In his inaugural address, President Obama spoke eloquently about his intent to address climate change, saying: "We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations." Following on, the right-wing deniers predictably flew into a frenzy of obnoxious blather, largely serving to clog up the media. Meanwhile the liberals, progressives and enviros cheered with glee, as if the mere mention of the word "climate" were a big happy victory, a frankly pathetic display that I can only imagine the right-wing deniers found amusing. The spectrum of responses is a clear reflection of the extreme dysfunction of, most especially, Washington D.C. Even as Sandy smashed NYC to smithereens and prolonged drought decimated crops across the Midwest, the leader of the country most responsible for this frightening mess is so cowed by his detractors as to feel it necessary to wait until after his reelection to even mention that seven-letter word? Oh yay.
For climate justice activists, the question is: Should we laugh or should we cry? It has certainly been disturbing to watch Obama, facing the greatest threat to life on Earth ever (yes, far greater even than the economic crisis) fail to even utter that word. But, we are also aware that when he has in fact stepped up to the plate on climate, it has not usually been pretty. For example, in 2009, when, at the eleventh hour he flew to the UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen to push through, via the back rooms, a "made in the U.S." deal that removed any teeth from the negotiated agreement that had been painstakingly hammered out in accordance with participatory UN protocols. That showing in the international climate debate followed on the heels of years of U.S. interference and obstructionism, remarkable given that the we are not even a signatory to the Kyoto protocol. Going back even further into history prior to Copenhagen, there was the U.S. role in demanding (against the will of many other countries at the time) that the main approach to reducing greenhouse gases be a market-based approach: carbon trade, which has subsequently and predictably, entirely failed. A headline of the Financial Times reads:"EU Carbon Prices Crash to Record Low."
So the question is: What will our emboldened president offer up this time? Will it be more false solutions intended to create an impression of doing something while really just ensuring more profitable business opportunities for the 1 percent? A good indication this is likely is Obama's "Blueprint for a New Bioeconomy." In sum, that plan is to maintain business as usual by simply converting from fossil to biological carbon -- that means running cars on biofuels, packaging our stuff in bioplastics, dousing ourselves and the planet with biochemicals, treating subsequent illnesses with bio-pharmaceuticals. All that will be required is astronomical quantities of land, water, soil and nutrients -- several planet's worth. It will also require a biotech industry free-for-all. Their role is to deliver GMO crops that "make more biomass" and also synthetic microbes that will magically convert all that biomass into all the products and goods we presumably must buy and sell to ensure that the economy keeps on growing ad infinitum. A big part of the "new bioeconomy blueprint" is to remove regulatory "barriers," so, for example, synthetic microbes and GMO crops can be quickly and easily approved and sent on their way to commercialization. We know how well the already slack regulatory process works. Just this week we learned that regulators have belatedly found viral genes present in many GMO food crops that is likely to result in greater susceptibility to all manner of viral infections for both humans and plants. Oops. So now we should further loosen regulation even as we introduce even more risky synthetic organisms -- microbes capable of liquefying plant life?
The arrogance underlying the entire concept of a "bioeconomy" is phenomenal. We are told that we shall " harness the biological sciences for the benefit of the Nation." The whole concept illustrates utter disregard, disrespect for and misunderstanding of nature -- as if we so mightily master all of creation that it is entirely under our control to be precisely and predictably manipulated and engineered for our own purposes. No problem. Have faith!
Further we are enticed to accept the idea with claims that the bioeconomy will provide all manner of new jobs and economic opportunities, while freeing us from our dependence on the increasingly unfriendly world community of nations from whence we currently derive our fossil fuel energy. But of course we shall need their biomass, if not their oil.
Other than the bioeconomy vision, what else might we expect from Obama? The last comprehensive climate legislation that was floated seriously in D.C. was the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act. James Hansen along with many in the environmental justice community referred to it as "worse than nothing." Among other features, the bill sought to establish a cap and trade scheme for emissions trading. Hopefully, the total collapse of the EU emissions trading scheme since then should give lawmakers pause. But we can be just about certain that market-based approaches will prevail, and one way or another, we will yet again face a charade of false solutions whose primary purpose is not to effectively address the problem but rather turn the crisis into an opportunity to capitalize -- maintaining and enhancing the excessive profits of big corporations who got us into this mess -- oil, coal, gas, nukes, big agriculture and biotech.
This may serve to create an appearance of doing something to forestall the nightmarish consequences of our failure, but Earth, the climate and future generations will not be fooled. My kids tell me I am "too negative." I try to encourage them in that perception rather than embracing the realities of what we are doing to their future. A few days ago my daughter exclaimed "you have the most important job of all (as climate activist) -- and I am counting on you." Well, I hate to be such a downer, but frankly, difficult to join the squadrons cheering as Obama spoke "the word." When he takes, as his first of many bold steps the executive decision to halt the Keystone XL pipeline, referred to as the "fuse leading to the ultimate climate time bomb", then l will in fact, at long last, stand up and cheer. So what will it be, Mr. President: more bioeconomy B.S. or diffusion of the bomb? Remember your own words about "betraying future generations"?
HuffPost Radio: BOTH SIDES NOW: Obama Inaugurates Progressive Patriotism in the Speech
http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/politics_and_policy/construction_resumes_on_hanford_nuclear_waste_treatment_plant#commentsForm-2908536
which is about the status of a DOE-fast tracked nuclear waste facility at Hanford Washington that's at least 8 years behind schedule and $8 Billion over cost, with no end in sight. Worse yet is the potential for environmental disaster.
January 16, 2013 • 9:57AM
The Obama killer food-for-fuel policy is on course, with terrible impact on the food chain, as most recently documented by the monthly "World Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimates" report, issued Jan. 11 by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The report gave the estimates for the 2012/2013 crop year, compared to the last two years (detailed below). At least 42% of corn production is now going for ethanol. At least 26% of soybean oil is going for bio-diesel. Even if USDA statistics have become notoriously erratic and untrustworthy, the overall pattern of biofuel-damage to the food supply is clear.
There is chaos in the Farmbelt, for how to plan for care for livestock. For example, an article today is headlined, "When Corn Runs Short," posted on nationalhogfarmer.com. It is is written by Iowa State University hog-raising expert John Patience,"The once dominant corn-soybean meal diet has given way to a more diverse list of ingredients that few could have imagined just five years ago." Farmers are resorting to wheat, barley, canola meal, low-grade field peas, etc. Patience cautions, "But the use of 'non-traditional' ingredients in swine diets is more complicated than simply bringing them to the feedmill, and asking a swine nutritionist to have a go at developing generation of diets.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/20/opinion/mcdonald-corn-ethanol/index.html
All these accomplishments and Obama was still able to get re-elected inspite of an onslaught of dirty money from fossil fuel interests.
How would the world be different, if Sandra Day O'Conner had voted to let the Florida recount proceed, allowing Gore to win?
My guess:
a) no Iraq war;
b) A 12 years earlier focus on mitigating climate change, rendering, with his other acts, plus the rise of Teapublicans, Gore a 1 term president;
c) Bush in 2004, rolls back everything Gore did, plus some. E.g., a bigger financial crash in 2012 than our 2008, due to 4 more years of the housing bubble and Wall St. chicanery, resulting in
d) Obama in 2012.
Net change?
No Iraq war (so a little less federal debt), slightly better on climate change but with it sinking far below the political horizon due to the current crash, and with zero funds to do anything more about it for the next 5 years.
That is, a small change might alter significantly the precise sequence of ensuing events. But the long term outcome won't be vastly different.
Those who tend to overstate the significance of the "butterfly effect" should bear the above in mind.
- James Handley
Carbon Tax Center
www.carbontax.org
http://tinyurl.com/768rfkr
including 11 of Earth's 14 largest public corporations, w/ the six biggest oil firms:
APPLE: http://tinyurl.com/y9t7v5u
EXXON: http://tinyurl.com/7f2xcnj
SHELL: http://tinyurl.com/7nlhdct
PETROCHINA: http://tinyurl.com/7vygbax
PETROBRAS: http://tinyurl.com/8a5jfc7
BP: http://tinyurl.com/74rwcm4
CHEVRON: http://tinyurl.com/6ve3mbj
WALMART: http://tinyurl.com/7l2ux4c
MICROSOFT: http://tinyurl.com/7clwxu6
NESTLE: http://tinyurl.com/7mqs8ju
BHP BILLITON: http://tinyurl.com/85hrj7r
CHINA MOBILE: http://tinyurl.com/6mqpjvd
INTEL: http://tinyurl.com/82or7zo
IBM: http://tinyurl.com/7ernlvj
CONOCO-PHILLIPS: http://tinyurl.com/7feen6v ,
BUT NOT the final three of top 14 - all major COAL INVESTORS:
(COMMUNIST) CHINA Construction Bank,
(COMMUNIST) Industrial and Commercial Bank of CHINA, or
Berkshire Hathaway (Geico, BNSF Railway),
http://tinyurl.com/cam7m7x
http://tinyurl.com/7xvvz9e
http://tinyurl.com/7ay8c26
NOR PRIVATELY owned
SAUDI ARABIAN-American Oil, world's largest company,
whose assets dwarf the world's two biggest public corporations,
Apple and Exxon, COMBINED.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_companies
See a pattern?
http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/
At full operational capacity, the plant is expected to produce about 11 million gallons per year of cellulosic gasoline, diesel, and fuel oil blendstocks that are virtually identical to their fossil fuel-based counterparts. These fuels can be transported using existing distribution networks, and when blended with fossil-fuel based fuels, can be used in today's vehicles. The plant's entire fuel output is already spoken for: Fuel offtake agreements are in place with Hunt Refining, Chevron, Weyerhaueser joint venture Catchlight Energy, and FedEx Corporate Services.
KiOR's commercial advanced biofuel process is a two-step proprietary technology platform that uses standard refining equipment. It combines proprietary catalysts with a process based on the oil refining industry's existing standard Fluid Catalytic Cracking technology, in place for more than 60 years. Compared to most biofuel production processes, the company says this Biomass Fluid Catalytic Cracking (BFCC) process cuts operating and capital costs. (You can watch an animation of the process here.)
http://www.designnews.com/
By burning fossil fuels, we are adding 500 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every second.
http://larouchepac.com/node/24557
Under Real Peace Conditions, the World Could Feed 12 Billion Humans
November 23, 2012 • 9:17AM
Jean Ziegler, the Swiss eminence grise of anti-war/globalization activities for several decades now, gave a passionate speech against underdevelopment and hunger last Saturday in Berlin, characterizing the present situation which sees a child dying from starvation and diseases every 5 minutes, and a famine toll of 23,000 humans daily worldwide, as "murder." Among those to be held responsible for that, are the 10 agro-multis that control 85 percent of the food supply of the world, having no interest in secured nutrition for mankind but only in shareholder value, Ziegler charged.
Ziegler's description of the situation in the Sahel Zone in Africa can be taken as an indirect call for the Transaqua program: the farmers in Africa, he said, are as industrious as their colleagues in Europe, but they lack the basic infrastructure and technical equipment which allows the European farmers to produce 10,000 kilograms of crops per hectare, whereas in the Sahel, maximally 500 kilograms are produced. No roads, no water, no fertilizer. If ever any profit is made from the Sahel products, it is not re-invested but used for paying the debt. Land-grabbing is another disaster, taking away 41 million hectares of arable lands from the Africans, and yet another disaster are bio-fuels, which Ziegler denounced as a "crime against humanity."
how ironic that green campaigners desperate to stop the burning of fossil fuels are promoting policies that cause starvation