The posturing and glacially slow action to address human-caused climate disruption remains frustrating to witness.

"Carbon intensity" is a term i don't recall reading or hearing previously. i think i understand the concept - measuring "carbon per unit of economic output" rather than "carbon per person" or "carbon per country". Measuring carbon per person puts the greatest onus on the USA (and on the rich) to act to change their practices, economy and society. Measuring carbon per country increases the onus on vastly populated countries like China and India to not use fossil fuels to fuel their economic development.

Measuring carbon per unit of economic output seems like a way for Chinese leaders to assert that China's carbon per person and per country will continue to rise in the near and middle term, but that this will be acceptable since they have embarked on a path toward greater long-term energy and carbon efficiency.

This appears to be a more responsible posture than that of US leaders, especially when coupled with the Chinese policy and action to address overpopulation. And yet...

Looking at the science, it appears that the carbon horse is already out of the climate barn. Planning for increased carbon output in the near and middle term is not sufficient. Of course it looks brilliant and responsible next to the US plan, which is to rely on the mythical "capitalist free market" to reduce carbon output. Both postures refuse firm targets or timelines.

The frustrating thing is that at the most basic level, the science was clear forty years ago - the atmosphere retains heat with a measurable rate of efficiency, and adding carbon to the atmosphere increases the efficiency of heat retention. Yes there has always been some uncertainty about exactly how climate change will play out as we change the atmosphere, what role is played by feedback loops in the complex climate system, how much amelioration or amplification of effects might occur. But as many many scientists have pointed out, uncertainty is reason to be careful, not reason to charge forward with increasingly disruptive action.

Almost thirty-five years ago, the USA under Jimmy Carter began taking steps to reduce our carbon output. But almost thirty years ago under Ronald Reagan these steps were reversed, and we have charged forward with increasingly disruptive action.

So here we are, the wheels falling off our ecology, glaciers melting, extinctions spiking, sea level rising, droughts and hurricanes on the rise, etc etc etc. Acknowledging that the Chinese posture is more intelligent than the US posture does not change the fact that both are insufficient.

Obama needs to see the Chinese posture and raise the bet, announce a massive worldwide investment in conservation / reduction in use of fossil fuels and transition to renewables. There is more to it than that - clean water, food sovereignty, climate justice, climate reparations, etc - but giant steps need to be taken NOW. Worldwide carbon output in 2010 needs to drop from 2009, and every year into the future, and the USA is in the position of greatest responsibility and greatest opportunity to act.

The frustration is, it ain't gonna happen. What needs to happen goes beyond investing trillions in conservation, efficiency and renewables. We need dethroning corporations from power, and reforming the money system, and transforming agriculture, and the entrenched power of these systems is resisting fundamental change. And Obama is effectively the global spokesperson and front man for these systems of entrenched power that resist change.

Obama says he represents ALL the people. That must include the superstitious, stupid, greedy, raping, stealing, polluting and murdering ones.

That is a funny banner! If Obama can't even stop the chaos in his own Congress, how ever in the world, is he going to stop climate chaos?

REMARKABLE SELF DESTRUCTION:

With the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, and global warming now a valid threat, rejuvenation of our manufacturing base and expansion of our vital alternative energy technology are now paramount.

Instead, we are surrendering these special opportunities to others. Allowing outsourcing of 3,000 wind turbines to China is only one example. Meanwhile we squander billions on the misappropriated programs such as the abused bailouts, and the dubious Cash for Clunkers program which benefitted foreign automakers more than our own.

Failure of our government to forge reversals of these self destructing policies at this crucial time will not only result in erosion of the technological advantages we still possess, our security, and our international stature–but will also impede vital measures for environmental improvements.

OBAMA "more ENGAGED" on climate change?

he's already MARRIED , long ago ENGAGED, to his Corporate Pollute all you want for Money and Power Lovers. That's why he ran for POTUS.

Shyster talk by our Western leaders is only to be expected, after all, look who supported the purveyors of SIV's and ABCP's and all those other financial scams.

Our own PM Harper in Canada maintains that Canada is such a small percentage of global CO2 output that there is no point in joining in any reduction unless the big boys do likewise. This is a specious argument and could also have been used to stay out of WWII. Harper unfortunately is also one of those all too prevalent in power evangelical Armageddon seekers so he has no interest in preventing global destruction.

To a large extent our governments support not individuals but big business and corporations and the latter by default have no intrinsic intelligence to understand global warming or any human ethics.

In 1980 when I first read about the concept of global warming the theoretical possibility of halting GW certainly existed, but the momentum of lemming "corpocracy" has made that impossible in practice. It really is too late now although that should not be used as an excuse to neglect mitigation of the damage.

I recently returned from China and was impressed by their ability and ingenuity to make something happen if it was so decided. While one can debate the fairness and lack of freedom in central control it does have the advantage of decisive action that a Western free society ruled by lobbying corporations (especially purveyors of invasion weaponry) is denied.

The air in China is generally filthy but I did notice in some smaller cities (those with a population of only 6-8 million) that silent electric scooters with a range of 50-100 kms outnumbered cars. These were cheap enough (c. $300) to be affordable and the batteries were removable for overnight recharge. The air was much better there too as long as you could keep a distance from Chinese men -since they all smoke. (globally, 33% of cigarettes are smoked in China which has only 20% of global population)

Extremely fast intercity electric trains (and trolley buses) were everywhere. On the downside coal is plentiful in China and that is where the power comes from in ever increasing numbers.

Dream weavers