[mos6507]

Here we go guys. Right now the EPA is the last barrier to resetting the clock back to Bush-era policies on energy, and the Tea Party has it in its sights.

So while you guys are busy arguing over methane release in one thread, and finding any and all excuses to pillory the Obama administration in others, our newly elected Republican officials, which are OUR OWN fault as voters, are busy lighting the match for mass-extinction.

I mean, does anyone here believe for a second that the house leadership has any intention of tackling climate issues in any shape or form? And if they don't, how are they going to mitigate peak oil? I really don't see a lot of leeway here. The fact that there are so many conservatives here who plug the republicans is cognitive dissonance, plain and simple. You've distracted yourself by what in the grand scheme of things are side-topics. You know, the welfare state and the tax structure, who's making out better than whom.

How many here chuckled and jived over the fall of the Democrats during the mid-terms? It's so satisfying to see politicians fail. SWEET REVENGE for the recession, right? Well, what are the long-term consequences of bringing in a bunch of brainless creationist deniers? Sure, you'll get your fiscal conservatism, like tax cuts for the wealthy, a 2-year wasteful battle to repeal/defund healthcare, etc..., but what about _real_ doomer issues? What's this mean for energy and climate? Do any of you really care or would you rather amuse yourself with Rush Limbaugh style rhetoric?

And I'm sure Planty will come in here and point to lapses in the Obama administration vis a vis energy. But the bottom line is, Lisa Jackson and the EPA is the last line of defense. If you give a crap about the environment, you have to hold your damn nose and stand by the president, period, just like the US fought with the Soviet Union to defeat the NAZIs, no matter how much you may hate aspects of Obama's policies, on this one, if you really are a doomer, you should be on his side, not the Tea Party.

[Pretorian]

You mean by the president who was breakfasting with eggs of a nearly extinct fish import and consumption of which was banned in US?

[Windmills]

You mean by the president who was breakfasting with eggs of a nearly extinct fish import and consumption of which was banned in US?

I think you have your answer, Mos. It's obvious that scoring political points is more important the anything else in the world.

[jedrider]

You don't need the Tea Party as enemies if you just have the Republican Party. The first Mass Extinction Event is that of reason of policy makers:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/20/107168/ethics-of-climate-change-rise.html

All the rest will surely follow.

We know the wealthy run this country, but can the wealthy have their heads up their asses so far, that they can't see that their selfish indulgences will ruin it for them as well as for us??

[rangerone314]

I believe Lovelock when he says it is too late to stop global warming.

[Loki]

Well, the Dems had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House for all of 2009 and 2010. They managed to achieve SQUAT on the climate change issue, except some half-assed "cap-and-trade" bill in the House that Harry Reid was holding hostage in the Senate until we give illegal aliens amnesty. Now there's no hope of getting even that gutless bill passed.

The Dems are fucking useless on climate change, they've proven it in spades. They have shown that they are willing to compromise our biosphere away if it means they can advance their melanin and gonad politics ("don't ask don't tell" is apparently a far more pressing problem than the meltdown of our global ecosystem).

That said, I voted to reelect my Democratic congressman, Peter Defazio. I didn't even have to hold my nose to do it, I actually quite like him.

As for the Republicans, they may actually hold the answer to climate change mitigation. Run the country's economy into the ground and turn the US into a third world cesspool, forcing the masses to use fewer resources and emit fewer GHGs. It'll probably work a lot better than capntrade.

[Newfie]

Mos is right in that we voted the buggers in. It is a democracy (well, sort of) and there is no great cry from the public for rational policies.

WE are the problem.

That is a greater danger than the methane bomb, because we have no intention of doing anything about it. If it's not too late we won't pay attention. When it is too late we will want to hang the buggers.

So the only thing to DO is to try to figure out how to save your own skin.

Bitching does not help.

[sparky]

.
To give a bit of context into the discussion
Richard Nixon signed the EPA creation
Margaret Thatcher founded the Hadley center , she had some concern on global warming
.

[vtsnowedin]

snip....
As for the Republicans, they may actually hold the answer to climate change mitigation. Run the country's economy into the ground and turn the US into a third world cesspool, forcing the masses to use fewer resources and emit fewer GHGs. It'll probably work a lot better than capntrade.

So cutting spending to balance expenditures with resources is running the economy into the ground and running up a trillion dollars a year of debt borrowed from China was the way to a sound fiscal future?

[Sixstrings]

So while you guys are busy arguing over methane release in one thread, and finding any and all excuses to pillory the Obama administration in others, our newly elected Republican officials, which are [b]OUR OWN fault as voters[/b], are busy lighting the match for mass-extinction.

Don't blame me. As much as I bitched and moaned, I still ended up voting Dem in the last congressional election.

And if they don't, how are they going to mitigate peak oil?

Break it down for us. What would "mitigation" look like to you? You mentioned in another thread something like "finding another basis for the economy besides money." I have no idea what that means, other than some kind of new communism -- although we still have 7 billion people to feed, clothe, shelter, and provide Prius's and iPhones for. If you get rid of money and capitalism, how do you decide who gets an iPhone and who doesn't?

You know, the welfare state and the tax structure, who's making out better than whom.

Fair point. I've always just thought of those as other things to talk about before collapse begins. I choose to think two ways, one way assuming BAU continues and then the Doomer scenarios. That's my choice, I'm prepped for either outcome.

but what about _real_ doomer issues? What's this mean for energy and climate? Do any of you really care or would you rather amuse yourself with Rush Limbaugh style rhetoric?

I see what's going on. You believe that government is capable of mitigating peak oil and climate change doom. Fair enough. Over the last year or so, I've kind of lost that basic faith that our government can solve such big problems.

But the bottom line is, Lisa Jackson and the EPA is the last line of defense. If you give a crap about the environment, you have to hold your damn nose and stand by the president, period..

That's the old "you're a bad liberal for voting for Ralph Nader" line. I'm done with compromising, I'm done with picking the lesser of evils. I'll probably keep voting Dem for statehouse and Congress, but on presidential side I'm gonna vote Nader. But then Trump has been saying all the right stuff about China lately, he might run for prez -- if he wins the Repub nomination on an anti-China pro-US platform I think I'd have to vote for him. So see it's not so simple, not everyone is a one issue voter whether it's climate change or guns or abortion or whatever.

just like the US fought with the Soviet Union to defeat the NAZIs, no matter how much you may hate aspects of Obama's policies, on this one, if you really are a doomer, you should be on his side, not the Tea Party.

Did you really just compare Democrats to Soviets?

EDIT: I think I was just too harsh and argumentative (though honest). A fair response to this statement:

if you really are a doomer, you should be on his side, not the Tea Party

Yes, anyone whose primary issue is climate change should vote Democrat. Not only that but you should give money to the progressive minority, since corporatist Dems are just Republicans anyway.

But still, climate change doomers have all kinds of other issues they care about too: gun rights, maybe they don't like Obamacare, etc. etc. It's complicated, Mos. Maybe the problem is that we really should have a parliamentary system with lots of little parties that form coalitions.

[Plantagenet]

If you give a crap about the environment, you have to hold your damn nose and stand by the president, period..

Before we herald Obama as our environmental savior, is it too much to ask that Obama promise that his administration will never again give BP any exemptions from safety regulations and environmental laws?

[jedrider]

.
To give a bit of context into the discussion
Richard Nixon signed the EPA creation
Margaret Thatcher founded the Hadley center , she had some concern on global warming
.

To give a bit MORE of context to our discussion, I believe that Carter was the last PRESIDENT we had. You can forget Carter as most have, because Reagan marked the beginning of the 'figurehead President'. The guy wasn't mentally competent towards the end and they realized that 'It was a liability having a non-obsequious, competent President.

It does appear that we are running on 'Automatic' now and that no one, in particular, is really in charge!

[Nefarious]

I see Moss is still clinging to his chimera that if we put the right people in office, they will usher in changes to turn this sinking ship around. Never going to happen.
Any sufficiently advanced bureaucracy is indistinguishable from molasses.
Newfie has it right " the only thing to DO is to try to figure out how to save your own skin."

[jupiters_release]

Dems and repubs mantra... still.

Voting mantra... still.

Hopefully the coming extinction will solve this PITA smoke n mirrors middle school unicorn skittles democracy.

[Cog]

As a doomer I can enjoy the playacting that politics entails without taking either Democrats and Republicans seriously. Us humans charted a path for destruction as soon as we dug the first coal chunk out of the ground and drilled the first oil well. So elect who you want and enjoy the show but don't believe for a second there will be or can be any mitigation to save us.

[Cloud9]

Hubris, we don't matter. China matters.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52684

[mos6507]

Yes, anyone whose primary issue is climate change should vote Democrat.

Considering that the republicans have now put AGW denial in their platform, I'd say yes, even if it's just the lesser of two evils. I think those who are worried about "socialism" or the 2nd amendment have their priorities out of whack, considering what we're facing and the feedbacks which are dependent on what we do in these next few years.

[mos6507]

The Dems are fucking useless on climate change, they've proven it in spades.

Do you even know WHY the republicans are mounting a battle? It's not because "the Dems are fucking useless on climate change". It's because Obama is trying to use the executive branch to do something that legislation wasn't able to do. Is even that arranging the deck chairs? Yes, but it's better than nothing. And to respond to this thread with "well, they are both useless" when the climate is (at best) dangling by a thread is really irresponsible. Frankly, beggars can't be choosers and whatever force remains in this country to try to reduce emissions, we should rally to support it.

But for us to withdraw from politics entirely is basically to hand the keys over to those that will gleefully push us into Cormac McCarthy territory.

I think Bill McKibben has the right idea. It's not fun to tilt at windmills, in fact you look like an idiot to keep failing, but you've got to keep dusting yourself off and keep pushing. Someone has to do this, rather than just sitting at home cynical with a bag of popcorn.

[Newfie]

I think Bill McKibben has the right idea. It's not fun to tilt at windmills, in fact you look like an idiot to keep failing, but you've got to keep dusting yourself off and keep pushing. Someone has to do this, rather than just sitting at home cynical with a bag of popcorn.

I met Bill McKibben briefly last year at some fund raiser. He was the main speaker but you had to listen to 2 hours of inane cornie crap before Bill came up.

His idea, which he expressed privately and then in the conclusion to his presentation, is that we old farts should be the front line solders in this battle. It is too much to ask the younger generation to go against BAU. He was also clearly supporting civil disobedience. So he wants the Granny Squad to go do sit in's and get arrested to make noise. But if you listen carefully to what he says McKibben is very, very pessimistic about out future. He is not at all happy with the progress of 350.org and is quite clear that if we don't get some civil disobedience going, if we don't get some real ground level action that is pushing the pols in 2011, it is game over.

Mos, you are making an assumption in your last statement. You imply that pushing the political agenda is the only thing we can do. On that I disagree. I do feel strongly that there is no hope of turning us from our apparent course. But there are things you can do to improve the chances of you and yours surviving. I don't belong to the popcorn crowd, too much to do.

[Ludi]

I think Bill McKibben has the right idea. It's not fun to tilt at windmills, in fact you look like an idiot to keep failing, but you've got to keep dusting yourself off and keep pushing. Someone has to do this, rather than just sitting at home cynical with a bag of popcorn.

Looks like you're going to be mostly alone, because a lot of folks here seem to be preaching the Gospel of Give Up. At least recently they are.

And these are the "good guys."