The video above is from September 22, 2009. According to today’s Guardian and Observer, President Obama is considering a “provisional target” offering in Copenhagen, to cut America’s massive greenhouse gas emissions that are leading to increased global warming and climate change. This would remove the “greatest single obstacle” to an agreement in Copenhagen to fight climate change. This is very good news, if it’s true.
“The Observer has learnt that administration officials have been consulting international negotiators and key players on Capitol Hill about signing up to a provisional target at the UN global warming summit in Copenhagen, now less than three weeks away.
Todd Stern, the state department climate change envoy, said the administration recognised that America had to come forward with a target for cutting its emissions. [see Obama's campaign declaration below]. The US, which with China is responsible for 40% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, is the only major developed nation yet to table an offer.
“What we are looking at is to see whether we could put down essentially a provisional number that would be contingent on our legislation,” Stern said from Copenhagen, where he was meeting Danish officials. “We are looking at that, there are people we need to consult with.”
A provisional target – if accepted by other nations – would solve Obama’s dilemma. The Senate will not have passed a domestic law before Copenhagen, meaning that, if he makes an offer there, it could subsequently be rejected in Washington. But if he makes no offer, the deal is likely to crash anyway, and with it hopes of rapidly combating global warming.
The provisions most likely discussed are a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 14-20% by 2020, compared with 2005 levels.
“The White House and state department have also discussed the idea of putting forward a range of targets rather than a specific figure.”
Don’t celebrate too hard — those targets are not adequate. We need to reduce emissions by 20-25% compared to 1990 levels. The problem with 2005 levels is that 2005 was a moderate year of emissions, a bit of a fluke, so it’s why that year keeps coming up in discussions. It’s an easy target, an easy benchmark. That’s why the U.S. wants to use it. 1990 and 1995 used to be the target years for the EU and the world until the lazy Americans got involved.
I also get the distinct feeling that America would be doing nothing at all if it weren’t for strong international pressure. But Obama gave an amazing speech about Climate change in September of 2009, so from this recent speech above, I take it he understands the problem completely and is just being . . . slow to respond. As he talks about in the video above.
The thing to celebrate is that Obama may even offer provisional targets. Our expectations of him at this point on this issue have lowered and lowered, until we are at the point that even this is considered good news. So far, our president who promised us aggressive action on climate change has done little except make wonderful speeches that show he understands the problem and he has pushed to change emissions vehicles for cars and trucks. He is also, inexplicably, pushing for a “cap and trade” system for climate change, which would be a joke if it weren’t so serious. (Cap and trade will be inadequate to address climate change, if you haven’t heard that yet.)
Obama still hasn’t asked anyone to sacrifice anything for this huge issue, and he’s still whitewashing and greenwashing the situation to the public. Obama has not asked much of Congress. He certainly has not done what he said he would do while campaigning. This is what Obama put on his website during the campaign, and repeated in many speeches:
“… This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.
This is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern – this is a national security crisis.”
He was right, but he’s sure not treating it like a national security crisis.
If it sounds like I’m complaining about Obama not doing enough about climate change, I most definitely am.
The U.S. media is bad on this subject too, and that’s part of the problem. It’s hard for our president to do much without public support in this country. Public support is a fickle thing — it can change in an instant in the U.S., due to a few interviews of a “skeptic”, or ads on TV. Our media continues to screw up on this subject.
It’s interesting, as always, that we find climate change news trumpeted mostly in UK newspapers. And most discussion of climate change in the US continues to be on non-prime time shows or CNN International, C-SPAN, Planet Green, etc., versus regular shows that most people watch. Our ‘news’ is obsessed with 2 or 3 topics to the exclusion of most everything else.
Meanwhile, on the FOX Noise network, their most popular primetime shows (Hannity and Beck) continue to feature DENIERS and SKEPTICS on a regular basis, and people like Sarah Palin, (who is actually ANTI-SCIENCE. (Yes, she is, just listen to her for five minutes, if you can stand it.)) They put religious-theory on any day over actual science. Religion trumps science on FOX, and in much of our other media.
Something is wrong with this picture. Actually, it’s an indication of how politicized science still in this country.
Come on everyone, help Futurism Now fight the skeptics and deniers. It’s only the world and civilization that’s at stake.
Recent Comments