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.
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.
And that's what all of this is about... politics.
Any time two or more people with differing ideas (let alone ideals) get involved with something, there will be politics. Thus, everything interesting has political ramifications.
Climate is related to technology, and also, we all live here. I for one welcome our politics-discussing overlords. As always, you have the option to simply spin on rather than crying about it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
"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...
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.