Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Obama Promises "New Chapter" in Climate Leadership

By Eoin O'Carroll, Christian Science Monitor. Posted November 21, 2008.


Obama made big promises to the international community, despite turning down an invite to attend the next meeting in Poland.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Barack Obama delivered a brief video message Wednesday to the Governors' Global Climate Summit in Beverly Hills, Calif., in which he unequivocally affirmed the scientific basis of climate change and vowed to take action on cutting carbon emissions, in spite of the troubled global economy.

The president-elect declined, however, to attend next month's climate talks in PoznaƄ, Poland. A number of activists, including Greenpeace and 350.org have been urging him to go, arguing that his presence would send a signal that the United States would is willing to join the rest of the developed world in combating global warming. Obama demurred, saying that "the United States has only one president at a time."

But Obama's message nonetheless represents a strong departure from the climate policies of his predecessor. For years, the Bush White House challenged the validity of manmade global warming, with many critics claiming that the administration deliberately prevented climate scientists from disseminating their findings.

For Obama, "the science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear." The president-elect promised a federal cap-and-trade system that would mandate that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, and then reduced an additional 80 percent by 2050. The government, he said, would invest $15 billion annually "to catalyze private sector efforts to build a clean energy future," a future that includes solar power, wind power, safe nuclear energy, next-generation biofuels, and "clean coal," whatever that means.

These efforts, he said, would generate five million new green jobs.

Headed by California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the bipartisan governors' summit brought together environmental officials and activists and oil executives from Europe, India, and China, along with a few governors of other US states, with a goal of drafting a pledge to work together to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

Environmentalists welcomed Obama's commitment, which is only the second-major policy announcement made by the president-elect (the other, revealed in a press conference and a 60 Minutes interview, was fixing the economy.)

Obama's official transition website, Change.gov, displays statements from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, the National Wildlife Federation, and the World Wildlife Fund, all praising the address:

"As world leaders gather in the coming weeks in Poland to negotiate a pathway out of the climate crisis, the eyes of the world will be upon America and our newfound resolve to rejoin global efforts," said the National Wildlife Federation's Larry Schweiger.

Of course, promising to curb emissions is one thing. Actually curbing them is another matter. Time Magazine notes that the outcome of Obama's cap-and-trade proposal will depend on the outcome of the current horse-trading in Congress:

For all of Obama's green intentions, however, he can't pass carbon cap-and-trade legislation by fiat -- that will require Congress. Many congressional leaders, including some Democrats from coal-heavy states, remain doubtful about the benefits of mandatory carbon caps, especially with the U.S. drowning economically. One key signal will be the outcome of the battle for leadership of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. The contenders: Representative John Dingell of Michigan, who has defended Detroit from tougher fuel-efficiency standards and stood in the way of action on climate change, and the challenger, Henry Waxman of California, who scores high marks from environmentalists.

You can watch Obama's video message here:


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: obama, global warming, climate change

Eoin O'Carroll is a blogger for The Christian Science Monitor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Clean coal is coal that stays in the ground undisturbed.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 21, 2008 9:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the coal companies know that most people don't:

As long as you keep messing around with wind, solar, geothermal and wave
power, the coal industry is safe. There is no way wind, solar, geothermal and
wave power can replace coal, and they know it. The coal fire has to keep on
burning in case the wind dies or the sun goes down. If you quit being afraid of
nuclear, the coal industry is doomed. Every time you argue in favor of wind,
solar, geothermal and wave power, or against nuclear, King Coal is happy.
ONLY nuclear power can put coal out of business. Nuclear power HAS put coal
out of business in France. France uses 30 year old American technology. So
here is the deal: Keep being afraid of all things nuclear and die either when [not
if] civilization collapses or when H2S comes out of the ocean and Homo
"Sapiens" goes extinct. OR: Get over your paranoia and kick the coal habit and
live. Which do you choose? I put quotation marks around "Sapiens" because it
is not clear that most of us have enough brains to avoid extinction when it is
clearly predicted and the safe path has been pointed out. Nuclear is the safe path.

PS: Nuclear is the cheapest and safest source of electricity. Nuclear life cycle
CO2 output is the lowest per kilowatt hour because it takes a huge number of
windmills or solar collectors or wave machines or whatever to produce the same
power as a nuclear power plant. All of those windmills or whatever have
manufacturing processes that make CO2. Hydro power requires an enormous
amount of concrete. The first step in making concrete is heating limestone to
drive off the CO2. That is one of the sources of CO2 from hydro power. The
price for electricity for the various sources of power include the total life cycle
costs. The cost to build the reactor is not much different from the cost to build a
coal fired power plant and the money comes from the same source. Whoever
would pay for the reactor is the same person who would pay for the coal burner.

Nuclear is the cheapest and the only full time replacement for coal.
Nuclear power would be much cheaper than it is if nuclear were allowed to be as
unsafe as the other sources of power. Nuclear power plants are self-insured.
Tax money is NOT involved and would not be mentioned if it were not for the
civil disturbances caused by coal company shills, alias protesters. The nuclear
industry needs and deserves protection from people who are obviously either
mentally ill or very misinformed. When tax money is mentioned with respect to
nuclear power, the money is the extra money that is wasted because of pointless
protests.

There is NO SUCH THING as nuclear waste. There is fuel that is being wasted
for political reasons and because the coal industry has driven Americans paranoid.
The coal industry's reason for doing so is the $100 Billion per year cash flow
they receive as long as you are afraid of all things nuclear. If you remain afraid
of all things nuclear and prevent the conversion from coal to nuclear everybody
dies. The cure is for everybody to go to college and get a 4 year degree in a
hard science [physics or chemistry] or engineering, or for Americans to start
acting like the French people with respect to nuclear power.

I have never worked for the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here may be one of the reasons for the large number of people who don't take global warming seriously:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 21, 2008 9:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "Google and the myth of universal knowledge"
by Jean-Noel Jeanneney 2007 The original is in French.

When you do a Google search, you get "sponsored" links
on the right side and "non-sponsored" links on the left.
The "NON-SPONSORED" links on Google ARE LISTED
IN THE ORDER OF THE HIGHEST BIDDER to lowest
bidder. Companies pay dollars to Google to get web sites
other than their own that lie in favor of the paying company
to be at the top of the "non-sponsored" list. Google search
results in your getting nothing but corporate propaganda.
Since the coal industry has a $100 Billion per year income
at stake, they can and must share a lot of money with
Google.

Page 32: 62% of internet users questioned make no
distinction whatever between advertising and other
information, and only 18% proved capable of telling which
data were paid for by companies for their promotion and
which were not."
"92% of users of search engines have full confidence in the
results of their search, and 71% (users for less than five
years) consider that information from this source [Google]
is never biased in any way."

Suggestion: Use only Google Advanced or Google Scholar.
On Google Advanced, specify either the .gov domain or the
.edu domain. Otherwise, use only web sites that
www.RealClimate.org uses.

There should be a law requiring Google to disclose the above
and the donors and the dollars for each "non-sponsored" link.
Environmentalists should work on Google legislation first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chernobyl can't happen here, and most of what you heard didn't happen there.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 21, 2008 9:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A friend of mine from Oak Ridge National Laboratory wrote to
me: "The reactor that had the accident at Chernobyl was very out-
of-date (1st generation) design that has to be precisely controlled
to prevent cooling water from boiling. Water carries away heat
and moderates far better than bubbles, and as bubbles form in
water, the reactor goes increasingly unstable. What caused
Chernobyl to blow its top was residual water in the core suddenly
going to high pressure steam and erupting into a steam explosion.
Since the building top was simply resting by its weight on the
walls, not a containment vessel at all, the steam explosion burped
the top off its position allowing outside air in, subsequently
igniting a carbon fire." The United States and other Western
countries DO NOT now build and do not now posses or operate
ANY reactors of such primitive design. Nor do we allow
containment buildings to have easily removable tops.
Containment buildings in the Western hemisphere are required to
be pressure vessels.
The Chernobyl accident released less than 200 tons of
radioactive material, as much as a coal-fired power plant would
release in 7 years and 5 months. The Chernobyl accident had a
shorter "stack" than coal-fired power plants. The radioactive
material was released in a short time at ground level. That is why
the Chernobyl accident had impact. The Three Mile Island
incident did NOT release a noticeable amount of radiation into its
neighborhood because it had a good containment building and
because it was a more modern design.
The reason is that the Soviet Union didn't spend money on R&D
for nuclear safety. The US did. Over 60 years, American
reactors have become so safe it is ridiculous. We have way
overspent on nuclear reactor safety, driving up the cost of
electricity. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, coal fired electric
power plants kill 24,000 people per year in the US according to
Discover magazine. Reactors built in the US in 2008 are nothing
like the very first reactor ever, built in the US in 1944. Soviet
built reactors were just copies of the 1944 reactor.
The book: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
has more truthful information on this if you are interested. Don't
believe the urban legends that were started by coal companies.
Order the book from: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm
See: http://www.ecolo.org for more information on the book.
Most books on the subject in most libraries may be there because of
coal industry pressure.
See also: "Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear
Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about
nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens is a former anti-nuclear activist.
"Power to Save the World" says on page 90: At Chernobyl, only
13 to 30% of the reactor's 190 metric tons of fuel evaporated.
.13X190=24.7 tons. .3X190=57 tons. [Much lower than the
previous estimate of 200 tons, and trivial compared to what coal
fired power plants give you.]

I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. Nobody is
paying me to post this. I have never worked for the nuclear
power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clean coal is coal that stays in the ground undisturbed.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 21, 2008 10:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coal is mostly carbon, but the complete list of impurities in coal includes every
element in the periodic table. The major impurities are, depending on where
you found it: URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt,
Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur,
Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium,
Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. Coal smoke and
cinders are commercially viable ORE for the above elements. Chinese industrial
grade coal contains much more arsenic than American coal. Chinese industrial
grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The result is that the
whole family dies of arsenic poisoning. Coal varies a lot. You have to analyze
it not only mine by mine but even lump by lump. Coal is a rock. It comes out
of the ground. What would you expect of a rock?
Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts
out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium
can go: Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase. The full fuel load and the years between fueling varies from reactor to
reactor, but one truck can carry the weight of a full nuclear fuel load.
See also: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement