Slashdot Mirror
Obama's Climate Plans Face Long Fight
An anonymous reader writes "He hasn't even given his Tuesday speech yet but Obama's plans to tackle climate change are already raising objections in Washington. From the article: 'When President Barack Obama lays out plans to tackle climate change in a speech Tuesday, including the first effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants, he will unleash a years-long battle that has little assurance of being resolved during his time in office. The president has called climate change a "legacy issue," and his speech may head off a backlash from environmentalists should his administration approve the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada. But the address is unlikely to blunt criticism of Mr. Obama's approach from the left or the right.'"
Shutting down all PRISM related datacenters will seriously reduce the US carbon footprint.
And that's what all of this is about... politics.
Without comprehensive, cooperative, enforceable international standards and practices, it's all just political showmanship. Given the interwoven economic, i.e. selfish capitalist, constituencies of all the nations, unilateral grand-standing and token half-measures are futile.
When global issues are at stake, global cooperation is required. It might start with a less-corrupt, more efficient United Nations with unselfish participation by the member states to give it a sense of legitimacy. That would be the ideal.
My gut feeling is that nothing, if anything, substantial will be done until the international capital oligarchs sense a real financial threat. Good intentions create politics; money creates policy.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
... about the Global Cooling that has been going on for the past 15 or so years?
Since everything else seems to have gone in the shitter, I come back to you with a message that seemed to sell well in both campaigns: the environment.
I look forward to again gaining your broad support with a campaign of platitudes, anthemic one-word slogans, and statements that make me appear sympathetic to your issues, while actually resulting in policies that either ossify the current corporation-based lobbyist-driven structure, or expand the pervasive control of the Federal government ostensibly for good reasons but which will in fact be used to incrementally decrease your rights vis a vis that "Constitution" thingy, which I will continue to re-interpret as really not relevant to today's realities anyway.
Signed,
Your President.
-Styopa
"I'm voting 3rd party from now. Least of all evils isn't enough."
Not to nitpick, but I think you mean "lesser of 2 evils ("Big 2 parties").
Your third-party candidate would be the "least" evil.
But having said that, we have had some GOOD 3rd-party candidates. Far better than the BS the 2 big parties have thrown at us. And I include Obama as some of that "BS".
"Obama's actions are often quite different than his rhetoric"... like any politician. That is why websites like the Political Memory by La Quadrature du Net are so interesting and give real hope for change: Believe what they have done, not what they say they did (or will do).
Now, if only the population at large would flock to use such tools on election day... but as it is, the village keeps voting time and again for one of the two village liars who both just happen to be backed by the biggest landowner(s) in town - to everyone's long term detriment. Oh and the town message billboard happens to be controlled by the said landowners. We have not progressed very far politically, it would seem...
Start growing your beard back and stop taking showers. Then you'll be ready for another OWS event.
There are 3 major obstacles to getting anything done with the climate change issues.
1 - USA: large portion of population, especially in the red states espousing a world view that is anti-science to the bone. This is being shamelessly exploitetd and nurtured by a powerful energy lobby and "conservative" (conservativism used to include environemental conservation in Teddy Roosevelt's era) politicians. In addition, US economy is facing competitive pressure from other countries and is worried that cleaning up environment means increased cost and loss of jobs. My view on this is that nothing will happen on the US end until after the final collapse of the republican party as we know it today. That is a few years out, but it will surely happen. US voters are by nature centrists, and the red state/blue state division won't last forever. Gerrymandering and politicized supreme court will extend the suffering though.
2-China. When China sets their mind to do something, it will get done,but their environmental policies are at the same level of their human rights policies, pretty low. They are smart enough, and tend to take the longer view, though, so I am sure they realizes that they can not fuel their economy USA-style for very long without ending up in a Mad Max-scenario. By the time the US republican party collapses, China might have turned around and become a climate change believer.
3-The developing countries. Energy is essential to increase the living standard, and it would be hypocritical by western nations to continue our high energy consumption, while these countries have a desperate need too increase their energy use. A country like Norway, who is a major oil producer, while being a poster boy for environment and climate change policies, spending a large portion of their GDP on rain forest projects, foreign aid and other environmental projects, needs to realize that until their privileged population does something about their massive energy usage, they will remain hypocrites. We need to budget for a dramatic increase in energy use by developing countries, which means we need to dramatically reduce our energy consumption in the west. I see soem good signs in that there are more and more small cars on US roads, but the SUVS,compact SUVS, and trucks, as well as assholes riding heavy BMWs, Audis, etc. are still dominating the landscape.
I think all rational persons have a pretty good idea what needs to be done. Obama needs to try, to make sure it gets put out there in the public, so that we know what direction to turn when the rest of the world is ready to advance from the middle ages. And by those, I include the republicans that espouse a pre-Copernicus world view.
Obama is a bigger corporatist than Clinton was, and Clinton was more than Bush Sr.
Only Bush Jr. was a bigger corporatist.
We need to leave the left/right bullshit behind for a while while we make our country safe for democracy (democracy within a republic that is) again. The word of corporate entities mean a million times that of a constituent and that indicates a broken system.
Now, I don't have a lot in common with Greenpeace type environmentalism, but I've decided I'm unwilling to dismiss the environmentalist label, just because it's constantly tarred as meaning this kind of rare, bizarre, idealism. Concern with the long term, and net, impact of our productivity is really important from a pragmatic perspective.
If we make adding carbon mass to the atmosphere as expensive as it appears to be to the world as a whole(and cap and trade didn't even propose that much cost), we do ourselves a favor in terms of productivity. What a lack of regulation in this regard does is favors existing power structures. It doesn't represent a positive for our long term GDP growth.
Environmental pragmatism isn't a bad thing, and if you want to see people who favor that approach versus the straw-man of "taking us back to the 1700s", look to the plans proposed by, say, the union of concerned scientists.
"From what I've seen the 3rd party candidates manage to look good on paper by avoiding real issues that they'll have to deal with once they get into office."
Really?
When did Ron Paul, for example, "avoid" an issue? On the contrary, he was very outspoken about any issue anyone cared to raise with him. He wasn't allowed to speak in many settings, like some of the "debates"... but that's not even close to the same as "avoiding".
When has Ron Paul been shown to ever lie? He always voted exactly the way he told his constituents he would. He has a perfect voting record in that respect.
Paul was against Guantanamo. Etc.
And he wasn't the only one, just the most popular. You have had the answers to your complaints right in front of you, yet you refused to see they were there. That's not the politicians' fault, it's yours.