Obama and Climate Change: The Real Story--Bill McKibbon

[KoKo]

Last edited Tue Dec 17, 2013, 09:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Obama and Climate Change: The Real Story
by Bill McKibben
December 17, 2013 9:00 AM ET

The president has said the right things about climate change – and has taken some positive steps. But we're drilling for more oil and digging up more carbon than ever. When the world looks back at the Obama years half a century from now, one doubts they'll remember the health care website; one imagines they'll study how the most powerful government on Earth reacted to the sudden, clear onset of climate change.



And what they'll see is a president who got some stuff done, emphasis on "some." In his first term, Obama used the stimulus money to promote green technology, and he won agreement from Detroit for higher automobile mileage standards; in his second term, he's fighting for EPA regulations on new coal-fired power plants. These steps are important – and they also illustrate the kind of fights the Obama administration has been willing to take on: ones where the other side is weak. The increased mileage standards came at a moment when D.C. owned Detroit – they were essentially a condition of the auto bailouts. And the battle against new coal-fired power plants was really fought and won by environmentalists. Over the past few years, the Sierra Club and a passel of local groups managed to beat back plans for more than 100 new power plants. The new EPA rules – an architecture designed in part by the Natural Resources Defense Council – will ratify the rout and drive a stake through the heart of new coal. But it's also a mopping-up action.

[b[Obama loyalists argue that these are as much as you could expect from a president saddled with the worst Congress in living memory. But that didn't mean that the president had to make the problem worse, which he's done with stunning regularity. Consider:

• Just days before the BP explosion, the White House opened much of the offshore U.S. to new oil drilling. ("Oil rigs today generally don't cause spills," he said by way of explanation. "They are technologically very advanced.&quot

• In 2012, with the greatest Arctic melt on record under way, his administration gave Shell Oil the green light to drill in Alaska's Beaufort Sea. ("Our pioneering spirit is naturally drawn to this region, for the economic opportunities it presents," the president said.)

• This past August, as the largest forest fire in the history of the Sierra Nevadas was burning in Yosemite National Park, where John Muir invented modern environmentalism, the Bureau of Land Management decided to auction 316 million tons of taxpayer-owned coal in Wyoming's Powder River basin. According to the Center for American Progress, the emissions from that sale will equal the carbon produced from 109 million cars.

Even on questions you'd think would be open-and-shut, the administration has waffled. In November, for instance, the EPA allowed Kentucky to weaken a crucial regulation, making it easier for mountaintop-removal coal mining to continue. As the Sierra Club's Bruce Nilles said, "It's dismaying that the Obama administration approved something even worse than what the Bush administration proposed."

All these steps are particularly toxic because we've learned something else about global warming during the Obama years: Most of the coal and gas and oil that's underground has to stay there if we're going to slow climate change.

-------

MORE of a disturbing read mentioning how the cheap coal we are mining is being shipped to China and other countries allowing them to pollute rather begin their own renewable energy focus. However, McKibbon feels that Obama's actions have actually empowered the Environmental Movement for intense push-back battles ahead from those who are willing to stand up for these important issues for our future.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obama-and-climate-change-the-real-story-20131217?page=1

[daleanime]

1. Kick....

[tblue37]

2. KnR. nt

[Uncle Joe]

3. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, KoKo.

[KoKo]

8. Thank You!...it wasn't anywhere much. Figured it would get lost or

not reported. Thanks!

[okaawhatever]

4. I really question this article. For example the author states that the "Bureau of Land Management

decided to auction 316 million tons of taxpayer-owned coal in Wyoming's Powder River basin. According to the Center for American Progress, the emissions from that sale will equal the carbon produced from 109 million ."
Okay, but does using that coal vs. some other form of coal add more emissions? The last sentence says "emissions from the sale". Are we adding emissions with that particular coal or not? If the coal and the process to mine it is similar to other coal then it's not adding any emissions, so what is the point? In fact, if it's coal that would be mined from a private mine anyway (especially if it's a Koch owned mine) then i'd rather the money go to the government to help pay off the debt. If it's a situation where the coal is worse, like with tar sands then that's a different story but the author didn't mention that. I think they would have mentioned if this coal was worse than the alternative. Also, the author states that while the fire was burning...the birthplace of environmentalism...burea of land management DECIDED to.... Okay, did they decide right then to do it or was it a planned sale? The statement is pure rhetoric. Did the fire have something to do with the sale? If not it's just bashing, IMHO. I'd also like to know if it was decided right then to auction it off because if it's not normal process we need to look at what else was going on and maybe figure out why it happened in the first place. Political pressure? Part of a compromise deal,etc?

I would like more information and less rhetoric. Our biggest problem right now is fighting big oil and coal. We need to get the American citizens and our elected officials to back this effort up and educate voters.

[Uncle Joe]

5. The government has a greater responsibility than coal mining corporations.

While private corporations are in it for one reason and one reason only to make money and the consequences be damned, the government must take the public welfare in to account.

For the government; to recognize the very real danger posed by global waming climate change and then on the other hand to further enable a prime, culpable industry's existence which can only aggravate an already grave threat to human society is an abandonment of "We the people's" duty.

[okaawhatever]

6. I understand your point, but the author pointed to emissions. If the sale didn't increase the use of

emission causing products, then the sale didn't increase emissions. If the point is that by allowing the sale the government is enabling the coal industry or something that's a different issue. That's why i'm questioning the article. Obama put anti-coal policies in place a few years ago. If that is changing the question is why. Was the end result that coal didn't become more expensive and have people switch to greener fuels? Was it that they started importing coal from other countries and now in addition to the coal we have worse emissions due to the transportation? Is it that coal use and emissions didn't decrease and now a lot of Americans are out of work in coal mining industries?
i want to know what the real problem is, so to speak. I know emissions are a problem, but I details and this author doesn't give many. Obama took a big hit in popularity from the earlier move against coal (he's hated in Kentucky for that reason) so was the change for political reasons or was it because that without more support for environmental issues the bans were having no effect? Is it because he wants the coal industry to help him defeat passage of the Keystone? There's something to all of this and it's not as cut and dry as "Obama isn't doing what he should for the environment".

[Uncle Joe]

22. By allowing the mining corporations to bid on government owned coal, they De Facto

made more coal available reducing the cost and inhibiting the impetus to convert to sustainable forms of energy thus increasing emissions.

[KoKo]

9. Do a Google or Wiki on Bill McKibbon for Reference to Reliability...eom

[okaawhatever]

10. I know he's reliable and has done huge work with activism. I'm not questioning his creds so much

as the fact that the story seems.......I don't know.........like there's an agenda but I don't know what it is. Is it that too few people are reacting to the stats when they see climate change numbers and this is just an attempt to get people's emotionally involved? Is it to get more Republican types on board. Is that why he's largely going after Obama in the piece? He's equating approving domestic oil development with additional oil consumption. That's doesn't work for me. Yes, domestic drilling harms the environment but not in the ways he's suggesting. He's making an emissions argument, and emissions will actually be reduced if consumption stays the same and the additional transportation emissions are removed. He's using Obama approving a bunch of new drilling permits with increased emissions. I can't agree with that. That decision was done for two reasons. One, to reduce dependence on foreign oil and their ability to screw with our economy. Two, many of those sites were under contract with big oil companies who weren't developing the so they could keep oil prices high. Obama called the on it and changed the rules. If you don't use it you lose it and put the permits back up for sale. That's the game big oil was playing with this country's future and our income.
The author doesn't want the Keystone pipeline approved, and neither do I but the real argument isn't with Obama. It's with the uneducated population of America that thinks it's a good idea. I also wonder if Obama denying Keystone would lead to a scotus case that would be heard by the Roberts court. I know there's something behind Obama's delaying of the vote and trying to put it off as far as possible I just don't know what it is and the author hasn't helped with the true reason.

[KoKo]

11. You say: If you don't use it ...You lose it......

So..if we don't "Drill Baby Drill" and sell it off to Chinese and other Third World Countries...then we are Losers?

Why should we take the last resources we have left and sell them off to other countries. And that's where those Tar Sands are going along with our Coal from USA.

Use it or Lose It? We are Selling it off... Our last natural resources and causing damage to our underground aquifers which millions of US/American Citizens depend on for drinking water. NOTHING is more important than our American Peoples's rights to their OWN FRESH WATER AND CLEAN AIR.

But you say..."Use it or LOSE IT?"

[okaawhatever]

16. No. That was Obama's statement regarding the cancellation of permits to drillers who were buying up

permits only to keep others from drilling so they could keep the price of oil inflated. It wasn't about consumption but about monopolistic practices. The game being played by the top two or three oil companies was to force a bunch of drilling permits (remember Sarah Palins drill baby drill?) by promising lower energy prices and all that. They weren't going to drill or lower prices, they wanted to buy the permits to block competition and make sure the US was dependent on oii from other countries. Think Bush buddy Saudi Arabia. Obama came out and said that the companies that were sitting on permits and not drilling (this was also in support of fracking as most of these permits were offshore) would have the permits cancelled and re-issued to a new buyer. They were pissed but there was only so much they could say because they couldn't admit what they were really doing. They said they were still "testing" the sites and so forth. It was all b.s. so they had to sort of back down, but they went after Obama big time for it and still are.

Environmental concerns are serious but we can't think that if we don't drill it won't be used. We need to address consumption and developing better technologies, but Keystone is a separate issue. It's the worst form of oil. It's not equal to other oil, and that's the issue. Ditto what developing it does to the environment. Also, if we're going to take risks to our eco system it should benefit our citizens. Americans will not benefit from tar sands oil. The Koch brothers, some in Canada and China will. We can't equate Keystone to other projects. IMHO

[RobertEarl]

19. This is a simple one-sided issue

If we keep the oil and coal in the ground, it can't pollute the atmosphere.

The government owns vast reserves and can say 'leave it there'.

But they are not. They are saying dig, drill and pump. Here's your permit, get 'er done.

Some people are saying that is not a wise choice to be making since adding to the climate problem by using the people's reserves, is dumb.

[okaawhatever]

20. It's not a one sided issue and it's absolutely stupid to say that if we don't use our oil that's the

same thing as not using ANY oil. We could not use our oil, buy it all from other countries and have the planet die off before our reserves are tapped. End result, not a single benefit environmentally.

The argument against using our reserves vs. buying foreign oil are separate from consumption. Making people think that not using our reserves will lower emissions sounds like something the neo-cons would say. We don't want to tap out our reserves or expose our environment to the leaks and other challenges, but that won't make our consumption go down. Sorry, it just doesn't.

[RobertEarl]

21. Here's what your view is like

We can give our kids a few shots of whiskey at home, even tho we know that whiskey will mess them up. Hey, if we don't do it some one else will, so lets just mess up our kids all on our own.

The real problem is an economic one: If we don't sell our reserves, there will be a price increase on the rest and the American users will pay more. Then the politicians may not get reelected. And of course, renewables will become price competitive, which is why Big Oil and Coal hate that idea!!

Instead of Obama coming right out and saying we can't afford to contribute anymore to pollution and will stop contributing just by leaving our reserves in the ground, he is saying we can afford climate change. That it's "not that big of a deal, so have at it boys".

[polichick]

12. There's been no leadership on climate change by ANY of our "leaders" in DC.

[KoKo]

13. Yet...they run on it on the Dem Side over and over....

Even Al Gore except for a few peep ups...doesn't seem to have his heart in it, anymore.

[neverforget]

14. The money speaks louder than the Earth for now. Soon we will realize that you

can't eat money.

[KoKo]

15. The Earth will Shake off the Fleas and Parasites...I don't want to

be around for how that goes...but, it's starting already.

We are losing time...and we voted for something different.

[polichick]

17. History will not be kind to the U.S. - and karma's gonna be a bitch.

[okaawhatever]

18. I doubt there will be until campaign finance reform and changes in the media. Oil and the huge

corporations that own them could pay for every dime spent on the last Presidential elections with less than a weeks profit. Similar with the media coverage and advertising. Unless we address the 5 million pound monkey on the back of our government we won't be able to fight these companies. Sierra Club gets it's money from individuals. There isn't a multi-billion dollar profit to be won or lost depending on the laws and consumption. C'mon folks, the government was our defense against these guys. Now that the elections can be bought and paid for by one large corporation we have to recognize how much of our power was taken away. What is a politician to do, say they won't take corporate money on principal? That may work in a very few races, but the net result will be that some corporate shill will come along and win the election and it won't matter what the "principled" person did. We'll be stuck with the worst of two evils.

Until we fight Citizens United and fair press laws and regulations we'll lose almost every battle. We have to go back to a free and fair election system and media or we're screwed.