Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: The 2014 US elections and climate policy  (Read 23513 times)

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« on: April 15, 2014, 03:24:22 PM »
SATire asked a question about US policy in the Coal Thread the other day about what the US might do policy wise in the near term and I was just writing another note about it and decided it was enough of a different topic that I would start a new one. So I will copy the original here and a couple of the posts related to it.



Do you see any chance that USA could sign a treaty in Paris next year? What could be done to convince the American poeple to do so? Would they agree to shut down "Bakker in Dakota" and "Athabasca oil sands" in Canada if Germany shuts down "Rheinisches Braunkohlerevier"?

An interesting question and suitable for a bunch of posts I expect.  My opinion...

The US is entering another one of its interminable election seasons (every two years with long campaigns which end in Nov of even years).  This election is for the Senators and Congressmen but not for President.  The US is a very conservative country overall with the exception that the youngest voting generation - The Millennials - is about 75% liberal (by the US definition).  However, in the US historically the young do not vote much so the impact of the Millennials is likely to be muted and until they assert power via the ballot box the political powers resident in the Republican and Democratic parties will not pay attention to them beyond some passifying rhetoric.  Both of the main US political parties in election seasons drift to the political right in general in order to win their individual elections.  The usual situation in an election like this one is for the party of the President to lose seats.   The polling and various experts expect this to happen once again.  The new Congress which will be seated following this election is almost certainly going to be more conservative than the current one and there is a strong possibility (some think more than that) that both the Senate and the House will be under Republican control following the election.

In the event that we end up with a more conservative Congress but not totally under Republican control one can expect pretty much a continuation of the current status.  No international environment agreements would be possible, a reduction in supports for renewables, a weakening of environmental regulations, and so forth.  BAU. 

In the event that Republican gain complete control of Congress it will be much worse than the above on AGW and environmental issues.  Either Obama will be resorting to using his veto power frequently or there will be even bigger negative impacts on trying to reduce carbon emissions, deal with AGW and environmental regulations.   BAU with a vengeance.

I expect, in an attempt to help the election prospects of vulnerable Democratic candidates, that Obama will approve the Keystone Pipeline as this would be a significant boost for a few of them.  Reports are that Obama does not accept the risk of the Tar Sands oil and looks at the opposition to the pipeline with some annoyance and this would ease his decision.  Obama is fundamentally a conservative as all main line politicians in the US are and his non-social views are directly in line with those of the first President Bush.  Do not expect much from him on AGW or environmental issues.

A long way to get to an answer. 

Do not expect the US to sign any treaty and if they do it will not be enforced.
The American people do not get to decide such things nor are they consulted.
There would be no chance of an agreement to shut down the Bakken and stop using Tar Sands oil.  We are going to expand such efforts for the foreseeable future.

Note:  It is the 2016 election we need to really be worried about.  Should the Republicans win the Presidency then it will likely make the problems we have now and the new ones generated by this years election seen small in comparison.  Not that Hillary Clinton would be much different than Obama if she won, but the alternative is scary.  Things can certainly get worse.

Note:  It is the 2016 election we need to really be worried about.  Should the Republicans win the Presidency then it will likely make the problems we have now and the new ones generated by this years election seen small in comparison.  Not that Hillary Clinton would be much different than Obama if she won, but the alternative is scary.  Things can certainly get worse.

Do you honestly believe it makes a real difference which party gets in? The sound bites might vary a little but on the whole I would say policy has been almost rock steady from one party to the next.

The illusion of choice, the pacifier of the masses, a convenient scapegoat to shield the corporations when the wheels really start to come off... what else are the politicians any good for?

Note:  It is the 2016 election we need to really be worried about.  Should the Republicans win the Presidency then it will likely make the problems we have now and the new ones generated by this years election seen small in comparison.  Not that Hillary Clinton would be much different than Obama if she won, but the alternative is scary.  Things can certainly get worse.

Do you honestly believe it makes a real difference which party gets in? The sound bites might vary a little but on the whole I would say policy has been almost rock steady from one party to the next.

The illusion of choice, the pacifier of the masses, a convenient scapegoat to shield the corporations when the wheels really start to come off... what else are the politicians any good for?

If we elect a Republican president and the party controls both the House and the Senate, we are absolutely screwed. And by "we", I mean the planet. The base of the Republican Party has gone insane. The more reasonable party officials are even concerned.

A Republican controlled Congress and President gave us the illegal Iraq war. In the 2008 elections McCain was arguing for military action against Iran. The Republican base is still arguing for this. Please do not equate the parties.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2014, 04:09:59 PM »
ccg

I understand your point about the two parties being very similar but there are critical differences in the voting base and it makes a big difference when it comes to US actions.  For instance I think it very likely that Obama approves the Keystone Pipeline as Republicans want.  But the Tea Party and many other Republicans want to dramatically cut the social programs and boost defense spending and complete control of Congress makes this much more likely to happen.

If the Republicans gain control of the entire Congress this fall it will have a big impact on EPA regulations, subsidies for renewables, any treaty agreements, and significantly spending priorities.  In the US the Congress has authority over spending not the President.  If the Republicans gain control of both the House and Senate they get to decide all spending.  While the parties are similar I am sure you know enough about the US to realize that when it comes to spending priorities they are very different.

There is, of course, a pretty even chance that the next President (2016 elections) will be a Republican.  Should that occur and we have a Republican Congress it will be "Katy bar the door." as we say here - meaning catastrophe approaches.

The Republican party supporters are much less convinced about AGW and many are openly and extremely hostile about it.  Many influential parts of the party are also very hostile to environmental regulations and will reverse them; very pro-fossil fuel industries - expect oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, off all the coasts, and in the National Parks should the 2016 scenario occur;  they will likely end subsidies for renewables; boost defense spending; cut all social programs; ease taxes on the rich even more; gut regulations and 'free' the market; and so on.

In light of the above statement I offer some evidence that attempts to execute what I describe are already underway.  Rep Paul Ryan the main budget drafter for the Republicans is putting forward his new budget proposal.  This budget will drive much of the election discussions and it will have a big impact on what happens.

Quote
...Ryan’s budget contains many aspects of Reagan’s budgets, but with even more severe cuts to education, health and research, of which the last generates tomorrow’s innovations and economic growth. To be more accurate, Ryan’s budget combines the harshest Greek-style social cuts of recent years (far more draconian than Reagan’s), but combines those cuts with a Reagan-style ‘military Keynesianism’ that dramatically increases military spending. Ryan’s budget would add nearly a trillion of new military spending over the next decade....

...Ryan asserts his budget cuts are in fact small and don’t represent austerity at all. This slight of hand trick results from arguing the budget is only modestly cut, but this fails to mention that his cuts to health and research are massive. Thus, overall spending cuts are only smaller because of his massive proposed increase to military spending...

Expect the big defense budget increase to happen as all politicians here will have to go along with that due to the Ukrainian situation.  Don't think that the neo-cons in the US who promoted this crises did not have this in mind - Empire Builders. 

Note:  a Russian jet was buzzing a US destroyer in the Black Sea today and there are calls being made for the US to ship arms into the Ukraine and move troops into Eastern Europe.  Expect things to intensify and cold-war behavior to ratchet up.

So it is going to be increases in defense spending and maybe big social program cuts.  AGW issues are not going to be paid much attention for some time.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/04/paul-ryans-new-austerity-budget.html
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2014, 05:25:52 PM »
Jim
When I moved back to Canada I found that noticing US political trends from across the border was enormously difficult. The same programs are available on TV, but the advertizing is different & this may be what changes one's perception.
I for one would be grateful for your take on the political climate there as I believe US politics is having a huge effect worldwide & will have for at least the near future.


While I agree with everything you've written re. the Democrat/Republican divide I'm also cognisant of Nixon in China. For the US to get fully on board it's going to take a very powerful Republican to cross the ocean of doubt and lead the deniers away from the Koch inspired disinformation.
I'd never advise anyone to vote for a Republican under any circumstance, but at some level I am aware that only a Republican president & a far right one at that will be necessary to stop the foot dragging we're experiencing.
Terry

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2014, 06:19:08 PM »
Jim
When I moved back to Canada I found that noticing US political trends from across the border was enormously difficult. The same programs are available on TV, but the advertizing is different & this may be what changes one's perception.
I for one would be grateful for your take on the political climate there as I believe US politics is having a huge effect worldwide & will have for at least the near future.


While I agree with everything you've written re. the Democrat/Republican divide I'm also cognisant of Nixon in China. For the US to get fully on board it's going to take a very powerful Republican to cross the ocean of doubt and lead the deniers away from the Koch inspired disinformation.
I'd never advise anyone to vote for a Republican under any circumstance, but at some level I am aware that only a Republican president & a far right one at that will be necessary to stop the foot dragging we're experiencing.
Terry

Terry,

I think you might want to rethink that desire.  The Republican's, like Nixon, that you mention were moderate in social terms and conservative on national security (Nixon's famous statement "We are all socialists now" being an example).  There are no Republicans like that of prominence any longer.  Newt Gingrich in the last Presidential campaign stated that in today's Republican Party Ronald Reagan could not win a Primary, let alone the general election, because he was far too liberal.  The most mainstream Republican who has a chance of winning their nomination at this time is Jeb Bush the brother of the last President Bush who is 'much' MORE conservative that President Bush was.  Moderate Republicans are now known as RINO's (Republicans In Name Only) and are being run out of the Party en mass.  They are held in contempt by the Tea Party, Evangelicals, and the Libertarians.  These very right wing groups set the agenda for the Party and define what it means to be a conservative today. 

Should a strong far right Republican win the Presidency he will have to come from one of those groups.  This is a recipe for a fascist state.  These groups do not believe in equality, civil rights, women's rights, minimum wage, govt regulations, equal pay for equal work, religious freedom, an equitable distribution of wealth, AGW, the EPA, unemployment insurance, social security, universal health insurance, unions, etc.  They hate liberals and do not think of them as 'real' Americans and reflexively oppose any policy or regulation liberals are in favor of.  They, in general, are fully in favor of the growth of the American Empire and growing the US Military and do not mind using it.  They believe We are Exceptional and represent the 'best' of human achievement and have an obligation and right to remake the world in our image.  Pretty strong language and maybe a slight exaggeration.  But only a slight one.  These factions are not your friends. 

Be very careful what you wish for.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

werther

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 747
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2014, 07:08:02 PM »
Phew, Jim.... I'm glad that there's a little bit more scope among people on the Pacific and Atlantic seaboards! If not....I remember Frank Zappa on 'You are what you is'... "pretty soon there'll be no more streets to jog on or doggies to dog on". Hah.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2014, 09:27:51 PM »
werther

Well I 'am' showing my bias. 

We could always solicit an opposing commentary from one of my Tea Party neighbors on the evils of liberals and their goal of a One World Government!  That would be fun.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

CraigsIsland

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2014, 10:45:21 PM »
I've had my fill of tea party "supporters". I put those in quotes because when you talk to them they still would like better roads or other services provided by government. It's a balance that the US requires to remain functional. It's ok to talk politics, just be open-minded about fact-checking and have a solid discourse of whatever issue is going on. Proof is in the votes. Shouldn't have to buy or lie to get them. I have friends of all stripes and I really appreciate sharing worldviews; mine will be more environmentally based than previous elections. It's time for policy makers to act on the roadmap provided by scientists. 

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2014, 09:17:05 AM »
JimD


I perhaps didn't express myself well. Republicans have been repugnant for as long as I can remember & I'm aware they've gotten much worse recently. My point is only that denial will be streaming from the right until one of their own is perceived as leading the fight against climate change. In such a situation the Democrats will have to win every election at least at the federal level for the foreseeable future & that's betting a lot on an uncertain outcome.


Terry

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2014, 09:26:56 AM »
I understand your point about the two parties being very similar but there are critical differences in the voting base and it makes a big difference when it comes to US actions.  For instance I think it very likely that Obama approves the Keystone Pipeline as Republicans want.  But the Tea Party and many other Republicans want to dramatically cut the social programs and boost defense spending and complete control of Congress makes this much more likely to happen.

I suppose the question in my mind is whether or not one can win an American election without at least paying lip service to climate change? In the last election if memory serves, Romney had to at least pay lip service to it - and I'm unconvinced Obama has done any more.

Taking the international perspective, a lot of people thought things would change when Obama got into power (the first time at least). Yet not only could he not close Guantanamo bay, nor cancel the Keystone XL pipeline - he continued to permit policies such as fracking (not to mention extending the attack on civil liberties, which primarily concerns legislation within the US but still has some knock on effects internationally via things like the NSA spying).

My impression was that it appeared in the end the US pretty much just continued business as usual, with slightly different noises being made?

All that said I guess it remains a possible (and perhaps not unlikely) outcome that the US could go down the same route as Canada, Australia and the UK - where it drifts to the right and attacks science with even more vigour (and here at least Obama pays lip service, vs the direct persecution that seemed possible in the Bush administration). Of course, large vested interests no doubt will pay well to undermine what miniscule increments of progress have been made (I get the impression Obamacare is currently a bigger issue in the minds of republican voters).

Overall, I think the US has lost international credibility with Obama. The policies of the nation that abhor portions of the rest of the world (and excuse those not abhorred for similar practises) are now no longer associated merely with the Bush administration, but more firmly with America itself as a nation.

In light of the above statement I offer some evidence that attempts to execute what I describe are already underway.  Rep Paul Ryan the main budget drafter for the Republicans is putting forward his new budget proposal.  This budget will drive much of the election discussions and it will have a big impact on what happens.

America already spends a truly insane amount of money on "defence" though? The British empire at least had the sense to go bankrupt fighting two world wars - the US empire seems to me to be well on the way without fighting any really big wars at all...

So it is going to be increases in defense spending and maybe big social program cuts.  AGW issues are not going to be paid much attention for some time.

And I daresay an increase in spending on riot police and the apparatus required to maintain and expand a security state? Increasing social inequality still further, particularly in the context of rising food prices and resource stresses will undermine social stability.

One of the positive things about America (and the people living there) is that they seem less docile than some places (the UK is pathetic in this respect in my opinion). I assume you're familiar with the BLM/Bundy dispute, for instance? It's just a pity the willingness to question the government (as technically enshrined in the Constitution - which I think is a real head start compared to most nations) isn't extending to the really important questions of the day...

prometheus

  • New ice
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2014, 05:24:14 PM »

I suppose the question in my mind is whether or not one can win an American election without at least paying lip service to climate change? In the last election if memory serves, Romney had to at least pay lip service to it - and I'm unconvinced Obama has done any more.

Unfortunately, not true at all. My own memory of the campaigns of 2012 may not be totally accurate, but I recall they both completely left out climate change and environment. The only public comment I remember hearing Romney make about climate change during his campaign was to make one (literal) joke about sea level rise. And Obama's sole (public) remark on climate change was a one sentence rebuke of that joke. (I actually refused to vote for either of them due in large part to this omission.)

If you are a Republican, you cannot win a national primary without denying AGW, that's how powerful the tea party and far right interest groups have become here.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2014, 05:31:40 PM by prometheus »

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2014, 05:54:39 PM »
This is what I mean.  Propose huge cuts and then the Dems get them to compromise down to ONLY 25% cuts. 

Quote
Republican Bill Cuts Funding For Climate, Social, Economic Research By $160 Million

The House Republicans’ latest bill to reauthorize science research funding makes an aggressive effort to pick and choose what science to fund, the Boston Globe reports.  Note that the CO2 readings at Mauna Loa are on the cutting block.  No agenda here of course.  Ha!  If there are no readings maybe the numbers are not going up?  Rightwing science.

The GOP’s preferred version of the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology Act of 2014 (otherwise known as the FIRST Act) would move about $160 million out of the social, behavioral, and economic sciences, cutting those areas by roughly 40 percent. It would also shift money out of the geoscience areas that cover oceanic and climate studies. Democrats have managed to amend the bill to lessen the cuts to 26 percent. But even that would leave spending levels well below their previous path

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/15/3426660/first-act-gop-science-cuts/
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2014, 05:58:42 PM »
Terry

No you expressed yourself just fine and I knew what you meant.  I just think the situation is so bad that the prospects of what you had in mind have little chance of working out for a very long time.  Which will be too late.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2014, 06:27:41 PM »
Unfortunately, not true at all. My own memory of the campaigns of 2012 may not be totally accurate, but I recall they both completely left out climate change and environment. The only public comment I remember hearing Romney make about climate change during his campaign was to make one (literal) joke about sea level rise. And Obama's sole (public) remark on climate change was a one sentence rebuke of that joke. (I actually refused to vote for either of them due in large part to this omission.)

Hmm, I might have got the wrong impression from somewhere then - I do recall neither of them had a lot to say about it at all though, and in that sense got the impression they were really espousing pretty similar positions.

If you are a Republican, you cannot win a national primary without denying AGW, that's how powerful the tea party and far right interest groups have become here.

The question in my mind though is - can you win enough votes to get into power while denying AGW (and all the other things the tea party side pushes - sneaky withdrawal of abortion clinics, attacks on contraceptive availability, undermining social safety nets, etc)?

My hope is that the republicans would need to fight for the centre ground somewhat to get enough votes to get into power - though to be honest I don't think it makes any practical difference from where we stand now. Neither party seems remotely in danger of undertaking actions significant enough to make a useful impact.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2014, 06:51:07 PM »
ccg

Quote
One of the positive things about America (and the people living there) is that they seem less docile than some places (the UK is pathetic in this respect in my opinion). I assume you're familiar with the BLM/Bundy dispute, for instance? It's just a pity the willingness to question the government (as technically enshrined in the Constitution - which I think is a real head start compared to most nations) isn't extending to the really important questions of the day...

Perhaps a better explanation of this issue will change your perspective. A bit of a rant I am afraid.

This is going on not far from where I live and is and has been a huge problem in the west since the 1800's.  What it boils down to is that the first settlers (ranchers) showed up and started using the land (all of the land they  could access) to raise giant cattle herds.  They did not own the land they used.    But like many they decided first come first served.  The land belonged to the American people as a whole (i.e it is Federal Land and jointly owned by all citizens) and they were never the owners.  It is Common Land in British parlance.   This is what this ranchers ancestors did.  They built a ranch on their privately owned land and then just started using public land.  There was no one else around at the time to object.

When the US population growth started catching up the Federal government started selling off some of the public land to homesteaders to turn the land into farms mostly.  This is how some of my ancestors obtained their land in Wyoming.  This land was transferred from the Federal Government to their private ownership.  What happened.  The ranchers tried to run them off as they considered this land their by right of use (not by deed however).  So they killed many homesteaders and tried to burn them out.  This happened to one of my grandfathers who managed to save his family by plowing back and forth in front of his home and barn to get the fire to burn around them.  My grandmother put the children in the middle of a plowed field and then threw water on the roofs.  A close call. 

These people are criminals and predators. 

The rancher you mention was authorized to use public land and to pay the standard rate for it.  He has never paid anything and owes me (And the rest of the American people) around 1million dollars.  He has been ordered off the land for that non-payment and refused to comply.   Don't leave your boat unattended if this guy is hanging around or he will decide its his.

To show you that he does not really believe the land is his the number of cattle he has been running on it are at concentrations which have destroyd the land over time and are at several times the maximum numbers allowed.  No one would do that to their own property.

He is a member of that group of Americans who do not believe in the existence of any public land.  They do not believe in National Forests, National Parks, environmental regulations, regulations period.  If you own it you can burn it to the ground and no one can say otherwise.  They are the very people who form the Tea Party and the Libertarian Party wings of the Republican Party.  If they get their way there is no chance whatsoever of any solution to AGW.

OUTLAWS
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

werther

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 747
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2014, 09:58:21 PM »
CCG mentioned the BLM/Bundy stand-off first as an example of motivated criticism and resistance to disconnected government  regulation. I guess he had resistance on bad environmental regulation ( or the absence of any - ) in mind.

It may well be this isn’t the best example. Anyway, the case distracted my attention (which is unfortunately easy but, sometimes, productive in an unexpected way). Part of the whirling American political sphere overran my thoughts while sorting through internet subjects. But on another level, the local Google Earth landscape that is available on the web appealed to my landscaping backbone.

I know the West is dry, especially in Nevada. I’ve been in South Australia myself, so I’ve had some experience with this sort of landscape. GE showed,  through 2011, images a bonedry land. And since, the drought situation over there has become progressively worse.

I’m not the guy to condemn anyone or take sides, certainly not in this case. But I wonder if this is another example of a situation worsened by the creeping strangle through AGW. It drives all existing societal stresses into higher gear, polarizing interests and raising stakes.

Regulation is hard to abide by when it seems to be applied according to special interests in different locations and situations. But it is hard to imagine that Land Management wouldn’t have made clear or moderated their policy in twenty years. Time enough for people to accommodate?

When I see mobs with all kind of guns running this case to the bottom, I fear that our civilization is going to have a hard time to solve any dispute. In an atmosphere like that, would the paramount threat and our common interest ever be recognized?

Anyway, on the Old Continent, people have their own distraction featuring random gunmen, wasting time and resources on the cost of society and environment. The Ukraine stand-off.

It is said that under pressure, mankind shows best its creativeness. I guess the same could be said for the ability to destroy.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2014, 04:10:32 AM »
werther

You are correct in that using the land this way is dying due to a changing climate and a long history of badly overgrazing the land.  I work with the US Forest Service as a volunteer helping take care of our wilderness areas.  They have told me that they are slowly cutting grazing allotments on all Federal land as there is no longer enough grass growing on it to support the wildlife and the cattle.  It is actually already at the point that cattle grazing should be banned in most areas but this runs into huge opposition from ranchers.  Even though they only pay 1/3 the grazing fees of what they would have to pay for private land (all of them are essentially receiving welfare) a large percentage of the ranches are actually unprofitable without access to public land.  AGW is rapidly making that worse.

There is just almost no grass left here and very little growing.  Here where I live in AZ (Prescott in the central AZ mountains) we have only had 1/4 inch of rain since last December 1st.  And we are not expected to see any in the next 10 days.  This is supposed to be the rainy part of the year.  Last spring the grass did not grow in the hills due to lack of moisture.  The same this year.  The grass did not green until the monsoons came in mid-July.  The lakes are about 2 feet lower than this time last year.  It is not uncommon here to only get another 1 inch of moisture from now until the monsoons start in July.  Sometimes there is no moisture from now until then. 

There are a lot of people in AZ and other parts of the US who hate government of any kind.  It is a sub part of our culture left over from the people who were sent here from Europe.  My original relatives were taken from prison in England and put on a ship that arrived in the 1620's.  One of my relatives in the late 1800'd killed 15 law enforcement officers before he was shot to death.  Relatives of mine used to help Butch Cassidy and his gang hide from the law.  Many people used to help the outlaw gangs who would repay them by giving them horses and such. 

There is a strong outlaw aspect to parts of US culture.  As someone who used to live in Germany it was very interesting to see the cultural differences.   In Germany a citizen thinks it is wrong to do something unless he has been told that it is ok to do it.  In the US the attitude is that you can do anything you want unless it is specifically prohibited even if you know it is wrong.  And if you can get away with it most find no problem doing it at all.  People do not really respect the law, they just fear punishment.

When you think about fixing AGW and getting global agreements and authorities in place remember those guys with the guns supporting the rancher.  It is not a joke when I say you have to go through them before you can ever make that happen.  Look up  how many separatist movements there are in the US.  And militias.  When I go down to the shooting range to keep in practice about 80% of the people there are practicing with their assault rifles.  If you left the US military out of the equation entirely just the regular citizens in this country are well armed and trained enough we could easily take any military in the world excepting heavy weapons and armor from the equation.   
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

prometheus

  • New ice
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2014, 05:47:14 AM »

The question in my mind though is - can you win enough votes to get into power while denying AGW (and all the other things the tea party side pushes - sneaky withdrawal of abortion clinics, attacks on contraceptive availability, undermining social safety nets, etc)?

My hope is that the republicans would need to fight for the centre ground somewhat to get enough votes to get into power - though to be honest I don't think it makes any practical difference from where we stand now. Neither party seems remotely in danger of undertaking actions significant enough to make a useful impact.
On the first point, yes. From the Pew Research article on public priorities in 2012, section on Energy and Environment:

Frankly, people here mostly don't care about environment or global warming enough to base their votes on a candidate's position on this subject.

On the second point, yes, the republican candidates have to move closer to the center during national elections (after the primaries) in order to attract moderate and independent voters. They're a bit limited in their ability to do so, however, without alienating their base. They're forced to walk a fine line between appearing too liberal for their own constituents and too hard-line for the independents, and that gap is widening. On some issues, like environment and global warming, it appears wisest for them to just ignore it which is what they did in 2012 (you can't deny it lest you lose some credibility with independents and create ammunition to be used against you in attack ads, and you can't acknowledge it lest you create an uproar among your own base), so they just stick to issues like national security and jobs and such.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2014, 07:54:23 AM »
I'm very familiar with Gold Butte as a friend of mine discovered Clarke County's largest petroglyph site there and we spent years combing the area for other smaller discoveries. I've never seen enough grass to feed a rabbit & assume the cattle have taken a liking to tumble weed - even during very rainy years.
The "soil" is loose blow sand overlaying rock and caliche When it gets sufficient moisture salt crystals burst through the crust. The only large animals more or less indigenous to the area are long horn sheep & a small herd of donkeys that escaped in the prospecting era.
The Early Basketmaker were not the first to the region as a pictograph of a mammoth survives at Kota Circus & many Clovis artifacts have been recovered. Basketmaker peoples hunted longhorn sheep and mined rock salt, some of which was traded to groups far to the south. The Anasazi grew corn and built a small village in the area (Lost City) until climate change drove them from the area.
A horse thief trail (The old Spanish Trail) went through the area so enough grass must have existed at one time to feed their stock. After the Mormons brought cattle to the area the Muddy River bed dropped ~40 feet & the Mormons basically abandoned the place as better locations were found.
From rock art to ancient tent circles Gold Butt is rife with ancient artifacts that haven't been properly written up yet, there is still much to be discovered if the cows haven't trampled everything. Some of the landscape is very delicate, tenaya structures that store the infrequent rain water, but that crumble under the weight of a man will be no match for thirsty cattle.
The BLM did the right thing in backing down as this is no place to fight a range war. Somehow though the cattle do need to be removed as quickly as possible.
Cheering this guy on is akin to celebrating the Taliban's blowing up of ancient Buddhist statues.
Terry

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2014, 03:43:05 PM »
CCG mentioned the BLM/Bundy stand-off first as an example of motivated criticism and resistance to disconnected government  regulation. I guess he had resistance on bad environmental regulation ( or the absence of any - ) in mind.

It may well be this isn’t the best example. Anyway, the case distracted my attention (which is unfortunately easy but, sometimes, productive in an unexpected way). Part of the whirling American political sphere overran my thoughts while sorting through internet subjects. But on another level, the local Google Earth landscape that is available on the web appealed to my landscaping backbone.

That's pretty much it - I'm using him as an example for the relative lack of docility in the US - but unfortunately there are no comparable examples coming to mind in terms of people standing up for our future in terms of the major issues facing civilisation. So apparently a guy arguing about some cows and where they graze can command support from hundreds of fellow citizens (who bring guns) and the future isn't worth the same. It does make me wonder if perhaps Occupy needed to be armed.

I don't support him per se (though I also couldn't say I support the federal government either), but I wish some people had the guts to do the same for causes that might actually matter.

This is going on not far from where I live and is and has been a huge problem in the west since the 1800's.  What it boils down to is that the first settlers (ranchers) showed up and started using the land (all of the land they  could access) to raise giant cattle herds.  They did not own the land they used.    But like many they decided first come first served.  The land belonged to the American people as a whole (i.e it is Federal Land and jointly owned by all citizens) and they were never the owners.  It is Common Land in British parlance.   This is what this ranchers ancestors did.  They built a ranch on their privately owned land and then just started using public land.  There was no one else around at the time to object.

No one else around as the original natives had been slaughtered and driven off? It isn't as though it really belonged to the federal government originally either - but I guess most any property anywhere is based on what one can steal (and Bundy is basically asserting the same historical principle - might makes right). That isn't to say I support him, just that it seems a little ironic for people to say it's "owned" by X or Y. When it comes down to it though, I think I'm gradually drifting into the idea that land should not be owned by anyone (which is way off topic in this thread).

The rancher you mention was authorized to use public land and to pay the standard rate for it.  He has never paid anything and owes me (And the rest of the American people) around 1million dollars.  He has been ordered off the land for that non-payment and refused to comply.   Don't leave your boat unattended if this guy is hanging around or he will decide its his.

Probably not the best example - even though I have a piece of paper saying it's mine - I'm quite aware there are countless people who would relieve me of it without a second thought if they perceived the chance. Furthermore there are numerous nations who could also deprive me of it for the most trivial of "violations" (including the federal government of the USA) and some where it could be done on the whim of an official without even the trivial violation of whatever local law might be. Trivial could mean missing a piece of paper or not rigidly following clearing in or reporting requirements (which of course all vary by country).

On the first point, yes. From the Pew Research article on public priorities in 2012, section on Energy and Environment:

Frankly, people here mostly don't care about environment or global warming enough to base their votes on a candidate's position on this subject.

That's a pretty damning chart! Not only is the wrong thing happening - but the trend is in the wrong direction (as with so many other things).

From that point of view it's unclear why either party needs to worry too much about climate change?

I wish I could say it would surely change as the effects of climate change increase, but Australia, Canada and the UK all provide examples of countries willing to move in the exact wrong direction even as they start to feel significant impacts.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2014, 04:17:01 PM »
ccg
I fear that as things begin to unravel people will gravitate to strong leaders who know without doubt the simple solutions to all problems. That these solutions are also suicidal in the near term won't be a consideration.
Hope I'm wrong.
Terry

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20418
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 971
  • Likes Given: 335
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2014, 02:32:38 AM »
The legal landscape regarding fracking in the US may be about to shift.  In what is being hailed as a landmark decision, a jury decided that a family claiming they were sickened because of pollution from hydraulic fracturing operations near their Texas home should be awarded $2.95 million.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/23/3429788/fracking-verdict/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20418
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 971
  • Likes Given: 335
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2014, 02:39:32 AM »
On the other hand....
"Earlier this month, a coalition of county governments in Texas posted a study that air pollution would increase significantly by 2018 thanks to a local drilling boom. One week later, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality slashed the coalition’s budget for air quality planning."

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/23/3430014/texas-pollution-data-release-funding-cut/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20418
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 971
  • Likes Given: 335
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2014, 02:46:08 AM »
CEO of Unilever:
"“We recognise for the first time that, purely in monetary terms, the cost of inaction is starting to become bigger than the cost of action. This is a wonderful position to be in for businesses because that obviously galvanises business.”

http://www.rtcc.org/2014/04/08/climate-action-is-only-way-to-grow-economy-unilever-ceo/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2543
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2014, 10:31:45 AM »
If you let this companies receive subsidies nothing good will happened !!! They are the problem more than we are individually. So no they won't solve anything.

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #24 on: April 24, 2014, 04:33:32 PM »
CEO of Unilever:
"“We recognise for the first time that, purely in monetary terms, the cost of inaction is starting to become bigger than the cost of action. This is a wonderful position to be in for businesses because that obviously galvanises business.”

Problem is, if the solutions to our problems necessarily lie in the enrichment of the few and the impoverishment of the many - we create (or rather amplify, as it is already the case) an existing problem. A problem sufficient to destroy our way of life ultimately in itself. A proper (sustainable) solution has to tackle the small matter of justice.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20418
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 971
  • Likes Given: 335
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #25 on: April 25, 2014, 02:07:12 PM »
What if there were an election without any climate denier candidates? This is actually happening, in the US -- in Massachusetts.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/24/3424427/no-climate-deniers-allowed/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #26 on: April 25, 2014, 03:13:55 PM »
What if there were an election without any climate denier candidates? This is actually happening, in the US -- in Massachusetts.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/24/3424427/no-climate-deniers-allowed/

Won't matter much until we see the same thing in Oklahoma or Texas. My guess is large areas of these states will have to run out of  drinking water before this happens.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20418
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 971
  • Likes Given: 335
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #27 on: April 26, 2014, 01:57:24 PM »
What if there were an election without any climate denier candidates? This is actually happening, in the US -- in Massachusetts.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/24/3424427/no-climate-deniers-allowed/

Won't matter much until we see the same thing in Oklahoma or Texas. My guess is large areas of these states will have to run out of  drinking water before this happens.
I agree, Massachusetts is your basic tiny glimmer of hope, at this point.  But some of the solutions for water scarcity may keep people thinking, even though they're not quite dry yet:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-22/wichita-falls-braces-for-water-from-sewers-with-texas-in-drought.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #28 on: April 26, 2014, 03:10:13 PM »
Drinking treated waste water should open up eyes  if residents can make the connection between AGW and droughts.

JackTaylor

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 209
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #29 on: April 27, 2014, 03:54:09 PM »
Drinking treated waste water should open up eyes  if residents can make the connection between AGW and droughts.
SH,
Glad you you use the word should
Open the eyes of northwestern Texans and western Okies to make the connection between AGW and droughts - as an old saying goes, they'd rather eat shit first before admitting to that.  Looks like they're going to literally, LOL  :o.  If it's OK for Astronauts to drink pee so can we - has a nice ring.

However, as sewer water reclaimation is a world wide practice - it kills my attempt to offer up a pun at their expense.  :'(

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #30 on: May 01, 2014, 05:53:09 PM »
It is of course very early still in the election cycle here in the US, but the most recent polling data and statistical analysis indicates that Congress is more than likely to end up in Republican control - both the House and the Senate.  The Senate just barely but trends are in the direction of Democratic losses.

Should this occur it will be a huge setback to climate change mitigation actions and environmental regulations.  It will add a lot of power to those seeking to roll back subsides for renewables and promote fossil fuel interests.

Obama is pretty much crippled at this point and has little room to maneuver. A Republican Congress could stop any action Obama or the Democrats want to execute if they disagree with it.

Should this happen it will mean no significant progress would be likely until post the 2016 Presidential election.  And that would depend on the results of that election.

Opportunities squandered. 

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/abc-news-washington-post-poll-democrats-106158.html

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #31 on: May 12, 2014, 06:40:33 PM »
Quote
Marco Rubio says human activity isn't causing climate change

Rubio for the non-US readers is one of the top Republicans in US politics and one of the likely Republican candidates who will run for the US presidency.

Quote
Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a GOP star and possible 2016 presidential contender, does not believe human activity is causing climate change, he said Sunday..

“I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” Rubio said on ABC's "This Week."

"I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy,” he added.

A National Climate Assessment released by the White House last week found that Rubio’s home state of Florida is one of the most vulnerable to rising sea levels and changes in temperatures and storm patterns.

He is not alone in this opinion which is shared by Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Rand Paul, and to some extent Chris Christi.  So whomever the Republican candidate is when that election rolls around they will likely not be looking towards real efforts.  Not that the Democrats are likely to do anything much either I suppose given Obamas track record and Hillary being pretty conservative.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20418
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 971
  • Likes Given: 335
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #32 on: May 13, 2014, 04:16:16 AM »
Michigan Senate race could involve the issue of climate change.
Quote
Dem Rep. Gary Peters, who is running for Senate in Michigan, is calling on GOP foe Terri Lynn Land to take a stand on whether she believes human activity is responsible for global warming. It may seem far fetched, but climate change could actually be an issue in this one Senate race, because of two factors: The centrality of the Great Lakes to the Michigan economy; and the huge expenditures on behalf of Land by the political group founded by Charles and David Koch.
Quote
...Peters said (this will strike some as implausible, and others as refreshing) that he intends to talk about climate change as a key issue in this race, with a focus on the Great Lakes and on the role of a Koch Industries affiliate in a major local story involving piles of petroleum coke along the Detroit River.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/05/12/a-senate-race-about-climate-change/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #33 on: May 13, 2014, 09:43:53 PM »
It doesn't get any better than this!  Politics

Quote
Bipartisan Bill That Would Have Strengthened U.S. Energy Efficiency Dies In Senate

A bipartisan energy efficiency bill failed again in the Senate on Monday, after a majority of Senate Republicans refused to end a filibuster after days of discussion on the legislation.

Along with the failure of the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act, commonly referred to as Shaheen-Portman for its two co-sponsors, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), Republicans’ hopes of a binding Senate vote on the Keystone XL pipeline were also squashed. Senate Democrats had offered Republicans the vote on Keystone XL as long as Shaheen-Portman passed. Republicans, however, attempted to attach amendments to the bill, including ones that would have sped up natural gas exports and opposed EPA regulations on future power plants. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid blocked these five amendments, triggering Republicans to block the passage of Shaheen-Portman.
 
“This bill is being filibustered by some of its very own Republican co-sponsors,” Reid said on the Senate floor Monday before the vote. “This useless, mind-boggling obstruction is what continually grinds the wheels of the Senate to a halt.”

This is the second time that disagreements over Republican amendments have stalled Shaheen-Portman, which if passed would have sought to increase energy efficiency in residential, commercial, and federally-owned buildings and trained workers to be adept at working in energy-efficient commercial buildings..........

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3437201/shaheen-portman-energy-efficiency-senate/
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #34 on: May 23, 2014, 05:24:30 PM »
Quote
US House denies Pentagon funds to tackle climate change as security threat

The US House has voted to deny the Pentagon funding to combat impacts of climate change and its own heavy dependence on fossil fuels. The Department has long acknowledged the realities of global warming amid political wrangling over its effects.

The House voted, mostly along party lines, to pass an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that aims to prevent the Pentagon from using appropriated funding to address the myriad national security concerns the Department of Defense (DOD) has said climate change poses to American interests.

The amendment to the NDAA, which sets the terms of the DOD budget, was sponsored by Rep. David McKinley (R), whose home state of West Virginia is deeply invested in coal development.


The full text of the amendment reads:

“None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to implement the U.S. Global Change Research Program National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation’s Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, or the May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order.”
......

http://rt.com/usa/160904-pentagon-climate-change-house/
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

TeaPotty

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #35 on: June 20, 2014, 02:37:18 PM »
News update...

Republicans are waging an all-out war against Obama's [weak] EPA rules:

"Republicans will "take a serious look at" barring funds for the EPA rule"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/house-republicans-plan-to-block-climate-change-coal-rules

Shutdown Wars Return? GOP Senators Want To Block Obama's Climate Rules
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/white-house-warns-gop-not-to-risk-shutdown-over-climate-rules


On the bright side...  ???

"only 38 percent of voters said they'd be willing to vote for a presidential candidate who denied the link between human activity and climate change"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/03/1304057/-Poll-Public-says-they-won-t-vote-for-a-climate-change-denying-president

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #36 on: June 20, 2014, 04:52:06 PM »
"only 38 percent of voters said they'd be willing to vote for a presidential candidate who denied the link between human activity and climate change"

By 2016 election cycle in the US.......that percentage will be drop down even more.  It's amazing what facts, record temperatures, melting ice sheet record lows, record Greenland melt, and significant wildfires in the US (as well as around the world) will do.

You already see FOX News start to "pivot" on the issue ala Sheppard Smith.  Others will follow SLOWLY over time......with only the true nut cases on FOX (Hannity and others) the only "holdouts".



FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20418
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 971
  • Likes Given: 335
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #37 on: June 22, 2014, 02:03:35 PM »
Shades of last September, Senate Republicans are now saying they won't pass a new budget unless, as the article puts it, "Americans accept dirtier air, polluted waters and unchecked climate change."

History, and poll results, are not on their side.... 

http://ecowatch.com/2014/06/20/republicans-government-shutdown-climate-action/


I had a call from a pollster last night.  Although when asked she said, "We're an independent polling organization," the questions were clearly from the Republican side, asking about satisfaction with prominent Democrats.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #38 on: June 23, 2014, 03:34:11 AM »
Here's a link to an interesting article about Hank Paulson as he describes the similarities between the housing bubble and the global warming bubble.  Paulson (a Republican) helped to form a group with Michael Bloomberg (an Independent) and Tom Steyer (retired hedge fund manager and a Democrat). 

Hank Paulson was the Secretary of the Treasury in the US under George Bush.  Before that....he was the CEO of Goldman Sachs.  When Paulson was the CEO of Goldman.....he helped to lobby former President George Bush's administration to allow additional leveraging of bank debt (which was one of the more significant causes of the financial meltdown........too much leverage).

I am NOT a big Paulson fan........but the article is good reading....and underlines how worried some Republican's are getting about climate change.

LINK:  http://www.businessinsider.com/hank-paulson-on-climate-change-2014-6

I have always viewed the addressing of global warming to be a CONSERVATIVE ISSUE.....but the folks in the Republican party have OBVIOUSLY not been listening to me ???

Ever since Teddy Roosevelt set up the national park system........the Republicans seemed to have divorced CONSERVATION.....from CONSERVATIVE (with the exception of Dick Nixon who set up the EPA.......that the Republican party now want's to disband so they can destroy the earth more quickly) ;D

FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20418
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 971
  • Likes Given: 335
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #39 on: July 08, 2014, 02:03:51 PM »
Another great Peter Sinclair video -- and a US congressional candidate from Michigan makes acting on climate change a central issue in her campaign.  (Also, the latest congressional candidate crazy denier video.  *Sigh* )
http://climatecrocks.com/2014/07/07/us-house-candidate-makes-climate-action-a-campaign-centerpiece/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #40 on: July 10, 2014, 03:56:28 PM »
For anyone who thinks we will arrive at a political consensus in the U.S. to act on climate change in the near future......

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gop-climate-change-denier-mars

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20418
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 971
  • Likes Given: 335
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #41 on: November 01, 2014, 07:45:11 PM »
An upset in Michigan elections could have significant effects on climate action in the U.S. Congress.

Quote
In 2011, the Los Angeles Times called Fred Upton, the Republican Congressman from Michigan and chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, “one of the biggest threats to planet Earth on planet Earth.” In the intervening three years not much has changed — although in the next three days a lot could. Upton’s opponent this election, Paul Clements, is turning what seemed like a shoo-in race for Upton into a hotly contested one that looks like it will come down to the wire, and even yield an upset.

Clements is a nice foil for Upton. A political scientist at Western Michigan University, last year he said that it was Upton’s turnaround on climate change that caused him to run for Congress. “He used to say we needed to regulate greenhouse gases, but it seems to get promoted to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, you have to cut a deal,” he told E&E News.

Things really heated up earlier this week, when a poll conducted by Hamilton Campaigns for the Clements campaign found Clements in a statistical dead heat with Upton. Surveying 400 registered voters, the poll showed Clements down by only four points, 47 to 43 percent, but within the margin of error of 4.9 points.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/31/3587116/potential-congressional-upset-upton-clements-climate/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20418
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 971
  • Likes Given: 335
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #42 on: November 01, 2014, 09:01:48 PM »
What A Republican-Controlled U.S. Senate Would Mean For The Climate
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/31/3586676/senate-gop-climate-preview/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Pmt111500

  • Guest
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #43 on: November 05, 2014, 07:13:50 AM »
It looks like US can be disregarded in any international negotiations (be it military, economic or climate) for a couple of years. It appears they want it. There won't be any progress but towards worse. Teabaggers (formerly known as republicans) took the Senate, so US people gets hypocritical self-delusional babblers as their representatives. Personally, I won't believe anything coming from US officials nor news organizations as long as the US people elect these types as their representatives. More reliable sources of information still exist at least in Europe, though I think people in US government will try to prevent US people from getting it. Good luck to those who voted otherwise, but I'm sad to inform that anything you may have to say to me about climate politics, will be treated with extreme suspicion. This is mainly because of the official stance on this issue by your elected representatives, so nothing personal.

TeaPotty

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #44 on: November 05, 2014, 09:23:34 AM »
I've seen several reports that there now sufficient votes to pass both Keystone XL and TPP/TTIP, not to mention putting the EPA in a climate denier's hands. I'd post links, but it's late and depressing.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20418
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 971
  • Likes Given: 335
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #45 on: November 05, 2014, 02:34:04 PM »
Republicans win US Senate and House.  What hope there is will not come from Congress any time soon.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/tom_steyer_spent_57_million_to_get_voters_to_care_about_climate_change_it.1.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20418
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 971
  • Likes Given: 335
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #46 on: November 05, 2014, 02:36:56 PM »
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20418
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 971
  • Likes Given: 335
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #47 on: November 05, 2014, 02:43:18 PM »
Detailed election results from the NYT.

Quote
Exit Polls: Partisan Divide on Climate Change
Nationally, nearly six in 10 voters said climate change was a serious problem, and a broad majority of them (about seven in 10) favored Democratic candidates for the House. Among the four in 10 voters who said it was not a serious problem, an even larger majority (more than eight in 10 voters) supported Republican candidates.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2014/liveblog?post=343-exit-polls-partisan-divide-on-climate-change-4878
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Pmt111500

  • Guest
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #48 on: November 05, 2014, 04:14:58 PM »
I'll apply Tea Party maths to the image and say 110% of US representatives are against this question, and 86% are undecided or wrong. And as we know anything over one hundred % is all then the question is politically motivated leftist propaganda.

deep octopus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 559
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: The 2014 US elections and climate policy
« Reply #49 on: November 05, 2014, 08:15:05 PM »
Not that I expected anything out of Congress on climate, but the wave of Republican governors seating states like Maryland, Massachusetts, and Illinois worries me as we may see it through that there is a stagnation or reversal of advances on climate change... Bad enough that several states re-elected some genuine creeps to be at their respective helms.

Thom Tillis, the face of North Carolina's ascendant, extreme legislature, taking Hagan's seat in the Senate is just a perfect illustration of how much climate change is taken seriously in the US: not very much at all. And again, not that anything materially changes, except I don't foresee any progress at all for at least two years. Business as usual.