Tag Archives: china

America Is the Biggest Problem at the Climate Talks

by CindiChristianso Posted on December 5, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story originally appeared in Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

From reading reports in the press—and hearing complaints from Republicans always looking for an excuse to do nothing about climate change—you might get the sense that developing countries are the impediment to reaching a strong climate agreement in Paris. Traditionally the subject of such handwringing was China, but as it has grown richer it has become more proactive about fighting climate change, so the new scapegoat is India.

On Monday, a New York Times headline declared that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi “could make or break Obama’s climate legacy,” while a Wall Street Journal headline said that India is “a focus of the Paris climate talks.” The Times wrote, “Indian negotiators have publicly staked out an uncompromising position.”

Continue Reading »

Original post: 

America Is the Biggest Problem at the Climate Talks

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, Hagen, LAI, LeapFrog, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on America Is the Biggest Problem at the Climate Talks

Ted Cruz Is Counting On Republican Voters To Be Less Bloodthirsty Than Most People Think

by LadonnaClune Posted on December 2, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

One of the interesting things about the GOP primary race is that uber-conservative Ted Cruz is a bit of a dove when it comes to foreign policy. It’s not always easy to see this behind the bellicose rhetoric favored by Republicans, but even at the very beginning of Cruz’s campaign he said things like, “It’s worth noting, in eight years, the largest country Ronald Reagan ever invaded was Grenada.” In the four debates so far, Cruz has adopted less hawkish positions than most of the other candidates, and today he spelled out his national security stance in an AP interview:

While promising to destroy the Islamic State, beat back aggression from Russia, China and Iran, and ensure extremists don’t infiltrate the U.S. homeland, Cruz also places notable limits on his approach to national security. While Syrian president Bashar Assad is undoubtedly a “bad man,” removing him from power would be “materially worse for U.S. national security interests.” He is unwilling to send more U.S. ground forces into the Middle East and rejects the idea that torture can serve as an appropriate interrogation tool.

“We can defend our nation and be strong and uphold our values,” he says. “There is a reason the bad guys engage in torture. ISIS engages in torture. Iran engages in torture. America does not need to torture to protect ourselves.“

But if Cruz is generally trying to position himself as the most conservative candidate running, why the restraint on foreign policy? Brian Beutler argues that it’s because Cruz understands the conservative base better than Marco Rubio and some of the other candidates:

Cruz is highly attuned to the views and grievances that animate Republican voters, even when they are out of step with the right-intellectual consensus. One of these arenas, where the right-wing position on a left-right axis fails to neatly line up with Republican voter sentiment, is foreign policy.

Though they share a desire to be tough on terrorism, grassroots conservatives, unlike many Washington hardliners, don’t want the U.S. mired in unbounded entanglements. Here, the rightmost position—Rubio-esque neoconservatism—is identified with the dreaded Washington establishment, while organic conservative preferences are reflected in broad support for less militarily adventurous candidates. Republican voters trust Donald Trump to fight terrorism more than any other candidate by a wide margin….These voters consider anti-terrorism a priority but are uninterested in a return to the George W. Bush doctrine. It’s why Trump’s line about “bombing the shit/hell” out of ISIS is such a hit with his supporters—but those supporters would also rather Russia get bogged down in an ugly war than us.

It’s also why Cruz isn’t crouching against Rubio’s foreign-policy attacks, but counter-striking with a ferocity, and an approach, that will surprise the shapers of conventional wisdom.

This difference is likely to become sharper over the next month or two. Both Rubio and Cruz probably think it’s helpful to carve out some concrete differences with the other, and both probably think their version of foreign policy is better attuned to the current Republican id.

So who’s right? I wouldn’t presume to guess at the details of the Republican id at the moment. But I will say that both Iowa and New Hampshire probably still bear traces of traditional conservative isolationism, and Cruz’s approach might go down pretty well there. Once the primary moves to other states, who knows? But wins in the first two states sure wouldn’t hurt Cruz’s chances.

Read more:

Ted Cruz Is Counting On Republican Voters To Be Less Bloodthirsty Than Most People Think

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ted Cruz Is Counting On Republican Voters To Be Less Bloodthirsty Than Most People Think

Obama Just Called Saving the Planet an “Act of Defiance” Against Terror

by Myrna Posted on November 30, 2015

As major UN talks kick off in Paris, the president acknowledged America’s role in causing global warming. A major two-week summit on climate change opened on Monday in Paris, and President Barack Obama was there to urge world leaders to push for a strong international agreement to slow global warming. In his speech (video above), the president also offered a rebuke to the terrorists behind the November 13 attacks in the French capital that left 130 people dead. The summit, he said, is “an act of defiance that proves nothing will deter us from building the future we want for our children.” Obama acknowledged America’s unique responsibility for ensuring success at the talks, which are designed to produce an unprecedented agreement between nearly 200 nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change. It’s the first time nations have tried to reach that goal since the last major climate summit, in 2009 in Copenhagen, crumbled over disagreements between the United States, China, and developing nations. In his second term, Obama has sought to make action on climate change a central part of his legacy; a strong agreement in Paris would be a vital component to that. “I’ve come here personally, as the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second-largest emitter,” Obama said, “to say that the United States of America not only recognizes our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.” Prior to the speech, Obama met privately with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The two leaders have worked closely over the last year to advance a joint climate agenda. Xi also gave a speech, in which he said it was “very important for China and the United States to be firmly committed to the right direction of building a new model of major country relations.” Obama’s remarks come a day after the White House announced a sweeping initiative to double public-sector investment in clean energy research and development from $5 billion to $10 billion by 2020. That new program, known as Mission Innovation, also includes more than a dozen major private-sector investors, including Bill Gates, Richard Branson, and Mark Zuckerberg. Finance for clean energy and for climate change adaptation is likely to be a major issue at the talks, as vulnerable nations in Africa, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere urge the United States and other major emitters to pony up more cash. At the last major climate summit in Copenhagen, countries agreed to raise $100 billion per year for a UN-administered climate adaptation fund. That goal is only about two-thirds met. Jump to original –  Obama Just Called Saving the Planet an “Act of Defiance” Against Terror ; ; ;

Visit source: 

Obama Just Called Saving the Planet an “Act of Defiance” Against Terror

Posted in FF, GE, Hagen, ONA, OXO, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama Just Called Saving the Planet an “Act of Defiance” Against Terror

Trump, Carson Duel For Title of Least Prepared Commander-in-Chief

by NeilMcgehee Posted on November 11, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

One of the highlights of last night was watching the outsiders talk about foreign policy. Gerard Baker asked Ben Carson if he approved of President Obama’s decision to send special ops teams into Syria. Here’s his answer, in all its glory:

Well, putting the special ops people in there is better than not having them there, because they — that’s why they’re called special ops, they’re actually able to guide some of the other things that we’re doing there. And what we have to recognize is that Putin is trying to really spread his influence throughout the Middle East. This is going to be his base. And we have to oppose him there in an effective way.

We also must recognize that it’s a very complex place. You know, the Chinese are there, as well as the Russians, and you have all kinds of factions there. What we’ve been doing so far is very ineffective, but we can’t give up ground right there. But we have to look at this on a much more global scale. We’re talking about global jihadists. And their desire is to destroy us and to destroy our way of life. So we have to be saying, how do we make them look like losers? Because that’s the way that they’re able to gather a lot of influence.

And I think in order to make them look like losers, we have to destroy their caliphate. And you look for the easiest place to do that? It would be in Iraq. And if — outside of Anbar in Iraq, there’s a big energy field. Take that from them. Take all of that land from them. We could do that, I believe, fairly easily, I’ve learned from talking to several generals, and then you move on from there.

Translation: I have no idea what to do in the Middle East. And even though I’ve been running for president for a year, I’m too lazy to learn even the first thing about it.

Then there was Donald Trump’s even more gloriously ADD response to a question about how he’d handle Russia:

Well, first of all, it’s not only Russia. We have problems with North Korea where they actually have nuclear weapons. You know, nobody talks about it, we talk about Iran, and that’s one of the worst deals ever made. One of the worst contracts ever signed, ever, in anything, and it’s a disgrace. But, we have somebody over there, a madman, who already has nuclear weapons we don’t talk about that. That’s a problem.

China is a problem, both economically in what they’re doing in the South China Sea, I mean, they are becoming a very, very major force. So, we have more than just Russia. But, as far as the Ukraine is concerned, and you could Syria — as far as Syria, I like — if Putin wants to go in, and I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes, we were stablemates, and we did very well that night. But, you know that.

But, if Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, 100%, and I can’t understand how anybody would be against it….They blew up a Russian airplane. He cannot be in love with these people. He’s going in, and we can go in, and everybody should go in. As far as the Ukraine is concerned, we have a group of people, and a group of countries, including Germany — tremendous economic behemoth — why are we always doing the work?

I’m all for protecting Ukraine and working — but, we have countries that are surrounding the Ukraine that aren’t doing anything. They say, “Keep going, keep going, you dummies, keep going. Protect us…” And we have to get smart. We can’t continue to be the policeman of the world. We are $19 trillion dollars, we have a country that’s going to hell, we have an infrastructure that’s falling apart. Our roads, our bridges, our schools, our airports, and we have to start investing money in our country.

….I don’t like Assad. Who’s going to like Assad? But, we have no idea who these people, and what they’re going to be, and what they’re going to represent. They may be far worse than Assad. Look at Libya. Look at Iraq. Look at the mess we have after spending $2 trillion dollars, thousands of lives, wounded warriors all over the place — who I love, OK? All over.

We have nothing. And, I said, keep the oil. And we should have kept the oil, believe me. We should have kept the oil.

Translation: Russia! North Korea! Iran! Ukraine! Syria! ISIS! Germany! Ukraine again! Assad! Libya! Iraq! Oil! Keep the oil! But we should let other people handle all this because our roads are falling apart.

Republicans can’t seriously be thinking about nominating either of these guys, can they?

Continue reading:

Trump, Carson Duel For Title of Least Prepared Commander-in-Chief

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump, Carson Duel For Title of Least Prepared Commander-in-Chief

We Are Live Blogging the GOP Presidential Debate in Milwaukee

by SandraSalting Posted on November 11, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

OK, I’m up for this. Are you up for this? Sure you are! Together, we can get through the full two hours. We can do it! We can!

11:18 – And that’s a wrap.

11:17 – Trump: I’m spending my own money in this campaign. Actually, no, he isn’t.

11:14 – Carson: fight political correctness!

11:13 – Jeb wants to rebuild the VA.

11:12 – Fiorina: America will literally collapse if Hillary Clinton becomes president.

11:11 – Kasich worries about his children and grandchildren if Hillary Clinton is president.

11:10 – Time for closing statements!

11:09 – Trump: bring back profits from overseas with a tax holiday. Paul: drill, baby, drill. Bush: natural gas is great.

11:04 – Cruz also says Hillary sucks.

11:01 – Bartiromo: Hillary Clinton has an impressive resume. Audience boos. Not really sure what the question is, but Rubio says Hillary sucks and this election is about the future.

10:59 – Hey, I thought Donald Trump had personally guaranteed this debate wouldn’t go over two hours. What’s the deal?

10:58 – Fiorina: Dodd-Frank is socialism. Freddie Mac was responsible for housing bust. Etc.

10:54 – Kasich: Put a sock in it, Cruz. Real executives need to make decisions, not philosophize. Kasich says he wouldn’t bail out banks, but would help the hardworking folks who put money in the bank. Big boos!

10:51 – Cavuto: Just to be clear, if Bank of America were on the brink, would you let it fail? Cruz: Yes. Also: we need fewer philosopher kings at the Fed. And the gold standard would be great for working men and women!

10:50 – Cavuto: Would you go after Wall Street crooks like Bernie Sanders? Freudian slip, I guess. Cruz would “absolutely” go after them. We need less cronyism. Blah blah blah.

10:48 – Kasich: too much greed on Wall Street.

10:46 – Question to Carson about big banks. This ought to be good. Answer: shouldn’t allow banks to “just enlarge themselves at the expense of smaller entities.” Low interest rates are bad. We need less regulation. Hurts the poor and middle class because it raises the cost of a bar of soap by ten cents. Baker: OK, but would you break up the big banks? Carson: I wouldn’t allow them to get big in the first place. But, no, I wouldn’t tear down banks that already exist.

10:40 – Bush thinks we should raise capital requirements on banks. He says we’ve reduced them. This is totally wrong.

10:37 – Kasich winds up with yet more whining about not getting enough time. Put a sock in it, John. Besides, what about Ted Cruz? He seems to have virtually disappeared for the past half hour.

10:36 – Kasich: If anyone cyberattacks us, they should know we will destroy their means to perform cyberattacks. Not really clear what this means. Then a tour of the world showing what a tough guy he is.

10:32 – Rubio: Putin sucks. Obama sucks. Blah blah blah, machine gun speech about all the terrible people in the world. Big cheers.

10:31 – Trump to Fiorina: “Why do you keep interrupting everyone?”

10:28 – Fiorina says she’s met Putin not in a green room, like Trump, but in a private meeting. Yee haw!

10:26 – Bush says Trump is full of shit. Trump says we have no idea who the rebels are. Look at Libya. Look at Iraq. He almost sounds like a Democrat. Almost.

10:24 – Trump is now in full ADD mode on foreign policy. Syria! China! Putin! Ukraine! Germany! But we can’t be policeman of the world.

10:22 – Bush says America needs to lead in the Middle East. But his plan is distinctly small-bore: no-fly zone, support the rebels, think about the refugees.

10:18 – Carson: we have to oppose Putin in Middle East. But it’s very complicated. Carson’s plan for ISIS: We have to make them look like losers. We do that by taking their oil fields and then destroying them. “We could do this, I believe, fairly easily.” Carson says he learned that from “several generals.” Names, please!

10:16 – Is anyone ever going to ask Fiorina to describe her tax plan? Come on. It’s only three pages long!

10:14 – Paul thinks Congress should have the ability to amend treaties. This would, of course, make it impossible to negotiate treaties.

10:11 – Trump says TPP is worst trade deal ever. We should sign deals with each country separately instead. Baker: Is there anything in particular you dislike about TPP? Trump: It doesn’t do anything about currency manipulation. China is killing us! Rand Paul points out that China isn’t part of the deal.

10:10 – Kasich tries to barge in. Baker finally shuts him up. Kasich is whining a lot tonight.

10:09 – Trump: We need a big military so no one will mess with us.

10:09 – Now Fiorina goes into yet another riff about zero-based budget and the three-page tax code. Jesus.

10:07 – Now everyone wants to chime in to show that they want a kick-ass military too.

10:05 – Now Rubio and Paul get into a fight. Somehow this ends up with Rubio saying he wants to spend more on defense, unlike Paul, who’s a big wimp. Then a riff about having the most powerful military in the world Huge cheers.

10:04 – Baker asks Rubio if his child tax credit is just a new entitlement. Rubio doesn’t really respond. He just natters on about how important the family is.

10:03 – Jeb Bush delivers some argle bargle about needing a better economy.

10:00 – Cruz would cut five agencies: IRS, Commerce, Energy, Commerce, and HUD. Paging Rick Perry!

9:56 – Rand Paul wants a flat tax. Ted Cruz wants a flat tax. Cruz promises that his plan totally adds up and it abolishes the IRS. The result will be incredible economic growth.

9:52 – Cavuto wants to know which tax plan God would prefer: Trump’s or Carson’s? Carson sort of rambles on about proportionality and putting more money in people’s pockets. Also: his plan will include some kind of rebate for poor people. I believe this is news.

9:49 – The moderators are fulfilling their assigned roles and asking softball questions almost exclusively. Bartiromo said she was going to get to the bottom of all the tax and budget plans, but so far she’s done virtually none of that.

9:45 – Fiorina: Nobody can possibly understand Obamacare. Follow-up: What’s the alternative? Fiorina: high-risk pools. Obamacare is helping no one and crushing small business. We need free market health care. Also: again with the three-page tax code. Fiorina is really obsessed with this tonight.

9:42 – Cruz delivers pretty good line about elite opinion on immigration being different if it was bankers or journalists crossing the Rio Grande. Probably so!

9:40 – Rubio delivers stock speech about taxes, regulations, energy, and Obamacare.

9:38 – Bush has Kasich’s back. We can’t just ship all the illegal immigrants back. Big cheers (!).

9:37 – Trump: I’m rich, I don’t need to listen to Kasich. Big boos (!).

9:34 – Finally, Kasich starts a fight with Trump over immigration. Then he defends Ohio’s honor.

9:32 – Carson: I’m an honest guy. Trump: Immigration is bad.

9:27 – Very subdued debate so far. Everyone seems to have decided that fighting each other just makes the whole field look like children. I wonder how long this will last?

9:26 – Rand Paul goes through a riff on the Fed that I honestly didn’t understand. Plus: we should all move to cities and states with Republicans in charge.

9:23 – Fiorina: We need five things. Zero-based budgeting. Three-page tax code. Total review of all regs. Pass the REINS Act. Hold government officials accountable for their performance. Big applause.

9:20 – What specific regs would Bush cut? Answer: repeal every rule Obama has put in place. Internet. Clean power. Water. Repeal ’em all.

9:17 – Cruz says keys to economic growth are tax reform, slashing regulations, and sound money.

9:14 – What would you cut from the budget? Kasich tap dances. Doesn’t mention a single thing he’d cut. Follow-up: he’d cut Social Security. And Medicaid. Freeze nondiscretionary spending. Increase defense spending. So: cut basically all domestic spending and increase defense spending.

9:10 – Rubio: if we raise the minimum wage, people will be more expensive than machines. We need more welders and fewer philosophers. (No, I don’t get it either.)

9:08 – Carson: people need to be educated on the minimum wage. Wages are too high. Lower wages will create more jobs. High wages create dependency, or something.

9:06 – Trump opposes $15 minimum wage because….we don’t win anymore. Also: wages are too high. People are just going to have to buck up.

9:04 – Could Jeb Bush possibly look less enthusiastic during the introductions?

9:00 – And we’re off. But first, an inspiring video.

8:58 – Tonight features 90-second answers from the candidates. Substantive!

8:57 – Everybody is already at their podiums. I miss having them walk in and wave.

More here – 

We Are Live Blogging the GOP Presidential Debate in Milwaukee

Posted in Anker, Cyber, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Are Live Blogging the GOP Presidential Debate in Milwaukee

The World’s Plan to Save Itself, in 6 Charts

by DewittRhein Posted on October 30, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

World leaders have a pretty comprehensive plan to fight climate change, according to a United Nations report released Friday—even if it doesn’t go as far as many of them had hoped.

In just over a month, representatives from most of the countries on Earth will gather in Paris in an attempt to finalize an international agreement to limit global warming and adapt to its impacts. The video above is a snappy explainer of what’s at stake at this meeting, but suffice it to say the proposed deal is split into two keys parts. First is the core agreement, parts of which may be legally binding, that comprises broad, non-specific guidelines for all countries. It calls on countries to take steps such as transparently reporting greenhouse gas emissions and committing to ramp up climate action over the next few decades.

But the real meat-and-potatoes is in the second part, the “intended nationally determined contributions” (INDCs). The INDCs are what sets the Paris talks apart from past attempts at a global climate agreement in Kyoto in 1997 and Copenhagen in 2009. Those summits either left out major polluters (the US dropped out of the Kyoto Protocol; China and India were exempted) or fell apart completely (Copenhagen), in large part because they were built around universal greenhouse gas reduction targets that not everyone could agree to.

This time around, the UN process is more like a potluck, where each country brings its own unique contribution based on its needs and abilities; those are the INDCs. The US, for example, has committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, mostly by going after carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. So far, according to the World Resources Institute, 126 plans have been submitted, covering about 86 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. (The European Union submitted one joint plan for all its members.) Those contributions are likely to limit global warming to around 2.7 degrees Celsius (4.9 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels by 2100. That’s above the 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) limit scientists say is necessary to avert the worst impacts—but it’s also about 1 degree C less warming than would would happen if the world continued on its present course.

Now, we have a bit more insight into how countries are planning to make this happen. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the group that is overseeing the Paris talks, combed through all the INDCs to look for trends. Its report is a bit convoluted and repetitive; I don’t recommend it to any but the nerdiest climate nerds. But I pulled out a few of the charts as an overview of what global action on climate change really looks like.

Types of targets: Most of the INDCs contain specific emission reduction targets. (Not all do; some countries, such as the small island nations, have such small or nonexistent emissions that it wouldn’t make sense to promise to reduce them.) The most common way to state these targets is to promise that emissions at X future date will be lower than they would be with no action. Indonesia, for example, has pledged to increase its emissions over the next 25 years by 29 percent less than it would have under a “business as usual” scenario. The US commitment fits in the second category, an “absolute” target where emissions actually begin to go down. Others specify a date at which emissions will “peak,” or set a goal for emissions per unit of GDP or energy production (“intensity”).

UNFCCC

Greenhouse gases: The commitments cover a broad range of greenhouse gases (most cover more than one), but carbon dioxide is the most common enemy. That’s no surprise, as it’s by far the most common.

UNFCCC

Economic sectors: In different countries, different economic sectors are more or less responsible for climate pollution. In the US, the number-one source of emissions is coal-fired power plants; thus, President Barack Obama’s plans focus on the power sector. In Indonesia, by contrast, deforestation is the biggest problem. Most plans cover more than one sector, but the most common is energy.

UNFCCC

How to fix it: This section finds that implementing renewable energy is the most common way countries are planning to meet their targets. More interesting is the tiny role played by carbon capture, use, and storage, down at the bottom of the chart. This refers to technology that “captures” greenhouse gas emissions on their way out of power plants, or directly from the atmosphere, and buries or re-purposes them. Support for carbon capture—also known as “clean coal”—is popular with policymakers who don’t want to curb coal use (including GOP presidential contender John Kasich), even though it remains costly and unproven at scale.

UNFCCC

How to adapt: Many countries’ INDCs also contain information about how they plan to adapt to climate change. Water use, agriculture, and public health appear to be the biggest areas of focus.

UNFCCC

A terrible, no-good, very bad summary: The most important question is clearly how all this adds up to reducing the world’s greenhouse gas footprint and averting the worst threats posed by climate change. But the chart that addresses this question (below) is…not great. I’m including it so you have some sense of one big drawback of the Paris approach—without universal emissions targets, it’s a lot harder to specify what the cumulative effect of these plans will really be. In short, here’s what this chart shows: The gray line is global greenhouse gas emissions up to today. The orange line is how emissions will grow over the next couple decades if we do nothing. The three blue lines show how quickly we would need to reduce emissions to keep global warming to 2 degrees C; the longer we wait to take action, the steeper the cuts have to be. The yellow rectangles show a snapshot of where the INDCs leave us.

UNFCCC

So, we’re better off than before, but we’re not out of danger. That’s why it’s essential for the core agreement to include requirements that countries adopt even more aggressive goals in the future; that’s one of the key things that will be debated in Paris. In other words, the Paris meeting is just one key battle in a war that’s far from over, Jennifer Morgan, director of the WRI’s global climate program, said in a statement.

“Despite the unprecedented level of effort, this report finds that current commitments are not yet sufficient to meet what the world needs. Countries must accelerate their efforts after the Paris summit in order to stave off climate change. The global climate agreement should include a clear mandate for countries to ramp up their commitments and set a long-term signal to phase out emissions as soon as possible.”

Link to original:

The World’s Plan to Save Itself, in 6 Charts

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, Hagen, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The World’s Plan to Save Itself, in 6 Charts

This Chart Shows Where All the Candidates Stand on the World’s Biggest Issue

by LakeshaHorowitz Posted on October 30, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
James West/Climate Desk

At first glance, there are just two groups of presidential contenders when it comes to climate change: those who think it’s real and urgent, and those who don’t. But take a closer look, and the picture blurs. The matrix above depicts subtle differences, at least in the Republican field, in the extent to which the candidates believe the science and want to act on it. Of course, selecting each set of coordinates wasn’t an exact science—many of the White House hopefuls have a history of confused and contradictory statements on the issue. But here’s a short analysis of the candidates’ positions on global warming and an explanation of how we came up with this graph.

The Do-Nothing Denier crowd—Donald Trump, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, all Republicans—reject or aggressively downplay the science of manmade climate change, and they don’t want to do anything about it. They occupy the bottom-left corner of our matrix because they’ve called global warming a “hoax” (Trump) or “junk science” and “patently absurd” (Santorum), and have pushed dumb pseudo-science, such as Huckabee’s insistence that “a volcano in one blast will contribute more than a hundred years of human activity.” Santorum gets a little bit of a nudge to the right on our graph for saying during Wednesday’s presidential debate that “if we really want to tackle environmental problems, global warming, what we need to do is take those jobs from China and bring them back here to the United States, employ workers in this country”—which does sort of implicitly admit there’s a problem.

Former neurosurgeon Ben Carson, somewhat surprisingly, is an outlier on the denial side of the matrix. He told the San Francisco Chronicle in September: “There is no overwhelming science that the things that are going on are man-caused and not naturally caused.” (That comment inspired California Gov. Jerry Brown to send Carson a thumb drive full of climate research.) But Carson moves up in our estimate because of his apparent support for alternative energy. Maybe it was more “thought bubble” than policy, but he said he’d like to see “more than 50 percent” clean energy by 2030. “I don’t care whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative, if you have any thread of decency in you, you want to take care of the environment because you know you have to pass it on to the next generation,” he said in a separate interview.

Sure it’s real, but we shouldn’t act on it alone, or at all. That’s basically the position of our next Republican outlier, Carly Fiorina, the former head of Hewlett-Packard. She appears to accept the science (mainly by avoiding it), but she doesn’t want to act on it, positioning herself as anti-regulation: “A single nation acting alone can make no difference at all,” she told CNBC, and therefore the United States needs to stop “destroying peoples’ livelihoods on the altar of ideology.” Fiorina’s opposition to climate action is pretty standard for the Republican pack. But her rivals have a more problematic history of tangling with the science.

Let’s move on to the “Humans Aren’t to Blame” crowd—those candidates, all Republicans, who admit that the climate is changing, but question just how much it can be attributed to humans burning fossil fuels. Take Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. He voted “yes” on a resolution declaring that climate change is real and not a hoax. He has promised to reverse President Barack Obama’s clean energy rules, but his campaign did announce a detailed energy policy that included “affordable fuel alternatives” (raising his position slightly up the “action” axis in our matrix). Still, Rubio actively casts doubt on humanity’s role in warming the planet by saying things like: “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.”

It could be argued that Ted Cruz belongs with the “Do-Nothing Denier” crowd on our matrix. But he at least engages in the science, somewhat. He voted in the Senate to call climate change real, but he has also called it a “pseudoscientific theory.” He subscribes to the “there’s no warming lately” theory: He told Seth Meyers that “satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years there’s been zero warming, none whatsoever”—a statement that one climate expert criticized as “a load of claptrap…absolute bunk.” Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky acknowledges that the world is warming because of carbon, but he has also said he is “not sure anybody exactly knows why” climate change is happening. Somewhere over here is Jim Gilmore, the former governor of Virginia, who has, at times, called for acting on climate change, even if he’s not totally sure what’s causing it. “We do not know for sure how much is caused by man and how much is part of a natural cycle change,” he said in 2008, adding, “I do believe we must work toward reducing emissions…” More recently, however, Gilmore has called the goal of reducing carbon emissions “ephemeral” if China and India don’t act, too.

That brings us to a pack of Republicans with mixed histories on the issue. These candidates have at times acknowledged the science and importance of climate change, and may have even advocated steps to act on it, but they don’t want to be tarred and feathered as liberals. I’m calling them Dog-Whistlers. Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, is among this crowd. In general he says humans contribute to the globe’s warming, but he insists Obama’s policy agenda is wrong. “I think we have a responsibility to adapt to what the possibilities are without destroying our economy, without hollowing out our industrial core,” he told Bloomberg. What makes him different from Fiorina is that he previously claimed it was arrogant to assume the science was settled. And Bush’s energy policy proposes more drilling and less regulation—so not an all-star climate plan there.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie likes to brag about his state’s position as the country’s third largest solar energy producer—and did so again during Wednesday night’s CNBC presidential debate. But in 2011, Christie withdrew New Jersey from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap-and-trade program in the Northeast. And while he believes in climate change, he hasn’t put forward any concrete proposals yet. I’m going to put Ohio governor John Kasich in this clique, too. He started off sounding pretty moderate on the issue and has historically voiced his support for climate science. But then, as a candidate, he walked his position towards the Republican mainstream by saying, “We don’t want to destroy people’s jobs, based on some theory that is not proven.” Noncommittal, at best.

Curious in the club of Republicans are South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and former New York Gov. George Pataki, who have both urged action on climate change. Graham told CNN, “If I’m president of the United States, we’re going to address climate change, CO2 emissions in a business-friendly way.” He added: “When 90 percent of the doctors tell you you’ve got a problem, do you listen to the one?” Graham backed this up during the debate Wednesday by saying: “You don’t have to believe that climate change is real. I have been to the Antarctic. I have been to Alaska. I am not a scientist, and I’ve got the grades to prove it. But I’ve talked to the climatologists of the world, and 90 percent of them are telling me the greenhouse gas effect is real, that we’re heating up the planet.” Pataki was one of the driving forces behind RGGI’s creation. In 2007, he was named co-chair of the Independent Task Force on Climate Change organized by the Council on Foreign Relations and has become an advocate for climate action and green-friendly enterprise. He told the debate audience Wednesday that “one of the things that troubles me about the Republican Party is too often we question science that everyone accepts.” But Graham and Pataki are positioned lower on the matrix than the Democrats because neither of them has rolled out a clear and convincing plan explaining how they’d address climate change as president.

Now we move farther into the top right-hand quadrant, where candidates believe in science and really want to act on it. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal says he would repeal Obama’s climate regulations, but he has laid out smaller-scale projects such as forest management and the energy efficiency for airlines. For the record, he has called for action to combat warming temperatures—but he is a bit squishy. In 2014 he said, “Let the scientists decide the underlying facts,” and he questioned “how much” humans actually contribute to warming. Still, he earns a place in the top-right section of the graph because of a detailed energy policy that includes wind and solar.

Three Democrats vying for the nomination—former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley—all believe in climate change, want to do something about it, and have serious plans to combat it. Experts have weighed in on the strengths and weaknesses of each of their proposals, but for the purposes of this chart, they are all in essentially the same place. Clinton has put installing a half-billion solar panels by 2020 at the heart of her clean energy policy and wants to best President Obama’s own plans by generating 33 percent of America’s electricity from renewable sources by 2027. Sanders has said that “we have a moral responsibility to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy and leave this planet a habitable planet for our children and our grandchildren.” He’s also described climate change as the country’s greatest national security threat. O’Malley wants to phase out fossil fuels entirely by 2050. “As president, on day one, I would use my executive power to declare the transition to a clean energy future the number one priority of our Federal Government,” he wrote in a USA Today op-ed in June.

Mapping politicians like this is always a tricky process, and some of our expert readers will no doubt disagree with these conclusions. So tell us what you think. Leave your thoughts about the candidates’ various plans in the comments below to add to the discussion.

Link – 

This Chart Shows Where All the Candidates Stand on the World’s Biggest Issue

Posted in alo, alternative energy, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Meyers, ONA, oven, PUR, Radius, solar, solar panels, sustainable energy, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Chart Shows Where All the Candidates Stand on the World’s Biggest Issue

Let’s Just Blame China for Everything and Call It a Day

by AnnWaddy820093 Posted on October 21, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This cracks me up. A few minutes ago Wolf Blitzer brought on Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the Homeland Security committee, and asked him a question about WikiLeaks getting hold of CIA Director John Brennan’s private email account. McCaul nattered on for a bit about the OPM breach a few months ago, and then said this:

McCaul: I wouldn’t be surprised if China was behind this one.

Blitzer: Behind this one? Because it seems like this hacker claims to be under 22 McCaul starts to appear a bit puzzled and deep in thought a young kid who’s stoned all the time. You think that—

McCaul: Oh yeah yeah yeah, I apologize, you’re correct about that. This was a young, sort of anonymous type figure, that did claim to be stoned at the time he did that, which is remarkable given what he accomplished.

Two things. First, do you notice how McCaul just sort of defaults to hacker —> China? This should give us something of a clue about how Republicans process this stuff.

Second, this 22-year-old stoner hacked an AOL account. That’s not especially remarkable. Apparently McCaul also defaults to hacker —> supergenius. Quite a guy to have in charge of homeland security.

View original – 

Let’s Just Blame China for Everything and Call It a Day

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Let’s Just Blame China for Everything and Call It a Day

Bestselling Historian Explains US Foreign Policy: "Obama Is Prone to Submitting to Males Who Act Dominantly in His Presence"

by AdriannQCD Posted on October 1, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here is Arthur Herman writing in National Review about geopolitical realities in the age of Obama:

If Vladimir Putin is the dominant alpha male in the new international pecking order, Barack Obama has emerged as his highly submissive partner.

There are various reasons why we are being subjected to the humiliating spectacle of an American president, so-called leader of the free world, rolling over on the mat at Putin’s feet.

Of course, there have been signs for years that Obama is prone to submitting to males who act dominantly in his presence. Who can forget his frozen performance with Mitt Romney in the first presidential debate in 2012….We’ve seen it in his interactions with China’s president Xi Jinping; his strange bowing and scraping with the Saudi king; and his various meetings with Putin, including the last at the United Nations on Monday where a tight-lipped Obama could barely bring himself to look at the Russian president while Putin looked cool and confident—as well as he should.

For every aggressive move Putin has made on the international stage, first in Crimea and Ukraine in Europe, and now in Syria, our president’s response has been largely verbal protestations followed by resolute inaction. Why should Putin not assume that when he orders the U.S. to stop its own air strikes against ISIS in Syria, and to leave the skies to the Russians, he won’t be obeyed?

But there’s more to Obama’s passivity than just pack behavior….

Seriously, what kind of adult talks like this? Or thinks like this? How can a historian, of all people, explain a moment in history as a serial dominance display between chimpanzees? I’m not even sure what the right word for this is. It’s not just childish or puerile, though it’s those things too. Disturbed? Compulsive? Unbalanced? I’m not sure. This is a job for William F. Buckley.

Read more:

Bestselling Historian Explains US Foreign Policy: "Obama Is Prone to Submitting to Males Who Act Dominantly in His Presence"

Posted in ALPHA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bestselling Historian Explains US Foreign Policy: "Obama Is Prone to Submitting to Males Who Act Dominantly in His Presence"

China Will Pony Up $3.1 Billion to Help Poor Countries Fight Climate Change

by JuanW19aoss Posted on September 25, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

China followed up its promise Friday to create the world’s largest cap-and-trade program with yet another significant climate policy announcement: It will commit to spending $3.1 billion to help developing countries slash their greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change. China’s financial commitment, along with its new carbon market, are part of a comprehensive package of climate measures to be announced at a joint press conference featuring US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping on Friday in Washington, DC.

The new pledge, emerging from high-profile bilateral talks between the two countries, “is a game changer in international climate politics,” says Li Shuo, a climate policy analyst for Greenpeace. “It is a drastic increase from China’s previous finance commitments.”

“In terms of scale, 3.1 billion USD could even surpass the US pledge to the Green Climate Fund, which still faces a significant battle in the US Congress,” Li said in an email.

Last year, Obama pledged $3 billion to the United Nation’s Green Climate Fund during a G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia. That pledge followed a landmark climate deal forged last year between the United States and China that set the stage for today’s agreement.

But Obama’s commitment to the Green Climate Fund still faces stiff opposition at home from congressional Republicans who have vowed to block the White House’s first funding request of $500 million. Sen. James Inhofe, who chairs the committee on the environment and public works, has said he will do everything in his power “to prevent $3 billion in taxpayer dollars from going to the Green Climate Fund, where the money will be spent by unelected UN bureaucrats to dictate U.S. policy and hinder developing countries’ ability to aggressively address the economics of poverty.”

On Friday, China will also commit to controlling public investment flowing into high-polluting industries, both domestically and internationally, according to the briefings received by Greenpeace, signaling a top-down response in a country that exerts an enormous influence over the direction of markets.

More here: 

China Will Pony Up $3.1 Billion to Help Poor Countries Fight Climate Change

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, Landmark, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on China Will Pony Up $3.1 Billion to Help Poor Countries Fight Climate Change