Bloomberg Endorses Obama Citing Climate Change

[heydude]

New York city mayor endorsed Obama.

He named the elephant in the room: CLIMATE CHANGE and how Obama is working to lower carbon, etc.

drives me crazy how new york subways go flooding and no one says global warming. all these storms, all these extreme weather increases, and no one says anything about global warming because we mad offend the skeptics and need balanced reporting: equal time for lies and truths. well, why is the default never to mentioned global warming at all. few times it is mentioned, it is called climate change. thank you Bloomberg!

[ApatheticNoMore]

First off Bloomberg, that guy, really, oh geez.

But secondly is Obama serious about climate change? If this is a just a lesser of two evils argument, fine Obama is probably the lesser of two evils on climate change and other environmental issues. I think that is in all likelihood the correct read (likelihood? yea I lack a crystal ball). And if you want to vote lesser of two evils on that basis, that's perfectly rational enough. But partially destroying the life support system of the planet is still like being a little bit pregnant!

So again: is Obama serious about climate change? I think not. While the northern portion of Keystone XL is on hold (until after the election I suspect! but such is suspicion) the southern part is being built and fast tracked with Obama's approval and Obama BRAGS about the southern portion being built (and such is fact as per the New York Times):

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/politics/in-oklahoma-obama-declares-pipeline-support.html
http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/obama-to-fast-track-southern-half-of-keystone-xl-pipeline/

Ok that's the pipeline which will start the likely inevitable exploitation of tarsands and massive carbon release. People are protesting it now, protestors, native americans etc..

What about climate change treaties? Now a disclaimer: climate change negotiation is complex. However, it seems the Obama administration has been pretty much sabotaging global climate change treaties.

On Kyoto:

"The Obama administration has rejected the Kyoto Protocol (ensuring it will expire), adopted some of former President George W. Bush’s key positions in international climate negotiations"

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/november/the-quiet-yet-historic-death-of-the-kyoto-protoco

On the Copenhagen climate talks:

"Europe has clashed with the US Obama administration over climate change ... The dispute between the US and Europe is over the way national carbon reduction targets would be counted. Europe has been pushing to retain structures and systems set up under the Kyoto protocol, the existing global treaty on climate change. US negotiators have told European counterparts that the Obama administration intends to sweep away almost all of the Kyoto architecture and replace it with a system of its own design."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/15/europe-us-copenhagen

"COPENHAGEN -- President Obama helped broker a climate deal with a group of leading nations that provides for monitoring emission cuts by each country but sets no global target for cutting greenhouse gases, and no deadline for reaching a formal international climate treaty ... The deal falls far short of many countries' expectations for the summit and leaves a comprehensive battle plan for climate change potentially years away"

"European officials, for their part, made it clear that although America's climate-change goals had improved, compared to where they were under the Bush administration, they still were not in line with those of the European Union and Japan.

"This accord is better than no accord, [but] it wasn't a huge step," said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. "The level of ambition is honestly not what we were hoping for."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121800637.html

And well we all heard the debates, all they want is to exploit more energy forever.

If climate change and other environmental issues are something you really care about I think this is an excellent article by Chris Hedges, well worth reading:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_im_voting_green_20121029//

And vote Green? Well no if you think it's strategic to vote however you do then vote that way. I've long maintained there are no good choices in this election (sure Stein is fine, but won't win), it's like some philosophy 101 quagmire: how do you make a choice when there are no good choices, basically only choices it's horrible to even contemplate? So if you must split the baby, go for it, just don't pretend it's a whole baby. But really take seriously much more of the message of that article than just whom to vote for President, it's a very serious article, if you are very serious about climate change.

[catherine]

I was just reading "Romney's Vision for America" on cnn.com:


We will produce more of the energy we need to heat our homes, fill our cars, and make our economy grow. We will stop President Obama's war on coal, his disdain for oil, and his effort to crimp natural gas by federal regulation of the very technology that produces it. We will support nuclear and renewables, but phase out subsidies once an industry is on its feet. We will invest in energy science and research to make discoveries that can actually change our energy world. By 2020, we will achieve North American energy independence.

So, it's all about more, more, more. More unregulated gas for more cars, more unregulated fuel for more homes. Yet somehow in spite of all this energy consumption, we're going to be energy independent by 2020. Maybe because of the nuclear energy he's dreaming of. So, I guess if you're all for nuclear energy and uncontrolled raping of the earth as an option for energy independence, you have to love Romney.

Obama's vision:


I'm the president who ... stops subsidizing oil company profits, and keeps supporting clean energy jobs and technology that will cut our oil imports in half.

Now that's a quick throw-away line--no real commitment but at least the language is better in tune with what I want a president to do. I do believe Obama is the lesser of the evils when it comes to the environment. I played around with voting for Stein just to make a statement, but I guess it depends on how badly I don't want to see Romney in the White House.

[Gregg]

The gas lines in NY and NJ and the growing frustration with the lack of available fuel should serve as a very clear window into just how dependent we all are on a single resource. If you were to draw up a plan in which the end result was a catastrophic system wide failure that would be an excellent place to start.

[Rogar]

I voted for Obama based mostly on his stance on the environment. Lessor of evils? Maybe, but there are only two choices. I think he has been a disappointment relative to his 2008 promises. On the other hand I think he represents what mainstream America, even liberal America, wants on the environment. Americans love their cars and cheap gas. Obama's "green jobs for the future" program has been lackluster. There is a possibility that a more radical environmental approach would give the Romney even more campaign fodder and we would risk having him as president even more. A sad reality.

Maybe with a stronger economy environmental issues will have a better chance. This election it's about the economy and cheap energy helps the immediate effect on wallets.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Obama's vision:

I'm the president who ... stops subsidizing oil company profits, and keeps supporting clean energy jobs and technology that will cut our oil imports in half.

Now that's a quick throw-away line--no real commitment but at least the language is better in tune with what I want a president to do. I do believe Obama is the lesser of the evils when it comes to the environment. I played around with voting for Stein just to make a statement, but I guess it depends on how badly I don't want to see Romney in the White House.

What actually stopping subsidizes of oil company pofits would look like is huge. No doubt clean energy gets some support. But what actually gets massive subsidy under Obama, clean coal:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7392564&page=1


The gas lines in NY and NJ and the growing frustration with the lack of available fuel should serve as a very clear window into just how dependent we all are on a single resource. If you were to draw up a plan in which the end result was a catastrophic system wide failure that would be an excellent place to start

it's a pretty bad situation, but it's very far from the most catestrophic system wide failure conceivable, and I by nature think a lot about catastrophe :). But the end point away from catastrophe is always the same: resilience, less dependence on it, on any single point of failure. Geez, all I'm really asking is for them to *TRY*, the problems maybe beyond solving, but I want them to make a serious try, it's all I want.


Maybe with a stronger economy environmental issues will have a better chance. This election it's about the economy and cheap energy helps the immediate effect on wallets.

It's a scam, it's an old scam, it's a massive scam. Trashing the commons, the environment, for some short term promise is a very old scam indeed. Why keystone XL? Jobs? Why fracking? Jobs. Why mountain top removal? Jobs. What is the end result, the jobs are temporary, the poisoning of water supplies, the release of masses more carbon, permanent, and where you live is totally trashed, and that's what is left in the long run. Species suicide: a permanent sollution to a temporary (jobs)problem. But people are desperate for jobs, well that I have some sympathy for, if the focus on the economy is coming from the unemployed. HOWEVER, long term, where have all the employment opportunities gone? Hmm, I think at least some of them have been outsourced. These politicians all of them, and Democrats presidents are some of the worst, have outsourced jobs and they have left the people in a situation where they will trade away THEIR VERY LAND AND ALL THAT IS OF VALUE on it, NATURAL CAPITAL, they will trade it away for the promise of jobs, the same jobs the politicians outsourced. It's a scam, it's theft. Is that conspiratorial? Conspiratorial is to see patterns and deliberate intent. I just see events existing in time and how they are playing out, systems. I have very little patience for the argument that the economy MUST be our main focus now, I know it's bad, my sympathies with the unemployed, but I dont' just think about the bad, I think about the worse and the *potentially* (potentially, not certainly, but potential point of massive failure) catestrophic.

[Yossarian]

no one says anything about global warming

It's an asinine thing to say scientifically. But politically it makes sense if you want to distract people.

[Gregg]

it's a pretty bad situation, but it's very far from the most catestrophic system wide failure conceivable, and I by nature think a lot about catastrophe :).

I wasn't talking about gas lines in NJ. That's just a small snapshot giving us a peek at what can happen in just a few days without a resource we depend so heavily on. I don't expect the worst case, as in a nationwide disruption of our supply of oil, will happen any time soon, but it is possible. What would happen then is a cascade of other systems failing (food production & delivery, transportation, heating systems, etc.). That is where the worst case idea comes in. It is not going to happen because of Sandy, but it does give us the opportunity to stand up and take notice.

[Rogar]

ANM, I really have no huge difference with your opinions on environmental policy. Standing back from my personal practices and beliefs, I look at the president as a leader and visionary in the directions of policy. But he is also an elected official representing the opinions of his country and a part of the democratic process. I really think the people are just as short sighted about the environment as the politicians. They want jobs and they want them now. They want cheap gas and cheap energy. That is coal, fracking, and most all the other things you mention. Not to mention cheap t-shirts and plastics from China and an abundance of cell phones and iPads.

My point being that it isn't the president alone who is responsible for environmental policy. It's like the famous Pogo cartoon said on the first earth day, "we have met the enemy and he is us."

[heydude]

exactly Rogar. and, some have even said it will be good to have global warming wipe us out.

[The Storyteller]

Obama is the greenest president in my lifetime. I remember folks said in the 2000 election there was no difference between Gore and Bush on the environment, so they voted for Nader, handing the election to Bush. I doubt there is anyone saying that, now.

One thing I have learned in sustainable agriculture is there are degrees of sustainability. If I went in as a purist, I would have to raise my birds in such a way I would need to charge $30 for a scrawny meat bird that nobody would want. One friend tried to go that rout, and he had to reverse course or go broke. I explained to him a compromise to reality where good is short of perfect is better than bad (ie factory farms). He saw the light.

Obama isn't perfect on the environment, no doubt. But steps his administration has taken in sustainable ag (something I know a little about) are refreshing. It would be great if we would stop subsidizing industrial ag (for instance) and focus more resources on sustainable alternatives, but the steps he has taken are very very good.

And while good is not perfect, it is better than bad.