Romney, Obama fiddle while the planet burns
The Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA)posted a depressing piece on Friday Sept. 7, about Obama and Romney. While the airwaves are full of advertisements about the differences between them, they have one thing in common: Both are "playing games with environmental disaster."
Daphne Wysham, fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, says that Obama," -- like his Republican opponent -- seems to place a higher value on achieving 'energy independence' via expanded oil and gas drilling than on action on climate change. The Obama administration has promoted policies that will result in enormous greenhouse gas emissions being released from the expanded mining and burning of coal -- regardless of whether it is burned via unproven 'clean coal' technology -- and via the poisonous and dangerous practice of fracking for gas, as well as via expanded offshore oil drilling. He has also signaled that, after the election, it will be full steam ahead for a pipeline for the dirtiest of all fossil fuels -- tar sands from Canada. This is what happens when moneyed fossil fuel interests, like the Koch brothers, maintain their grip on our nation's politics."
Richard Steiner, a retired professor at the University of Alaska, was deeply involved in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Steiner says that "Neither the Republican Party, nor the Obama administration seem to grasp the severity of the energy/climate crisis we are in… both are playing games with something that is truly a life and death situation."
Romney "belittled sea level rise in his convention speech one night, and the very next day toured southern Louisiana, flooded with sea water from Hurricane Isaac, was one of the most spectacular ironies in the history of American politics." ...
"The Obama administration just approved Shell's oil drilling in offshore waters…their offshore drilling program for the coming five years is worse than that of the former Bush administration."
Posts
14 comments:
"The Obama administration just approved Shell's oil drilling in offshore waters…their offshore drilling program for the coming five years is worse than that of the former Bush administration."
Depressingly true. Yet Ryan said yesterday that "Obama's gone to great lengths to keep gasoline prices high ..."
"While the airwaves are full of advertisements about the differences between them, they have one thing in common: Both are "playing games with environmental disaster."
Thanks for that John.
Romney bashing sure can be fun, but some of the posts here on Rabett Run were starting to look a lot like what you find in Obama campaign literature and it's good to see that not everyone views Obama's climate policies with rose colored glasses.
~@:>
But US emissions have been falling as a result of the switch to natural gas. CO2 emissions have been cut more than that of any other country.
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/06/u-s-sees-greatest-reduction-in-co2-emissions/
Gentlemen and ladies, the reality is far more depressing. No President has done JACK on climate science since it was first identified as an issue, and each succeeding President, regardless of party has had less freedom to do anything. Obama's EPA has at least made an effort to regulate CO2 for the pollutant that it is.
However, it is impossible to deny that climate change has been defenestrated from the Overton window. You cannot favor decisive action on climate and get elected in this country. That is what we need to address.
"planet burns", "disaster", "life and death" - thanks for once again exemplifying that global warming is real in principle, but a hoax of exaggeration.
Eunice
Eunice --- Don't pay much attention to the news, do you?
What ever happened to the good ol days, when men were men, women were women and a hoax was simply a hoax?
It has all become so confusing.
~@:>
It may be that Obama has done all that can be done under the circumstances - at least there there is the EPA CO2 ruling and more stringent requirements for vehicle fuel economy. We know that, except for Huntsman, who faded early in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, all of the other contenders did their best to distance themselves from even the slightest acceptance of global warming, or for that matter, any other environmental issue, as being worthy of concern, let alone practical action. On top of this, we have the GOP choice for the vice-presidential nomination.
If it is true that the choice leaves something to be desired, it must be said that there is a choice, even if it is between the inadequate and the perverse.
Not sure Obama's done all he could've done, but it's far more than what the Republican's would've done and what Romney will do to reverse it, particularly in taking away EPA authority to address climate change under the Clean Air Act (or failing that, funding to enforce climate change regulations), and removing tax incentives for clean energy.
Romney might also try to interfere with state level programs to address climate change. That would be my main agenda item if I were a member of the Dark Side and Romney won, after destroying the Clean Air Act.
What could Obama have done? A big public works program, building solar and wind power installations, and the smart grid that everybody talks about. It would be a job creator.
Instead he's building military bases in the Middle East. The US network of Middle East military bases is larger now than it was when the Soviet Union existed.
Unknown, I'm guessing you are not from the US. In the US, Congress has power of the purse. It refused to fund any sort of public works project.
Care to try and make a more informed suggestion?
You made a valiant attempt, John.
The train was just coming too fast -- and it looks like it just ran you over.
Thanks for trying, anyway.
~@:>
Yes Eunice it's no hoax, and no exaggeration to say radiative forcing is driving global warming ever upward at a rate of tens of microwatts per square meter per day.
It may not seem an existential threat but it's just as real as inflation.
Yes Eunice it's no hoax, and no exaggeration to say radiative forcing is driving global warming ever upward at a rate of tens of microwatts per square meter per day. It may not seem an existential threat but it's just as real as inflation.
Post a Comment