The first bit about society caring is basically what I said. The second part...just no. First of all, there's something called economies of scale, and that's the first major economic hurdle clean tech needs to pass over. Second, the fact of the matter is private entrepreneurs are investing in these technologies. That's why solar panel companies and electric car dealers are popping up every so often. It's not a massive shift just yet, but the fact that people are trying to sell it is indication enough that some people do care about being green, and these people are people that matter. Thirdly, the fact that several Scandinavian countries are currently 100% green and a bunch of Europeans including Scotland (plus China) are soon going to follow suit is evidence enough that being green can be economical. Honestly, the change is happening, it's just not dramatic. And no, it doesn't impinge upon your freedom and natural rights.
I think there are a few points we need to address here. I can see where everyone is coming from, and I don't think it's unfair to say that everyone is right in some capacity. However, here's where I think we're missing a couple of things. Firstly, I want to agree and push the notion forward that Climate Change is the most crucial issue we must address. I think at this point anyone who cares to suggest that climate change or global warming to any capacity are a hoax or is an embellished phenomenon needs to think again and take a look at the numbers. Secondly, to suggest that climate change is secondary to any other issue does not make sense to me. I would like to suggest that you go ahead and read an article written by Bill McKibben in Rolling Stone Magazine this past summer. It details a lot of the scary numbers of climate change and how we are closer to seeing widespread irreversible ecological damage. And it's not ecological damage in the sense that we're just going to be seeing a variety of species, familiar and exotic, going extinct - we're going to be seeing the populations of coastal regions around the world face the impact of this climate change. People will have to move, and in many cases - people will die. This isn't solely an American concern - and I think it wrong for President Obama to frame it in the sense that this is an economic opportunity for the United States in which we must lead the way in the development of new technologies. This is a global issue that requires concern from everyone around the world - and we are behind in that concern not because of technologies, but because of the attention we pay. The funds we put into renewable technologies are useless if we don't employ them. Additionally, I do not understand what the United States and other countries are doing by avoiding nuclear energy. At this point, it is clear and the numbers show that nuclear energy is the best way we can provide the same energy to the world while significantly reducing CO2 emissions. Why we're not seeing this effort really bugs me. There are solutions to the problems critics pose - and I don't see why we give in to the criticism and not take the option of nuclear - at the very least until we find something better. I believe there are other great issues at hand, such as the debt. There is no doubt about that - but we do not have to choose one over the other. I think both of these issues can have solutions if there is a bipartisan effort to do so. Politicians need to start letting go of their concerns over re-election and start taking these issues seriously. There shouldn't be a debate on global warming - it exists. There shouldn't be a debate on the debt - We have to cut spending and increase revenue. The solutions are right in front of us - and the greater concern is "being right" and getting re-elected. I think people have every reason to be cynical, but there are things I think we're glossing over. The reason why people largely don't care about global warming is because they can't feel the impacts. When people do not recycle a plastic water bottle, the landfill it contributes to is not overflowing into their backyard. When people leave the lights on, they're not anywhere near close to the polluting facility that is helping them produce that energy and yet is compromising the health of low-income minorities who are right next to that facility and cannot afford to leave the area or make their voice heard. When people throw away their old phones, they don't live in the high-poverty areas of the world where all of those electronics are dumped and where all of those chemicals seep into their water systems and compromise their health. When it gets hot outside, the air condition inside of the house is still going to keep it clean. If they're not anywhere near the coast, they're not going to see the sea rise, or the tropical storms take their house away. Nobody acts on anything until they feel the impact of their decisions. The way I see it, people will die before we do anything - which is a damn shame. Additionally, the critics who accept global warming and yet insist we do nothing about it because the consequences of the past 100 years of emissions will still happen regardless of even a complete cease in greenhouse gas emissions today do not help. We will feel the impacts of the industrial revolution and our fossil fuel usage for many years to come - but there is a chance for there to be a better world for our great great grandchildren, if not our great grandchildren. I don't know why we don't take some economic sacrifice and cease the opportunity to make changes that we know we need to make. The more time we waste, the more certain it is that we will see widespread species extinction and negative impacts on the human race. There is nothing in this world greater than this issue - this is the Earth we're talking about. This is our existence. And that may sound grandiose to you, but look at the numbers that I've seen and at the research that comes out every single day. This is real, and we're really in for it unless we do something.
I agree about the nuclear bit. A great professor and friend taught me in a class that it's carbon neutral but instead heats the atmosphere directly, but it's pretty much our best hope of turning this ship around. And to those afraid of those statistically rare meltdowns (from which fewer people have died over the course of the existence of nuclear power than have died each year from coal-related incidents or just plain ol' black lung), there's always thorium, which does not melt down (India uses it).
That was beautiful, Louis. I agree with the Nuclear bit as well. The pros far outweigh the cons. Global Warming needs to be priority number 1. It's stupid to say that anything else is. Any yet, Obama doesn't make it his number one priority in any speech he gives. Sure, he mentions it (which is nice actually), but he never has a sense of urgency in his tone. He does a poor job of explaining the consequences if we don't act. Like Louis said, our fucking population will be affected on a big scale. From the political side of things, one solution to the problem of politicians is to get all of this money out of our political system. Giant oil companies shouldn't be able to write a large check to a bunch of congressman so that they vote a particular way on energy policy. We need campaign finance reform that eventually lets a politician to legislate based on their conscious rather than where their re-election campaign donations are coming from.
I'm going to keep my words short. I have always found global warming to be the forgotten policy issue. And it is 100% understandable. Why? Because Americans can only think about the "now." It's something that we are really good at. Therefore, the immediate issues always appear to be the first items that we wish to tackle, and, once again, global warming is put on the back burner. My question is, "How long can we keep it on the back burner before it becomes a major first hand issue?" and "Do we really want to wait until then?" Sorry, and I hate saying this, but until Global Warming because a serious issue that can be noticed but the entire nation as a "very dangerous" problem, it is going to be hard to push for spending millions on the environment. And I just want people to realize, that if there is anyone that's as adamant about environmental policies, I would be part of that group. However, I can tell why the nation is acting the way it is right now.
Nothing is going to be done about it until the system changes. Nothing will change until big business and big oil no longer have their hands in the pockets of the politicians. Nothing will change until we do something to fix the fact that politicians are more worried about getting re elected than fixing shit. Or it'll be like Louis said, we won't give a second look until people start dying. And by then it'll probably be too late.
That's pretty much the gist of it. It really sucks too because as soon as Obama says "climate change" or something along those lines, all his support just vanishes.
Given the system we have now, Barack Obama is our ONLY hope of taking any kind of action. He's the only person in Washington that doesn't have to worry about re-election, so he has nothing to lose politically. If you ask me, he has a moral obligation to start handing out some executive orders. He can't wait for congress to act. Also, the President needs to start talking about Global Warming more. It needs to be pushed on the scale that gun control was pushed after Newton (except on an even bigger scale and for a longer duration).
I agree that he has the role and the ability to really push for more controversial topics. But just handing out executive orders is excessive. Sure, he can use it here and there, but if he just starts pulling it out all he wants, then it will cause way too much controversy between conservatives and liberals. People will just start calling him a tyrant some more
I've been thinking this for a while now. Also, US House should be 3 year terms. I completely agree that it sets a dangerous precedent and should only be used as a last resort. But I would argue that we're already in that area where we have to start taking action no matter what it takes. When Manhattan is underwater sometime in the future people are going to look back at this point in history and ask why we didn't find a way to do something. I mean, how much worse can the liberal/conservative divide get? The President needs to stop worrying about or let it prevent him from doing his job because it's a problem that he's never going to solve. Maybe Obama gets little meaningful legislation passed in his second term, but if he can start a public debate on things like Global Warming, that isn't the worst legacy to leave behind because it will help us in the long run.
I do like the idea of Executive Orders, but as others have noted, we have to be concerned with what image that presents to the American population. We also have to consider that there are times when Executive Orders have been relatively ineffective. President Clinton gave an Executive Order (12898) for an increased focus and effort on Environmental Justice - and nothing effective ever really happened. There's really only a couple of ways to eliminate the opposition to good climate change and environmental legislation in Congress, and it is as follows. Firstly, on many of the commissions and committees in Congress that have any pertinence to environmental issues, there are members of Congress and others who have affiliations with companies that promote unjust or environmentally degrading practices. There are people who sit on the Boards, or have sat on the Boards, of many big companies that contribute tremendously to greenhouse gas emissions and environmental injustice. We need to vote these people out of office and ensure that the people heading up these committees have the best interest of the earth in mind and have the sole intention of mitigating and abating our contributions to global warming / climate change. Grassroots campaigns need to increase their efforts in educating the public about the affiliations of our Congressman with these companies - because our representatives should be speaking for us, not for their companies and affiliations. Secondly, the President needs to prioritize environmental action and energy policy. Efforts must be made to promote the demand for renewable technologies and (in my opinion) to promote the temporary use of nuclear energy to meet our energy needs. We need to stray way from our reliance on oil as a whole, as it has not only been damaging to other countries but will come as damage to our own - especially considering that the depletion of oil reserves has led to horrifically destructive practices such as hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Fossil fuels can no longer be the focus, and anything that is not nuclear or renewable should be set aside and disregarded. Thirdly, the EPA and the Departments of Energy and the Interior need to be given more power and a stronger grip on polluting companies nationwide. We need increased regulations, but we also need to provide incentives for gas companies to switch to other more sustainable modes of energy. Market solutions work, but regulations will be the most effective despite some of their economic and political downsides. Climate change is an issue that does not require just incentivizing people to do the right thing, but we almost need to force them to do so. Like I said before, people will wait until the impacts of their decisions come back around to them before they actually do anything. I say we beat climate change to the punch and start making those changes from the top-down. All of these will have to come almost chronologically, but I feel that these three things are essential to seeing change and action on the policy end.
In all honesty, even if Obama placed heavy executive orders, if the congress doesn't agree, then nothing will happen. This partisanship is a nuisance and we still have yet to find the answer to fixing it. Both sides are being so stubborn that nothing is happening, and at this point, it really doesn't seem like anything is going to happen until they both realize that they just need to do some trial and error. Just let one side go at it, if it fails, then we can move on. Right now, we can't even take one step forward in order to take two steps back. We're even more stagnated than that. In regards to environmental policies, the US and the EU need to set even higher precedents than they have in the past. If we can combined-wise accomplish something outrageous, then it will really push other nations to compete and up their own policies. It's what the United State is famous for, pushing boundaries. So, why not set ridiculous regulation through CAFE laws to have individual cars be regulated rather than a line up EPA average? What's the point of a EPA rating system if auto industries can just cut corners? What if we put ridiculous taxes on gas cars? Sure, we have to account for the industry and the ability for the American population to afford such numbers, but if we want change, someone is going to have to pay for it, and that someone is most likely going to be the American people. As for regulation of individual companies and their environmental policies, it's going to take far too much money for the government to regulate everything on its own. That's why the government should promote private regulation industries instead. There's lots of ways for the government to promote policies while decreasing public costs and possibly even increase jobs. Obama just needs to operate on a wider scale than just government everything. At this point, the government just doesn't have the power to do it all.
I agree that all of that has to happen, but I don't think it can happen in that order. Congress (and businesses) will never do anything about global warming and the voters won't start to care about global warming when casting their ballots until the President begins a very ambitious Global Warming campaign. He's the one person who can single-handily create national debates in this country. There was actually a huge protest today in front of the White House on this issue, and the only response we got from Obama was a Facebook post essentially saying "yeah, let's do something!" We need more than that. We need so much more than that. Because without a huge effort on the executive level none of the other things that are necessary in this long environmental recovery are going to occur.
I would like to point out that Obama has already issued a pretty steady amount of executive orders over the course of his first term, and his predecessors much more so. It sounds like a last resort type of thing, but it's actually quite run-of-the-mill. He should use it. As to the whole gun control thing, I have noticed that he seems to have hit upon a policy approach that works for him, which is to emphasize and publicize one issue at a time, make it a huge deal all at once to get the public opinion on his side before bringing it to a vote. It allows him to use the media to his advantage rather than falling victim to it as he had with the Affordable Care Act. If he can use this on climate change, I'm all for it.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...form-students-about-climate-change/?mobile=nc This is kind of shit that we're combating.
What bullshit. Well, hopefully kids are smart enough to pick out the bullshit themselves. Once they start getting two tornadoes in a month and decades-long droughts, I'm sure they'll get the message.
Looks like you and the Turks were right. Obama has been privately telling House Republicans that he will in fact allow the Keystone pipeline. http://www.mediaite.com/online/repu...he-will-approve-keystone-pipeline-per-report/