Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Message To The World: We Will Act Quickly on Climate Change
It's going to be busy 2009, says president-elect's aide • Judges reject ban on navy exercises to protect sealife
Barack Obama, who has spent much of the time since his election closeted with his advisers in Chicago, sent a strong signal yesterday that he plans a decisive break with George Bush on environmental policy once he moves into the White House.
US President-elect Barack Obama waves as he leaves his first press conference following his election victory in Chicago, November 7, 2008. Obama will act against climate change early in his presidency, an environment adviser said on Wednesday amid doubts that a U.S. carbon-capping program will be in place before 2010. (REUTERS/Carlos Barria) The move was part of a
carefully coded series of messages from Obama meant to reassure America
and the world about the shape of his administration, which does not
assume power until January 20.
Also yesterday, Obama appointed Madeleine Albright, who served as Bill Clinton's secretary of state, and Jim Leach, a former Republican member of Congress from Iowa who endorsed his campaign, to meet international delegations visiting Washington for the G20 summit at the weekend. Obama will not attend the summit, and aides have repeatedly noted that Bush remains president until January 20.
But while Obama and Joe Biden, the vice president-elect, have been elusive since the election, the Democrat has delivered a number of messages intended to heighten anticipation of changes to come.
In one such signal the president-elect sent Jason Grumet, a policy adviser mentioned for a possible energy post, to an environmental conference in Washington to offer reassurances that there would be swift movement on climate change legislation. "The whole transition team felt it important to be here," Grumet said. "I think it is going to be a very very busy 2009, and I think we are going to need all of you to be on top of your game."
However, Grumet did not offer policy specifics, and his optimism was not shared by others at the conference, organised by the consulting group Point Carbon and the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change.
Jeff Bingaman, the New Mexico senator who chairs the Senate's energy and national resources committee and another possibility for a post in the administration, said it was highly unlikely that Obama could sign into law cap and trade legislation next year. "I think the reality is that it may take more than a year to get it all done," he said, pointing to 2010.
Grumet's brief appearance was widely seen as a signal that Obama, who for nearly two years of campaigning warned of a "planet in peril", was serious about following through on a 30-point environmental agenda that called for creating green jobs, cutting US oil consumption, and moving to renewable sources of energy,
It was the second time in 24 hours that Obama had tried to reassure the world that he wanted a radical departure from Bush's policy on the environment. Obama has said repeatedly that the global economic crisis remains his top priority, but John Podesta, part of the troika overseeing the transition, said on Tuesday that the environment was at the top of the Democrats' agenda. "I anticipate him moving very aggressively and very rapidly on the whole question of transforming the energy platform in the United States from high carbon energy to low carbon energy," he said.
For campaigners, change cannot come soon enough. Yesterday the supreme court rejected environmental protections for whales, dolphins and other marine mammals imposed on US navy sonar training exercises off southern California. Environmental groups had argued that intense sound waves could hurt or even kill some 37 species including sea lions and endangered blue whales by interfering with their ability to communicate and navigate. At one stage Bush intervened by citing the national security necessity of the training.
The hiatus between election and inauguration has led to intense speculation about cabinet appointments and policy breaks with the Bush White House.
Yesterday the Washington Post reported that Obama intended to replace the two top intelligence officials early in his administration. Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, and General Michael Hayden, the CIA chief, are associated with the Bush administration's most controversial policies, including monitoring the email and phone calls of US citizens without court oversight.
Some of the Obama camp's efforts to stoke anticipation have been countered with caution - and at times frustration. Yesterday Bingaman warned that Obama urgently needed to appoint his cabinet secretaries. "The idea that the transition team develops policies and then gets new people in place ... that is not the way I have seen it in Washington," he said.
- Posted in
18 Comments so far
Show AllAm am heartened to hear that Obama takes the dangers of climate change seriously and wants to address them. I am simultaneously disheartened by his involvement with Madeleine Albright and with economic advisers fro the Clinton era. If what he means by "change" is a reversal of neocon policies to Clinton policies than that change is disappointingly insufficient. Clinton was at best Repug light an his pushing of NAFTA and the outsourcing of labor to poor countries and to China paved the way for the present train wreck of a nation. So to with his foreign policy which involved the starving and regular bombing of Iraq and the bombing of civilian targets in Yugoslavia. Albright is up to her elbows in blood. Obama can and must do better but indications are he will be business as usual pre-Bush.
The Jaded Prole
Dumping the Bush / Repocrat 'neocons', only to replace them with the Clinton / Demublican 'neolibs', is change i believe... not change i believe in.
i sincerely believe Obama will be a better President than Clinton was... but not nearly as better as we so desperately need.
DaveDaveM.
Madeleine Albright, in her embarrassing public moment of moral confusion, was asked by Kathy Kelly and members of Voices In The Wilderness(whom sponsored 70 delegations to Iraq in acts of civil disobedience against the embargo), whether the deaths of 500,00 Iraqi children due to sanctions(this was in 1996) was worth it? Much to her shame, she affirmed that the price was worth it. That and Obama's choice of Rahm Emmanuel as chief of staff does leave me thinking that there is going to have to be a lot more public pressure for him to buck the military-industrial death machine that has been a too integral part of our history the past several decades.
I am realy hesitant about this upcoming administraton regarding the military-industrial death machine. Yes, he does talk about all kinds of change but none of it will be worth it if that isn't changed. I too have a HUGE problem with that.
I was pretty dismayed to read Obama's involvement with Albright. Truthfully everytime I hear her name I cringe thinking about all those Iraqi children. Not the kind of person I would want to associate myself with. I am hoping this was a one shot ordeal.Whenever I got email from her regarding the Democratic campaign I would merely delete it.
I guess we missed the article on how Obama was going to act on the war quickly.
Nothing changes.
And whoever posts that Camelot crap again, wake up and smell the coffee. (and that is not fair-trade organic you smell...)
DWIGHT BAKER
COAL FIRED ELECTRICAL GENERATION PLANTS GREEN HOUSE GASES
THE ABSTRACT COLLATES AND ABSORBS THE MULTIPLE FIELDS OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS AND MANAGEMENT WITH SAFETY----REGULATION AND CONTROL WITH MULTI FACETED DISCIPLINES OF ENGINEERING USING PROVEN COMMODITY EQUIPMENT, DESIGN AND ENGINEERING.
RESULTING IN THE MOST TIMELY, WITH LESS COST---- EFFICIENT COLLECTION TRANSMISSION AND SAFE DISPOSAL OF GREEN HOUSE GASES EMITTED BY COAL FIRED ELECTRICAL GENERATION PLANTS IN THE USA.
ABSTRACT
In Cyril and Cushing OK most major pipelines meet. In Cement OK there are numerous oil and gas formations that could be used as injection of the carbon gases emitted. Cement is just north of Cyril. Most of those formations in and around Cement are commingled with other formations because of the uplift of the Wichita Mountains. Thus making that area ideal for the disposal of the green house gasses. But just south and east of Cyril is the Fletcher Field where there are numerous abandoned deep wells that have zones permeable to accept the green house gases. The generation plants could capture the gases emitted move them through a pipeline via a transmission company then on to Cyril OK. Cyril has the land and people needed to install manage and maintain pump stations to move the gases into the numerous areas for disposal, and to monitor the effects of the pumped gasses.
The uniqueness and synergy of this ABSTRACT is three fold
#1 OKLAHOMA has the right kind of oil and gas formations to inject carbon gases.
#2 Cyril and Cushing are the hubs for gas lines in America.
#3 OKLAHOMA has the service, sales and engineering companies to build, maintain and manage.
Abstract created by Dwight E. Baker ã 2008
Unproven, and unnecessary.
Of course, there will be NO unforeseen seismic consequences of such a massive new intervention in the Earth's crust, and we GUARANTEE that "sequestered" carbon will remain in the ground where we put it (just like the radioactive waste we bury will NEVER migrate into any water table... oops!).
We do not need corporate-wet-dream fantasies such as "clean" coal or carbon "sequestration". We need large and steady investment and incentives to develop genuinely clean energy, along with real and growing disincentives to fossil fuels.
Great- its about freakin time!
Bush and Co went forward in FULL REVERSE.
Its time to go FULL FORWARD now to take back what the republicans Stole from our future and our survival here on Planet Earth.
Global warming is the #1 international security issue on Planet Earth in 2008.
Regards,
Jonah
Mt Shasta, CALIFORNIA
http://geocities.com/sapphire2029/sei.html
Yes, there are some re-treaded Clintonites, but we have reversed direction and must jump from ice berg to berg, back to rational land. More, later. Hope we can believe in. Nature will soon give us a demonstration of our perdicament.
One of my soap boxes is the interpretation of the IPCC ice core data chart Gore presented in "Inconvenient Truth". If you can read a chart, take a look at it.
Having heard this shit before I apologise for being sceptical and I will believe it when I see it.
The fact is signing a piece of paper in a luxury resort in Bali means nothing if nothing is done in reality about environmental damage and global warming, which is the case right now.
For all the talk in Europe about carbon emmissions and how they are leading the way not a single European nation has actually cut emmissions in reality rather they use the loophole in the charter and displace some of their emmissions total to a third-world nation in exchange for some Euros or Pounds thus balancing their books. On paper it looks as if Europe is doing something when in reality the emmissions are increasing and nothing is being done about it all.
The environment should be the biggest concern there is but the Politicians do not treat it seriously, sure they say they are doing something about it and boast about cutting emmissions when in when in reality they are allowing it to get worse.
So until something is actually done in reality excuse me if I don't believe a word from this President-elect as I've heard this crap before and don't expect he will do a thing apart from maybe sign a piece of paper to make him look good to those who only get their news from mainstream media and won't do any checking of facts for themselves and then like the Europeans, the USA will displace emmissions onto a third-world country and announce how well they are doing whilst allowing emmissions to continue to rise.
The fact that the dude isn't even in office yet and has only begun to formulate a game plan (one in fact that addresses the issues needing attention and more closely resembles the direction of progress this country needs to pursue) and a lot of you are already crying and complaining about how he isn't far enough into your ideology is quite poignant.
I would venture to guess that ideologues of all persuasions bear strong similarities...If one is about Progress and doesn't see the potential for it in the coming administration, then maybe it would be more productive to focus on the task of getting one's head out of their own agenda's a$$, and begin transitioning from "pessimistic ideologue" to "productive progressive". The majority of the country IS NOT progressive...it is up to those who are to help him and them see the light instead of fumbling around in the dark and whining like b#$%!%s that "they just don't get it".
Peace
giggles
snydly My soapbox is the IPCC ice core data chart which tells why we need all deliberate speed: (read only if you have an aspirin handy)
Sometimes it's helpful to make a few observations and see where they take us. The following may seem too simple, or over the top, but consider:
The IPCC ice core data charts, and the same as seen in Gore's Book printed, so it can be studied, show us that there have been about 6 ice age cycles in the last 650ky. We are on the up-swing of a temp/CO2 spike now, with GHGs now well out of historical norms. This begs the questions---What weather phenomenon has defeated and reversed the previous spikes, yet not drastically lowered the mean planetary temp? ---What is the trigger? temp, CO2, other? Obviously, the reversals occurred before the ice caps melted appreciably, otherwise there would be no data to harvest...Is, then, the reversal of our spike immanent, or even, overdue (tipping point)?---When does the ice of an ice age build up? All at once or gradually, as the temp/CO2 decreases? ---How is the atmosphere supplied with the moisture and energy necessary to transfer so much water to the poles as snow and ice? ---What role does methane play as it is released from tundra and the oceans? ---Was there massive methane release during the previous cycles? Or did the reversals act to put the methane back to sleep, so to speak, before it could compound the greenhouse effect? ---There were humans present during the previous cycles, how and where did they survive the reversals? ---What can the paleo-geologic record found in the magnetic striping of the mid-Atlantic ridge tell us about tectonic plate movement and possible, or sudden, volcanic warming of the oceans? ---Is it possible that the mass of melt water transferred to the equatorial bulge would be sufficient to change the angular momentum of the earth enough to tweak the plates into movement? ---Does USGS data show increased activity along plate boundaries that might be a "forcing of the forcings" related to shifting water mass or rising landmass?
The answers to these questions are not hard to compute. The answers dictate the type and intensity of response that is called for. The answers have probably been known for some time, by some people who have the connections and means to respond. The answers demand a change to the status quo, a change from "growth and consumption" to sustainability and survival. Look at the tops of the spikes and decide if we have any more time to dally around with any energy sources that add heat or GHGs to the ecosphere. Coal and oil are out. Nukes and geo-thermal are out. NG, too, even though it's cleaner. The grid has to change. Wealth has to be used in different ways. It's a different game, and we're all in the same boat.
We can have just as much fun surviving with wind and sun, as with burning and consuming---let's do it!
Additionally:
Subjectively, one of the main characteristics of a spike is that everything is relatively normal, until it isn't. We are getting lots of clues now.
The emerging scenario seems to be: rising temp melts land-borne ice along with sea ice. Fresh water disrupts the thermo-haliene circulation of the gulf stream and if we're lucky, that's as far as it goes--an ice age cycle of normal proportions is initiated and technoloically enabled civilization is disturbed, but maybe not destroyed.
If ice melts at such a rate as to enhance the above, another scenario might unfold: Land-borne ice melt flows to the equatorial bulge (the planet is not a perfect sphere-it bulges at the equator because of centrifugal force) thus changing the mass distribution and angular momentum of the earth and putting enough pressure on the tectonic plates to start a geotectonic event that would activate the ring of fire and the mid-atlantic ridge. The resulting undersea volcanism, (not to mention the earthquakes, and worst case, the popping of the Yellowstone magma dome,) would flash heat the oceans. That seems to be the hidden key to how and when an ice age starts, and how it gets the moisture and enough energy to move that much water back to the polar latitudes, forming the glaciers, part of which slide on down around Cincinnati, melt and recede over the next 110,000 years.
Apparently planetary methane has been sequestered for a very long time--dinosaur time. It would be very bad for us to loose enough heat into the mix to stir up the methane. The previous ice age cycle/reversals evidently have occurred soon enough to keep the methane down under frozen tundra and cooled ocean water. An additional factor related to tectonics gleaned from USGS info is that land masses such as Greenland, relieved of the weight of the ice, tend to rise, actually float higher on the magma. National Geog had an article on the mechanics of the melting that is shaping up on Greenland---flows of melt water form surface streams which drop through the thousands of feet of ice to the land surface, creating a layer of slush under incredible pressure. The next dot in that progression is: earth tremor, separation and departure of a largish section of that ice cap which, worse case, might produce a tsunami out into the Atlantic. Or worst case, a chain reaction of tsunamis as some of the crumbling islands in the east Atlantic loose a mountain or two (PBS).
A serious multi-disciplinary approach, including even rogue generalists seems called for.
Snydly,
Once again, excellent "rogue generalist" framing!
For anyone who skips Snydly's post because it looks too dense and daunting, please find a few minutes to read it carefully and ponder it.
Obama is righteous. He has proven that he gives many hope; he's been elected. And his promises of change are congealing quickly.
It would begin to appear that some of his centrist posturing may have been politicking relative to 1)a true desire for positive change, and 2) intentions to implement change quickly.
Might he actually be decent?
Yes.
First, I'd like to say hello to CDers out there who may remember me.
The transition from the "old" CD to this "new" CD pissed me off in the process, and it has taken me a long time to feel motivated to participate again.
I'm not starting off with a bang, but rather a minor observation. In the end, Jeff Bingaman is quoted as saying "The idea that the transition team develops policies and then gets new people in place ... that is not the way I have seen it in Washington."
Mr. Bingaman, I respectfully disagree. Cabinet members have always been chosen (in my opinion) to carry out the policy directives set by the incoming president. If, in your observation, policies are being hammered out prior to official announcements of cabinet positions, might that not be a sign of a president-elect's transition team being a little bit more forthcoming in said policies, prior to selecting an individual to carry them out?
I mean, what if Bush had been truthful and said "Look, America, I'm going to select a cabinet of sycophantic lapdogs to carry out my handlers' directives of ruining all that is good in the world" would that have sparked dissent?
I'd much rather know what the policies are first, so that the people chosen to implement them can be publicly evaluated. They all work for us, damnit all, right?