With strong opening remarks at the launch of the United Nations-sponsored climate summit Monday morning, U.S. President Barack Obama "has lifted up climate change as the great moral issue of our time," said 350.org director May Boeve. "Now, he must deliver."
No, Obama doesn't "must deliver". Who will force him to?
Don't these people know that Obama never delivers on his rhetoric?
The Chicago city-boy who has not an ounce of real understanding or respect for the environment, The Wild, or Mother Earth's creatures, will not "deliver", he will obfuscate and pontificate and prevaricate, but continue to serve big-money and power, political scheming, and profits above all else, as he has since his election and continue to betray the millions who believed in his false mantra of "change we can believe-in".........
Agreed with one correction. The meat industry is the number one emitter of greenhouse gases. Any political proposal that overlooks the elephant in the room is ludicrous.
Agreed. But put a leash on the meat industry as well. We individuals who care about the earth are doing that.
May Boeve from 350.org says the answers are clear but actually they are anything but clear. No matter what sector of emissions you look at you see a lot of difficulties. Take electricity. The cheapest and most effective solution is to improve energy efficiency. But that means retrofitting almost all existing buildings. Are owners of buildings willing to do that, to have energy audits and make decisions about how much money to invest for making changing. How you get the millions of poor people and the millions of people who live in apartments or people who own houses not suitable for solar panels to take advantage of solar energy? Obama wanted a millions electric cars on the road by now but there about only one-third of that. What are the obstacles preventing more electric cars on the road? How can fossil fuel be replaced for planes and ships. What is the answer to nitrous oxide emissions from fertilized soils. What can be done about methane emissions from cows and rice paddies? 350.org will never find solutions if it starts with wrong assumptions. The first step is to truly analyze the problem.
Temple Grandin PhD agrees with you. She tried hard to be a vegetarian because her place on the autism continuum gives her strong feelings of empathy with non-humans, but she found that her health suffered no matter how she tweaked her diet. Eventually she had to go back to being an omnivore, though I believe that she still tries not to eat the flesh of mammals.
Now, about that "global economy is on a firm path to a low carbon future": Global economy and low carbon future do not mix.They are a contradiction in terms. Talk about strong local economies and organic farms yes, geothermal, wind and solar you might have a case President "All-of -the-above".
Step one for the US would be to retrofit its military to do useful work, saving refugees at sea, building retaining walls to keep the oceans from flooding low lying areas, building climate refugee centers on high ground, etc.
The US military's colossal world wide foot print could be used for peaceful purposes.
I am an omnivore. My ancestors were omnivores ever since they climbed down from the trees 2½ to 4 million years ago. My teeth say that I am an omnivore and my eyes, set in the front of my face for spatial vision say that I am a predator. If I was a herbivore, they would be set toward the side of my head for peripheral vision
Having said all that, I am also a civilized human being, aware of the havoc my kind has caused on this planet and of our responsibility of halting the destruction, especially of endangered species.
The meat I eat is from animals, which have been raised for the express purpose of providing food. If I (and the market) were not there, these animals would have never been born, as well, they are not in any danger to become extinct. Maybe we will soon be able to produce meat synthetically, without having to slaughter animals for it.
The flatulence of animals raised for food makes up for the flatulence produced by huge herds of buffalo and other grazing animals which have been displaced by expansion of human habitat. It remains open to debate, which caused a greater greenhouse effect.
The problem is not "neoliberal capitalism." The problem is capitalism, tout court. There is no other kind of capitalism that would act any differently.
Obama keeps telling us that Trans Pacific Partnership and its sequels are his highest second term priorities. Those deals will assure that any action by any member government to deal with climate change will be quickly obliterated by the corporate tribunals that will be empowered by TPP, TTIP and TISA.
Obama knows that whatever actions or promises he takes will not withstand the scrutiny of the corporate tribunals.
As for diet, look at our dental arrangement. 32 teeth designed for an omnivorous diet, though not much sugar.
Does he not make pretty speeches, though?
Ships used to be driven by wind. With modern materials and technology, why not once again? High-speed electric railways could replace aircraft for travel within continents. The internet replaces the need to travel overseas for much of our business activity. And we could choose to stop fighting wars..............?
Capitalism is very necessary to create the wealth needed to provide social programs. I am not talking about the blood sucking kind of capitalism as practiced so despicably here, but a capitalism as practiced in northern Europe, one with a social conscience, which is administrated so it will permit the creation of wealth, which can be shared to a significant degree with the disabled and underprivileged.
If you eliminate the chance to accumulate wealth, you also eliminate the incentive to create it and the opportunity to share it.
In the end you will have a system like the one, at which the Warsaw Pact nations failed .
See my reply to Mairead below
Making the agreement binding and accepting climate debt, two of the most important components to a useful global climate deal, are not on the table.
Yes, we here the excuse, 'it just isn't practical to get the Senate to accept a binding agreement.' Well, for anything meaningful to get done, the "leaders" have to move well past what is "practical."
Climate change needs to be a political issue and extreme pressure put on institutions like the Senate to do things like bind a climate agreement. Voluntary compliance will not work.
Imagine the "global heat" on the senate to act if all the other nations agree to a meaningful accord and the only thing preventing the US from participating is the Senate.