Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Obama To Nation: ‘Climate Change Is Not A Hoax. More Droughts And Floods And Wildfires Are Not A Joke.’

By Joe Romm  

"Obama To Nation: ‘Climate Change Is Not A Hoax. More Droughts And Floods And Wildfires Are Not A Joke.’"

Share:

google plus icon

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/13/barack_obama_thumb.jpgIt looks like Romney’s mockery of Obama’s 2008 pledge of climate action had one positive impact.

At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, President Obama said tonight to a large national TV audience:

And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax.  More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke.  They’re a threat to our children’s future.  And in this election, you can do something about it.

Worth filling up a couple of shot glasses, I’d say — though repeating the denier “hoax” frame is not the way to debunk it.

Here’s what leads up to it:

You can choose the path where we control more of our own energy.  After thirty years of inaction, we raised fuel standards so that by the middle of the next decade, cars and trucks will go twice as far on a gallon of gas.   We’ve doubled our use of renewable energy, and thousands of Americans have jobs today building wind turbines and long-lasting batteries.  In the last year alone, we cut oil imports by one million barrels a day – more than any administration in recent history.  And today, the United States of America is less dependent on foreign oil than at any time in nearly two decades.

Now you have a choice – between a strategy that reverses this progress, or one that builds on it. We’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration in the last three years, and we’ll open more. But unlike my opponent, I will not let oil companies write this country’s energy plan, or endanger our coastlines, or collect another $4 billion in corporate welfare from our taxpayers.

We’re offering a better path – a future where we keep investing in wind and solar and clean coal; where farmers and scientists harness new biofuels to power our cars and trucks; where construction workers build homes and factories that waste less energy; where we develop a hundred year supply of natural gas that’s right beneath our feet.  If you choose this path, we can cut our oil imports in half by 2020 and support more than 600,000 new jobs in natural gas alone.

Yes, that’s an “all of the above” energy policy. So down one drink and put the other down the drain.

Beats mockery, though. Comments?

UPDATE: Good speech with a great finish. I’d still give Bill Clinton props for the best speech of both conventions. Gov. Jennifer Granholm had the best line of the night:

In Romney’s world, the cars get the elevator; the workers get the shaft.

‹ Exclusive Interview With Invisible President Obama On Global Warming

Sept. 7 News: Climate Change Makes An Appearance At Political Conventions — But Is It More Than A Cameo? ›

125 Responses to Obama To Nation: ‘Climate Change Is Not A Hoax. More Droughts And Floods And Wildfires Are Not A Joke.’

  1. shirley says:

    Well, I’m not crazy about fracking as an energy alternative. I fought against it all spring here in NC to no avail it seems. Even so, I have no hope for our energy future or controlling global warming with the Romney club. I give Obama credit for putting it on the platform. I think that took some guts considering that half the country is living in environmental denial of how seriously wrong things are.

  2. Tami Kennedy says:

    If he took that more than words he would leave all the oil and gas “growth” out of his plan. And coal was a great joke punch line. This is definitely NOT “Forward!”

    • Mike Roddy says:

      You’re right, the speech was schizophrenic. If Obama wins, he needs to fire Salazar and halt the Cheney energy policy. Then, he could convene emergency executive level meetings on climate with China, India, and the EU. That may be the path forward, since legislatures and ministries tend to be corrupt everywhere.

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

        The Cheney energy policy is that of the US ruling caste, the country’s owners and real rulers. Obama cannot destroy trillions in their wealth and not suffer éxtremely prejudicial’ repercussions.

    • Don Harris says:

      Yep, and there’s no such thing as “clean coal”; it’s a lying meme put out by BigOil&Gas.

  3. MarkfromLexington says:

    Great speech! Incredibly Inspiring.

    “I will not let oil companies write this country’s energy plan, or endanger our coastlines, or collect another $4 billion in corporate welfare from our taxpayers.”

    “If you turn away now – if you buy into the cynicism that the change we fought for isn’t possible…well, change will not happen. If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, then other voices will fill the void: lobbyists and special interests; the people with the $10 million checks who are trying to buy this election”

  4. prokaryotes says:

    Yes we can! And yes we must do protect our nation from this rising threat!

  5. Judy says:

    I think this election will free his hands more to tackle the energy future. It’s difficult to get there when every move is blocked. My niece just lost her job at a wind energy plant because of GOP driven cutbacks. If he can go full bore ahead without hindrance from a hostile GOP house takeover, he will focus more on clean energy. I’m betting on him.

  6. DRT says:

    Clean coal is in the beter path? 100 years of natural gas is in the better path? Where’s the unicorns and fairy dust so we can wish the ice back into the Arctic?

  7. Alex Gilbert says:

    The most important part about this speech was that it highlighted the differences between the two campaigns – Obama is the candidate that actually believes in climate change and will fight it, while Romney laughs about its existence. The Obama administration has made important progress towards addressing climate change, from raising fuel efficiency standards to EPA’s proposed carbon pollution standard. Although this is not enough, action is always better than inaction.

  8. sarah says:

    The best part of his mention of carbon pollution is the sustained audience response, clearly linked to the words “climate change”. They get it and know it’s important. When will the campaign handlers get that message?

    • Robert says:

      When will the President. Joe Biden mentioned a heart full of courage and a ramrod spine. Not on climate, I’m afraid…

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      Never. Action on climate destabilisation means attacking the capitalists’ biggest pot of gold-the tens of trillions in fossil fuel assets. They will NEVER voluntarily give up that loot. And no-one governs anywhere in the West without the business Bosses’ seal of approval. The rabble do not count.

      • catman306 says:

        Perhaps someone can write an article about exactly how much fossil fuel reserves remain in the ground and what these reserves are worth in 2012 dollars. I know it is a very big number.

        Or maybe that article has written and someone will provide a link.

  9. Aussie John says:

    “Clean coal” is an oxymoron; it was a flat note in an otherwise great speech.
    Would like to have heard an undertaking foreshadowed to join with the rest of the world in an emissions trading scheme; may as well ‘throw down the gauntlet’ completely to the fossil fuel industry.
    The USA is not an insulated island – global warming is just that; “Global”

  10. Mark E says:

    I’ll toast with near-beer. It sort of reminds me of a Gary Larson Far Side about what we say to dogs and what dogs actually hear…….

    “HOAX CLIMATE CHANGE ….. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah ….. HOAX CLIMATE CHANGE ….. …blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah ….. HOAX CLIMATE CHANGE ….. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah …..”

    • prokaryotes says:

      Nah, you have to challenge this argument. Which indeed is very sensitive psychology. There are only 2 things here which doesn’t make sense / needs tweaking. Clean coal and natural gas are part of the problem, not the solution to climate change.

  11. dana1981 says:

    It was nice to see the president actually talk about climate change, in a major prime time speech no less. I think we can thank Mitt Romney for mocking climate change and emboldening President Obama to take him on and address the issue.

    • Robert says:

      Six words is not “talking about climate change” I’m afraid…

    • Alex J says:

      It was indeed good that Mr. Obama has finally told us climate change isn’t a hoax. But what he apparently still doesn’t get, unless he’s just playing all the cards he can or knows something we don’t, is that when it comes to fossil CO2, “clean coal” IS a hoax.

      • David Lewis says:

        Carbon capture is discussed by American Electric Power CEO Mike Morris in an interview hosted by Public Radio International’s “Living on Earth” radio show. Google “Death of Carbon Capture” and you’ll find it.

        Morris was ready to build out at full scale one of the “hoax” coal fired electricity generating plants but his regulator, by not allowing AEP to recover one dime of the cost because there is no politically mandated carbon price in the US, stopped the project.

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

          Carbon Capture and Storage was immediately obviously a hoax. Even the barest examination shows that it would be hellishly expensive and not work, so it is plainly a chimaera invented to protect the trillions in coal assets. Nothing more or less. Insatiable greed is killing us, and we’ll have consummated the process in a few decades after a mere few millennia of increasingly fevered effort.

  12. Robert says:

    I like this President, and I liked his speech. But this snippet on climate change isn’t worth the drink Joe downed.

    Lip service, and not much of it at that. Nothing more.

  13. Max says:

    It remains the case that there is a clear choice and we can expect distinct policies with regard to climate change from an Obama versus a Romney administration. Anyone who doesn’t think so is deluding themselves. Yes Obama has been disappointing on confronting the climate crisis but a Romney administration would be far, far worse.

  14. gasman says:

    Maybe so,
    but on climate change Obama is so much better than the alternative. I hope as the national interest in dealing with climate change increases, Obama will move in that direction.

  15. I think the President, the public and even the good Dr. Chu, Nobel Laureate though he is, need education on this topic. “All of the above,” sounds good and works politically, because it makes a lot of constituencies feel included, but it obviously doesn’t address our need to move to clean energy immediately.

    I think the key to getting people to understand what’t happening is to keep talking about the dramatic events in the Arctic and their assorted ramifications. Write the President a letter. Write Chu a letter. Write a letter to the editor.

    For my part, I’m writing a series of articles starting with the big ice loss and moving on through the various implications for the jet stream, food supply, methane releases, Greenland’s ice, etc. Probably only 50 to 100 K people will read it, but those who do will get a jolt.

    Keep putting it out there. We’ve crossed a critical threshold. Keep putting it out there.

  16. Merrelyn Emery says:

    On climate change I don’t think it was an accident that he invoked FDR and repeatedly stressed communal action and responsibility. Stay tuned all you cynics out there, ME

  17. jonthed says:

    At this point I’m happy for him to say whatever it takes to win over the swing voters and get himself re-elected, cos he’s so much better a choice than Mitt. If that means an all of the above policy, I’ll take it.

  18. caroza says:

    So far I’d say this is hypocritical twaddle. Here’s the Avaaz campaign which turned up in my inbox this morning: http://www.avaaz.org/en/a_ray_of_hope_on_climate/?bSOmmdb&v=17625

    China is going flat out on renewables and funding them, which the US and EU have both failed to do. The US won’t even back away from fossil fuel subsidies. But they want to put trade tariffs on Chinese solar panels & renewables, although they are not competitive in this market. Make no mistake, the goal is to break the Chinese renewables industry before it achieves global dominance.

    Time to move onto the Renminbi as a global currency, I’d say.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      I agree, but the Chinese are going to ignore the imploding Western plutocracies, and trade more and more with the likes of the BRICs, the Africans, Latin America and smart Westerners like the Germans. The Anglosphere will end up the new Third World, plus thermo-nuclear missiles.

    • Mike Roddy says:

      China does not belong on a pedestal. They are still building coal plants at a furious pace. Going after the renewables market does not equate to a serious commitment to reduce their emissions.

      They have the same problem we do: outsized influence within the government by fossil fuel oligarchies.

      • caroza says:

        I certainly don’t think China belongs on a pedestal – the thought of them as our new overlords is quite horrifying. (I’m South African and their influence is big here). But I think they ‘get’ the climate crisis in a way that the US doesn’t, and as they’re unhampered by the remnants of democracy, they’ll be much more efficient about a transition to renewables. Whether they’ll do it fast enough so they can start cutting back on fossil fuel and coal remains to be seen. But from outside the US, they look like a better bet because American foot-dragging on this seems to be never-ending. It looks as though the only way to cut US emissions will be to switch international currencies and bankrupt the US.

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

          What horrifies you about China’s rise? Have no fear-they do not intend to be óverlords’, to build over one thousand bases on foreign soil, attack, blockade, sanction and subvert country after country and hold unto themselves the semi-divine right to determine the form of government in every country on earth. That’s the prerogative, and desire, of those with a ‘Manifest Destiny’ only.

          • Dear Mulga,

            I’m a lefty too, but aren’t you forgetting Tibet? Give the Chinese time — they will prove to be as big a bunch of imperialist a**holes as any Western power has. There’s nothing magical about the “People”s” Republic. In fact, I’d say that, in terms of the way they treat their own people, China needs a communist revolution.

        • Tim says:

          I don’t really think it is that the Chinese “get” the climate crisis so much as that they get that being the world leader in renewable energy technology is “good capitalism”. If the GOP weren’t owned by the old guard fossil fuel interests, they’d be subsidizing renewables too. (Hell, they subsidize the frickin’ corn ethanol business like gangbusters!) The world’s largest oil companies aren’t Chinese, so they can go big time for renewables. China has a lot of coal, so they are big time into coal.

  19. sailrick says:

    They should have had Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-MA) give a speech on climate change.

  20. Ernest says:

    Well at least he mentioned the “C”(limate) word as well as linked it the tangible current extreme weather events, concrete effects such as droughts and floods.

    Despite the talk “clean coal” rhetoric, and “all of the above” political hedging, the more substantive stuff is in the auto efficiency standards, and quiet EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. And yes, even natural gas replacing coal plants, in the short term can help. Don’t know what he’ll do with Keystone XL. And none of this is enough for the magnitude of challenge to really get the job done. (But neither is India or China there either.) Given the highly polarized environment, a country equally divided politically, I just wonder what is realistic politically. (A revenue neutral carbon tax might be possible, but only if the Republicans finally accept climate change as a genuine threat. This is currently a fantasy, with the Tea Party running the show.) We have a long ways to go.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      If the leaders of the West, the Anglosphere in particular, were sane, they would see co-operation with China as in everybody’s best interests. Unfortunately the mindset of the Western civilizational supremacist cannot abide treating non-Europeans as equals, so they have chosen confrontation instead, to the detriment of all.

  21. J Bowers says:

    I suspect the speech that will linger at the back of many minds in the longer term will be Sandra Fluke’s. The rightwing pundits took the bait and have really shown their true malice, such as wishing Ted Kennedy had taken her for a drive.

    • John McCormick says:

      I have come to associate Taliban (religious fundamentalists) with the republican party (religious fundamentalists). It will be an act of supreme patriotism and love of our country to eliminate the republican party forever. We voters have the means to do that.

      • Mark E says:

        That’s not so far from true…. BBC reports the Taliban came to Texas in the 90s to talk about building a pipeline in Afghanistan.

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

        Guess things didn’t work out so well….

      • Dennis Tomlinson says:

        The “Wall of Separation” in the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, as Jefferson referred to it, is all that separates us from the Taliban, the Mullah’s, and the Ayatollah’s. And yet the religious right’s blindness to this drives them to conjure up denials and claims of Christian Countryhood by way of misguided mental gymnastics of Olympic proportion.

        I don’t want the Republican party go go away. I just want them to recover; to check out of the insane asylum; eject the loons and cranks who currently run the party; and return to the 1950′s, “I Like Ike”, party of reason that actually housed a fair number of northeastern liberals, moderates, and conscientious conservatives; all-the-while keeping it’s loony-hood wing away from the control panel (McCarthy aside).

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

        In Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism the rise of fascistic fundamentalists has been fomented and furthered by plutocratic interests eager to forge quasi-militaristic forces that will push their agendas, along with their own xenophobia and supremacist delusions. The link with money in all these groups is pretty plain, and the promotion of hate-groups furthers the Bosses’ perennial ‘divide and rule’ tactics.

  22. BillD says:

    It’s really important that Obama cited the seriousness of climate change in his most important public speech. When we agree that climate change is a serious problem, we can then debate policy. With more public discussion, we have a chance of leaving the deniers behind and bringing the flip floppers and misinformed on board.

    I didn’t stay up for the speech, but did record it. I’ve been really excited by speeches by Michelle, Maj Duckworth, Bill Clinton, and Elizabeth Warren. The Democrats are doing a great job of exciting the base. I’m much more optimistic at this point.

    • Dennis Tomlinson says:

      Lieutenant Colonel Duckworth. She eats Majors for breakfast;)

    • Rand Wrobel says:

      I agree, it was significant in itself, the words “climate” and “carbon” had been utterly missing from his campaign. Even more heartening was the crowd’s strong response – the most sustained ovation. It gives me hope that a good portion of the public is not afraid to push this issue. I think even Republicans will come around once the downside becoemes even more clear,if we counter the fossil fuel energy propaganda.
      Two suggestions for all: Use the Titanic metaphor extensively: to deniers: Yeah, just like the Titanic was unsinkable. To “Drill Baby Drill”: Yeah, pour on more speed headlong into the icebergs.

  23. ColoradoBob says:

    The court backed the science that led the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) to conclude that New Zealand’s climate warmed almost one degree Celsius between 1909 and 2009.
    New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust, a private body that rejects the argument that human activity has caused global warming, went to court alleging NIWA’s methodology was flawed and its findings were not peer reviewed.
    Judge Geoffrey Venning rejected the allegations in a written ruling handed down Friday, saying NIWA acted “in accordance with internationally recognised and credible scientific methodology”.
    “The plaintiff does not succeed on any of its challenges … the application for judicial review is dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant,” he wrote.
    Judge Venning ordered the trust to pay NIWA’s costs.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/9527323/New-Zealand-dismissed-climate-change-sceptics.html

    • Aussie John says:

      So…
      Should not this case open the door for a counter claim against sceptic associations for misrepresentation of the factual science?
      What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!

      A claim of reparation for damages to the environment may make the vested interests accept some responsibility for their actions.

      • Mike Roddy says:

        It takes an honest judiciary. Here in the US, the Supreme Court is corrupt, so we don’t bother.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      ‘The New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust’, eh? Just about every word and the sum total of them all, are tributes to the enduring legacy of Big Brother and the Ministry of Truth. Good to see the malignant homunculi put in their place.

  24. BillD says:

    I’ve been using some of my limited funds to contribute to polical candidates through the League of Conservation Voters and to help in key local and national senate and house races. I had been holding off in contributing to Obama and until brought up climate change. Last night he earned my campaign contribution and this morning he will receive it. Not much compared to the right wing billionaires funding Romney, but there are some advantages to receiving money from greater numbers of individuals.

  25. Mike Roddy says:

    btw, thank you for Climate Progress, Joe. It moves the discussion where it needs to go, instead of staying behind to fight reactive and irrelevant battles.

  26. lisa wright says:

    Yes, thank you for Climate Progress because “this is indeed a very uphill battle, but the stakes are too high to stand aside.”

  27. NJP1 says:

    unfortunately there are still morons in voting booths, convinced that if they elect Romney, climate change and global warming will go away

  28. Phil Blackwood says:

    Great comments from everyone.

    I’m glad he dope-slapped the “hoaxers” in public, but when he says we elected him to tell us the truth and then implies that we have plenty of time to solve the problem, I get severe cognitive dissonance.

    Just this summer we have experienced a monster heat wave in the U.S., seen almost the entire surface of the Greenland ice sheet turn to puddles of water, discovered the Arctic ice sheet has lost 3/4 of its volume in the last 3 decades, found huge reservoirs of methane beneath the Antarctic, and gained the insight that extreme summer heat is about to cover the earth like a Sherwin Williams commercial.

    Come on Mr. President, tell the truth about the climate. Listen to your climate advisers.

    More Barack and less Niebuhr.

    If you play footsie for the election, you won’t have a mandate for the tough work that is needed.

    Speak up!

  29. Ken Barrows says:

    I cannot help but think of some of the commenters have adopted an attitude like an abused wife wanting to hang on to her no good husband because he says a few soothing words from time to time.

    • Dennis Tomlinson says:

      And there are no half-way houses providing refuge.

    • Carol says:

      Ken,
      Well said. There are similarities indeed.
      I tortured myself and read the transcript last night (then tossed and turned). Left me with these thoughts:

      Obama believes there is such a thing as “clean coal”! AND there is a 100 year supply of natural gas! Vote for Obama and this is what you will get. Fracking a go go in conjunction with heaps of “clean coal”.

      Go buy another SUV! Crank up the air conditioners!

      Vote for Romney and you will get all this and more. The R and R platform is offering nightmarish/dystopian horrors—- too many to mention. Aren’t we in a wonderful position this upcoming presidential “election” here in 2012: the surreal world of plutocracy in the USA.

      And of course, like clockwork we hear the old “lesser of 2 evils” cries arising from the tried and true democrats. We MUST vote for Obama to keep the more evil R and R out—— never mind what Obama’s actions are.

      Unless you admire democracy squelching actions like the one on the floor of the DNC when “democratic” party leaders forced through a platform change to reinstate references to God and the view that Jerusalem is Israel’s undivided capital?

      We moved right past that ——- yes? Just ignore such trivial matters and get to the heart of the DNC when our great orator takes the stage and re-infuses us with hope punctuated by the knowledge that God may bless us all and make it all OK.

      Doesn’t it make you sleep better at night when you hear our president state passionately: “We’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration in the last three years, and we’ll open more. But unlike my opponent, I will not let oil companies write this country’s energy plan, or endanger our coastlines, or collect another $4 billion in corporate welfare from our taxpayers.”

      Yeah right. And just how much money is Obama getting from said oil companies —– BP as one example?

      Can we use the fact that Obama has fast tracked Shell to drill in the Arctic as an example of oil companies not writing this country’s energy plan?

      From Ecowatch, 8/31/12 (http://ecowatch.org/2012/shell-begin-arctic-drilling/):

      “By opening the Arctic to offshore oil drilling, President Obama has made a monumental mistake that puts human life, wildlife and the environment in terrible danger. The harsh and frozen conditions of the Arctic make drilling risky, and an oil spill would be impossible to clean up,” said Rebecca Noblin, Alaska director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Scariest of all, the Obama administration is allowing Shell to go forward without even having the promised oil-spill containment equipment in place.”

      No matter that the Arctic Ice cap is melting at record levels ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19496674) we can rest assured because Obama says: “We are on a better path”.

      It cannot be repeated enough. Obama did NOT stop the Keystone pipeline and has approved drilling IN THE ARCTIC which is in a death spiral: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/31/782511/arctic-sea-ice-death-spiral-were-gonna-need-a-bigger-graph/

      By allowing tar sands extraction, drilling in the Arctic, opening the door for fracking, continuing the unforgivable promotion of the lie that is “clean coal” all while increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere we are supposed to believe this is a path that will make the world a better place for our children (not to mention the ecosystems that are collapsing around us)?

      Should we look at the bright side?

      We could buy Exxon stock (at an all time high) after last nights speech and celebrate! Rex Tillerson (CEO of Exxon, “America’s most profitable company which now produces as much natural gas as it does oil”) must have been thrilled to hear Obama proclaim: “We’re offering a better path—-where we develop a hundred year supply of natural gas that’s right beneath our feet. If you choose this path, we can cut our oil imports in half by 2020 and support more than 600,000 new jobs in natural gas alone.”

      If you want to lose your appetite read: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/16/exxon-shale-gas-fracking/.

      In this article Tillerson states: “The fracking party has just begun”.

      Indeed. This is one drunk beyond reason party. A messy, heartbreakingly catastrophic party hosted by plutocrats/sociopaths who are trying their best to convince as many as possible that it is essential for their survival to participate. I suspect that there will be few remaining for the post party clean up.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      Obama is more the charming philanderer than the bully, hence the genius of his controllers. Your analogy is very apt.

    • Merrelyn Emery says:

      A very poor analogy! Women do leave their abusive men and live independently. If you walk away from Obama you will still get a President, and the future that one brings, ME

      • Ken Barrows says:

        Yes, you still get a President, but if both are wholly inadequate, why not vote for Jill Stein? I realize that chances of a Green Party ascendancy are close to nil. However, I think it’s the only political chance we have left. An alternative is a collapse of industrialization.

        • Merrelyn Emery says:

          In a ‘first past the post’ system, a vote for Stein is a vote for R & R which will certainly hasten the industrial collapse, ME

          • Tim says:

            Anyone living in a solid GOP state can very safely vote for Jill Stein. There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell (or the post-2020 arctic) that Obama will carry Texas, where I live. I think it would be great to see a huge vote for Stein in all the bright red states. Perhaps that would get the Democrats nervous about their future in these states. After all, the Dems in Texas think that in 10 or 20 years, the Hispanic vote will give them a shot in Texas.

  30. Mark E says:

    I’ve been thinking more about Obama’s strategy on climate… there weren’t a whole lot of choices:

    Option A) Do nothing, let the solution figure itself out as things go to hell

    Option B) Tackle the problem of economic growth, which means replacing capitalism…. which is inevitable since growth can’t go forever… but is there the slightest political will today? No. So that leaves Option A (do nothing) or Option C, try to solve the problem via capitalism.

    Option C) try to solve the problem via capitalism. This requires a sufficiently strong economy to drive the innovation and deployment of alternatives, and key to a strong economy is a positive attitude among the population. If Obama were really talking about the reality (conserve, shortage, prep for 4C) I tend to think the psychology would put a giant wet blanket over the population, the economy would tank, and the goal of using capitalism to try to solve the problem would be dead on arrival. So maybe it’s a great and smart strategy the president is following. *IF* you think capitalism can solve the problem.

    Unfortunately, capitalism is fatally defective because it requires nonstop economic growth, which is impossible.

    But I suppose you have to start somewhere, or you do nothing. I don’t want oil/gas/coal development, but I am 100% in favor of messing up our own backyard (emissions aside), instead of fighting wars for the right to mess up someone else’s.

    The best way we can support this approach, defects and all, is to wave the flag on every renewable, and stigmatize fossil fuels as unamerican.

    And, I guess, leave it to our kids to deal with consumer psychology and capitalism’s fatal defects. It’ll at least be easier if energy production is on our own shores.

    • Lewis W says:

      I think option B is where the deniersphere gets the whole ‘climate change is a vast conspiracy to create a one world government.’ To correct course as quickly as scientists say is necessary will require international cooperation on scales never before known. Clever markets in pollution and more efficient cars are peeing in the sea. The ‘one world government’ conspiratists didn’t actually find a conspiracy they just gave the what if a moments thought. They may in fact be more honest in that regard than many of those who understand the science.

      • Chris Winter says:

        The way I see it, the honest appraisal would lead to the conclusion that Republican policies, since they will worsen climate change, would make the one-world government they claim to fear more likely to come about when things get really bad. And if it does come about, it’s not likely to be democratic.

        Of course, this outcome is by no means inevitable. We might wind up with nations fighting each other to protect what they have left — as in Gwynne Dyer’s Climate Wars.

  31. Dan Ives says:

    I don’t know what’s more disappointing: (1) the speech that bragged about increasing oil and gas drilling (and also pledged to protect our coastlines at the same time?), called for drilling even more aggressively in the future, and pledged investment in the the clean coal fairly tale, or (2) the commenters here gushing about how great it was.
    It never ceases to amaze me how the readers of this blog can so quickly forget the scientific content published here, particularly when a Democrat speaks. Monumentally disappointing.

    • Carol says:

      Dan,
      Agree.
      BUT— at least there is Mulga M and his definition of cynic! Loved that!
      Ken B. (#29) makes an excellent point as well.

      There will be differing opinions but overall I must say that I am extremely grateful this forum exists as it is one of the few places one can go where there is consistent rational discourse among commentators. And I appreciate that folks who comment are respectful of others. In addition, it is very educational.
      Joe is brilliant AND can be pretty funny at times too (latest example; invisible Obama post).
      Carol

    • Mark E says:

      Dan, please provide us with a couple paragraphs of an alternative speech that still uses capitalism and economic growth to find the solution….. Or are you suggesting everyone here should have already taken the next step beyond climate science, i.e., that global warming is merely a symptom of capitalism’s fatal defects?

      • Dan Ives says:

        Joe has written extensively about how we can solve the problem with existing technology, within our existing political system, and that this solution would be market-based (capitalism) and would provide tremendous economic growth. So I refer you to his writing on the subject. The bulk of the solution is this: impose a price on carbon that reflects its true costs to society.

        • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

          Using capitalism to solve the disasters brought about by capitalism is like trying to cure cancer with injections of tumour cells. Capitalism is all about ‘çreative destruction’-the creation of vast wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, and the destruction of indigenous populations, non-Western societies, alternative political and social systems, the lives of billions of slaves, indentured workers and wage slaves, and, in the end, without exception, of the riches and wonders of the natural world.

        • Mark E says:

          That gives me an idea… is anybody publishing candidate score cards on the basis of the wedges?

  32. NJP1 says:

    Although politicians of every hue insist that we can have infinite growth, the economy of America and the rest of the developed world runs on oil, and is really very simple: If oil is cheap, more gets burned; that creates jobs and growth and GDP goes up. When the cost of oil rises, we burn less, unemployment goes up—growth and GDP goes down. But the overall trend has been inexorably down because oil is costs too much to keep world industry running and no form of government is going to put industrial economies on the upswing again.
    Job creation schemes just pass money around, they do not create real jobs.

    In Barack Obama, there seems to be a decent man in office who cares more about humankind in general than about one (wealthy) strata of mankind in particular, even if he is trying to govern a country benighted by religion, guns and a belief in the divine right of overconsumption. There is also an odd naivety that he should be able to solve an industrial crisis that has been building for the last 40 years, the inevitable crunch in oil supply and (by definition) price.
    Yes, there will be upward movements, and politicians (whoever happens to be in office at the time), will jump for joy at the ‘prosperity’ they’ve brought back, but it’s an illusion, just as the ‘American dream’ was an illusion, best experienced while one is asleep, as one pundit put it.
    Without the lubrication of oil, the American nation will lose its cohesion, in a geographic, ethnic and religious context. So will the European Union, disparate states will split apart once the mirage of collective prosperity vanishes, and each looks to their own. If you doubt that, look at Europe falling apart right now.
    Our infrastructure may appear complex and sophisticated, but in essence we all live in an oil-economy, and there are no viable alternatives on a scale necessary to change that, despite Romney’s promises of oil self sufficiency by 2020. America hasn’t been self sufficient in oil since 1970, and won’t be again.
    The trillions of barrels of oil may be down there, in the Bakken shales and the Alberta tarsands but what Romney fails to point out is the sheer cost (in energy terms) of getting hold of it. We must have oil to maintain our lifestyle, and voters will clutch at any offered straw likely to maintain it. Obama knows perfectly well that humanity is reaching the end of its oil lifeline and is trying to break the news gently. GDP has been nothing of the kind, it’s merely been industrialised fuelburning. Romney knows it too, but is determined to grab the presidency by promoting the lie that America can carry on with the oil party into infinity, and global warming will go away if he is elected. Obama is doing his best, (He has at last said climate change isn’t a hoax! ) but his opponents think they can have $2 gas again just by voting for it. Instead, we are all staring into the abyss of a very different future.

    • Petronelle says:

      A most intelligent comment. Thank you!

      An Obama win won’t solve our energy problem, but it might keep in place, in government and at the Supreme Court, enough people to prevent the fascist dictatorship that the right will want to put in place when the economy really falls apart.

      • Carol says:

        Supreme Court?

        Remember Citizens United?
        The Supreme Court ruled political speech by corporations is just as protected as political speech by humans and reaffirmed the right of corporations to make independent political expenditures. This SUPREME COURT IMPOSED campaign finance system allows our government to be auctioned off to billionaires, millionaires, corporate funders and other special interests using political money to buy influence and results of elections.

        And let us not forget Bush v Gore 2000.

        Anyone still reading this thread should watch (or read the transcript) of the recent Bill Moyers/Bernie Sanders interview.
        Although he does not speak directly to the issues of climate change, he speaks to the root of the problems we are facing in a most succinct, accessible manner and offers solutions: http://billmoyers.com/segment/bernie-sanders-on-the-independent-in-politics/

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

      I agree with your analysis, but I think you leave out the crucial factor-the insatiable greed of the capitalist over-class. We can only survive in a steady-state economy where everything is endlessly recycled if the tremendous wealth produced from plundering the planet is justly redistributed to everybody, ensuring a decent sufficiency for all. Until the plutocrats are overturned, until inequality is banished, until insensate greed is forever banished or brought under control, we will go on our merry way to hell, arriving at our destination shortly.

    • Merrelyn Emery says:

      ‘Job creation’ can also build high speed rail systems, wind turbines and install subsidized solar – whatever you need, given a bit of specialized training up the front, ME

    • Aussie John says:

      You have described well the essence of the problem.
      Lets be positive and work on some possible solutions:
      1. Govt must more heavily tax the fossil fuel industry to curtail their vast profits -that revenue be used to develop alternative renewable energy supplies – environmental levies perhaps;
      2.Formation/operation of local co-operative business’ groups be assisted by govt tax concession – to replace high growth/profit orientated corporations with high parasitic financier losses;
      3. Financial system be re-regulated to ensure prudent stable operation;
      4. Carbon trading scheme implemented to ensure environmentally responsible energy development and use is encouraged.

      Above are initial suggestions -no doubt more good ideas are required.
      Lets hope that a complete collapse of unregulated capitalism is not a necessary pre-emptor of change.
      Revolution and anarchy is waiting in the wings.

  33. Paul Magnus says:

    “…though repeating the denier “hoax” frame is not the way to debunk it.”

    Actually I think in this case it probably is a good method because of the specifics.

  34. SecularAnimist says:

    We are in an SUV headed at 100 MPH for a cliff with a 1000 foot sheer drop onto jagged rocks below.

    Romney would stomp on the accelerator so that we’ll go over the edge of the cliff at 125 MPH.

    Obama, on the other hand, is determined to press the brakes so that when we get to the cliff we’ll only be going 80 MPH.

    Because stopping the SUV before we go over the cliff is not politically possible.

    • Mark E says:

      Assuming you are correct, why bother posting?

      • Dan Ives says:

        Because it’s true.
        And also because it proves the absurdity of the prominent “lesser-of-two-evils” way of thinking. Voting for the supposed lesser-evil is no excuse if the results are the same.

        • Chris Winter says:

          But the results won’t be the same. To extend the metaphor, our choice as passengers is between having a driver who will fight us if we try to push his foot off the gas pedal and onto the brakes, and one who can be persuaded to tromp harder on the brake pedal.

          • Mark E says:

            When I put on my “Green Party Voter” hat, I would say that the cliff is already closer than the SUV’s braking distance, and so attempting to persuade the leadership to stomp harder on the brakes is a choice to go with the ride to death. I’ve long thought the GOP is not going to attempt to brake, and the DEMS might try, but the braking distance is just too short either way.

            To me, Obama seems to be trying to brake intelligently. But I lack faith in this approach.

            To me, it seems that the only meaningful alternative is for the passengers (just ordinary citizens) to forget about “persuading”, and stop looking to “leaders”. Instead, we should just become leaders, by ignoring the brakes and seizing the wheel, to steer 90 degrees away from nonstop economic growth. Nothing else really matters that much, long term.

          • Dan Ives says:

            I wouldn’t call that extending the metaphor, more like twisting the metaphor with unsubstantiated ideas. And I say that because this claim you make, “and one who can be persuaded to tromp harder on the brake pedal,” has no basis in reality and no evidence to support it. When have Obama and the Democrats been persuaded to do anything by those of us on the left?

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

        The truth is therapeutic.

    • Greg says:

      But if there is a major technological breakthrough or breakthroughs that help curb the threat, like an alternative energy or carbon conversion breakthrough, we may need every single second of time we save in order to avoid that drop off the cliff. It’s not unthinkable. Just look at all the amazing things we developed last century that were unthinkable when the century started. As my wife says, you go down fighting. And you also give yourself, or everyone in this case, the best chance possible.

  35. BillD says:

    I think that we need to be poltical realists. For example, here in Indiana a rabid teaparty member, Mourdoch, defeated Lugar. He’s a former coal exec who described climate science as “junk science” and says “no compromise”, the only way to govern is for the right wing to take over all parts of the givernment. The opponent, Joe Donnelley is a very conservative Democrat who is appealing to many Lugar supporters with a platform of bipartisanship. Joe is too conservative for me, but I am strongly supporting, because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We just can’t let reactionary jerks like Mourdock gain office.

    • Timeslayer says:

      Yes, we do need to be political realists. In keeping with that, we need to utterly vanquish the Republican Party as soon as possible. Imagine President Obama re-elected and zero Republicans in Congress. Things would look a lot brighter.

      As you said, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Republicans are the true enemies, literally the dumbest and most destructive major party in any country in the world. Therefore, in our two-party system, Democrats are our only friends in electoral politics, and all responsible citizens must support them.

      TS

  36. David Lewis says:

    Its politics. He’s trying to get people who aren’t sure they want to vote for him to vote for him. Some of them are climate science deniers. Some of his own party don’t care about the issue. But he needs the votes of those who are concerned about climate too.

    “You didn’t elect me to tell you what you wanted to hear. You elected me to tell you the truth”.

    “And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet

    It is impossible to continue to reduce what’s continuing to increase. The plan can only be to wait for political conditions to change then come up with a plan then.

    I wonder if historians will agree with Obama’s prediction made in the St Paul Nomination Victory speech of 2008:

    “Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment…. … this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…”.

    I support him, but not with enthusiasm.

    • D G says:

      “The plan can only be to wait for political conditions to change then come up with a plan then.”

      Please explain how waiting will change anything? We need to be actively involved. I am doing everything I can to make global warming and the ensuing extreme weather a campaign issue.

  37. Leif says:

    The Green Awakening Economy will not happen on Romney’s watch. Obama cannot do it without a congress to support it. Congress cannot do it without “WE the People” behind/in front. The missing ingredient here?

    • Dan Ives says:

      Apparently for you the missing ingredient is your memory between January 2009 through January 2011.

      • Chris Winter says:

        I seem to recall someone in a high position asking for the people to make their voices heard and force their leaders to do the right thing. Did that not happen during the period you mention?

        • Dan Ives says:

          The person you refer to was elected in a landslide, and his party was given majorities in Congress not seen in decades. He had an obvious mandate. And you seem content to blame his ignoring that mandate on people not pushing even harder for what should have been the most obvious message in the world. Of all the Obama apologetics, this whole “we’re to blame” idea is probably the least convincing and one of the more offensive.

          • John M says:

            Absolutely. My own view is to consider, “What would Karl Rove do?” President Obama (and alternate candidate Clinton) was nominated and elected for the whole purpose of taking the mandate for change and folding.

    • Mark E says:

      “The missing ingredient here?”

      Instant Runoff Voting?

      • Dennis Tomlinson says:

        “Instant Runoff Voting?”
        Yes, and proportional representation. These would allow a third party to get a foot hold in state legislatures, eventually in Congress, and ultimately to compete for the big prize. Election day registration, mail-in voting, even voting via the internet… and why not repeal Citizen’s United while we’re at it? And we could outlaw lobbying, get rid of the Electoral College,… and institute direct democracy at the local level… I just can’t stop…

  38. Oooh – Obama said something about climate change that is obviously true! While those fools on the other side, well, they’re just lunatics, right? Imagine how much worse it would be if those lying, evil nutbars were in charge! Can’t let them win, can we?

    Folks, it’s all a distraction, and neither candidate/party is going to do much of anything on this all-important issue over the next 4 years. While Romney almost certainly will not help solve the problem (he barely acknowledges it’s even real at this point), Obama won’t help solve it either (nor has he really done much to help so far), because he’s also a tool of Wall St and big biz, and so he’s never going to challenge the fossil fuel interests to any significant extent. Obama and the Dems will just let things get worse a little more slowly than the other side would. Lots of rhetoric (especially during the campaign), little action.

    Unfortunately the political system is badly broken, and the vested interests won’t suddenly change on their own – why would they? Any real chance of addressing climate change is going to have to come from a mass movement of people speaking up, marching in the streets, and demanding action. And that is just far more likely to happen in the US when a president who is completely full of sh#t (like Romney) is at the helm driving us over a cliff. When “our guy” is in charge, the left is pacified and quiet, even if “our guy” does things just as bad as or worse than the other guys. (There’s abundant evidence of such silence.) Can you imagine what would have happened if a Pres. McCain had allowed Shell to start drilling in the arctic right when we’re seeing so much extreme weather and arctic ice melting? But Obama did just that, and I hear crickets.

    One way or another, we’re eventually going to get to that point of people marching in the streets demanding action. That seems clear. The question is when. I say the sooner the better. Because the longer we wait, the worse things will get. And if we wait to demand action until it gets so bad that people are seriously desperate, it will be much uglier, and much less likely to be productive.

    So put aside the unfounded “hope” for some miraculous 2nd term turn-around and look at this pragmatically. Sure, Obama is way better than Romney in countless ways. That is plain to see. But he is in fact no friend to the climate change cause; he’s actually hurting the cause in a sense, by pacifying the left. And once climate change gets so bad that US society is seriously disrupted, all the other issues will matter very little if at all. While it may seem completely counter-intuitive and a little crazy, a Romney administration might just be the catalyst for change that we need right now.

    Here’s the above comment with links:

    http://iamdaneelolivaw.tumblr.com/post/31063745321/breaking-obama-mentioned-climate-

  39. BobbyL says:

    You can’t remain pretty much silent on global warming for almost four years and then suddenly lay out a sweeping program to fight global warming in your acceptance speech. Obama had his chance and blew it. There were high hopes when he appointed John Holdren and Steven Chu but since then it’s been all downhill except for a few small positive steps that do not really begin to address what is needed based on climate science.

  40. SecularAnimist says:

    The sad truth is that Obama is the best we are going to get, and it’s not good enough.

  41. Merrelyn Emery says:

    I think many people here are forgetting that campaigns for re-election are often different from actions afterwards. The President doesn’t have to get a vote through Congress to declare a state of emergency does he? ME

    • Dennis Tomlinson says:

      You are correct, Merrilyn. In fact, we’re been under a state of national emergency since September 11, 2001.

      • Merrelyn Emery says:

        Well then – one good old disaster obviously climate related happens, he declares a national emergency and institutes a comprehensive plan for mitigation (and jobs – see FDR in his speech), ME

        • Mark E says:

          What are we waiting for, given the dramatic events that have already happened without such a result? Did the Mississippi actually have to change course in last years flood? Do we require not just high US food prices, but empty shelves in middle class markets?

          • Merrelyn Emery says:

            Now he’s prepared the ground with ‘clean energy’ & rising standards etc, more people can see it for themselves and it is his last term, ME

  42. SecularAnimist says:

    Dan Ives wrote: “Voting for the supposed lesser-evil is no excuse if the results are the same.”

    Voting for Jill Stein is no excuse either, because she is not going to be elected, so the results will also be the same.

    I appreciate that you are facing the reality that Obama’s policies fall far short of what’s needed.

    But it is equally a reality that we simply don’t have time for some sort of far-reaching political transformation, such as would lead to electing a Green Party president, or a Green Party majority in Congress, to bring about the changes that are needed.

    According to the IEA, we have at most FIVE YEARS for GHG emissions to peak and then begin a very rapid decline if we are to have any hope of avoiding the worst consequences of global warming, and that’s in line with what mainstream climate scientists are also saying.

    That’s either going to happen within the political and economic system that we have now, or it’s not going to happen at all.

    That’s why people are hoping that a re-elected, second term Obama will finally follow through on his rhetoric. Because, realistic or not, that’s the only hope there is.

    • Steve says:

      It goes beyond that…

      First, you vote for a president for more than one reason. Climate change impacts are going to come. They’ve been in the pipeline for 20 years, and those impacts cannot be reversed. Do you want an experienced, internationally respected (and feared, where necessary) commander-in-chief or someone considerably less experienced, such as a private equity asset spin-off puppet or, if you’re “lucky,” a doctor?

      How about compassion and community togetherness as themes in taking on what is going to happen and cannot be avoided even by a climate crisis purist, or do you want an America where it is every Ayn Rand wannabe and pretendabe for him- or herself? That’s a big divider between the parties right now. It has policy implications. It is not a simple “lesser of two evils, so it doesn’t matter issue.”

      Do you want FEMA to be gutted and nonresponsive under the GOP or to be adequately funded by an Obama administration… not to mention cuts in funding for weather forecasting, the EPA, education, health care, the Center for Disease Control, tax benefits for renewables, higher fuel economy standards, etc. etc.

      Is this all about getting your Jill Stein fireside speech on climate crisis, followed by Stein-proposed legislation that goes nowhere? For that distant wisp of chance of a “victory” which will be laughable when she shows up in Washington and gets eaten alive, some of you will really risk a Romney White House?

      Furthermore… with an Obama in the White House, you will not get federal legislation which is intended to preempt state and local GHG-lowering initiatives and clean energy incentives already in place and counting. The feds can do that in the name of promoting commerce, using the combined Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause (assuming you understand how US federalism doctrine can work both progressively and otherwise).

      So no, flushing your vote down the toilet with a “feel good about yourself” nod in the direction of Jill Stein or Rocky
      Anderson is a choice with consequences should the Democrats lose. Do the arithmetic. And Harvard Law Review caliber lawyers do know more about laws and civil rights and legislative process than doctors do, believe me.

      Thank God Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are moderates, because the Left edge of the Democratic Party (and all its special interest splinter groups) cannot win an election. They can blog and say glib, intellectually-intimidating things, but they do not connect with many Americans. Moderates such as Clinton and Obama have been, and are, electable and they can inspire more than some narrow elite class of interests and people.

      And one other thing, as President Obama specifically mentioned, the government doesn’t have to do EVERYTHING for you. Too many commenters here seem so downtrodden by the chance Uncle Sam is not going to save the day. Did you watch the two conventions — Uncle Sam wants prosperity for all, and opportunity, and a better life. Right now, like it or not, most power plants, all container ships, almost all vehicles, and most food production runs on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels underwrite prosperity which national candidates must promise to survive.

      Where are the NGOs and the climate activists out there educating and inspiring Americans to start taking action on their own and locally? Put up solar, buy plug-in hybrids, weatherize the home, etc. The last meaningful effort at widespread education on this issue was in 2006 — “An Inconvenient Truth.”

      Why aren’t the Jill Steins and Rocky Andersons running for governor or mayor of a large city where they can win and DO SOMETHING along the lines of what California is doing. Or is running for the President just a more appealing, ultimately futile, money-wasting ego trip? This issue isn’t about looking like you tried, like you are better or smarter than the other guy. This is about effectively reducing GHG in the atmosphere — a matter of physics, not rhetoric — and short of that, dealing with the consequences in a way that preserves civilization.

      This election will be closer than many of you think… it is not one the moderate Democratic Party can afford to lose by throwing votes to feel-good, make-a-statement candidates.

      • BobbyL says:

        Rocky Anderson was mayor of Salt Lake City for 8 years. He was able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from municipal sources by 31% in only 4 years. He decided not to run for another term after 2008 and started a human rights foundation. He is running for president to start a progressive movement that will successfully get candidates elected to office, something the Green Party has failed to do at the federal level and only done three times at the state level. There are important differences between Obama and Romney but when it comes to global warming it appears the result will be about the same. Obama has given no indication of acting as a leader on climate change on the international stage, which is the most important thing that a US president can do, and domestically while he has championed clean energy he has also been promoting oil drilling, fracking for natural gas, and the dubious energy source called “clean coal.” Hoping Obama ramps it up on global warming seems like a pipe dream. He has never given even one speech to the American public on global warming. There may be nothing we can do about climate change, at least it often feels that way, but a protest vote for Rocky Anderson might not be a bad idea.

  43. Y. says:

    All of the decent policies highlighted here (and elsewhere) are _demand side_ policies. Problem is they are completely insufficient. There are plenty of nations which can and will pick up the saved demand. The only way out requires _supply side_ policies as well, and here, Obama has been horrible, arguably worse than the Rs (who would have at least faced opposition if they tried the same).

  44. Joe Neri says:

    “Clean Coal” was a sop to those still dependent upon the coal industry but everyone knows that technology can never work. Obama’s EPA is actively restricting Coal’s presence in the energy infrastructure in order to make room for renewable power generation and gas fired power. Couple that with increased fuel requirements for auto and trucks, which necessitate the expansion of plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, and great progress can be made in reducing the burning of coal and oil while encouraging the growth of a new energy industry.

  45. nstark says:

    Unfortunatly even the President of the U.S. has limited power to reverse the Cheney energy policy. Cheney made sure of that by hiring a hot shot lawyer to help him change laws in his favor. How many of you know that the oil industry is exempt from the E.P.A.?
    We need to get together as “The People” if anything meaningful is to come of this fight.
    Educate, divest in big oil.Do whatever you can even if it doesnt seem to be much. There are still people out there who don’t even know what Global Warming is!

  46. Pjmd says:

    Let’s get this question into the debate agenda. Email Jim Lehrer urging him to ask each candidate their opinions about GW and their remedies. PBS.org/news hour/letters.html