According to this CNN article, it’s a call to arms from the White House regarding climate change (there is a video embedded in the story, but you can shut that down and read the article if that annoys you). Sounds like Obama plans to push his executive powers to do everything he can to start changing the US carbon foot print.
How much can he do on his own? Will he be able to rally enough congressional support to do more? What impact will anything he does have on actual climate change? Obviously there are going to be some sacrifices that Americans are going to be asked to make, but will any of it make any difference to the global carbon foot print?
Unless a miracle happens, the Republicans well maintain control of the House in November, and if not take over the Senate, will increase their numbers in that body. He won’t get any cooperation from Congress, so per the article, it’s going to have to be whatever he can do by executive order.
I’m still hoping for that miracle. But unless the Democrats get 60+ seats in the Senate and control of the House, any action on global warming is impossible. The Republicans have so successfully brainwashed their base that they now must either admit that they are wrong or else trigger an ecological catastrophe. Sadly, Republicans think ecological catastrophe is acceptable when there is a Democrat in the White House.
This is why the few Republican climate scientists that are out there are leaving the Republican Party or becoming independent.
What IMHO needs to happen is for more independents and Republicans that appreciate science is to not standby and leave the extremists guide the agenda.
Otherwise what I foresee is an even worse collapse of the Republican party in the future when the issue becomes more dire and the Republican leaders are still in denial mode.
I foresee other “urgent issues” being frequently pushed by Obama et al in the run-up to the fall election, to counter “urgent” Republican issues and galvanize hesitant Democratic voters.*
First, eliminate the mandate for ethanol is gasoline. At best it’s useless at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and it’s bad for the environment in countless ways.
Second, reduce the size and activity of the U. S. military. I don’t think all those cruisers and F-22’s and tanks are powered by wind or hydrogen. The less they do, the less carbon dioxide they’ll emit.
Third, update the archaic air traffic control standards so that commercial airlines don’t have to waste so much fuel in the takeoff and landing stages.
Fourth, cancel the recent increase in required training for pilots. More training flights means more emissions.
Fifth, drop tariffs on foreign crops that can be used as biofuels.
These are things that Obama could either do my executive action or else have a reasonable chance of passing Congress.
Actually, I could go along with most if not all of those. Certainly we could do with less military, certainly planes could spend more time on the ground and ships more time at port. I’d let the FAA review the takeoff and landing procedures to introduce some efficiency if possible. As for biofuel, I’ll defer that to the scientists. If they say it’s at best neutral carbon benefit, then yes I’d cut the mandate.
Ooh, I just had another great idea for reducing carbon emissions.
Every weekday, tens of millions of American children are loaded into cars, trucks, SUVs, and large yellow busses and sent to large buildings known as public schools. Said public schools are then heated and air-conditioned to certain temperatures, lighted, and so forth. Clearly this represents an enormous potential savings of energy.
First of all, in some cities students are bussed long distances to schools merely in an attempt to achieve racial diversity. Plainly given the massive threat that global warming poses to our future, this racial diversity business must take a back seat. Cancel all such bussing and map districts such that all students go to the nearest school.
Second, online education is a growing field. Home-schooling grows ever more popular. The energy savings from these options are obvious. If students don’t have to drive to school every day, that means less fossil fuels being burned. The government should do everything it can to encourage home-schooling and online education. Even if a student can’t take all of his or her classes online, things should be arranged so that he or she can avoid coming to the school building once or twice per week. What’s not to like?
Third, who really needs all these extra-curriculars and field trips? What purposes is really served by bussing scores of football players, cheerleaders, coaches and fans from one high school to another? It’s a pure waste of energy.
Well, even his first post was a pile of small potatoes. I doubt the combined militaries of the world emit as much carbon as most large cities. Commercial air traffic is closer to the mark, but I think it will need to be far more broad of an action than one targeted at military, air traffic or education.
Climate change is the most important issue of our time and every moment we waste makes it harder to solve. So just a scant six years into his presidency Obama is going to swing into action.
If he was really serious he would have proposed something when his party had a filibuster proof majority in both houses. He knows that any action that significantly raises the price of energy would be so unpopular it would cost his party in the next election and that any action that did not would be pointless. So he proposes to do something unilaterally so nobody has to make an unpopular vote in the congress while he can raise money among all the rich environmentalists in an election year.
It is just typical election year grandstanding to gin up fundraising.
Au contraire, mon frere. Public schools are the institutions where the quality of education should be compared to excrement. Half of them are failing, according to the government itself. If we help students escape from public schools, we can improve their education and reduce carbon emissions: a true win-win scenario if ever there was one.
Which would you prefer to have for dinner: small potatoes or non potatoes?
Maybe he will push ahead with Yucca Mountain to encourage the use of nuclear power, which does not produce green house gases. Oh wait, no he won’t - he shut that down. It appears he doesn’t like proven technologies, and would rather sink half a billion or so into companies that go under and ship jobs overseas.
Maybe he realizes on some level that any campaigning he does on behalf of Democratic candidates is a boon and a blessing to the GOP.
Agreed. Next up will be something for unions, something for gay people, and some feminist initiative.
I agree with some of this. It should have been stressed as a priority since 1/20/09. If this is important to him, he has not articulated it well. He may have the best of intentions on policy, but he is tone deaf on how to sell these policies to the people. What he needs to do is have Bill Clinton travel with him to translate every speech into Folkese.
That being said, it’s disheartening to think that the Republican response to global warming is :
1- Deny the science
2- Refuse to participate in the solution
3- Wait for Democrats to propose a solution and blame the cost of implementing it on Democrats and hope for electoral gain.
The big problems shouldn’t have to rely on Democrats having a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The republic is not going to survive if it has one adult party and one juvenile delinquent party that considers political vandalism as their top priority.
it will save more energy than that. Think of the savings when one parent no longer commutes to work and instead stays home supervising the kids. And there will be even more saving when they lose the house for not being able to pay the mortgage, since the homeless have a smaller carbon footprint than those in houses.