve a huge pipeline to carry tar sands oil (about 830,000 barrels per day) to Texas refineries unless sufficient objections are raised.
    The scientific community needs to get involved in this fray now. If this project gains approval, it will become exceedingly difficult to control the tar sands monster.
    Although there are multiple objections to tar sands development and the pipeline, including destruction of the environment in Canada1 An overwhelming objection is that exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to
    stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts. The tar sands are estimated (e.g., see IPCC AR4 WG3 report) to contain at least 400 GtC (equivalent to about 200 ppm CO2). and the likelihood of spills along the
    pipeline's pathway, such objections, by themselves, are very unlikely to stop the project.


    ...

    A document describing the pipeline project is available at http://www.keystonepipelinexl.
    state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf?

    Open Comments, due by 6 June, can be submitted to http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/...

    or by e-mail to keystonexl@cardno.com
    or mail to Keystone XL EIS Project, P.O. Box 96503–
    98500, Washington, DC 20090–6503 or fax to 206-269-0098.

    ht Romm

    Can DKos get up an online petition on this?

  •  No, that is not the most important issue (0+ / 0-)

    The most important issue mankind is facing is the continued exponential growth in unchecked human population. This is PRECISELY the factor that is driving global warming and climate change. Until we get serious worldwide about population growth, all attempts to mitigate climate change are just pissing into the wind.

  •  Late to posting here, (0+ / 0-)

    but as matador posted, human population is part of the equation, as well as dialing back on the expectations of 'normal' energy consumption.

    Environmental extremes brought about by AGW will cause human consumption of energy to spike, making things even worse.

    Here's the inconvenient truth that no one wants to face:
    this cycle of human caused climate change will end with a massive culling of human life on this planet. Disease, war, outright death by effects of extreme weather, it's all coming. There's no other way out now. Painting roofs white, riding bikes instead burning fuel to push 2 tons of metal down a road, eating less meat are all laudable but in the end will do little to stop the process we already started.

    We are ill prepared to deal with the bedlam which is right around the corner. It's going to be shocking and horrible as massive wildfires, floods, increases in disease and pest vectors, changes in agricultural patterns destroy the ability to feed the planet. Few politicians dare speak of this future, for fear of shocking the public. Gillard lives on the front line of climate change, so it's good to see someone at least trying. In places like Australia, they sit on a working laboratory of extremes as expected norms of weather fluctuates wildly, much as in northern Canada. Those near the poles act as our 'canaries in the coal mine'. It's not going to be a pretty sight; people and animals are already suffering, and it will be getting much worse.

    This lack of understanding the scope of what we have done will become readily apparent in the next two or three decades. Worse yet, active denial of climate change in pursuit of some short term comfort just adds fuel to the already burning fires: this is the current path of almost all politicians. We are encouraged to 'go shopping' to maintain the consumer economy. Little attempt is being made to change society to respond to damage we're inflicting on the planet's biosphere.

    Meanwhile, we are just beginning to see hints of what is in store for us, globally as the planet reacts to our activities. Those with enough wealth will be able to isolate themselves from the worst effects, for a while. Eventually bedlam will overtake all aspects of civilization globally: we will be simply unable to cope with the massive effects of climate change, it's only a question of how long it takes now.  

    Republicans totally abandoned conservatism in the 1980s ..

    by shpilk on Wed Jun 08, 2011 at 06:39:11 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site