Home | About | Donate

US Climate Plan 'Treats the Wound But Does Not Stop the Bleeding'


US Climate Plan 'Treats the Wound But Does Not Stop the Bleeding'

Lauren McCauley, staff writer


On every issue, across the board, Obama gets away with hypocrisy of staggering proportions: mouthing commendable intentions, and then doing the exact opposite. Why would anyone expect anything different in his approach to global ecocide?


On every issue there are those people like you that would like to fault the U.S. for everything that happens in this world. Climate change isn’t an American problem. It’s a world problem and everyone needs to do their part to correct the situation. The US should not bankrupt itself to satisfy those few that will just go to another issue and in the end want it all. Isn’t going to happen. Get over it.


The Noah Project

Humanity faces the extinction of most large animals and trees, and the ecological decimation of the human race. In the absence of any government that gives a hoot, I call for a foundation dedicated to the following goals and methods:

  1. Freezing of many fertilized eggs of most large animals, coupled with the maintenance of minimum numbers of female animals if existing zoos aren’t in fact protecting these species.

  2. Research and development of renewable technologies, of the medium-hanging fruit that the marketplace doesn’t seem to want to touch yet, in order to reduce or shut down further greenhouse gas emissions.

  3. Research and development of ecologically benign technologies to reverse the effects of excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

  4. Research and development of carbon sequestration technologies.

  5. Identification of good and bad corporate and governmental actors in this struggle.

  6. Cooperation with all willing stakeholders to fund the invention, development and rollout process for such innovations.

The project should be governed by proportional representation elections, as opposed to governance by pro fundraisers or large corporate donors.

Workers and contributors should be paid.


Climate negotiations
/ˈklīmit nəˌɡōSHēˈāSH(ə)ns/

Budgeting the water

While the house burns down


The metric for measuring reducing AGW is wrong. It’s not how much we reduce our carbon footprint but how much we increase the percentage of our CO2 emissions that are taken up by vegetation where we live. Portland, Oregon’s climate action plan calls for reducing emissions by 80% by 2050. What does this mean? Buried in the report is the statement that Portland’s urban forest takes up 1% annually of the CO2 emissions in Portland’s city limits. The plan also expects Portland population to double by 2050. Suppose Portland achieves its goal; what real effect will that have on Climate Change? None! Almost 99% of Portland’s CO2 emissions are going toward disrupting the climate. A worthwhile metric would be to measure what percent of emissions will be taken up by vegetation within that jurisdiction. What per cent of our emissions are taken up by vegetation within the U.S.? The goal needs to 100% and 100% of those emissions which we have externalized by transferring the manufacture of goods outside our border also need to be put on our ledger. Your first response added lots of factors to the list that is not on Guy McPherson’s list. Thank you.


I agree and you gave me some info I didn’t have… .thanks…


Really, how can the United States be expected to contribute to cleaning up third world nations when it does not have the commitment on the part of the citizenry to tackle the problem here? Just the fact that people have gone out and bought all those SUVs speaks reams about who we are. In this area I definitely think progressives tend to live in a dreamland. I am a progressive who was very hopeful in the 1970s that we would slowly get with the program, thanks to Reagan we just went backward for the most part. I just don’t see Americans giving up their energy madness without federal controls in the way of penalties for using all the oil, water, electricity and other fuels that they do.
I have not owned a car in 30 years and I live in California. Admittedly, I’ve chosen communities where that’s been possible, do not have a family,and other factors but really, I look around and now people own three vehicles instead of two or one. When Carter asked for sacrifice from Americans many turned around in their juvenile pique and chose Reagan, who promised them no limits. What do we do now?


I’m all for the US, or any country for that matter, bankrupting itself if it will save human life on this Earth. And, we’re not talking about far off generations, we’re talking about the next generation–our children and their ability to survive. The US is the second largest contributor to catastrophic climate change, and likely the largest purveyor of polluting industries and technologies in the world, as demonstrated by the terms of free trade deals like NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. and the pending TPP and TPIP. We are a ‘can-do’ nation, and I can’t understand why the US isn’t leading the effort to save human life, rather than leading efforts to exploit it and the very planet we depend upon for survival.




The big energy corporations now run the regulatory agencies having to do with any regulation that affects them. The big energy corporations run by billionaires toss some crumbs of that wealth to millionaire lawmakers to do their bidding. Big Energy, especially Big Oil amass annually billions in subsidies that further enhance their power to reign over any emergent green technologies that threaten their profits.

Furthermore, a Stanford University poll way back in 2010 showed 80% of the US citizenry want more investments of taxpayer money going to solar, mass transit, etc., and regulations to increase fuel efficiency that Big Oil and Big Auto ALWAYS block.

I get your angst against SUV owners, et al, but dumping the entire blame on the citizenry without accounting for the power paradigm of corporate control that prevents “the people” from moving in a more sane direction actually serves those corporate interests. Not that it is your intent.

I think it is strange that you refer to “federal controls” as a solution through penalties to be imposed on people using oil, electricity, water, etc but you don’t mention the corporations.



Is the US a dominant empire, or a peaceful democracy? Gee, that’s a tough one!


Well there, I just mentioned the corporations. Sorry, I thought that was a given. I’m pretty aware of how they’ve been given carte blanche to police themselves. At one time, the country could have gone the other way, maybe.


Unfortunately, this action is completely consistent with Obama’s approval of more arctic drilling. The administration sets its global warming goals to be consistdent with anticipated geologically mandated drops in fossil fuel production so that the industry will have to dol absolutely nolthing tol comply. The Democrats with global warming bills (Waxman-[Markey and Kerry) have done the same. You can predictg the goals in their programs from the DOE post-peak oil graph. See COuntercurrents, The Imminent Crash Of Oil Supply: ,Nicholas C. Arguimbau, 2010.

Nicholas C. Argjuimbau


Manifest Destiny, that’s why. IMO, the US is on the wrong side of history. Candidate for extinction within 30 years.