|
||
Can Barack Obama Really Stop The Climate Crisis ... Finally?
Through all the excitement about nominees, and superdelegates, and Clinton (who, by the way, I had thrown my lot in for, but there we go) not conceding until she had to be pushed out the door rather than leave gently (I would expect nothing less!), there has been something grating at me during this entire election process.
As a good friend of mine who works at the Royal Society in London was saying the other day, both candidates (and by that, I refer, now, to Obama and McCain) have failed to talk about the issue that, for me, provides the most concern and the one of the most urgent needs for attention -- the climate crisis.
Well, perhaps to say they have failed would be unfair, but it has not been nearly as prominent as it should have been. And why? Because it simply isn't attractive, at the moment, to be eco-friendly. Through all his Obamababble (you heard it here first) about 'change', Obama hasn't gone to issues like the environment, that aren't making the headlines at the moment, and highlighted them as the actual needs for concern. Instead he focuses on the popular topics which is what any normal, traditional politician would do.
And to even start on McCain's environmental policy would be nearer cringeworthy than commentary. The man has, again after much talk of changing the Republican party and turning away from the Bush-era (or was that Bush-error?), absolutely no clue about the environment at all; and has an environmental-policy to match his ignorance.
Thank God he won't win!
But, back to Barack, his headline policy is to "stop carbon emissions by 80% by 2050". And how, you might ask? Through exactly the same methods that are currently being debated in the Senate, the cap-and-trade policy in the Lieberman-Warner bill. Now, I am actually a supporter of this policy, provided there are two conditions:
a) The revenue created from this charge is partly invested into the specific areas hit by the downsizing of carbon-based fuel supplies AND also partly invested in further research into viable green energy alternatives; and
b) There is a limit on the amount of carbon that can be sold, otherwise the companies will buy the amount they use today and then pass the cost onto the already financially-crippled consumer.
So, one up for Obama. Next he says he will invest $150 billion a year into biofuel and fuel infrastructure development. But he doesn't give any source as to where that income will come from. His cap-and-trade policy, perhaps? If so, that would not leave enough to fulfill my two conditions, so, for me, it's one against Obama.
His proposals to increase American oil independence (which really isn't the way to go if you are going to be environmentally friendly -- you should be decreasing America's need for oil in general) are interesting, if a little farfetched. He proposes an increase (again, unaccounted for) in research funds for developing fuel-efficiency in cars, and subsidising manufacturers in America who would produce more fuel-efficient cars, in the hope of returning auto-commerce to America rather than the rest of the world. He says it should lower our oil-consumption by 10 million barrels-a-day, by 2030. But, at the moment we are increasing our oil-consumption by 100 million barrels-a-day. Now, I'm not a mathematician, so I won't try, but even I can see that policy such as that will be simply ineffective, and far too late.
Two against.
His last Obamababble is about "restoring US leadership on Climate Change". What I want to know is which page in the history book does it say when the US was ever a leader in the fight against climate change? But, I understand his sentiment, and actually share it. The US needs to take a firm lead in battling climate change and not just join (*cough* Kyoto *cough*) the fight, but pioneer it.
And this is the reason why, at the moment, the Obama plan for the environment is not up to scratch. Yes, it is getting to where it should be, but it isn't there yet. What we need is radical, dynamic, lasting and revolutionary change, that will really make a difference and help create the America, and the world, the I believe Barack Obama wants.
Follow Stefan Roberts on Twitter: www.twitter.com/StefanRoberts
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A key issue's missing, given the logic of the column: how'd Hillary Clinton stack up against the presumed ignoring of global warming by both Obama & McCain? At least Obama frequently, as at the point of maximum visibility in the TV debates, referred to the planet being in "peril", at least giving the issue, in a way I never heard from Hillary Clinton, a sense of urgency.
Further, global warming ISN'T something either the mass public or a well-organized political movement has seriously been pursuing -- though it's been widely discussed for 20+ years. And, yes, global warming in the elections is ALL about politics, & the distinction between "conclusions" of science and "consensus" it tough in practice. There's a SCIENTIFIC consensus among experts that human activity is DANGEROUSLY heating the planet.
But speaking of scientific conclusions (& always mistrust someone w/a rightwing spin in the name of "science -- like Harvard's Lawrence Summers) Jim Hansen, arguably THE leading US climatologist, has come to the COMPELLING SCIENTIFIC conclusion (which I'd myself intuitively advocated even before this scientific finding) that reducing & even ELIMINATING all net CO2 &, generally, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) EMISSIONS by 2050 is CATASTROPHICALLY insufficient. We MUST lower the atmospheric LEVEL of GHG's -- in the case of CO2, from its current ~387(& rapidly rising) parts per million to under 350 ppm. Hansen notes "tipping points" where the process of global warming becomes self-perpetuating, one of which (w/the melting of summer sea ice in the Arctic) has already
Amazing, he already solved warming. It stopped. Obama is amazing.
Let me lay it out simply...
We are nearly 100% ignorant of what drives the Earth's climate...
Do we REALLY think we should be messing around with something that has worked perfectly for billions of years??
Take the current issue of temps have been dropping in the last 10 years. As Mr Roberts has pointed out, it's due to the La Nina effect, a naturally occurring self correction.
Let me repeat that. "A NATURALLY OCCURRING SELF CORRECTION"...
Now, everyone knows that 30 years ago, the "imminent danger was global cooling. Although, the environmental hysterics packaged THAT as "The coming Ice Age!!"..
Now, just suppose that humankind had gone on a huge binge to warm the earth.. How would that have affected things today?? No one knows..
And that is kind of my point. NO ONE KNOWS...
Since we don't know, how much sense does it make to frack around with things???
Especially when the HCCC crowd can't get past the hysterical Global Warming claims that get refuted by REAL science..
CONT
CONT
Also, do you people really believe that "consensus" is a scientific measure?? You are sadly mistaken. Consensus is a POLITICAL measure.. Conclusions are what is most important in science. Of course, you have good conclusions based on experimentation and scientific evidence and you have bad conclusions based on political expediency and "consensus"..
CONCLUSIONS=SCIENCE
CONSENSUS=POLITICS
Finally, let me leave you with some examples of "consensus".
The earth is flat
The universe revolves around the sun
There is an almighty god
All these are examples of a consensus. True science has proven the first two false. I am hoping the 3rd one will be proven false in my lifetime, but I ain't holding my breath.
Michale.....
Climate change is a biggie, but I really think a little National Triage is in order for the next administration
Don't get me wrong..
I am all for increasing our technology and moving us away from oil dependence (Nuclear Power anyone?? :^D )
But, com'on people.. Do we really need to funnel billions and billions of MORE dollars into STUDYING the problem??
Why not take all those billions and actually do something worthwhile??
Can you imagine if you took all those billions and did nothing buy by Hybrid Cars? And then create a HYBRID TRADE-IN Program whereas every drive who turned in a running gas powered car, truck or SUV would get a Hybrid car...
Hell that right there would probably halve the problem of pollution, emissions and oil dependency!!
But it's logical and practical and doesn't make Al Gore rich..
Which is why you won't see it proposed anywhere..
Scaring people with pollution, oil dependency and the fantasy that is Human Caused Climate change is the goal. That way, they pony up money to line Al Gore's et al pockets..
Actually DOING something worthwhile about pollution and oil dependency??
Not so much...
Michale.....
Yes, nuclear power. what a wonderful idea! How about a nice day at Chernobyl kids? Oops, that's right, we can't go there cause it's still radioactive. Can't wait, let's build 'em everywhere and next time one of them "fails" we can go for a record. Instead of a radioactive cloud hovering over 33 countries, we can go for a record and double that.
In page 2 of my comment below, the sentence that got cut off for some reason should read: "The challenge of achieving global agreement is surpassed only by the challenge of ensuring that the capital is effectively reinvested."
I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. The whole point of cap-and-trade is that there's a limit to the amount of carbon credits that can be sold, and this limit decreases over time to meet emission reduction targets. That's the finite supply that allows the market to set a price. If the supply is unlimited, then the price is zero, as it is today.
The appeal of cap-and-trade as opposed to a flat carbon tax is that it doesn't require the government to determine the appropriate level of disincentive required to hit our targets. It starts with the target and uses market forces to determine the corresponding disincentive. It doesn't rely on government economic projections that could be wide of the mark.
Any consumption tax on carbon, however it is managed, will be predominantly passed on to the consumer. Furthermore, all consumption and production taxes are ultimately regressive, placing a disproportionate share of the burden on less affluent households that necessarily spend a larger portion of their income on consumption.
A carbon tax would create a new way for producers to compete. By trimming their carbon footprints and reducing their exposure to the carbon tax, they would be able to offer lower prices than their competitors. However, unless the carbon market is global like other commodity futures markets, it will distort the global economy in favor of producers that operate in nations with cheaper or nonexistent carbon markets.
(continued...)
(page 2)
Can Barack Obama really stop the climate crisis? No. Only a global authority with a mandate to regulate world-wide anthropogenic carbon emissions and allocate resources to conservation and sustainability efforts can accomplish this feat with any acceptable level of economic fairness. The challenge of achieving global agreement is surpassed only by the challenge of ensuring that the capital is e
Everybody, including most environmentalists, is dramatically underestimating how hard it will be for humanity to achieve sustainability at these population levels given the current state of our civilization. We will have a massive die-off in the developing world before we can advance to the point where we are enlightened enough to deal with the finite and delicately balanced ecosystem of planet Earth.
"Climate Crisis"???
Global temps have been dropping steadily for the last 10 years..
WHAT climate "crisis"??
Michale.....
See Stefan Roberts's Profile
Seriously!!! You want to have this discussion. Email me at info@stefanroberts.org and we'll battle it out. OK?!
Why must we "battle"?? I am sure we can discuss it like two rational people. :D
I think we can ALL agree that there is climate change..
The only point of contention is what causes it..
Since there is evidence that there has been climate change throughout the entire history of the planet, of which human kind is just a speck of a mote of dust, I think it's safe to say that the climate would change, with or without the presence of human kind..
But, regardless of all that, don't you think that enough money has been put into just STUDYING the problem...
And what has all that money actually done?? It's just made Al Gore and politically motivated scientists rich.. It hasn't changed one damn thing for the planet or the climate.
But hay, if you want to go email, I'm game.. :D Just be gentle with me.. I bruise easy...
Michale.....
You have identified the first opportunity for all of Sen. Obama's supporters who protest that they are not just swept up in a fad and that they intend to be participatory in his Presidency to act on those assertions. It would be nice to hear "Here Is How!" in addition to the "Yes, We Can!" cheers once in awhile.
That's a start, but we need to see Obama propose a new type of New Deal. I've heard him allude to something like it by developing the "green economy" as this article talks about, but that won't be enough. This country is on the road to ruin: jobs are gone, homes foreclosing, people massively in debt, gas is through the roof with prices on any consumer goods and food that has to be trucked sure to follow, and the dollar is worth less by the day.
We need a radical shift to turn this thing around after 30 years of Reaganite/Clintonoid deregulated free-market religion.
Free-market Rightists who oppose "big government" programs, let's make you a deal: You check a box on your tax return, and your taxes won't go to pay for this new New Deal. You'll also get none of the benefits -- you won't be paying for it. Sounds fair to me. You've had 30 years to prove to us your ideas work, with precious little opposition. It's put us in the tank. Some of us prefer what you'd call "Big Government" if it were structured right to "Big Capitalism".
So, your move, Obama.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
