Skip to main content

Last Tuesday evening, President Obama warned Congress that he would use  executive authority to act on climate change is Congress continues to prove itself unwilling and unable to take action.

for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change. ... I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change... But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.
There are things that are Executive Branch decisions, arenas where the President can act without asking "Mother, May I" of Representative John Boehner and that too large a cohort of anti-science syndrome sufferers in charge of the U.S. House of Representatives.

One arena: determining whether industrial projects that cross international borders are in the national interest. Top of the political agenda right now: Keystone XL pipeline.

The decision should be simple as the Keystone XL pipeline is not in the U.S. national interest for a range of economic and environmental reasons. Sadly, the reality of Keystone XL has been masked by $10s of millions (if not $100s of millions) of propaganda distorting its economic implications and downplaying its climate change impacts (in the shadow of $billions spent to undermine understanding of and action on climate change). And, sadly, the State Department process has had serious flaws (ethical, technical, analytical) that have surfaced and suggesting that the clarity of how Keystone XL is not in U.S. national interest has been clouded in the Department's review. Those propaganda efforts and inadequacies in review process don't change reality.  Fundamentally, Keystone XL will undermine U.S. economic performance while fostering ever mounting climate change pollution.

While Keystone XL, in and of itself, will not guarantee that we have crossed the Rubicon to unstoppable catastrophic climate chaos, the reality is dire and, well, rather terrifying. We now face a simple reality,

Specifically and categorically, we must cease making large, long-term capital investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure that “locks in” dangerous emission levels for many decades.   Keystone is a both a conspicuous example of that kind of investment and a powerful symbol for the whole damned category.
To summarize, The Keystone Principle is simple:
The afternoon of 17 February 2013, Americans in their thousands, in their 10s of thousands will be#ForwardOnClimate in front of the White House calling on the President to take action in line with his State of the Union declaration that "we must do more to combat climate change."

Mr. President, it is time to stop waffling and draw the line in the sand against fossil foolishness and "cease making large, long-term capital investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure that “locks in” dangerous emission levels for many decades."

Please take the moments to watch the video from last week's civil disobedience action in front of the White House.

And, call on the White House to move #ForwardOnClimate

6:52 AM PT: NOTE that waffle has a meaning.  Sadly, however, the RWSM can capture something.  Those who made the graphic used in this diary and, by extension, my use of the word "waffling" in the title sadly could be construed in the context of racist attacks on Presidential-candidate Barack Obama in 2008 (see, for example, here:  I do not see it appropriate to change title/remove the graphic, because "waffling" is an appropriate word when looking at occasional strong words (SOTU) and good action (CAFE standards) on climate change 'balanced' by moves that foster / support fossil fuel use.  

There is a philosophical challenge/issue, in part: do we abandon all language and metaphors that the RWSM have (ab)used?  There is no simple answer to that ...

7:49 AM PT: UPDATE:  Live video feed from rally starting at about 11:50 Eastern:

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

  •  Wish I weren't so skeptical (13+ / 0-)

    A guy who won't even buy American made solar panels to out of his house is hardly a climate hawk.   Great talk, but not a lot more.  Grist is reporting there's no interest in regulating existing plants

    Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

    by Mindful Nature on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 09:12:50 PM PST

  •  Obama is a second term (16+ / 0-)


    his epa is as free as ever to act :)

    john kerry is strong on climate

    Obama is working on international agreements so china can lower their pollution rates

  •  I think that Keystone XL will be the tell on how (27+ / 0-)

    serious the president is/will be on Global Climate Change.

    "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

    by elwior on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 10:50:22 PM PST

  •  Announce a moratorium... (18+ / 0-)

    on all fossil fuel leases on public land and all new fossil fuel infrastructure until cap and dividend passes. Obama needs to realize he's not going to talk or negotiate the Republicans into going along. He needs to make it more costly for the fossil fuel companies to oppose the legislation than it is for them to support it. That should be the goal of activists too, whether or not we have Obama with us, which is why Blockade and Idle No More are the most important protest movements the planet has ever seen.

    Passive renunciation is not the whole of wisdom.

    by play jurist on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 12:46:15 AM PST

  •  I am cautiously optimistic but (7+ / 0-)

    if it was football and the refs were trying to determine a first down or not it would require a measurement.   I'm concerned we'll get tighter emissions standards for coal plants and the approval of KXL concurrently.  

    If we really want to straighten out all this crap we really need to think about shit - Holy Shit.

    by John Crapper on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 01:00:03 AM PST

    •  I think something similar will happen as well. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      A Siegel

      Obama likes to "balance" things or go the route that he perceives to be the most middle.  I think that means the pipeline gets built with a promise of implementing more green energy sources.  I hope I am wrong, but his approach has been drill more while promoting solar and wind so I think it is a safe assumption that the pipeline decision will be similar.

  •  Perhaps our best hope (6+ / 0-)

    ... is if his children get after him about it.

    Mark Twain: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

    by Land of Enchantment on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 05:31:16 AM PST

  •  Obama waffles (5+ / 0-)

    What's for breakfast? Great diary, the push is on and Obama has urged us to use direct call methods to our leaders.

    I assume that means he wants to hear directly from us on climate change. Lets do that.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 05:56:15 AM PST

  •  Right wing "terminology" alert: "Waffle" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sebastianguy99, elwior, JoanMar

    This word has been used by the right wing since the early 2008 election campaign days. It has been used as a derogatory meme, including the using of Obama's pic on "waffle" cereal boxes.  

    If you have an issue with the president's handling of climate change subject then you have a right to protest, by all means. Using the well known right wing meme however is not the way to do it. Furthermore, using of this term in your title makes me wonder about your intentions.

    "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

    by zenox on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:20:21 AM PST

    •  Okay ... (11+ / 0-)

      1. Did not make the connection to cereal boxes / such, but was prompted to this by the graphic from Climate Solutions.

      2.  Are 'questioning intentions" due to the right-wing framing that you are tying it to?  

      Honestly, it is hard to keep track of all the different framing / issues / etc and this passed me -- and, likely, Climate Solutions -- by.

      Sigh, and now that I search, I see partially why -- this was (is) ugly in its racist connection but dates back four years.  Note that the image is radically different from that "Aunt Jemima" racism and the picture today. "Waffle" is a word, with a meaning. Do we have to abandon all words that the right wing sound machine uses / abuses?

      PS:  Can't see that changing title is appropriate at this time but will add a note with link to that Think Progress piece.

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

      by A Siegel on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:47:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  'Waffle' means not just breakfast, (5+ / 0-)

        but farting around when one is faced w/a tough either/or decision.

        Some people make u want to change species! --ulookarmless, quoted w/his permission: RIP good man.

        by orlbucfan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:30:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you for looking up for the word. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        A Siegel, elwior, JoanMar, Quicklund

        Four years seem to be a long time but in the face of ugliness we have experienced and continue to experience, I have become rather sensitive.

        Especially certain words have lasting impact.

        "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

        by zenox on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:47:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Note that I appreciate calling attention (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, zenox, pgm 01, Cartoon Messiah

          to this issue / word implication.  Honestly, I think the call out was a bit stronger than necessary. However, again, I do appreciate having the call out because it is important to recognize/realize when we might be falling into a trap of echoing/reinforcing RWSM inadvertently.  Again, I don't think that is the case here but believe the note that I added to diary, at your prompting, is a valuable addition.

          And, really, I don't think that it is the "word" here but the ugly racist imaging that went along with it.

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

          by A Siegel on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:52:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Given the unfortunate history of the image, (0+ / 0-)

        it is worth considering the dissociation of your diary from this right-wing meme.

        It does, of course, have a longer history, if I recall correctly: Bill Clinton was famously depicted as a stack of waffles in the Doonsebury cartoon, apparently owing to his indeterminate stand on certain issues. (Gary Trudeau gave his readers a choice between waffles and a coin toss as the image for Clinton. My personal fave, though, was Arnie Schwartznegger depicted as a giant menacing hand, with the press referring to him as "Herr Gropenfuherer.")

        All this being said, we're not strict constructionists here. The significance of the image can't be reduced to its initial meaning, but must also reflect the additional meanings it has taken on since then. If the stack of waffles was once a benign signifier of Clinton's "waffling," the association of the image with the reactionary, racist legacy of Aunt Jemima in Obama's case is now part of that history -- and it's a part that a progressive blog would do well to avoid.

        Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

        by Dale on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 10:02:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Nice Waffle Picture (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel, elwior

    Ah yes, the picture that speaks a thousand words. I'm gathering that that is not dark blueberry syrup getting poured onto those tasty waffles....


  •  The pipeline will be completed. Stop the delusions (4+ / 0-)

    Keystone is a done deal. If you don't know that already then shame on you for pretending civil disobedience at this stage in it's development will change the outcome.

    Admitting that activists have failed to galvanize the general public is an essential step in realizing the massive change that is needed. The other side talks of jobs and energy independence and our side talks about being victims. Who do you think the public is more apt to listen to?

    Making President Obama the main obstacle to change or pretending that stopping Keystone will indicate some significant and substantial advance is magical thinking. Thinking that the changes needed are going to come from the top-down, is also magical thinking.

    We must learn to deliver votes, not just take them away. We must organize and motivate enough of the general public to demand that the country get off dirty energy. We have do that, not the politicians.

    Blaming politicians for not conquering dirty energy by themselves is counterproductive. Time to start talking to people and talking about jobs and quality of life. If we cannot talk to people who do not care about this issue as deeply as we do and convince them, then there is only so much that can be done by government.

    This is going to be a long and hard fight and we do not have time to waste on lost causes and our own noble victimhood. It should be obvious by now that people don't care.

    We need to speak in plain language and stop trying to relate to people as if everyone is prepared to discuss the latest white paper.If we don't focus on the general public and their insecurities about change, then it will be our fault.

    "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

    by sebastianguy99 on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:47:26 AM PST

    •  A bottom up approach is absurd. Stop the delusion (10+ / 0-)

      To pretend that we can just go around and talk to people about jobs and we'll convince them that their children are about to live (or die) in an unimaginable climate hell, and then they'll stop using dirty energy is absurd, and shame on  you.

      We will never get people to stop using dirty energy, as long as it's cheaper than clean energy.  We must make clean electricity, clean heating and cooling, and clean transportation, cheaper than dirty energy.

      This will need to be a campaign of deception, and it will have to come from the government.  The people on this planet will simply not sacrifice the conveniences of today, for their childrens lives and well being tomorrow.

      Remove the subsidies for dirty energy and increase the subsidies for clean energy, and do it in the name of deficit reduction and jobs.  A dramatic increase in research funding for inductively energized electric cars, battery technology, super insulation...  all in the names of dominating future industries and creating American jobs.

      The frontal assault on stopping pipelines, stopping off shore drilling, stopping refinaries... have mostly failed and the few successes have only been temporary and have to be fought over and over and over again.

      Making Alt-E cheap, without emphasizing global warming, is our only hope of getting the sheep to do what is needed to save their lambs.

      •  Actually ... (9+ / 0-)

        frontal assault on coal plants, for example, is working. And, efforts re pipelines/such have put sand in the gears.

        And, by the way, I don't see / agree that this "needs to be a campaign of deception".  If one is honest about costs, then there is zero deception required -- clean energy + efficiency is less expensive if one actually considers "externalities" in any serious way.

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

        by A Siegel on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:43:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Many good points made (6+ / 0-)

        But one big hole

         A bottom up approach is absurd. Stop the delusion
        A bottom-up solution is the only solution in a representative  democracy. Otherwise electeced officials will go along the path of least resistance. And as you have ably pointed out, that path is the fossil fuel path. Because it is cheaper and easier to use and will stay so w/o some form of forced turn off our current path.

        How is such a forced turn accomplished? By a politician signing a piece of paper that 80% of the public hates? No, that last's exactly as long as that politician stays in office.

        American will have to choose to live for themselves.

      •  This site is about a bottom-up approach (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You've been here long enough to know that.

        If we do not have the public behind us then we will fail. Believing that government alone is going to be able to solve this issue is a position that the public has been trained to ignore by the better organized opposition.

        Your comment is an example of what I am talking about. While you talk about making dirty energy more expensive for working people,the other side is talking jobs and energy independence. You are correct of course, but if we cannot approach the issue at the kitchen table level, then people will continue to ignore us and delay change.

        I'm sorry, but Keystone is a lost cause. Even if it was stopped, they could find an alternative route that would be just as damaging to the environment, if not worse.

        Let's concentrate on the big picture and not trying to make Keystone as some kind of line in the sand.

        "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

        by sebastianguy99 on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 11:24:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  So ... (6+ / 0-)

      Perhaps you've missed hundreds of my diaries which talk about jobs and talk about how cleaning up the energy world will provide benefits to people.  Or those talking about the political value streams of talking about / tackling climate and energy issues.  Or those helping fundraise and activate related to these subjects. (Yes ... know this happens all the time ... Have had personal thanks from a number of elected officials for this assistance with one (relatively senior) giving a meaningful explanation why this was (with several other energy activists) a tipper in the campaign that is one of several items that led to narrow victory.

      I agree that "latest white paper" is no small challenge. I'm analyst by personal vocation and profession.  The "thought" world is where comfort lies. Have to struggle not to write / think / talk like an analyst.  

      On the other hand, I think the broad-stroked attack nature of the comment is (as per above) misplaced -- and far from just me.

      As for Keystone XL, before the major protests started most of those involved actually thought it likely to be a done deal.  Hmmm ... two years after the discussions leading to this anti-KXL movement the approval that was assume to be coming in fall 2011 hasn't occurred.

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

      by A Siegel on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:26:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  By the way ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      A good share of you "we need" and calls for "focus" are, as per my comment above, things that I agree with.  

      But, it seems that much of your comment is strawman material not just against me but against many who do account for these very sort of "need" and "must" items/approaches.

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

      by A Siegel on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:45:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We're on the same side. The Left loves to attack (0+ / 0-)'s allies if they differ in approach, emphasis, strategy, and/or timing.

        You can mock me all you'd like, but Keystone will be built and increasing energy prices by fiat, without widespread consensus will only ensure change will not happen anytime soon.

        "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

        by sebastianguy99 on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 11:32:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Money trumps activism (3+ / 0-)

    Almost always. People fought hard where I live to stop one of the largest coal fired power plants in the US from building a toxic coal ash waste dump in a floodplain. In a fucking floodplain! Who would even propose such an idiotic thing after the TVA disaster? Yet, after years of fighting it, big money crushed the opposition.

    I've tossed up my hands at the whole thing. Obama can make fancy speeches about climate change all he wants to but the fact is we don't live in a democracy. At best you can slow the pace of the XL project and get some safeguards included that otherwise would not be there, but I will be stunned if it gets stopped under this administration or any other. And if it does get stopped by Obama big money will live on to push it through under the next administration, or the next. Greed doesn't have term limits.

    •  Okay .. (7+ / 0-)

      so giving up means losing, no matter what.  This is an uphill struggle -- on climate change, on removing dirty money from politics, on stopping Keystone Xl, on ...

      But, well, wasn't "the money" with slavery?  With the factory owner fighting safety laws and to keep child labor and ...?

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

      by A Siegel on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:15:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "the money" with slavery? Hmm, given the outcry (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        by Northern elites against slavery, I'd have to question that. Historically speaking.

        And again, historically speaking, one has to wonder what influence powerful liberals had in actually forcing change on any of those topics. Seems the path of government has always been a battle between the elites.

        Now that can be a good thing considering given the efforts modern powerful elite liberals are putting into climate change action. But then, one has to wonder just how many powerful liberals there are in our modern society.

        What's sorely missing, though, for sure, is a powerful liberal in the White House with the ability or willingness to talk directly to the people and fire them up. Even the State of the Union comes off like a negotiator between the two sides of the elite.

        Now, unfortunately, is not the time for a Moderator-in-Chief. And yet...

        Physics is bulls**t. Don't let them fool you. Fire IS magic.

        by Pescadero Bill on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 09:10:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ok, so if you don't think Obama will do it, are (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Steve Canella

          you going to wait for a "magic liberal" to arise?

          Our job is much bigger than any such hero can accomplish.  Blocking Keystone won't save us, nor will cutting CO2 emissions from coal plants.  We have to turn around (to end, basically) the fossil fuel economy, in a few short years.  It's the biggest industry on Earth, and we need it. Our food, our heat, our transportation, even our clothing is all fossil fuels.  Alternative energy fantasies are just that, when one looks at the actual numbers and factor in how long it takes to mobilize, etc.

          It's us who have to do this.  Not somebody else, not even a President.

  •  Just took the opportunity (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel, elwior, dewley notid, Quicklund

    to drop an e-mail in the White House mailbox about this.  I should be up at the demonstration, I'm so close now, but I got distracted by the weather yesterday (rain, snow, sleet, not that common in Richmond VA!) and forgot all about it.  Still, anyone interested in this diary and online should consider that dropping another note in the box in support of the marchers can't hurt, and might increase the impact.

  •  As in we don't need nuke power? That waffling? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    We are at 400ppm CO2, and lots of supposedly smart people keep saying we can get CO2 negative, get rid of coal, oil, fracking and tar sands without nukes. Nope, it isn't going to happen.

    If the anti-nuke crowd hadn't refused to listen to the climate change warnings 30 years ago, when I did, then we may not even have a use for the tar sands today. But we turned our back on 21st century science and embraced the 19th.

    The waffling was done decades ago by those who thought we could support 7 billion people without fully embracing nuclear power. I can only say to you, we knew this day would come if people refused to act.  But there was always a "very good reason" to choose more CO2 over science. Always a reason why nuclear power could never be done better and why we had to just burn a little more coal until we go "100% solar"

    Wake up!  100 years from now we will still be burning c oak and tar sands. That is the price of waffling on nuclear technology.

    •  So .... (6+ / 0-)

      How does nuke power -- unless we have massive shift to electrification of transportation (which I support, such as Steel Interstates) -- relate to Keystone XL and Tar Sands?

      Also, you will be hard pressed (actually, I'd say impossible but can't remember every word of every one of 1000s of blog posts and 10,000s of comments) to find me opposing nuclear power on anything other than questioning time to implement and fiscal costs compared to other opportunities.  As a good example of my views in this domain, see America Can Break Its Coal Addiction! (Or: no, coal isn’t necessary).  My real shift, which I've never written, is that I think SMRs are the right arena for 'investment' in the nuclear electricity world rather than large scale plants as the norm due to financing benefits and flexibility that 'small' creates.

      While I am not anti-nuke, it is frustrating when "pro-nuke" advocacy relies on attacking other (often complementary) paths toward reducing fossil-foolish dependencies.

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

      by A Siegel on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:20:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Electric transportation - exacty (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, Quicklund, Whatithink, A Siegel

        I was involved early on in some of the engineering for electric and hybrid vehicles.  Want to know what the pushback was in the early 90s against electrics?  Why the EV1 was killed?

        It was - "electric cars are charged by coal powerplants, so all it does is shift the polution from gasoline to coal, there's no difference".  That is the hard truth.  If we'd replaced all coal with nuclear that argument could not have been made.  All rail could be 100% electric today.

        Also, look at jet airliners.  They will be buning kerosene for the next 100 years also.  But a nuclear powerplant can use electricity, waste heat and C02 to manufacture hydrocarbon fuels.  A nuclear power plant absolutely can replace all the need for tar sands.  We could already be there.

        I don't care what you personally believe.  I'm talking about the collective opinion of millions.  We knew in the early 90s that this day would come, here it is and I'm not the least bit surprised.  I've watched people waffle over climate change for decades, refusing to accept reality.

  •  Liberals and progressives are often quick to give (6+ / 0-)

    up vocabulary because conservatives have twisted the meanings of words. It's about time we began to own our messaging.

  •  Amen. Start using the words w/their correct (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel, elwior, Chi, stagemom, hooper

    meanings. Prime Example: Lobby means bribing--period. So call it exactly what it is: bribing.

    Some people make u want to change species! --ulookarmless, quoted w/his permission: RIP good man.

    by orlbucfan on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:38:19 AM PST

    •  Actually, Miriam-Webster (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, A Siegel

      defines the word "lobby" as a corridor or hall connected to a larger room [anteroom of a legislative chamber, or large hall serving as a foyer of a hotel or theater]. Second definition is:

      a group of persons engaged in lobbying especially as representatives of a particular interest group
      Dictionary dot com expands to object and non-object verb usage to:
      4. to solicit or try to influence the votes of members of a legislative body 5. to try to influence the actions of; and 6. to urge or procure the passage of a bill, by lobbying
      Of course 'influence' can be purchased with cash and/or gifts. It can also be inspired by facts and persuasive arguments. Either way, the 'influence' is attempted through advocacy of the desired outcome. Thus "lobby" does not MEAN "bribery," though bribery can be a tool of lobbyists in pursuit of their advocated position.

      We here at DKos do quite a lot of lobbying in an effort to get our policies enacted (or bad policies un-enacted) through influence of our phone calls, letters and petitions.

  •  Ha! Good luck with that. (nm) (0+ / 0-)


    The nine most terrifying words in the english language . . . "I'm George Bush, we're here to liberate your country"

    by TiredOfGOPLies on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:49:17 AM PST

  •  You diary makes no sense (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    You say "stop waffling" but you provide no evidence of any waffling, since his SOTU speech.

    In other words, you're criticizing something that hasn't happened.

    Of course, around this place nowadays, we got all sorts of people criticizing everything Democrat and Democratic, so no surprise.

    Someone please get me out of this alternate reality...I can't take it any more!

    by Cinnamon Rollover on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 07:56:45 AM PST

    •  Yeah, his presidency didn't start (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      A Siegel

      last Tuesday night.
         I am encouraged by what I heard that night, but I'll keep pushing, and hope for the best coming from the president.
         I do believe his heart's in the right place, but we need real and strong action.
         We shall see what we shall see.

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:33:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  To repeat a comment below (0+ / 0-)

      Perhaps read the linked item on the SOTU.  Within the speech, itself, we have a form of 'waffling' -- trying to have both sides at the same time. We need to act on climate change, but let's brag about pumping more oil and speak praise for natural gas.  We can't do both.  

      And, well, how much of a diary should I have written -- Presidential candidate and President-elect Obama as Climate Hawk who quickly walks away from discussing it for years of near climate silence and promotion of many fossil foolish policies to not discussing climate change (essentially) at all during the 2012 campaign to some discussion in the SOTU.  And, well, a mix of great and utterly mediocre (if not bad) policies over the past four years.  Sorry, everything doesn't start in a 100% refresh from one speech.

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

      by A Siegel on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 03:37:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  With our current captured government (5+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure if there is anyone in DC willing and able stop this juggernaut.

    Enough people disobeying civilly probably could. Protest every inch of the damn thing in every way possible.  The biggest human rights issue of all is keeping the planet habitable enough for a future civilization.

    Or what passes for civilization anyway.

  •  Re: Waffling (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Use the term if you want. But to use it in the same week the SOTU A referred to CC (for the 1st time?) and the same week two senators followed up on the topic, makes it sound like you have a tin ear. It is possible to persuade people - your natural allies even - through rhetoric other than derision.

    •  Actually ... (0+ / 0-)

      Perhaps read the linked item on the SOTU.  Within the speech, itself, we have a form of 'waffling' -- trying to have both sides at the same time. We need to act on climate change, but let's brag about pumping more oil and speak praise for natural gas.  We can't do both.  

      And, well, how much of a diary should I have written -- Presidential candidate and President-elect Obama as Climate Hawk who quickly walks away from discussing it for years of near climate silence and promotion of many fossil foolish policies to not discussing climate change (essentially) at all during the 2012 campaign to some discussion in the SOTU.  And, well, a mix of great and utterly mediocre (if not bad) policies over the past four years.  Sorry, everything doesn't start in a 100% refresh from one speech.

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

      by A Siegel on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 03:02:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Shrug (0+ / 0-)

        It should be obvious to you how many comments you had to generate over your choice of the word 'waffling'. It got in the way of your message. It stole your time. But if that's what you prefer so be it.

  •  This will probably get me HR'd but I think we all (0+ / 0-)

    know the President is a liar and you shouldn't expect shit from him on this.

    Or maybe some meaningless scraps ballooned up with some strong words.

    And it's not gong to matter how much fire liberals hold his feet to, he's not going to care.

    He's not going to do shit.

    collards, meat, butter, sourdough, eggs, cheese, raw milk

    by Tirge Caps on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 09:11:02 AM PST

  •  My only caveat to your excellent post (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quicklund, elwior, KenBee

    is this:  we as citizens have done very little since The Carter administration and our first fuel crisis.  I suspect some of us joined the mockery when Pres. Carter promoted conservation and wearing sweaters rather than cranking the thermostat up.  

    If we'd started 40 years ago we wouldn't be a car-dependent or fossil fuel wasting nation.  Asking the President to stop promoting energy independence is holding him accountable for the choices we've made.  If we're all willing to stop driving until electric cars can be made less expensive and electricity less destructive environmentally I'm all for ending drilling, fracking, refining.  

    We're also responsible for educating our fellow citizens about the sheer idiocy of Keystone XL.  No jobs, we get the pollution, oil companies and refineries get the money, China gets the oil.  Remember that few in this country are aware that the JOBS!  JOBS!  JOBS! Party has created about 15 jobs since 2010, destroyed tens of thousands. I brought this up with a relatively conservative friend who is convinced that Dems in the Senate are killing the jobs bills House Republicans pass.  Like the No Abortions Jobs Bill and the Kill the ACA Jobs Bill, and the No Regulations on Banks Jobs Bill.   Killing Keystone requires more than petitions and marches.  Our asses need to be the on the frontline with reality.

    I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

    by I love OCD on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 10:06:43 AM PST

  •  Hopefully Hillary's depature will help. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, A Siegel

    Environmentalists should look long and hard at how Hillary's State Dept handled Keystone before supporting her for President. It was nearly the administration's biggest scandal.

  •  the fossil fuel-igarchy resembles the Slaveocracy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ZhenRen, elwior, KenBee

    that dominated American politics in the 1850s. All the efforts by the best minds in the country to come up with some kind of reasonable compromise, make the slavery-industrial complex see reason, were for naught. A Civil War was needed to decide that issue. A conflict of comparable magnitude--though not necessarily an actual war--will be needed to decide this one.

    Obama is not going to be swayed by reasonable argument. Anyhow, we're not really talking to him. We're talking to the oil companies.

    As far as they're concerned, the time for talk is over. They let Obama kick the can down the road so he could get reelected: OK, done. Now, time for him to approve the pipeline. There are no other choices on the table, nor ever were. This was always the plan, and none of us in the 99% ever had a say in it.

    The oil companies are like a blind, mindless, creature that has only one desire, to devour everything in its path. All they care about is maximizing profit. They cannot be reasoned with. Appeals to national interest, to solidarity, to simple human decency, are useless on them.

    They control every lever of power. They own the government, they own the police, they own the military, they own the media. They will respond to rational argument with brute force.

    This is not a democracy anymore, and things like "rights" and "due process" no longer have any real meaning. The government is no longer a barrier between the raw power of the corporations and the populace. If protesters seriously impede the building of the pipeline, don't expect Obama to use his office to defend their rights. The oil companies will demand that the government use force to protect their interests, and the government will obey.

    I suspect the current wave of protests will serve to disabuse activists of the belief that politely requesting politicians, and hint at the magnitude of what's needed. A nationwide #Occupy the Climate movement.

    There seems to be a common misunderstanding about how civil disobedience works. It's not that the opposition is moved by the protesters'sincerity and has a change of heart. It's that the protest is so large and disruptive that the opposition decides that the bad PR (or other consequences) from beating and arresting and killing protesters outweighs the benefits of continuing with the status quo, and is forced to change course.

    Read about Gandhi's Salt March and other famous acts of nonviolent resistance. They were much larger in scale than this one, and they were intended to be so totally disruptive that the powers that be have no choice but to turn aside.

    Nonviolent protest is a use of force--nonviolent force, but force nonetheless. Only when the nonviolent force outweighs the violent force can it be successful.

    Only a mass, direct blockade of the pipeline has any chance of success. A protest in front of the WH doesn't actually impede the pipeline's construction. The police will arrest a few people, then release them after a couple days because they're no real threat to the project. It will be relatively civilized because they can afford to be civilized.

    But if about fifty thousand people all across the country did the same as that pastor who chained himself to the pipeline, and actually made it impossible for the pipeline to be built, then you will see real pushback from the oil companies.

    The cops will stop being civilized and start throwing people into detention en masse, and using violence. They will start disappearing people into jail without charges, and worse.

    And be prepared to be smeared in the media. They will pour torrents of filth on the heads of those who block the pipeline, deriding the protesters as eco-terrorists and Communist subversives who are out to destroy America. You will hear Erin Burnett on CNN suggesting openly that the government shoot the protesters.

    A lot of environmentalists view themselves as upstanding, law-abiding citizens. But for the pro-pipeline forces, they are radical anarchists who are seeking to destroy what they hold dearest: their profit margin. And if that's how the oil companies see the protesters, that will be the way the government sees them.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 11:40:08 AM PST

    •  I agree with most of this except... (0+ / 0-)

      the particular usage of the term anarchist, which doesn't at all mean what you're using the term to mean.

      The original term means libertarian socialism, a highly rationally organized, egalitarian society, not chaos or social disintegration.

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 12:14:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mr President, You are wrong at the start (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel, Steve Canella
    "We will respond to the threat of climate change..."
    Threat? The climate has already been damaged. Significant additional changes are built in at 400ppm of CO2. The oceans have risen 6"+ along the Eastern Seaboard. Intense storms are already a reality. A much drier grain belt in the US is already happening. Forest fires are more frequent. You can measure the Ph of the oceans. Ocean acidification will eventually produce a desert for aquatic life. You can measure elevated average global temperatures and significant increases are already built-in.

    Try this Mr. President:

    "We will take all steps necessary to repair existing climate damage and to prevent further deterioration of the Earth's biosphere. We cannot continue to release sequestered carbon from the under the surface of the planet and must call on all technical resources to convert to a sustainable civilization as quickly as possible. Continuing on our present course will result in human suffering on a scale never imagined."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site