Skip to main content

While far from the 'breaking news' MTV created with a "boxers vs briefs" question to Bill Clinton, MTV interviewer Sway Calloway did what journalist moderators at the three presidential and one vice-presidential debates were unable (unwilling) to do:  ask a quite serious question about climate change.  

Until this year global climate change has been discussed in every presidential debate since 1988. It was a big part of your previous campaign but pushed back on the back burner. Given the urgency of the threat, do you feel that we're moving quickly enough on this issue, number one, and Samantha from New Jersey wants to know what will you do to make it a priority?
And, from President Barack Obama, Calloway and "Samantha from New Jersey" received a serious answer from the get-go:
The answer is number one, we're not moving as fast as we need to
Absolutely true ...
And there is a huge contrast in this campaign between myself and Governor Romney
Absolutely true ...
I am surprised it didn't come up in one of the debates.
Terrifyingly true ... although President Obama and Vice President Biden literally had hours of opportunities to raise the issue since, after all, it is related to domestic and foreign policy, to budget issues and security, and to energy issues where we had President Obama and Mitt Romney arguing over who was the better friend to fossil fuels. (Hint ... Romney did win this but the President made him work for the title.)
There are a lot of things we have done a lot of things in the last four years. We have already doubled the fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. ... We have doubled clean energy production -- wind, solar, biofuels -- ... The next step is to deal with buildings and really ramp up our efficiency in buildings.
True, true, and true ... these are important achievements and plans.


See after the fold for the transcript.

NOTES:

1. Consider taking a moment to Thank MTV for breaking the Climate Silence
2. Due to challenges in the comments, see Climate Silence?
3.  For a discussion, for example, of how discussing climate change is a winning political issue (and not just with niche young voters), see “Responsibility. Patriotic Pride. Accountability.” Pillars for effective climate change political communication. and Climate Desk's Share on TwitterShare on Facebook Is Climate Change the Sleeper Issue of 2012?

TRANSCRIPT

SWAY: Until this year global climate change has been discussed in every presidential debate since 1988. It was a big part of your previous campaign but pushed back on the back burner. Given the urgency of the threat, do you feel that we're moving quickly enough on this issue, number one, and Samantha from New Jersey wants to know what will you do to make it a priority?

OBAMA: The answer is number one, we're not moving as fast as we need to. And this is an issue that future generations, MTV viewers, are going to have to be dealing with even more than the older generation. So this is a critical issue.

And there is a huge contrast in this campaign between myself and Governor Romney. I am surprised it didn't come up in one of the debates. Gov. Romney says he believes in climate change. That's different than a lot of members of his own party that deny it completely. But he's not sure that man-made causes are the reason. I believe scientists who say we are putting too much carbon emissions into the atmosphere and it's heating the planet and it's going to have a severe effect.

There are a lot of things we have done a lot of things in the last four years. We have already doubled the fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. That's the first increase in 30 years in the fuel mileage standards. As a consequence we will be taking huge amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere, even as we're also saving folks money at the pump and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

We have doubled clean energy production -- wind, solar, biofuels -- and that means that increasingly people are getting electricity, companies are generating power, without the use of carbon-producing fuels. And that's helping as well.

The next step is to deal with buildings and really ramp up our efficiency in buildings. If we had the same energy efficiency as Japan, we would cut our energy use by about 20 percent, and that means we'd be taking a whole lot of carbon out of our atmosphere.

And if we do those things, we can meet the targets that I negotiated with other countries in Copenhagen, to bring our carbon emissions down by about 17 percent, even as we're creating good jobs in these industries.

In order for us to solve the whole problem though, we're gonna have to have some technological breakthroughs. Because countries like China and India, they're building coal-power plants and they feel that they have to prioritize getting people out of poverty ahead of climate change. So what we have to do is help them and help ourselves by continuing to put money into research and technology about how do we really get the new sources of power that are going to make a difference.

Originally posted to A Siegel on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 08:16 PM PDT.

Also republished by Climate Hawks, Climate Change SOS, and DK GreenRoots.

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

  •  Tip Jar (150+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, toys, AnnieWest, dance you monster, kalmoth, TX Freethinker, Ashaman, JekyllnHyde, KroneckerD, DamselleFly, ericlewis0, just another vortex, Roger Fox, The Zipper, pioneer111, thomask, kevinpdx, thatpj, SaintC, Cassandra Waites, puakev, kerflooey, greengemini, mahakali overdrive, peacestpete, OLinda, toom, helenh1967, Ignacio Magaloni, sebastianguy99, wuck, fumie, vivadissent, uciguy30, jplanner, ORDem, dRefractor, ParkRanger, anyname, RLMiller, bsmechanic, cordgrass, eru, RJP9999, AlyoshaKaramazov, Lefty Coaster, Nowhere Man, jennifree2bme, radical simplicity, subtropolis, wu ming, BlueJessamine, shinobi9, Magnifico, cai, 1BQ, Catskill Julie, Duncan Idaho, quill, jmwalters, susanWAstate, badlands, Glen The Plumber, AreDeutz, jan4insight, Bob Duck, Matt Esler, War on Error, hungeski, PatriciaVa, fhcec, petulans, spooks51, glitterlust, too many people, Lujane, LaughingPlanet, begone, KayCeSF, Assaf, ivote2004, G2geek, MikePhoenix, rja, UniC, mungley, Nulwee, eeff, victoria2dc, hangingchad, flitedocnm, riverlover, pgm 01, joynow, yet another liberal, Miss Jones, mofembot, Grandma Susie, JanF, ladybug53, Egalitare, KiB, elziax, nirbama, MadGeorgiaDem, samanthab, maryabein, dot farmer, Denise Oliver Velez, TiaRachel, sewaneepat, Burned, pico3, elginblt, meralda, MichaelNY, pollwatcher, secret38b, Alice Olson, Lawrence, barkworsethanbite, jamess, Bill in Portland Maine, John DiFool, Creosote, Laura Wnderer, One Pissed Off Liberal, IreGyre, Foundmyvoice, tonyahky, Smoh, leeleedee, frisco, missLotus, filkertom, Mrs M, james321, reginahny, tytalus, ZoBai, Virginian in Spain, melo, Albanius, Catlady62, malevola, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, RunawayRose, maybeeso in michigan, John Crapper, SolarMom

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

    by A Siegel on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 08:16:18 PM PDT

  •  Will they be getting an interview with Romney? (29+ / 0-)

    Oh right.  He's no longer taking questions from the press.  How convenient.

    "Safety and security are the result of collective consensus. We owe our children, the most vulnerable citizens in our society, a life free of violence and fear." - Nelson Mandela. Donate to TREE Climbers

    by TX Freethinker on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 08:25:46 PM PDT

  •  I like this part (38+ / 0-)
    In order for us to solve the whole problem though, we're gonna have to have some technological breakthroughs. Because countries like China and India, they're building coal-power plants and they feel that they have to prioritize getting people out of poverty ahead of climate change. So what we have to do is help them and help ourselves by continuing to put money into research and technology about how do we really get the new sources of power that are going to make a difference.
    He understands the dynamics behind what is happening and the opportunity.
  •  Crazy it took MTV to get this question asked (25+ / 0-)

    Just shows how out of touch traditional media is at these days. Great answers by the President. Too bad we can hear which position Romney chose in this debate as he is not taking interviews from anyone about anything.

  •  It is clear though that the President hasn't been (17+ / 0-)

    silent on the issue. Even if reporters or the media didn't ask the question, the President has been working on the issue such as lowering fuel efficiency standard. Or making the largest investment in clean energy that has doubled America’s renewable power generation since before he came into office.

    •  In the diary ... (21+ / 0-)

      I didn't get into this, but the President has been seriously avoiding discussing climate change in any meaningful way for awhile.  According to Joe Romm and others, there has been a serious muzzling of climate-science expert political appointees. (How much, for example, have you heard from Science Advisor John Holdren on climate change or DOE Secretary Steve Chu or Lubchenco ...).  And, while we can point to some quite seriously positive steps, the President is speaking far more about pumping oil and natural gas, the Administration has opened massive amounts of coal for mining, etc ... The President's policies will not, as he once stated would be the case, turn the tide on climate change's rising seas.  We should not decieve ourselves into thinking that what is happening is anything nearly enough (and not all fault lies w/the Rs in Congress.) Now, clearly, Mitt Romney and crowd would be FAR, FAR, FAR worse.

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

      by A Siegel on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 09:02:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The President has been endorsed by multiple (9+ / 0-)

        environmental groups. Do you have any proof that the president has been avoiding discussing climate change?

        The President spoke of climate change in his convention speech.

        But unlike my opponent, I will not let oil companies write this country’s energy plan, or endanger our coastlines, or collect another $4 billion in corporate welfare from our taxpayers.  

        We’re offering a better path – a future where we keep investing in wind and solar and clean coal; where farmers and scientists harness new biofuels to power our cars and trucks; where construction workers build homes and factories that waste less energy; where we develop a hundred year supply of natural gas that’s right beneath our feet.  If you choose this path, we can cut our oil imports in half by 2020 and support more than 600,000 new jobs in natural gas alone.

        And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax.  More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke.  They’re a threat to our children’s future.  And in this election, you can do something about it.

        http://nationaljournal.com/...

        More can always be done, but let's not pretend this President hasn't been making real investments in the area of energy and the environment.... He is not hiding out somewhere in an attempt to avoid discussing the issue.....

        •  And right in the middle of it he feels the need.. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          victoria2dc, maryabein

          to play T Boone Pickens and shill for natural gas. Why?

          "The Democratic Party is not our friend: it is the only party we can negotiate with."

          by 2020adam on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:51:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  as a viable defense against Republican claims... (5+ / 0-)

            ... that he's a-priori opposed to anything fossil fuel related.

            Which IMHO is a valid political strategy, alongside his very real policies that have improved automobile efficiency and invested in expansion of renewables..

            And further:

            Climate scientists recently (this year) reported that global CO2 output was considerably lower for 2011 than predicted, and were able to ascertain that the reason for this was the installation of new natural gas power plants rather than coal.

            Now I'm highly skeptical of all things fossil fuels, but skepticism also entails keeping an open mind about empirical facts.  And when the facts don't fit your preferred hypothesis, the answer is to keep the facts and chuck or revise the hypothesis.

            If natural gas helps us get away from coal, and thereby reduces our carbon output, good.  Let's do it.  More importantly let's do renewables and new-generation nuclear, but to the extent that natural gas can play a role, that's OK.

            And as for fracking, that's a local issue that can reasonably be approached in the same manner as if it was merely a NIMBY issue: local people can tie it up in the courts until the cow jumps over the moon.

            "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

            by G2geek on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:54:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Unless of course you're from N. Dakota, where you (0+ / 0-)

              would likely get shot if you tried to tie fracking up in the courts.

              "But there is so much more to do." - Barack Obama, Nov. 4, 2008

              by flitedocnm on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:33:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  oh, so it's Civil War II they want, eh? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coloradocomet, malevola

                In which case, deterrence works wonders.

                First, have a series of "Progressives support the 2nd Amendment" rallies across the state.  Large crowds of armed liberals show up for patriotic speeches and music, and then go home.  

                Word gets around: Liberals are just as well-armed as righties.

                Second, go after the fracking in court.  

                Third, remind anyone who threatens to shoot liberals, that liberals are perfectly capable of defending themselves.  

                Deterrence keeps the peace.

                "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

                by G2geek on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 01:00:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  If you transition from fossil to renewable (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sewaneepat, Miss Blue, G2geek, v2aggie2

              energies you need natural gas as a bridging fuel - at least given the current state of our technologies and if you want to do it as fast as you need to.
              Natural gas is the fossil fuel with the highest output of energy per carbon unit produced (much, much better than coal or oil, and much cleaner, too); and natural gas plants are very flexible which they need to be as they have to be part of a fluctuating system - the more renewables you have, the more you transition to a fluctuating system and you need flexible plants that you can switch on and off as you see fit. Natural gas plants - as opposed to coal plants - can do that and remain financially viable. Also, building them is less expensive than building coal plants which means that even if you use them only for 20 years the investment has been paid for; with coal plants that's 30 years or more.
              As scientists say that our per capita emission should be around 1 ton per head in 2050 for everybody living on the planet, investing in coal plants  nowappears not a good idea generally speaking and coal plants you build nowadays will still be around in 2050 (coal plants often are used around 40 years or even more) wrecking the carbon budget.

              The future is renewable.

              by KiB on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 03:05:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  that all sounds reasonable to me. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                maybeeso in michigan

                One thing you're pointing to is the issue of "firm and dispatchable power," that can be turned on/off and up/down as required.  Natgas meets that requirement nicely, so it can be coupled to wind and solar accordingly.  

                There are some new "nuclear battery" power plants that may also fill the bill, that are intrinsically safe and can be made in very small sizes, down to @ 10 - 12 MWE.

                Ultimately, as Obama said, buildings need to be designed for higher energy efficiency, to reduce power consumption for heating and cooling.

                But one of the biggest untapped sources of efficiency is telecommuting or telework:  any employee whose job consists wholly of using a computer and telephone can do that job from home.  This relieves employers of the significant overhead cost of office space rental and all that goes with it.  Every employee who switches from automobile commuting to telecommuting saves ten car trips per week, and all the associated carbon impacts.  

                The obvious policy here should be to incentivize telework by way of the tax code: reducing and ultimately eliminating deductions for physical office space for jobs that can be done from home, and providing rapid tax write-offs for telework infrastructure (PBX, server, VPN, and the high-capacity voice & data circuits they utilize).   (Disclosure:  I pioneered the development of a key enabling technology in this area.)

                "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

                by G2geek on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:24:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We are in agreement about natural gas. But no (0+ / 0-)

                  nuclear plant is safe and they are not needed.
                  People should think more about storing surplus power (from wind farms for example) by producing hydrogen or methane and about building up renewables much, much faster. There is no danger to them and no (after 50 years still unsolved) problems of getting rid of waste.
                  Transport and more energy efficiency in the house are certainly
                  important points, too.
                  The less energy you need to care for your needs, the better.
                  In Germany, carbon emissions per head are about 10 tons, in the US it's more than 20 tons. Both are industrialized countries, Germans don't live in caves exactly. In the US, a lot of energy is wasted. And even in Germany, there is still a lot of room for improvement in energy efficiency, both in households and industry.
                  That's why I found Obama's recent comments about improving the energy efficiency of houses very encouraging.

                  The future is renewable.

                  by KiB on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 08:59:39 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Not so sanguine ... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              G2geek, mightymouse, John Crapper

              There is serious reason to wonder whether natural gas in vehicles provides any greenhouse gas benefit -- and even that there is reason to be wondering whether the analysis is off as to the NG GHG benefit in electricity.

              There are a series of studies and discussions. A reasonable one (because, for an environmental organization, it is quite business and natural gas friendly) comes from EDF.  The EDF website on a recent methane leakage study: .

              To give an idea of the situation, they analyzed the carbon impacts of coal vs natural gas and the impact of natural gas leakage for this situation:

              new natural gas combined cycle power plants reduce climate impacts compared to new coal plants; this case is true as long as leakage remains under 3.2%.
              Now, to be clear, the preceding sentence is
              Assuming the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 leakage rate of 2.4% (from well to city)
              Okay, that looks great, with a new (high-end) natural gas facility, there is perhaps a 15-20% CO2 equivalent benefit for the natural gas compared to coal due to the methane leakage rate being 0.8% below the threshhold level.

              However, a key issue: we don't "know" the actual methane leakage rates.  From the "FAQs" for the EDF study is this:

              Last year, EPA discovered some differences in its 1990s-era emission estimates for a small number of key source types and those reported by natural gas companies to EPA in the voluntary Natural Gas STAR program.  EPA used the best data it had available, mainly the self-reported estimates under the STAR program, which ended up roughly doubling its previous estimate of total industry emissions.
              The EPA doubled its leakage estimate based on the self-reporting in a voluntary program?  That self-reporting comes from (a) big players who are (b) trying to show their best face and (c) are theoretically committed to do better.  This doesn't have the wildcatters, the small players, etc ...  And, again, this is the "self-reported estimates" which we can have some confidence weren't targeting erring on making themselves look worse than reality (as opposed to better).  

              And, that data is several-years time late and almost certainly doesn't account well for fracking.

              The EPA's 2.4% is almost certain not an accurate accounting for across the entire natural gas production and distribution system. (Remembering, of course, that this was a doubling of their previous estimated well-to-wheel leakage rate.)  

              In other words, that 20% benefit almost certainly doesn't exist.  In my discussions with people with closer knowledge / expertise on this issue, they're estimating a much higher leakage figure across the industry (highlighting, for example, the over 30% of natural gas being flared in North Dakota, that these figures are focusing on producing wells (and not (poorly) capped wells nor the exploratory drilling nor ...), etc ...).

              By the way, the EDF study lays out strongly why the embrace of T Boone Pickens' Plan was such lunacy:

              At current leakage rate estimates, converting a fleet of heavy duty diesel vehicles to natural gas would result in nearly 300 years of climate damage before any benefits were achieved.

              And, well, how many millenia are required to have any benefits if the leakage rate is 3% or 4% or ...  And, note, that system assumes that the leakage rate doesn't increase with 1000s (or 10,000s or 100,000s) of additional retail distribution points for refueling those NGVs.

              Honestly, the people that I consider the most informed about this issue are rather upfront when I've asked them about this: we don't know what the leakage rate is in the U.S. production and use of natural gas. (This includes people in the natural gas industry -- if they are in an 'off-the-record' conversation.) We didn't know it with "traditional" natural gas, with any accuracy, and the complexities of fracking have made the error bar even higher.  And, sadly, the error bar is almost certainly solely toward the 'higher than' EPA estimates rather than lower.

              ---

              Some NRDC work:

              Report on methane leaks and the economics of fixing them: http://www.nrdc.org/...

              As for the overall estimates of emissions, Dan Lashof has blogged on this a bit: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/...

              Regarding the wisdom of using natural gas in vehicles, NRDC’s position is on page 3 of this document: http://www.nrdc.org/...
              There are some more details here but this is a 2009 document so may need to be updated:
              http://www.nrdc.org/...

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

              by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 04:44:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  OK, and these are technical problems... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                A Siegel

                .... that can be solved by a combination of the existing financial incentives for efficiency (leakage = wasting money), plus new incentives and regulations to tighten up the methane leakage.

                I'd like to have a conversation with you at some point about telework / telecommuting, an area in which I'm a subject-matter expert and which I believe is potentially huge in terms of reducing carbon impacts.  

                Every car commuter who switches to telecommuting is ten fewer car trips per week.   And in contrast to public transport, employers can implement telework whenever they choose, so it does not depend on large public-sector decisions & investments.  Telework infrastructure presently pays for itself in months when compared to the physical office costs it displaces.  

                I could go on but I think we should take this to a private forum, because I'm not interested in a) outing myself here and b) appearing to be engaged in self-promotion & advertising here.

                "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

                by G2geek on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:35:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Actually ... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  G2geek

                  telework benefits, as you're aware, are even larger.

                  * Reduced infrastructure demands
                  * Improved social stability, community strength,
                  * Etc ...

                  Lots of challenges -- including that (a) the utility savings at offices are offset by greater home use, (b) too many (virtually all) companies "save" money by putting the office expenses on employees, (c) doesn't work for all employees (even all 'white collar'), (d) requires different management style(s), etc  ...

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

                  by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:51:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  yes all of the above. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    A Siegel

                    Re. the challenges you mention:

                    a)  Greater home use in turn offset by home solar, which is much more feasible in suburbs (where the automobile commuters come from) than in cities particularly on highrises.

                    b)  Employee expenses are all tax-deductible:  square footage devoted to home office, work-dedicated broadband service (may be different to home broadband due to requirements such as VPN, VOIP phones, etc.), any other work-dedicated infrastructure.  

                    But you don't get a tax deduction for gasoline to drive to work, so there is actually a double advantage here: lower gasoline costs, plus tax deductions.

                    c)  If the job only entails typing & talking, it can be done by telework.  But clearly if it entails putting hands on products, or going to client sites, then it can't.  

                    d)  Different management styles: companies can & will adapt given the financial benefits of reduced costs & overheads.  Management software is available to monitor employee performance in various ways.  From the employee perspective it's also less intrusive.  

                    BTW, I see your LinkedIn invite: I'm not on LinkedIn or any other social network.  Plain email still works.  

                    "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

                    by G2geek on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:01:48 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Re the natural gas ... (2+ / 0-)

                  My perspective is that NGV requires major infrastructure investment. My analysis is that we would be (far) better off using those resources for clean energy and energy efficiency investments.  We'd have far greater GHG and economic impact, for example, via a program of electrifying rail.  

                  An old discussion, which is still mainly relevant:  CAP’s American Fuel: Contaminated on so many levels

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

                  by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:57:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  NGV: natural gas vehicles? (0+ / 0-)

                    Though, it seems to work for fleets that are centrally maintained.  Around here (SF Bay Area) a number of urban delivery type applications seem to be switching over: United Parcel Service and refuse collection come to mind.   We also have various types of advanced powertrain buses including a few that run on hydrogen (though I'm highly skeptical of hydrogen for a bunch of reasons).  

                    "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

                    by G2geek on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:04:59 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Bridging. (9+ / 0-)

            Unless you provide a compelling bridge from past to future.... the partisan vested defenders of the past will be able to keep killing your proposed future.

            Wouldn't you prefer that highhorsepower engines run on natural gas instead of deisel? or that cargo ships burn natural gas instead of worst-for-environment bunker fuel?!?:

            http://www.hhpsummit.com/

            We have to provide cleaner pathways forward for all sectors, and for the dirtiest sectors, that means the next steps will be cleaner increments but still less than our desired endstate.

            I'm as big a promoter of solar as anyone (for example, my pro solar views made it to nationwide TV in 1980), but I'm pragmatic enough to know you can't scale renewables from ~7% to 100% or 75% or even 50% in just 4 years.

            PV prices were ~$4.50/Wp 4 years ago. Today they are ~ $1/Wp. I predict that 1 more Obama term will give us the cover (defense against fossil-defender meddling) to get them to $0.25/Wp by 2016. (Of course, over the next few years we also need to bring BOS down as well, but in any case, the total cost of solar electricity is poised to undercut all the competition within 2 more halving-cycles.)

            By the end of Obama's 2nd term, we'll be able to chop the legs off of any competing electricity alternative, including even fracked natgas.

            Then the whirlwind will take us from <20% market share to >80% market share in what will seem like a blink of the eye historically. See:

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

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

            http://gotze.eu/...

            Driven by an underlying unstoppable dynamic, described so well by a different Moore:

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

            Keep the faith, baby. Obama's given us the cover to get across the Chasm, and over his next 4 years we're bowlin' towards Tornado time ;)

            #3: ensure network neutrality; #2: ensure electoral integrity; #1: ensure ecosystemic sustainability.

            by ivote2004 on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:00:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is one of the most intelligent and informed (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              comments that I have read on DailyKos lately.

              The President gets it.  You get it.

              Right now it's all about driving down the costs of renewables and clean tech while simultaneously increasing their technological efficiency.

              As that takes place, the implementation of renewables and cleantech takes place on a global level and kick into exponential growth gear, which will have a far greater impact than U.S. regulatory policies alone.

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

              by Lawrence on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:18:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  The President has made real accomplishments (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sewaneepat

            and you're talking about some opinion of yours that he is shilling for natural gas.... If you want to believe the President is doing this that and the other thing go ahead and believe it. Again, Barack Obama has been endorsed by multiple environmental groups. And they are endorsing him I guess because they don't know as much as you do.

            •  Again ... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mightymouse, MichaelNY

              I have "endorsed" Obama -- in that I've donated, do GOTV, and otherwise.  "Endorsement" does not mean that he has done everything right, that he is doing what is necessary, etc ...   I have never considered any politician perfect or above reproach.  And, I have pulled the lever for many for whom I had/have less respect than I have for President Obama as politician, as a thought leader, as a father, as a person.  I have a lot of respect for him and believe he has done many good things -- even as I see him as falling short, in many ways, including a failure to speak strongly enough on climate change issues to help lead the nation toward greater support for necessary action.

              By the way, Bill McKibben, 350.org, is working hard to get President Obama reelected -- you should have no illusions that Bill sees the President speaking enough about climate change or doing what is necessary.

              E.g., you "environmental organizations" repeated challenge is a false strawman that you should reconsider.

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

              by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 04:56:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well, it's convenient isn't it? That these (0+ / 0-)

                organizations believe the President is shilling for this or that entity and yet they endorse him. This is the issue here, it is not the criticism, it is the degree of criticism, like saying the President is trying to avoid talking about climate change, when he spoke of climate change even at his convention, or that he is somehow being disingenuous because he is a shill and yet, oh yeah, I support him. It's ridiculous.

                •  Why don't (0+ / 0-)

                  you compare 2008 and 2012 comments from Presidential nominee Obama?  Actually look at Climate Silence.  Obviously "environmental organizations" are supporting President Obama for reelection because they think he is perfect and not because they are concerned about the anti-science nightmare that is the 21st century Republican party.

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

                  by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 06:53:30 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And you think that's fair? Showing the President (0+ / 0-)

                    in a false equivalence meme with Mitt Romney, the both of them, seemingly in cahoots with duck tape over their mouths? Is this what you call fair criticism?

                    I don't need to look at 2008 speeches, because there have been sabotaging and obstructionism afoot, in terms of the legislative branch of government, which has hampered more progress for this President, but this year alone, the Obama Administration finalized groundbreaking standards that will increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025, a move that will improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

                    And you are linking some image of the President alongside the mendacious Mitt Romney as if they are one in the same? Talk about over the top rhetoric. I thought false equivalences were  the province of the greedy media, not individuals who say they are supporting this President.  Unbelievable.....

                    •  You keep retreating into (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MichaelNY

                      a "President Obama is above any criticism" ... why don't you actually read the material there?

                      Yes, the President deserves real credit re CAFE standard advances. And, there are impressive things re renewables (offshore, identifying/expediting best solar development opportunities on government land).  And, let's not forget about the advances in the military on energy efficiency and renewables (on EE, especially, gaining real support in uniformed communities).  And, ... There are lots of positives that I have, do, and will continue to right about.

                      On the other hand, want to talk about full implications of "All of the Above" in terms of any understanding of climate change issues.

                      On climate communications, the Obama-Biden reelection campaign has been notably reticent to talk about climate change.  The President's comments have mainly been very brief and, especially when more substantive, to young (such as University and MTV) audiences and not to the general public (even though the differentiation is difficult to make).  The campaign has actually seemed to put more emphasis on trying to portray Romney as not a friend to coal due to his (accurate / honest) statements about coal being a dangerous energy source when he was governor.

                      And, the 2008 vs 2012 language is inappropriate to blame on Climate Zombie Republicans. In fact, the social science research shows that the lack of discussion weakens Americans understanding of climate change issues and strengthens their support/agreement with the zombies. Failure to engage/challenge (a la the first Presidential debate) cedes the ground to those peddling falsehoods.

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

                      by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 10:48:13 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Look ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mightymouse

          I said "serious discussion".  This was not a serious discussion of climate change at the DNC (compare to the MTV discussion).

          And, simply put, you are off in your challenge. There has been quite substantial discussion of this.

          How about a front-page New York Times article from yesterday: Both Romney and Obama Avoid Talk of Climate Change.

          More simply, go spend just a few minutes at Climate Silence. Compare how Presidential nominee Obama spoke in 2008, how President-elect Obama spoke in 2008/09, and look to see how Presidential candidate Obama has been talking about climate change in 2012.

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

          by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 04:37:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

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

          I am doing GOTV and otherwise.  There is no choice, if you have any understanding of climate change, in this election.  

          As stated in the comment you responded to, I was choosing not to make this the focus of the diary but we're supposed to be reality base.

          E.g.,, with any real understanding of climate change, one cannot say that the Obama-Biden Administration has been doing what is necessary. The "All of the Above" energy path, with accelerated natural gas and oil production along with serious subsidies of coal exports to China, does not take us (or the US) to a prosperous and secure climate-friendly future even as there are many good things that have happened and even though a huge share of the blame rests on the shoulders of Climate-Zombie Republicans (and (FAR) fewer Democrats -- Manchin, anyone?) in the House and Senate (without forgetting the funders of climate deceit and their cheerleaders (like Faux News)).

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

          by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 04:50:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  avoiding waving the red cape in front of the bulls (3+ / 0-)

        It's clear that he knows the issue is serious.

        And it's clear he's been taking specific steps to address it, such as in automobiles and clean energy.

        I would prefer that he got on TV one night and had made a "serious adult speech" to America about climate change.   But the moment the TV camera was turned off, the stupid pundits would be making comparisons to Carter's "malaise" speech and calling him an instant lame duck.  And then the nasty Rs would use every single opportunity they had, to bog him down over anything whatsoever that related to energy.

        So I can live with his not mentioning the C-word much while in office, since he's actually been taking whatever concrete actions he can take.  Efficient cars save people money, clean energy provides jobs, and money and jobs are both good cover stories for dealing with the Big Unspoken Thing that scares the shit out of people once they understand it.  

        I believe it's highly likely that he's going to speak up loudly and clearly about climate during his second term.

        Or election suppression will install Romney and we will trip over a couple more tipping-points on the road to human extinction.

        "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

        by G2geek on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:48:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  My theory - Realpolotik with a twist (0+ / 0-)

        Obama can't do a damn thing to help us avoid the worst future imaginable if he's not reelected, and the vast majority of voters with an ounce of gray-matter not polluted with denier-ism is already going to vote for him.

        There's not enough upside at the polls in focusing on the climate and too much potential downside.

        He needs at least a portion of the idiot/brainwashed vote.

        Perhaps one day the Fourth Estate will take their jobs seriously. Or not..

        by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 08:00:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  This is exactly it. I fully expect a more (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lujane, ivote2004, G2geek

      vigorous Green agenda, especially after the 2014 mid-terms when the House has been tamed.

    •  I think you mean raising fuel efficiency (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      meralda

      standards, but yes, he certainly has been working on the issue. Don't forget his EPA and regulating CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

      You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

      by sewaneepat on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 04:04:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not a minute too soon. (18+ / 0-)

    The Frontline story told why we haven't heard about climate change this year.

    Axlerod feared a Gish gallop of Koch funded lies and a zombie Alzheimers  AFP  army. The jobs vs environment canard takes too much time to refute.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

    by FishOutofWater on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 08:45:06 PM PDT

    •  Actually ... (12+ / 0-)

      I wish that the President had been prepared at the first or second debate to say something like this:

      Okay, I want to take a pause out for a moment.  My fellow citizens, when you open your newspaper tomorrow morning, if the two words "Gish Gallop" don't show up somewhere on the front page, I recommend that you consider looking for a different newspaper. Gish Gallop is what you are seeing in these debates as my opponent is flip-flopping all over the place, trying to etch-a-sketch away his past statements, and trying to confuse you about his proposed policies.  We are all witnessing a truly professional Gish Gallop performance. And, well, America, we all deserve better than this.

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

      by A Siegel on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 08:57:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Smart, but too cerebrial for the unwashed masses. (7+ / 0-)
        •  I think we may underestimate a lot of people (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          G2geek, melo

          and those who got it would be overjoyed to have some substance in the conversation, either to support or to derail...

          At least, that's what I'm guessing.

          "There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." - President Obama

          by fhcec on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:27:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  For many a election cycle in the past I have (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            G2geek

            given the electorate the benefit of the doubt only to be rewarded with the likes of Reagan and Bush 50% of the time. It seems we only get it right half the time. Basically, a coin flip. In the meantime, the other half puts my precious homeland on the brink of disaster, literally.

            In all this time, I have only truly beem pleasantly surprised once, in 2008. Now, this is threatened to be taken away.

            So please forgive me if I am cynical.

        •  Concept ... (0+ / 0-)

          challenge it in this way to force "The Village" to take notice of the term.  How many google searches of "Gish Gallop" do you think would have occurred within 10 minutes of the comment during a Presidential debate?  10 million?  Would it have trended Twitter?  Would it become a term used by the talk shows?  My thought is, as per comment above, yes ...

          And, this would have worked as a tool for highlighting Romnesia better than, imo, "Governor Romney, this isn't what you said ..." multiple times. That is not a winning strategy against Gish Gallop for the direct debate audience. You need a tool to force people to reconsider, after the event, what was said.

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

          by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:03:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know what a Gish Gallop is. n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek

        © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

        by cai on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:40:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  there was a top rated diary (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KiB

          on the topic just after the first debate.

          Here:

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          Found using this search:

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          And remember: if we fail on climate change, nothing else matters. - WarrenS

          by LaughingPlanet on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:56:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's not the point. I don't think (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            G2geek

            you have to be ignorant and apolitical not to know, unless I'm really a moron and nobody's told me.

            © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

            by cai on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:01:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i tried to help you (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KiB

              by giving you the link to read.

              No need to thank me.

              And remember: if we fail on climate change, nothing else matters. - WarrenS

              by LaughingPlanet on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:22:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I didn't need someone to search for me. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                G2geek, flitedocnm, KiB, sewaneepat

                I was trying to make a point.

                Let's be serious: if President Obama had referenced the Gish Gallop, most people would have had no idea what he was talking about.  

                Perhaps, you say, this is good!  People will learn something.

                Well, no, not really.  Because a) "Gish Gallop" is a goofy sounding phrase, and it would be said over and over by pundits, each jumping over each other to say what it was.  Casual viewers would be confused.

                b)  We'd then start talking about Gish, and creationism, of all effed up things.  And then it would be about the president being a crypto-atheist-fascist-Muslim.  The point about the debating technique would have been thoroughly lost.

                I think it's great that someone named the technique and explained it here at DKos.  It would be even better if this understanding were more widely spread.  But the absolute last person who should even acknowledge he knows who Gish is -- if he does, he's a busy man -- is the president.

                © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

                by cai on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:28:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  My concept ... (0+ / 0-)

                  is that the Obama-Biden campaign would pump out a one-pager, the second the President used the term, explaining why "Romnesia" drove the President to the term.  

                  The media, writ large, is doing a lousy job at laying out for the public Etch-a-Sketch Mitt's shifting (and shifty) nature on policy issue after policy issue.  

                  This is / was my concept for a tool to leverage to force that sort of attention.

                  Linking Mitt to creationism, imo, works well politically -- how many of those who believe the earth is 6000 years old are doing GOTV for Obama-Biden?

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

                  by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:07:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  what about last year and one before that? (0+ / 0-)

      this is why I don't give money to Obama.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:27:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  NPR All Things Considered talked about this... (10+ / 0-)

    And it just about drove me up the wall.

    They took a look at Obama's record and why he's had little to say this time around compared with 2008.

    And indeed, we have heard a lot from the president about building a renewable energy industry in this country. Put in simple terms, he talks about clean energy, more jobs. But he has not been connecting the dots to global warming. Bledsoe says the issue became a bit of a loser during the past four years.

    "Part of the president's reluctance to talk about climate change stems from the political mishandling of the issue in the first two years of his presidency," Bledsoe says. "The White House made a decision to stick with a plan they came up with before the great economic recession, and it didn't go down well in Congress. A lot of people believe they should have trimmed their sails. And so they feel they've been burned politically."

    emphasis added

    Hardly one word about the deliberate campaign by the Republican Party to deny climate change and block all action on it.

    The comparable piece about Romney was even more egregious in its own way.

    In other words, research, but no action — other than rolling back some of the Obama administration's climate policies.

    That again goes against the consensus of the National Academy of Sciences, which concludes that time is rapidly running out to take action if we are to prevent some of the serious consequences of climate change. But philosopher Gutting says Romney recognizes that scientists don't get the last word here.

    "He does say this, and he's right about this: In the end, policymakers and the public, and not scientists, have to decide what relative balance of risks and costs they think they can live with."

    And that plays out in the nation's broader political debate.

    emphasis added

      Way to go NPR. Explain how the people who know the most about this and the consequences of what we do or don't do should NOT expect to have any real say in what we as a people end up doing.

    Maybe Frankenstorm will remind us that Nature Bats Last. Mother Nature is the one who will end up deciding what we can live with IF we ignore those who are paying attention to her.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 08:46:49 PM PDT

    •  Bledsoe (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xaxnar, Nowhere Man, quill, cai, Lujane, G2geek

      spoke at Climate Desk a few weeks ago.  Of the three speakers there and moderator Chris Mooney, only Bledsoe frustrated/angered me. He used so many straw man constructions / comments that were only marginally linked to actual.  "The White House decided to stick with ..." is one of his framings -- that no one within the climate policy community did any serious shifts in light of the economic crisis.  Not the world that I lived through ... Also, imo, more serious was that White House walked away from the commitments that candidate Obama had made. Joe Romm, at that same session, laid this heavily on David Axelrod's lap in terms of downshifting climate change and driving climate silence from much of the White House.

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

      by A Siegel on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 08:53:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How many "reminders" do we need? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xaxnar

      we get one every few months.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:27:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Did it really have to be asked in the debate? (4+ / 0-)

    Both candidates showed they could bring up whatever topic they wished despite the question.

    Mr. Romney has stumped on The President's failed investments in green energy firms, and mentioned that several times during the debates.  He even spoke about coal and nuclear energy...

    The President mentioned "clean coal" (doesn't exist but I get the swing state importance of coal) and I feel like it would have been a golden opportunity to expound on possibly the most pressing issue facing, not just this country, but the human race.

    Really, though, I cannot blame President Obama.  You make your pitch based upon what people care about.  It is up to us and the voters to show politicians we care about the well-being of the planet.  It is a economic, and moral issue that effects everyone.  

    •  Candidates could have raised ... should have ... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cai, quill, fhcec, LaughingPlanet, Burned

      and the moderators should have asked ... shared responsibility for the failure.

      Now, the focus group / polling analysis shows that this is a winning issue for Obama. It motivates the base, true "independents" look like Ds on climate issues, and Tea Party-ites can't be more motivated to vote against Obama.  E.g., this helps GOTV in the base, helps sway the undecided, and is irrelevant for opposition enthusiasm.

      And, well, leaders should lead ...

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

      by A Siegel on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 09:32:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  On the Commonwealth Club broadcast tonight (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LaughingPlanet, cai, Sue B, A Siegel

        four men, Rs and Ds, conducted a civil and informative conversation about climate change, fossil fuels, and the need to move rapidly to increase alternative fuels. All four believed it was a serious issue.

        The two Rs were so surprised that Cap and Trade went no where, because as a pure, market driven solution, they thought it would be very appealing to Rs. They also advocated getting rid of gasoline subsidy, but conceded that a subsidy might be needed for a bit to help the new energy sources get off the ground. They offered important insights about how to talk with Rs about climate change.

        I only got in on about the last 20 minutes of it...but it was excellent. Amazing to listen to Dems and Rs talk in a civil way about a topic of great importance that they agreed on, but felt stymied in doing much about.

        Energy and the Electionwill be replayed tonight at 2 AM PDT on KQED 88.5 FM in San Francisco.

         

        Energy and the Election
        High gasoline prices, hydraulic fracturing and the Keystone XL Pipeline have kept energy in the headlines. How is that playing this election cycle? What national policies should be pursued to advance American competitiveness? How is natural gas changing energy politics in America? Are Democrats sanctimonious and Republicans delusional about climate change, or is this unfair stereotyping? South Carolina Representative Bob Inglis lost a 2010 primary election after saying his party needs to stop denying mainstream climate science. Inglis and others join the show to discuss what lessons can be drawn from that, and whether bipartisan action on carbon pollution is even possible.
        Sat, Oct 27, 2012 -- 2:00am

        "There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." - President Obama

        by fhcec on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:49:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course the GOP is excited about Cap and Trade (0+ / 0-)

          GOPers realize that the federal government needs more money.  They don't want to increase taxes on the really wealthy.  They therefore favor income inequality-exacerbating consumption taxes.

          Glen Hubbard, Romney's chief economic adviser, has gone on record favoring a regressive, income inequality-exacerbating carbon tax.

          http://blogs.wsj.com/...

          Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

          by PatriciaVa on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:55:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Republicans like that ... (0+ / 0-)

          are not those running the House or the Party.  They don't make it past Jea-Hadist Party faithful in the primary.  Inglis is the best example.

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

          by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:08:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  exactly - Obama's response here disingenuous (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      A Siegel

      they talked about energy plenty. Climate changes goes well with that.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:28:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm starting to lose confidence in the (5+ / 0-)

    technological answers refrain.  The book Reinventing Fire presents a detailed case that we either already have market-ready or nearly so technologies in transportation, buildings and housing, industry, and electricity that we need.  

    Yes, R&D like hell.  But also change the incentives so that we get what we want and need from business, instead of the pollution and waste we don't.

    © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

    by cai on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 09:46:46 PM PDT

    •  The technological answers died with the hype (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cai

      of the hydrogen car which will never happen.

      •  The thing is, there are a TON of technological (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jmwalters, fhcec, Lujane, G2geek, Sue B, A Siegel

        answers in that book.  You may not believe that some or all of them will come to fruition.  But where we don't lack, really don't lack, is in options.  Where we lack is will, and direction.  The push to make the 100mph, 200mph car, and the whisper-thin insulation, and the plug-and-play solar, and the widespread combined-heat-and-power, reality.

        I don't agree with everything in RF, far from it, but it made a fairly convincing case, for instance, that "all of the above" doesn't work if "all of the above" includes big new fossil-fuel-fired plants.  A system built on renewables needs both flexible demand and flexible production to compensate for the variability of wind and solar.  Well, pretty much the least flexible production method is a giant power plant.  

        We need smaller, distributed forms of generation, that can more nimbly respond to demand.  With the storm bearing down, I'm wishing we had such a islandable and diversified system now.

        © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

        by cai on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:08:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with you entirely. The problem is that (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cai, G2geek, ivote2004, barkworsethanbite

          the big corporations have no stake in changing existing production lines but play us for fools, the hydrogen car gambit being the prime example.

          In short, it takes a powerful entity like the U.S, government to change corporate habits (be it financial incentives or strict regulation) to do so.

          And, I do believe the President means to do so in his second term. especially after the 2014 mid-terms if the House remains uncooperative. This is why he needs to be re-elected.

          •  Oh, I hope so. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            G2geek

            RF was clearly trying to make the case to businesses (small and large) that if they didn't get out in front, they'd get their lunches eaten by competitors, and appealing repeatedly to greed and self-interest.

            I just hope business people read the book.

            © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

            by cai on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:21:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I believe that in America, a country so dominated (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cai, G2geek, barkworsethanbite

              by corporartions, it is imperative that they be the drivers of ingenuity. And this only happens if they are "gently" nudged by a power greater than themselves; government.

              Unfortunately for the activists out there (of which I was once one) this kind of change has not been fast enough. What they do not realise is that just as "Rome was not built in a day" our addiction to fossil fuels will not be solved overnight.

              Incremental improvements, supported by strong government, is the answer and (with a little patience in the President) this WILL HAPPEN!!

        •  try to catch the Commonwealth Club rerun tonight (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cai, G2geek

          that I linked up thread. It might raise your spirits and provide some practical ideas about how to move some of this along...

          At least I found it very useful. The civil conversation between two Rs and 2 Dems who all support strong measures to address climate change was fruitful and enlightening, at least to me.

          2 AM KQED 88.5 FM in San Francisco. Tonight.

          The link provides many other possible broadcast times and stations ....

          "There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." - President Obama

          by fhcec on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:56:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks to technology, US per/capita CO2 emissions. (0+ / 0-)

      ...have declined 5% since 1990.

      http://epa.gov/...

      Where should the federal government focus?

      R&D at the university level.  We need a battery breakthrough.

      Where should we divert money from?

      Certain companies, led by wannabe messiahs, who make a 100k electric car, dependent on a direct tax transfer from a struggling family in East LA to Norcal, so that Larry Ellison can shave 10k off the retail price.

      How some of my Dem friends can support such income inequality-exacerbating policies is beyond me.  But many Dems do.

      I don't.  I believe that the federal government should quadruple R&D funds to the Stanfords of the world, and leave income inequality-exacerbating auto companies (and I don't mean GM, Ford or Chrysler) on their own.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

      by PatriciaVa on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:21:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, we don't need a battery breakthrough. (0+ / 0-)

        We need lighter cars -- lighter frames, lighter everything.  And that is 100% feasible, while making cars STRONGER.  

        Once you have a lighter car, you need less battery power to move it.

        And I never said ANYTHING about giving R&D money to small car companies, so don't put words in my mouth.  The point was, these technologies exist, we need a push to implement them.  "R&D like hell" was a general admonition, and not related to giving money to any one group.

        © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

        by cai on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:36:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think we need both a battery breakthrough and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PatriciaVa

          lighter cars. As far as I can tell, we have had ways to make cars lighter and stronger for years.

          I have a 1996 Saturn station wagon. It gets 40 mpg. The reason is that it is plastic, with steel x's on the doors to protect from side crashes. After 16 years, there is not one dent on the car.

          I have not seen any data that indicates that it is less strong in a crash. And from 2 experiences I have had with hitting deer, my Saturn works much better in those cases than a "normal car." One time a big doe jumped out of the woods right into the front of my car, killed the doe which bounced up in the air and into the opposite ditch. It was frightening. But not a scratch or dent on the Saturn. Another time a deer ran into the side of the car - again not a dent (this time the deer ran off and I hope was uninjured.) And no, I don't drive fast and I try very hard to look for deer as I drive to avoid hitting them, but we are overrun with white tail deer here since the only predators are limited to a 6 week hunting season so almost everyone has hit a deer at some time.

          You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

          by sewaneepat on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 04:19:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  "not even wrong." (4+ / 0-)

        Before Tesla, electric cars were perceived by the public as being "golf carts."

        After Tesla, electric cars are now perceived by the public as being fast and sleek and sexy, and practical for everyday use.

        As a result of Tesla we now have the Nissan Leaf, and probably also the Volt.  Tesla plus the expiration of Cobasys' patent strangle-hold on NiMH batteries made the new plug-in hybrid Prius feasible.  The battery packs for many of these vehicles are being made by Panasonic (who also run their own factories around the globe: no human rights abuses).  

        I'm no Elon Musk groupie.  But the guy has made a real difference in the automotive world by shifting the entire frame of reference for what "electric car" means.  And he's doing likewise for space exploration, which will give America our first new domestic launch capability since the retirement of the Shuttle.  

        Yes we should go back to the Eisenhower tax schedule with a 90% top marginal rate, and yes we should increase R&D and implementation funding by a decimal place.  

        But yes we should also support the "visionaries," because they are essential as well.

        "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

        by G2geek on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:13:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  thanks the recesssion, cheap nat gas (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        A Siegel

        and expensive oil as well.

        these are not technological breakthroughs.

        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

        by mightymouse on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:29:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  At this point, it's just another stall tactic. n/ (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse
    •  Many in the Admin ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      such as Holdren and Chu can speak eloquently on this.  We need to gather the fruit on the ground (that is rotting because we're not executing), harvest the ripe fruit on the lower branches, and invest in fruit that we will harvest in the future.  And, while there is a tremendous amount of things that we can/should be doing, I promise you that noone at RMI would advocate that we don't invest to develop tomorrow's new opportunities.

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

      by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:13:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Better late than never (0+ / 0-)

    but I am very sad to see this issue get back-burnered over and over right as things should be heating up. (unfortunate pun)

    There was a piece on PBS this week (Frontline) about the Koch-funded denial machine which was so very depressing. Because they have mostly won over recent years.

    I do hold hope that Prez O may just champion actions on climate in a second term on a par with his health care push in term 1.

    But then again, I desperately cling to these types of hopes to repel the creeping despair that comes from a belief in science.

    And remember: if we fail on climate change, nothing else matters. - WarrenS

    by LaughingPlanet on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:06:40 PM PDT

  •  Biofuels are *not* an answer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel, mightymouse

    Obama's been pushing biofuels as an answer to climate change for a long time, but they are simply are not. They've been discredited, and he needs to separate biofuels out from true renewables.

    •  Actually depends on which ... (0+ / 0-)

      Biofuels from food crops (especially weak EROEI, like corn) or which drive deforestration (or equivalent) to make fuel are not sustainable and need to be moved past.

      Fuel from waste (agricultural, food waste going into landfill, construction waste, ...)?  Much more reasonable.

      Fuel from fuel-specific crops on marginal land or, perhaps, water crops like algae?  Some very promising opportunities.

      Biofuel to 100% replace 80 million barrels / day of oil?  Hard to see how this is a sustainable path.

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

      by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:17:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "I'm surprised this didn't come up in debates" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Burned, TJ, mightymouse

    Horseshit. The debate subject areas are predetermined by the campaigns. HE could have brought it up in debate. This is all such bullshit.

    Having said that, nice of him to say something about it to (who watches MTV anymore?).

    Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

    by the fan man on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 03:40:20 AM PDT

  •  What Silence?????? (0+ / 0-)

    Ya know, it's Very Obvious how Little people, especially those that say they support a certain party and in this case a certain sitting President, DON'T PAY ATTENTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    These so called diaries whining about, in this case the dead silence of this administration on 'climate change' show that folks here should actually start using this type of technology, and stop doing what the 'other side' doesn't do, and leave sites to actually read or research out topics!!

    I get reports almost daily on climate change and other subjects and often as to not only climate change they tie back to the government and this executive branch's support for or what they may be doing!!

    Instead of whining Pay Attention!!!!!!!

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 03:45:44 AM PDT

    •  3 debates, not one question or answer hinting (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Burned, TJ, mightymouse

      at the topic. How many campaign stops, how many interviews? That silence. instead we got a "who can drill more" answers to energy questions. The public was primed by this summer's drought and heat for big statements and action. This is not a dress rehearsal.

      Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

      by the fan man on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 03:54:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did you watch the Democratic National Convention? (0+ / 0-)

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 04:21:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Note the term (0+ / 0-)

          "serious discussion".

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

          by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:23:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The comment I responded to said (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            A Siegel

            "not one question or answer hinting at the topic."  It did not say anything about a serious discussion, however, as I said in a previous comment in another diary:

            My gut feeling is that since the economy is such
            a high priority during this election, they did not want to be attacked for "putting the environment ahead of the economy" (and you know they would have been if they had addressed the issue in environmental terms.)

            Therefore, they addressed the issue but through the economic lens, rather than the environmental lens. So CAFE standards were discussed in how it would save you money (as well as cleaner air, I think he mentioned cleaner environment second) and green technology was talked about in terms of new good jobs. I think that was politically smart.

            After all, does it matter if we get green technology or use less gas in our cars because it was presented as an economic positive rather than an environmental positive? The result is a cleaner and more sustainable future. And we don't want to turn off the less well informed voter who might buy the economic argument but who might well be turned off by the environmental one.

            The comments the President made at the DNC were directly about climate change and was quite serious IMO.

            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

            by sewaneepat on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:56:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Several items ... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mightymouse, the fan man

              1.  There has been a lot of research that shows climate change, in these trying times, is a winning political issue -- if handled right. See new links at end of introduction.

              2.  While I've written on this, Romm's take:

              President Obama’s failure to speak out repeatedly on the urgency of climate action is his biggest communications mistake. If our leaders don’t talk about an issue, it generally won’t become sufficiently salient for either the media or the public.
              But Obama’s statement at the Democratic convention — responding to Romney’s mockery of his 2008 pledge of climate action — also contained a classic messaging mistake:
              And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax.  More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke.  They’re a threat to our children’s future.  And in this election, you can do something about it.
              The social science literature is quite clear that repeating a myth is not the best way to debunk it. Indeed, there is evidence that it can actually end up promoting that myth.

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

              by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 06:01:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So according to Romm, (0+ / 0-)

                saying climate change is not a hoax = climate change is a hoax and more droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke = more droughts and floods and wildfires are a joke.

                Quite frankly, I care less about the rhetoric than about results and no one who is slightly informed thinks that the President's agenda on climate change is worse or even comparable to Romney's positions.

                Getting the President re-elected is the best thing we can do for the environment, no two ways about it. After that, we should all put all the pressure we can for him to continue to address the issue and do it more forcefully. But I still say that presenting it in economic terms at this point is the most effective way to address the issue.

                You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                by sewaneepat on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 06:12:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Couple things (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sewaneepat, mightymouse, the fan man

                  1.  Look at the Debunking Handbook.  This is politics and language/persuasion matters. Presenting information in the wrong way is counterproductive.  What Romm is writing is backed by serious research work.

                  2.  Don't for a second think that there is any suggestion that 'there is no difference between ...' inadequate policy making (with lots of great people involved) and anti-science disaster. As per other comments, there is zero choice for anyone with any understanding of climate issues -- vote for President Obama and work to get him reelected.

                  3.  And, as soon as the votes are counted, work to get him to be far more serious on climate issues.

                  4.  As for your last sentence, seriously, read this:  “Responsibility. Patriotic Pride. Accountability.” Pillars for effective climate change political communication.  Speaking about "clean energy" or "green jobs" without discussing climate change is leaving a critical part of the argument (and a meaningfully important one politically) on the table.  There is zero assertion on my part that "climate science" should be "the" issue without serious discussion of jobs, economic impacts, security, etc ... But, by not seriously discussing ...

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

                  by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 06:26:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I think we are pretty much in agreement, (0+ / 0-)

                    just a matter of emphasis and timing.

                    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                    by sewaneepat on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 06:46:04 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This is one case where rhetoric AND action (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      A Siegel

                      are necessary to reinforce each other. We're not discussing preservation of the snail darter in the face of a proposed dam. We're talking our survival.  

                      Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

                      by the fan man on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 09:38:03 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What is said in the course of a campaign is (0+ / 0-)

                        not nearly as important to me as what the actions are after the election.

                        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                        by sewaneepat on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 10:43:43 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  When both campaigns sign on to "silence", it (0+ / 0-)

                          means something. If his second term turns out to be a barnstormer, I'll be as happy as you are now. This first term has been weak tea.

                          Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

                          by the fan man on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 10:48:43 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  But ... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          the fan man

                          what is said in the campaign sets the stage for, establishes expectations for, and builds support for the actions after the election.  What does near silence on the risks (and opportunities) of climate change during the election say about that?

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

                          by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:00:19 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I think this election will be decided on (0+ / 0-)

                            economic and social issues. Under the circumstances when the President took office, I think he had to deal with the economy first, and has done quite a bit about the environment also. But if it had been more normal circumstances, I think he would have done more. And in his second term, I expect him to- although, as I said before, we will need to keep the pressure  up.

                            But I believe the President knows the stakes and cares about his daughters and the world they will inherit,

                            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                            by sewaneepat on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:20:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Since you bring up the snail darter, (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        A Siegel

                        the attempt to stop the Tellico Dam wasn't really about the snail darter. That was the legal pretext to try to stop construction.

                        But the real issues were twofold:

                        First, the hundreds of farmers and homeowners who were displaced from very fertile farmland, who were given a pittance for their land under eminent domain. Much of which land  TVA eventually sold at very high prices for lake side lots.

                        And secondly, the flooding not only of fertile farmland, but many historic Cherokee towns and villages (including the capital of Echota and Tanasi, which the state was named for), gravesites, and archeological sites going back 8000 years. So not only was it a desecration, but a great loss of history.

                        All for a frigging recreational lake, as if Tennessee didn't have many lakes. Tellico produces no electricity.

                        And the opponents had to use the only legal means to try to stop construction, so I certainly applaud them for trying to stop this boondoggle for the wealthy. However, the unintended consequence of using the snail darter was the perception that it was unnecessary and costly because the snail darter lives in many other rivers and streams in Tennessee.

                        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                        by sewaneepat on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 01:24:38 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  not much about climate there. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          the fan man

          An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

          by mightymouse on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:32:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Actually pay quite a bit of attention (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, the fan man

      and am involved.

      Are you asserting that President Obama and Vice-President Biden have been speaking frequently and forcefully on climate change?  

      Are you familiar with the research on the impact of Presidential and other political elite discussions on the public's understanding of the importance of and urgency of issues (like climate change)?

      Etc ...

      And, by the way, I often write on the very issues that you attack me for supposedly ignoring. How about my recent piece Office Waste is now on the FBI’s Most Wanted list? I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone else who wrote about this very interesting discussion at all.

      And, on climate silence ...

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

      by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:23:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    Barely.  Considering the size of the problem.

  •  The House passed a Cape & Trade bill in '09 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    barkworsethanbite, IreGyre

    the bill was stalled in the senate, of course. So it is not like Obama and the democrats have not tried to tackle Climate change.

    •  And ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      consider how / whether this is relevant to the diary.  A bill failed in 2009 (because, mainly, of Climate Zombie Rs but, well, the Ds had the House and Senate at that time), thus every thing else is excused?

      And, well, the diary gives reinforcing credit to the President's real achievements.

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

      by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 06:15:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The President gets it on the environment and (3+ / 0-)

    climate change.

    Those who don't realize this haven't been paying attention to actual U.S. policy in the last 4 years and the manner in which renewables have taken off while efficiency is increasing.  And all of that happened in spite of a recalcitrant dinosaur Republican Congress in the last two years.

    That's a substantial accomplishment in a nation where oil and gas interests are more powerful than in any other industrialized nation.

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

    by Lawrence on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:07:15 AM PDT

    •  Look ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      the diary is supportive and says positive (reinforcing things).

      Are you going to assert that oil drilling mania in "all of the above" is smart in climate terms?

      And, is there any indication that I haven't paid attention to "recalcitrant dinosaur Republican" climate zombies?

      Compare Obama's discussion of climate change in 2008 and 2012 ...

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

      by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 06:12:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As I've said before, the amount of oil being (0+ / 0-)

        drilled in the U.S. is not the critical issue in regards to the greenhouse effect, although it does strongly affect the trade deficit.

        The critical issue is how much oil and fossils are being used and whether the carbon intensity of the economy is rising or falling.  It is falling and renewables are kicking into gear.  That is what matters.

        And yes, "all of the above" can be a smart policy if it inevitably leads to renewables becoming less expensive than fossils, which is the course that we are set on right now.

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

        by Lawrence on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 02:09:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Rebecca Leber wrote (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel, RF, mightymouse, Albanius

    in Climate Progress/Think Progress (10/26/2012)

    Media have dubbed the hurricane barreling toward the mid-Atlantic and northeast a “Frankenstorm.” But despite the hysteria surrounding Hurricane Sandy, not one major newspaper has reported the scientifically established link that carbon pollution fuels more extreme weather.

    In the last week, Sandy has been mentioned in at least 94 stories in major newspapers. Yet a Nexis search found that zero of these stories mentioned “climate change,” “global warming,” or even “extreme weather.”

    As long as the "masters of the universe" can keep these extreme weather events as separate events and not tied into global warming they can have their cake and eat it too.  One side (the "moderate" Dems) are looking at climate change as an energy problem.  That is why they are insistent for the  "all of  above" approach, including more drilling for oil, fracking more gas, and digging up more coal.  Of course they are also for more solar and wind energy, but it is in tandem with the old oil.  Had we started on this path in the 70's (remember Carter?) we would have had a fairly smooth transition to a more sustainable lifestyle.  The other side (traditional and Tea Partiers) want to squeeze every last ounce of carbon out of the earth with the belief that there will be some kind of technological breakthrough that will stop climate change in its tracks.  

    As long as our political leaders and our media don't make the connection of our storms being on steroids due to climate change, we will continue to watch these storms as something other than climate change.  And the longer we go without really solid lifestyle changes,  the worse it is going to be for all life on earth.

    •  Can you do me a favor ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RF, maryabein, mightymouse

      and post this comment to Darksyde's science post on the front page? I just did a comment there and had wanted to post link to the item you quoted but forgot where I'd seen it and, well, wanted to put up the comment. Your comment is highly relevant there because Darksyde doesn't mention climate change and suggests that Sandy isn't out of line with past weather events.

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

      by A Siegel on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 06:14:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, except that needed change is more... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      A Siegel

      in the area of massive investments and changes in institutions than lifestyle.  Living sustainably will entail some lifestyle changes, as Bill McKibben say, fewer belongings and more belonging.  But very few people will live sustainably unless the economic and technological systems make such choices practical.  

      But living in solar homes, driving electric cars, etc would not be disruptive lifestyle changes. If renewable generation of electricity is phased in it would be practically invisible on the houshold level.  Eating lower on the food chain would be a lifestyle change; it would also increase life expectancy and improve quality of life.

      There's no such thing as a free market!

      by Albanius on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 08:00:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I sent this to my local newspaper (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel

    Climate change was not raised during the four debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. However, President Obama and Mr. Romney addressed climate change in a recent on-line science debate sponsored by Scientific America and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

    President Obama sees climate change as “one of the biggest issues of this generation.” He touts “investments in clean energy,” “reduced carbon emissions with the Federal Government,” “reducing dependence on foreign oil,” and establishing “standards limiting greenhouse emissions from our vehicles.”

    After playing the role of climate denier during the GOP/TEA party presidential primaries, Romney shook his Etch a Sketch. As of September believes, “the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributed to that warming, and that policy makers therefore consider the risk of negative consequences.”

    For solutions, he rejects both the Democrat’s carbon tax and Republican’s cap and trade. He promotes a “No Regrets” policy where the Federal government subsidizes big oil and coal. He calls for “robust government funding for research on effective, low emissions technologies.” Additionally, he champions reducing government regulations and “a wave of investment in nuclear power.”

    For Obama and Romney answers to all the science questions go to: http://www.sciencedebate.org/...
     

    I don't know what consciousness is or how it works, but I like it.

    by SocioSam on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 06:39:44 AM PDT

  •  Sway would do a better job than Gregory hosting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel

    Meet The Press

    Just sayin

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 06:53:56 AM PDT

  •  the title says it all (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel, TJ

    MTV?

    This is like his earlier interview with Rolling Stone - he needs votes from these people.

    An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

    by mightymouse on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:21:57 AM PDT

  •  Actually, it DID come up implicitly in 3d debate.. (0+ / 0-)

    when Schieffer asked what is the greatest national security threat we face.

    There's no such thing as a free market!

    by Albanius on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:50:21 AM PDT

  •  Are People can stop the climate change? (0+ / 0-)

    Are People can stop the climate change? Are the people can stop Climate change.
    In my opinion they are cannot because people very lot of words talking only talking and not doing.
    Especially politics are talking, promising and result is none.
    It happening that the corporations govern and politics doing that they are order him.
    Regards

JekyllnHyde, jillian, Bill in Portland Maine, filkertom, melo, mwm341, kate mckinnon, ORDem, Gooserock, RunawayRose, wytcld, Bob Love, wu ming, eeff, willyr, Duncan Idaho, frisco, Creosote, raines, missLotus, wonkydonkey, whenwego, Ignacio Magaloni, jennifree2bme, pollwatcher, Quege, hangingchad, Miss Jones, Lawrence, TiaRachel, yet another liberal, betson08, The Zipper, kalmoth, Mi Corazon, riverlover, kismet, Matt Esler, ybruti, mungley, KayCeSF, tomjones, Albanius, sebastianguy99, G2geek, maybeeso in michigan, JanetT in MD, subtropolis, YucatanMan, Laurence Lewis, eru, Burned, Cecile, coloradorob, peacestpete, JanF, mightymouse, fhcec, xaxnar, begone, Nowhere Man, MadGeorgiaDem, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, flying shams, tonyahky, victoria2dc, koNko, Magnifico, Lefty Coaster, TalkieToaster, global citizen, Ashaman, SingerInTheChoir, inner light, democracy is coming, One Pissed Off Liberal, pgm 01, FoundingFatherDAR, Chief9toe, puakev, FishOutofWater, jhop7, uciguy30, Assaf, Roger Fox, TX Freethinker, MikePhoenix, Cordwainer, Foundmyvoice, Akonitum, jamess, Lujane, Cassandra Waites, mofembot, petulans, matching mole, sewaneepat, toom, SolarMom, jlms qkw, Mrs M, bleuet, greengemini, welso, bsmechanic, maryabein, rem123, susanWAstate, dRefractor, michlawa2, Virginian in Spain, elziax, glitterlust, jazzence, Denise Oliver Velez, IDrankWhat, sfarkash, mahakali overdrive, citisven, Laurilei, KroneckerD, flitedocnm, LaughingPlanet, barkworsethanbite, seishin, SeattleTammy, secret38b, RJP9999, cordgrass, dustb, samanthab, sharonsz, rja, nirbama, ericlewis0, slice, dot farmer, kerflooey, meralda, spooks51, freesia, BlueJessamine, Alice Olson, takatobimasu, MysteriousEast, thomask, Grandma Susie, just another vortex, Catlady62, LaurenMonica, RLMiller, ParkRanger, MichaelNY, quill, KiB, Catskill Julie, ahumbleopinion, AreDeutz, helenh1967, jan4insight, tytalus, james321, Glen The Plumber, hungeski, peptabysmal, CalBearMom, Hammerhand, John Crapper, DamselleFly, poopdogcomedy, leeleedee, Icicle68, Smoh, martianexpatriate, jmwalters, shinobi9, thatpj, malevola

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site