This shows the pointlessness of trying for a political solution. Democrats claim to think that global warming is 100% happening, will have devastating consequences, and is not worth risking an election to solve.
Everyone is willing to run their mouths about global warming but the moment it calls for real sacrifice they do nothing. If fat cat senators and congressmen are not willing to risk an election to keep global warming from happening, good luck convincing hundreds of millions of indians and chinese peasants to stay dirt poor.
That’s Democratic Party, thank you very much. The trouble is that the Republican Party has made it their official stance to do NOTHING about global warming and let the Democrats know that their price of action will be losing their political power. So Democrats can in effect put up the first pillar of action, knowing that Republicans will knock it down at the first opportunity. If both parties were reality-based, something could be done. As it is, not so much.
As much as I agree that climate change is 1) very real, 2) happening right in front of our eyes (watch the “Venice is Sinking” and “Greenland is melting” episodes of Vice), and 3) that most of us will be significantly negatively impacted by it in our lifetimes, I agree with puddleglum’s post.
The levels at which the world will have to change its ways in order to have any positive impact on the atmosphere is impossible. I think at this point, all efforts should be placed on a technological solution.
Not me, when absolutism comes, one has to point out that new nuclear power plants are getting loans from the government so what he and others are talking is mostly ignorance.
Not what even the IPCC reported, many times I pointed at what Republican scientists like Richard Alley told us, that roughly 2 or 1% of GDP would be needed to control the problem, now the IPPC came with better numbers, and this is because better technology and industry shows that a lot can be done with what is available now.
Of course then when one looks at how we could go in applying those solutions with a concerted effort the weakest link is the current Republican Party.
No, and proposed national policies that are going to cap out at kilotons or low numbers of megatons in a world where we’re emitting 50 gigatons of CO2 equivalent annually isn’t worth discussing.
Just remember that if the Republicans take the Senate then we are talking about complete climate troglodytes like Senator Inhofe following the footsteps of Congressman Paul Broun (in the house) taking the gavel at senate environmental or energy committees. As Bill Moyers said:
Why not? If every on earth took the attitude that he or she shouldn’t work to reduce emissions because the net result of his or her actions wouldn’t have much effect on the 50 gigaton figure, then nothing would ever get done. Serious reductions have to start somewhere, so why not start with the federal government?
Not sure what the power of Executive orders, etc. is. Quick hits:
First, lower the cost of individual investments in low emission tech to be more attractive from an ROI perspective:
Make 100% of all investment in solar a tax credit for homeowners or corporations
Make all 100% electric cars tax free or the sales tax is a tax credit
Require all utilities to buy back the excess energy (fight the Kochs on this one)
Sell this as reducing our dependency on others, not only about climate change. If you focus on climate change caused by US actions, you run into the problem of people asking why should we sacrifice while China and India crank up the emissions in their nations (emissions that impact all of us).
If it’s not enough to keep me alive until my next meal, what’s the point? The sorts of things you’ve suggested would be ok if it were part of a much bigger initiative, but there’s not much impact to be had from them alone.
This answer is very confused. If everyone took this attitude, we’d have to solve the problem the only way it can be solved: by some form of collective action that ultimately caps emissions of greenhouse gases. The federal government and international negotiations are exactly where to start - but with the stokes that can make a difference: phasing out coal, mass adoption of renewables, efficiency standards, etc. Not by eliminating schools.
I"m assuming this is more for show for the runup of the 2014 elections than anything. In my experience with Obama these last 6 years, he likes front more than substance. That was a major criticism of him in 2007 and 2008, and it has proven true. So I think he will do a few minor things with his executive power, try to get a few laws he know the GOP will block and use that to get dems reelected.
Overall, until renewables become cheaper than dirty energy none of this is going to matter. Wind has reached that point in some areas. Solar is getting there in sunny areas. But you also need incentives so people will actually use the renewables. Make them cost effective, then use incentives and mandates to make people use them.
Since his initial election, Obama has occasionally pushed the global warming/climate change/extreme weather change panic button to gin up support for the Democrat party. Does it work? It hasn’t so far. The IPCC has a credibility problem. The UN has a credibility problem. Obama has a credibility problem. The global temp isn’t currently warming. Flooding, drought, snow, volcanic activity, tidal waves, etc. have been occurring for a really, really, really, long time. The weather is going to continue changing.
I remember when clean air and clean water became primary public concerns. The evidence was easy to understand. People from all walks of life demanded improvement and their elected representatives responded. The current demand to respond to global warming/climate change/extreme weather change hasn’t been conclusively proven to be man-made.
John Podesta, a Democratic operative who now counsels the President, told reporters that Obama will kick off a broad campaign this week to publicize the report, while Cabinet members and other administration officials would be “fanning out” across the country to spread the word about how climate change impacts specific regions.
Specific regions? Hey everybody! Look how hot it is over there! Look how wet it is some place else! AND NOW IT’S SNOWING AGAIN! This MUST be the work of that evil CO2. Nothing else could possibly explain a few record lows and record highs occurring somewhere on the planet Earth - all in the same year. All manufactures must ask a political carbon exchange if they can expand. Everyone must pay higher taxes for exhaling CO2 or having a backyard BBQ.
But no one is supposed to discuss specific regions if they’re going to point out the record LOW temps in those specific regions.
You aren’t really addressing the OP. I’m not asking to debate climate change in this thread. I’m asking ‘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?’. If you want to debate climate change (for the umpteenth time) then feel free to start a new thread to do so. Discussing it in here will simply derail the thread. Just a request though…do what you like.
Sounds like Obama plans to push his executive powers to do everything he can to start changing the US carbon foot print.
Sounds like Obama is just raising an issue that attracts donations to his political party, unless he actually follows up with action.
How much can he do on his own?
He could make the cost of doing business in/with the U.S. skyrocket, as he had earlier promised to do.
*Will he be able to rally enough congressional support to do more? *
If Obama could rally Congressional support, he wouldn’t need to resort to Executive Orders.
What impact will anything he does have on actual climate change?
Probably none. How would he gauge the results? Will the global temp begin to decrease? Will record snow falls, hail, and rain never again occur? Will record high temps in specific regions never again occur?
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?
Obama would have to rein in volcanoes, and continental drift if he plans on controlling the weather.
Good idea. Also, this is an example of government meaning well, but a policy being pushed for the wrong reasons. That, and that there are often unintended consequences to any plan.
The question is what can we do about it. And since we don’t know what percent of climate change is attributable to man, it difficult say what we should do and how much we should spend doing it. On the other hand, theres much we should be doing that would help reduce climate change that we should be doing anyway for efficiency and protection of natural resources.
Obama has a fairly large lever to regulate emissions, as the SCOTUS has said the Clean Air Act allows (actually, mandates) the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants (which account for about 40% of emissions). Obama hoped to use this as a lever to get cap-and-trade through the Congress (which would be more efficent then Executive regulation), but as that effort has pretty clearly failed, the WH seems about to release their regulatory scheme (indeed, one suspects that’s why the report referenced in the OP was released now).
(also, people who don’t think the Dems have made substantive efforts to regulate emissions back when Obama was elected have short memories).