Obama Stunner: Climate Change Will Be A Campaign Issue, We Need to Do Much More To Combat It

[ProSense]

Obama Stunner: Climate Change Will Be A Campaign Issue, We Need to Do Much More To Combat It

By Joe Romm

In a Rolling Stone interview published today, President Obama broke out of his self-imposed silence on climate change. He made some remarkable statements, including his belief that the millions of dollars pouring into the anti-science disinformation campaign will drive climate change into the presidential campaign.

Earlier this year the President omitted any discussion of climate change from his State of the Union address. And he (or the White House communications team) edited it out of his Earth Day proclamation.

But in this interview, Obama was actually the first to bring up climate change, noting it was one of many big issues he’s had to deal with and then slamming the GOP for moving so far to the right on the issue.

The big news was that the President expects climate change to be a campaign issue:

Part of the challenge over these past three years has been that people’s number-one priority is finding a job and paying the mortgage and dealing with high gas prices. In that environment, it’s been easy for the other side to pour millions of dollars into a campaign to debunk climate-change science. I suspect that over the next six months, this is going to be a debate that will become part of the campaign, and I will be very clear in voicing my belief that we’re going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way. That there’s a way to do it that is entirely compatible with strong economic growth and job creation – that taking steps, for example, to retrofit buildings all across America with existing technologies will reduce our power usage by 15 or 20 percent. That’s an achievable goal, and we should be getting started now.

I’ll believe it when I see it.

Yes, Romney etch-a-sketched himself to the far right on this issue in late October:

My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.

But I doubt Romney will want to talk about climate change since that statement is a major flip-flop aimed at the Tea Party extremists who now help decide GOP primaries. Also Romney’s team presumably knows what team Obama doesn’t: Every poll makes clear that in the general election, climate change, clean energy, and cutting pollution are some of the defining wedge issues of our time (see Democrats Taking “Green” Positions on Climate Change “Won Much More Often” Than Those Remaining Silent and links below).

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/25/470940/obama-stunner-climate-change-will-be-a-campaign-issue-we-need-to-do-much-more-to-combat-it/

[patrice]

1. What will this mean to domestic & foreign partnerships in very VERY leveraged coastal real estate?

[Uncle Joe]

2. I hope so, but he missed a good opportunity not using the words during

his Earth Day speech.

I guess time will tell as to whether Obama is serious about making global warming, climate change a campaign issue.

Thanks for the thread, ProSense.

[XemaSab]

18. He might be interested in making it a campaign issue

Actually doing anything about it?

Eh, notsomuch.

[Uncle Joe]

25. I believe that if Obama aggressively makes global warming, climate change a campaign issue

and wins reelection, he will have enough emotional vindication to more vigorously promote positive change on this issue.

If he doesn't make it a campaign issue, there is little to no chance of anything being done during his second term unless both houses of Congress seriously tackle the challenge of global warming climate change.

[FSogol]

3. Good news. K & R. n/t

[Lionessa]

4. So is this Candidate Obama speaking or President Obama speaking? Seems

they are not even close to the same; one full of great speeches and apparent commitment to Democratic ideals, the other a right wing Democrat who wants to approve pipelines, off-shore drilling, lax regulations/regulators, BP co-conspirator, and other strongly Republican-ish projects and ideals.

[Dawgs]

5. +1, Sadly. n/t

[raouldukelives]

6. I remain optimistic that his words are true.

He has to know the reality we are facing. That his children are facing. In the face of our out of control greed & growth society the idea of going against the flow is a dangerous but unavoidable one at this point in history. At least if you want to even pretend to care about nature & wildlife.

[Lionessa]

8. He's had 3+ years to show me something in this regard, and all I've seen is

not so good, kind of the wrong direction as it were. He's more than used up my hope for change with his choice to remain so status quo.

[ProSense]

7. Of course

there is this Obama: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002578955

[Lionessa]

10. Never have said he wasn't the lesser of evils. He's not claiming that, he's talking like he intends

to be an environmental messiah when he campaigns. He's not, he's been frustratingly contrary to green-ness with many of his positions and decisions, as well as his lack of willingness to hold those corporations involved currently in destroying the environment accountable for their spills and blow-outs nor their unfair subsidies and lack of reasonable taxation, nor the agencies at the federal level that failed to do their jobs.

Yes. He is the lesser of evils. I'm not sure that's enough for the environment, but I guess if we don't figure out in time, we'll be the one's paying for it. The planet will re-bear, just perhaps not humans.

[ProSense]

11. Yes

"Yes. He is the lesser of evils."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002476217

Clearly!

[Lionessa]

16. Having a discussion with you is like

trying to have a discussion with a robo-call.

[ProSense]

19. Well,

that's flattering coming from someone stuck on arguing the "lesser of two evils."

I mean, face the facts, which have nothing to do with "robocalls."

[Dawgs]

20. Give it up. You're losing, again. n/t

[ProSense]

21. What

"Give it up. You're losing, again."

...exactly am I "losing"?

Are you referring to the attempt to make this about me?

I mean, the President's environmental record is clear: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002578955

[Dawgs]

23. It is clear. And so is your argument. n/t

[DCBob]

22. Climate change is close to my number one issue but I totally understand the President's position.

His first priority when coming into office was keeping the country from economic collapse. It did not make sense and would not have worked to push through any kind of aggressive climate change legislation. Three years later the economy is improving and climate change problem is getting worse.. now he might be able to actually get something done.

And we cannot wait any longer. The problem is getting worse by the day and soon it may be too late to do anything about it.

[Lionessa]

24. Excuse me but....

How did continuing the oil subsidies, letting the BP oil spill go mostly unaccounted for, and the gouging of gas prices while oil companies clearly made record profits good for the economy....and that's just the economic choices he's made regarding the environment.

The economy appears to be picking up a little, but it is no where near the clear, with Europe on the way to collapse, and mortgages about the reset, and the state and local layoffs about to begin.

[DCBob]

26. So are you saying he shouldnt do anything about climate change..

since the economy is still precarious?

[Lionessa]

29. No, I'm saying that the economic decisions about climate change and the related industries

have helped neither the economy nor climate change, just the industries. So to claim he held back because of the economy is complete and utter bullshit. If the economy re: environment was anything he cared about, he would've made sure BP paid up appropriately, the regulating agency was held to account, and the oil companies would've stopped getting both subsidies and cover for gouging us all at the pump as well while making record profits and virtually no upgrading of related systems or infrastructure.

[DCBob]

34. Well thats your opinion...

and I utterly disagree. Its seems your main intent in posting here is bashing Obama. Your comments are over-the-top, utterly exaggerated and utterly boring. Ciao.

[Lionessa]

36. My main intent with regard to posting here is to assert the continued need for focus on

Women's rights and equality
Economically sensible social classes
Public health care for all
Compassionate care for the disabled and the elderly
Considerate diplomacy over aggressive occupation
Transparency instead of secrecy
Humanity instead of torture


Shall I go on?

The point is, I simply grade Obama based on his ability to have positively effected the things that are important to me, he himself is entirely beside the point.

This isn't Obama Underground, yet. There is a special forum for those in need of that.

My democratic ideals are suspect in only two places, I'm pro-gun-ish, and anti-State-of-Israel. Otherwise I've got nothing to be ashamed of. Obama is the one who isn't living up to the hope he asked us to entrust to him because he was going to create change we could believe in. Instead he opens with the same Treasury, the abomination Warrens, and other similar status quo choices and has continued pretty determinedly on that path, straying just enough to be the lesser of evils.

[SammyWinstonJack]

31. That's Obama. This would be Candidate Obama speaking.

[Octafish]

40. + going on 4 years...

...of waiting for the Enviro Action part to kick in.

[izquierdista]

9. You can spend it on reducing emissions OR...

you can spend it on increasing uptake. One way or the other, bringing the CO2 concentration down to the level that humans have adapted to for millenia is probably going to cost less than leaving the CO2 concentration to its own devices and trying to adapt by moving, changing our agriculture, and changing our lifestyles to accommodate the new temperature norms.

If you run into a climate change denier, ask them if they believe in the Ice Age. Ask them if they know of the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, both well documented by European historians. The climate changes all the time. The only things that don't are religious dogma, conservative thought, and capitalist desire for more profits.

The one thing that is going to make it possible to deal with climate change is to shake out some of those profits banked by the capitalists and use it to re-engineer our planet into a more habitable (for humans) climate pattern. In addition to cutting down fossil fuel use, we should also be starting efforts to re-green the planet: replant the areas that have been deforested, use biochar to sequester carbon, plant deserts with native vegetation and practice oasification* on a large scale.

*Oasification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oasification

[The2ndWheel]

12. "use it to re-engineer our planet into a more habitable (for humans)"

That's pretty much how we got into this predicament.

[izquierdista]

14. We've engineered the climate all right...

Now we just have to make a course correction.




Easier said than done.

[NickB79]

17. Uptake where?

The oceans are already acidifying due to their increased uptake, to the point that species may be at risk of extinction.

[izquierdista]

27. The Sahara Desert

There is very little organic matter tied up in the Sahara. Add some biochar, plant some trees, might be possible for it to sequester a lot of carbon.

[NickB79]

39. Theoretically possible, but the cost and energy constraints would probably doom it

It would require a lot of energy to bring in the water required to irrigate all those trees, and a lot of that water would probably have to be extracted from the oceans via desalination plants. Transporting water is VERY costly in terms of energy required to pump it through pipelines up even modest inclines like hills. Theoretically, you could use solar to do it (it would be the perfect location to set up large-scale solar farms) but what government is going to foot the bill?

[izquierdista]

42. Wrong way to think about it.

Use plants that can live in that environment. Like desert ironwood (Olneya tesota) which can flourish on less than 4" of water a year. It could be established without desalination and irrigation equipment, in natural and man-made water catchments and in wadis.

[DrDan]

13. are we nearing an election? Sounds like the candidate is coming out to speak for the President.

[SammyWinstonJack]

32. HA!

[Johonny]

15. I can't wait for the GOP convention

no matter how Romney tried to back track to the middle he still has to have his convention. Since there aren't more than a hand full of moderate Republicans and they are all generally hated nationally, the convention speeches are going to be a hoot of right wing conspiracy theories, xenophobia and trickle down poison. No doubt climate change fantasy scenario's will be featured. I imagine the average convention goer will love it, but the independent voter is likely to see it as the freak show it is going to be.

[Cleita]

28. Excellent! Since the Republicans say it doesn't exist, it will give Obama a clear and

unobstructed field to discuss it. Look for the GOPs to try to discredit him as crazy.

[FarCenter]

30. It is not an issue -- emissions will decline because the cheap fossil fuel will be gone in 20 years

Oil production is flat now.

Higher prices are keeping the global economy from expanding.

Consumption will go up in developing countries, but that will be offset by declines in developed countries that will continue to deteriorate economically as GDP/capita reverts to the mean globally.

[NickB79]

41. It is in fact an issue. The permafrost is now melting rapidly, and out comes methane gas

We've just begun to see the effects of global warming. What we've done is destabilized the environment enough that positive feedback mechanisms are now at work, just like a small snowball rolling down a hill, getting bigger and bigger as it goes.

The CO2 we've added to the atmosphere was enough to melt the Arctic ice cap (it will be completely gone by 2020 now). As the ice goes, the darker ocean water absorbs solar energy and warms further. This warming heats the permafrost, causing it to melt and release billions of tons of methane (20 times as potent per volume as CO2). This causes FURTHER warming, which eventually destabilises the massive frozen methane clathrate deposits on the sea floor, releasing EVEN MORE greenhouse gases. Global temperatures will be 4-6C warmer by 2100 based on current climate models. Even with immediate action, we're pretty much locked in to 2C warming at the least.

We're looking at a warming event the planet hasn't seen in at least 55 million years. Without immediate action, the planet will be ice-free in a thousand years, sea levels will be 100 ft higher than now, and a mass extinction on par with the Permian die-off (90% of all species gone) will be underway.

[FarCenter]

43. Methane has a short atmospheric half-life compared with CO2

So even though it has a higher blanketing effect, it is short lived. So long as the release is on a decadal time scale, the effect won't be very significant. A sudden outgassing of clathrates in the Arctic Ocean continental shelf is not expected, despite alarmist rhetoric to that effect.

[NickB79]

44. Short compared to CO2, but it is expected to outgas for centuries

Do you assume that all the methane will just come out in one big burp of gas, and then break down? The permafrost is one giant swamp, frozen in time. As it thaws over the next century, it will continue to emit more and more methane every year, more than offsetting the amount that naturally breaks down. We've already seen methane concentrations triple in this century alone; the implication is it will only increase as the planet warms.

Furthermore, the natural comparatively rapid decomposition of methane is already factored into it's potency vs. CO2: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html

Each methane molecule is about 70 times more potent in terms of trapping heat than a molecule of carbon dioxide. However, because methane it broken down more rapidly in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, scientist calculate that methane is about 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a hundred-year cycle.

If you have any doubts about what methane clathrate releases can do to the climate, look to the Permian or Eocene periods, when such outgassings did occur. And the current science says that we are releasing carbon at a faster rate than nature was capable of doing during these periods: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110605132433.htm

The rate of release of carbon into the atmosphere today is nearly 10 times as fast as during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), 55.9 million years ago, the best analog we have for current global warming, according to an international team of geologists. Rate matters and this current rapid change may not allow sufficient time for the biological environment to adjust.

[Scurrilous]

33. K & R

[Tikki]

35. YAY Every bit of environmental protection should be on the table.

Tikki

[rudycantfail]

37. It just dawned on him

[Raine]

38. Obviously campaign season has rolled around. nt