Obama to Attend Copenhagen and Commit the U.S. to Emissions Reduction Targets

LOL. Who needs congress?




Unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy ftw!

 

This ought to be good - let's hear your critique of Cass Sunstein. No copy pasting please.

 

As others posters have noted the Executive can act using existing regulatory tools to control emissions. Plus as previously noted the President is Constitutionally empowered to negotiate on behalf of the US. That said we don't know for certain what Obama will say or what, if anything he commits the US too. Your criticism at the moment is, as you are fond of saying, alarmist.

You mean Ex-Governor Sarah Palin who resigned her governorship to enrich herself rather than dealing with the problems of Alaska.

 

Thank you. I am surprised she keeps getting introduced as "Governor." I haven't seen that before with other Governors who completed their term, much less resigned with a stream-of-consciousness meltdown.

Presidents seem to retain their title, but I'm not aware of any other elected officials that do so. Anybody?

 

This post is addressed to the individual posting under the Clutchfans.net user ID "MojoMan"

I third the notion that the continual use of the honorific "Governor" when referring to the FORMER governor of Alaska represents an incorrect usage, and a breach of titular protocol.

The only result is embarrassment.

 

I will say this; Obama really doesn't seem to give a s*** about political capital. Guy's bearing out his platform for change by forcing it down.

I applaud him for that. It's refreshing to see a president with ambition. His mere presence has helped transform Copenhagen from a bureaucrat's meeting to a meeting of world leaders.

 

MaJorge emissions reach 17 posts per 70!

 

I wish we would concentrate on real pollution. Put pressure on China to stop dumping toxic waste and heavy metals in the water near farmland. Save this CO2 crap for later.

 

BREAKING: Source: US, China, India, South Africa reach deal

 

It is fascinating to watch really. What most interests me is the unprecedented way that we, as a species really, are trying to make hard decisions.

I would argue that the economic conferences, the post-war conventions, etc, have never been this all-inclusive and have never really tried to grapple with something so pervasive and ultimately behavioral.

While the horse is mostly out of the barn in terms of carbon load (IMHO), the test case for a conversation of this scope is a positive event, whether it arrives at deal... or no deal.

 

maybe, maybe no....

 

This one has some particularly frustrating aspects to it. The right wing, mindless, deniers are a known and expected group, but while they are annoying I think there are established ways of dealing with them. What is more frustrating and I think ultimately more damaging are the left wing, mindless, manipulative, groups. You almost wonder if they’re right wing plants. For example, Greenpeace has been talking a lot about the oil sands and its CO2 emissions in the last couple of weeks. *slaps forhead* There are a number of serious environmental concerns with the oil sands but CO2 isn’t one of them. As far as miscellaneous, one-off, point sources of CO2 go it is a big one, but it only amounts of a tiny fraction of manmade CO2 emissions. It only makes up about 4% of Canada’s emissions and about 0.05% of global emissions. Coal, natural gas, vehicle emissions, and ship emissions are a few of the major emitters, and this is where efforts need to be focussed. Obviously you don’t concentrate on the pin hole in the dam when there are gushing holes elsewhere, and if you claim to be concerned about CO2 but you’re complaining about the oil sands instead of these other issues then you’re not really concerned about CO2. Furthermore, the oil sands serves a very important role in reducing US dependence on Middle Eastern oil, and that dependence has been a major contributing factor in a number of wars in the ME, including one that is still in progress. There are some serious issues with the oil sands that need to be addressed but the last thing any progressive minded person would want to do is shut them down.

I see it more as a technological problem, and a regulatory problem. I don’t think voluntary behaviour is going to make a big enough difference.

If this is in fact the case then we need to put more money into researching geoengineering solutions, but this is another area that Greenpeace has opposed and worked hard to undermine.

 

Emissions reduction is just the latest social experiment bound to fail like prohibition or woman's sufferage.

 

bwaaahahaha. Complete failure.

Out of COP15, we got a non-legally binding, target free proposal, whose text was neither approved nor signed by the plenary - they merely "took note" of it. So we're left with neither a treaty or a protocol, but rather a "Copenhagen Accord", whose status remains legally unclear. Complete failure. The EU has lost its political leadership on climate change.

PWN3D

 

this is funny!

After ‘Truth Squad’ Fizzles, Der Spiegel Reporter Tells Inhofe: ‘You’re Ridiculous’

Back in September, godfather of global warming deniers Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) announced that he would be going to the U.N.’s climate change summit in Copenhagen this week to present “another view.” “I think somebody has to be there — a one-man truth squad,” he said. His “truth squad” later expanded to three, with Sens. John Barrasso (R-WY) and Roger Wicker (R-MS) joining in.

But MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow noted last night that Inhofe’s mission of wreaking havoc on the summit fell flat:

Inhofe did travel to Copenhagen however — with a single staffer and when he got there, all he could muster was an “impromptu” press conference and spent a grand total of two hours in the Danish capital. But even during the press conference, few reporters showed up and the Oklahoma senator wasn’t very well received by the ones who did: