Page 2 of 117
Posted on December 6 at 6:32 a.m.
The fact that we are the wealthiest country, also means that we have the highest responsibility to curb climate change, because we are the best equipped to do so.
As for the China/US deal, there are obviously differences between how the left and right view it, and since the right has been the biggest brake on taking steps to reduce carbon emissions, I give scant credibility to their opinion.
quotes: "There are no obvious technical barriers but considerable political ones. Some parties are already rumbling that the United States is giving away the store for nothing much in return. We’ll see, however, that if anything it is China that is getting the short end of the stick—and a good thing, too, because the climate cares about CO2, not fairness, and if we are to have any hope of keeping warming from much exceeding 2 degrees Celsius, China will need to do more than its fair share.
The United States, European Union, and China together produce more than half of the world’s annual CO2 emissions, and with the new agreement, all three have made a public undertaking limiting future emissions. (Europe has been doing its part for decades, having made its first binding commitments at the time of the Kyoto Protocol.) That by itself makes the deal a big deal, but we need to look at the nature of the commitment to see whether it is big enough to significantly improve our chances of keeping global warming below 2 C ....
.... So yes, getting China off the exponential curve is a very, very big deal indeed.
quotes: The agreement between the two countries that together emit more than 40 percent of global CO2 pollution suggests a strong deal will be signed by the world's nations in Paris in 2015, under the terms of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, unlike Copenhagen in 2009. Prior to that meeting China and the U.S. pledged to cooperate but made no firm commitments to reduce pollution, resulting in the last-minute hullabaloo to salvage international efforts known as the Copenhagen Accord.
As a result, the U.S. and China have now begun to show that it just might be possible for the nations of the world to stop global warming for the first time since the Kyoto Protocol was signed in the 1990s. As Obama also said in his joint press conference with Xi: "When we work together, it's good for the United States, it's good for China and it is good for the world."
On Climate Change Talks Drag On in Lima
Posted on December 6 at 6:06 a.m.
And as for "sovereign" - when it comes to climate change, there are no borders. In fact some of the least polluting countries are affected by the higher pollution of other countries, more than those countries themselves. Some countries have thought of suing the worst polluters for the climate change effects they have to contend with, that are not of their making.
It behooves everyone on the planet to do the best they can for the entire planet - for not only the country they live in, but other countries that often supply the raw materials for the furnishings and food of their homes (and also provide vacation destinations). We are all in this together, as just one planet.
Posted on December 6 at 6:03 a.m.
Well, written article, Emily.
China is the #1 polluter, US is the #2 polluter in total numbers. But on a per capita basis, US is 17.56 and China is 6.195. There is a lot more that the US can do - we are not using the technology that is currently available to the fullest extent, for reasons explained below.
Europe is setting higher emission standards than the US - why?
As for undeveloped or developing countries, many of then can skip over the use of petroleum products where those functions can be more cleanly performed by solar.
quote: "Solar power is being increasingly explored as an option for energy development in Africa, largely because the lack of energy infrastructure in some countries allows for fresh technology implementation. Similarly to mobile networks looking to make progress in Africa, solar power initiatives are aided by the absence of legacy structures that would otherwise need to be revamped or overhauled at great cost. Meaning new technology can skip over expensive and time-consuming upgrades." :end.
With solar, they will be able to power their homes for all the appliances needed.
As for cars, this is where developing countries can skip over the investment developed countries have put into gas cars - as is being done in India, were people can go from no car to a solar-powered car and skip the gas car.
quote: "A partially electric car that can run on the sun's power is coming to India in March. (2013)The e2O is the latest offering from the Mahindra Group, which says it will meet its "5 Cs" framework: clean, convenient, connective, clever, and cost effective." :end.
It is a matter of where there is a will, there is a way - and developed countries already heavily invested in petroleum, are probably going to be the slower movers. But, lots of companies and people, particularly youngsters are getting involved and doing innovative things. And hopefully that will snowball to overcome the reluctance of already petroleum-entrenched countries.
Innovation in plastics productions is also finding means that do not use petroleum.
quote: "Washington State University, in collaboration with Iowa State University, is establishing the first industry and university cooperative research center devoted to the development of biologically based plastics.
“The field of plastics is not new, but making them from renewable materials rather than from petroleum is a growing area of interest in research and in industry,’’ said Michael Kessler, Berry Family Professor and center co-director.
“There are advantages of bioplastics from an environmental, economic and even performance standpoint, and the field is growing exponentially,” he said. “I am confident that this center will address many of the critical issues in biobased polymers and composites and will lead to a more sustainable future.’:end.
Posted on December 5 at 2:41 p.m.
Amusing responses to the Pelosi quote. The subject was what Pelosi said - not who had read it or not. But that is typical of the obfuscation.
Pelosi said "you" meaning the public could read it once it was passed - because then it would be available to the public.
She did not discuss EVER who in congress had read it or not - or did she EVER imply that all or any of congress had read it. What she was talking about was the fact that there had been so much misinformation fed to the public that they could not know what was true and what was not, until they could read it for themselves. That is all.
Repeat: she was talking about the PUBLIC reading the bill. She was NOT talking about the CONGRESS reading the bill. Do you understand the difference?
And btw, for the generalization and constant down-putting and vilification of greenies, as though everyone but the author was stupid, a Pew Research found that 55% of scientists claim to be Democrat and only 7% Republican. So I would bet that a great deal of "greenies" know both math and science.
It is amusing that a simple correction of a Pelosi myth can generate so many (inapplicable) words and hot air. LOL.
On Capps Faults Diablo
Posted on December 4 at 7:48 a.m.
Yeah, the low information voters and their Fox bumper sticker lies.
"The claim that Democrats never read the Health Care Reform bill is an often repeated falsehood. Democrats did, in fact, read the bill before they voted on it. What Nancy Pelosi actually said was “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of controversy.” She wasn’t talking about members of Congress. She was speaking to the American people, saying that the American people didn’t know what was in the bill and had been lied to by the Republicans. Since you, the American people, were misled, you wouldn’t know the truth about the Health care bill until after it is passed.
Watch Nancy Pelosi’s actual statement here and see for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU
"Capps supported the Obama administration's economic stimulus and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. She was strongly critical of the Stupak–Pitts Amendment to the latter, which placed limits on taxpayer-funding of abortions (except in the cases of rape, incest, or threat to the mother's life). Capps had earlier sponsored the Capps Amendment, which was defeated and replaced by the Stupak Amendment. Capps introduced the National Pediatric Research Network Act of 2013 which would, if enacted, authorize the NIH to support, fund, and coordinate data from research on rare pediatric diseases."
Capps did not read the bill so much that she actually sponsored an amendment, known as the "Capps Amendment".
Anytime "oh wait" is posted - the comment is most likely lame, and a fabrication. If you want to be accurate don't do what you accused Capps of doing - not reading up on available information using the always present, always available Google.
Posted on December 3 at 10:38 a.m.
I was talking about prosecutor malfeasance.
Here is the video to which I was referring.http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/la...
Why was it necessary for the prosecutor to give them a 1979 Missouri statute, when it had been superseded by a Supreme Court Ruling? Why the need for dishonesty? Why the need for putting yourself in the position of potentially being disbarred?
Second video about witness #10 that McCulloch relied on:http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/la...
The jury was not given the first statement by witness #10, made just two days after the incident. He changed his story in some critical ways when giving evidence in front of the jury, and had he been subjected to cross examination, his evidence would have been dismissed because of inconsistencies. Yet, McCulloch said he was the most reliable witness.
If the evidence was so compelling and so slam-dunk, then why could it not stand the scrutiny of valid cross-examination.
Many in the legal profession have found McCulloch's conduct in this episode highly suspect....
"Lawyer and legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin who writes for The New Yorker, says that explains that McCulloch methods in the proceedings bizarre and unconventional. Toobin claims that this indicates that Wilson was given special treatment:"
"After the verdict announcement in Ferguson this week, the public release of grand jury testimony in the related proceedings has led lawyers and legal scholars to speak out against the corruption of prosecutor Robert McCulloch. Now, the National Bar Association has released an official statement, questioning whether had ever intended to push for an indictment at all, in spite of the fact that it was his job to do so.
The National Bar Association is questioning how the Grand Jury, considering the evidence before them, could reach the conclusion that Darren Wilson should not be indicted and tried for the shooting death of Michael Brown. National Bar Association President Pamela J. Meanes expresses her sincere disappointment with the outcome of the Grand Jury’s decision but has made it abundantly clear that the National Bar Association stands firm and will be calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue federal charges against officer Darren Wilson. “We will not rest until Michael Brown and his family has justice” states Pamela Meanes, President of the National Bar Association.
Btw, Toobin is a Libertarian and has criticized Obama.
On Michael Brown and Matthew Berg: Two Victims of Excessive Police Force
Posted on December 2 at 8:42 p.m.
I support cops who have to deal with the worst in society (I wish those who complain about their salaries and pensions would sign up and see if they continue to complain), and I also have empathy for those who are falsely convicted or falsely exonerated.
Don't know about Berg, but it appears that there was prosecutor malfeasance in the Brown case in two important areas, without which he probably would have been indicted. Lawrence O'Donnell has been talking about these on his show (in a fact-based non-rambling manner, which this article is not.)
Did you know that according to a Supreme Court ruling in about 1985, it is against the constitution to shoot at someone who is running away. Cops cannot do that. For more detail watch those segments of LOD show, and Rachel Maddow also covered it today.
Posted on December 2 at 8:33 p.m.
In answer to your question (even Rand Paul is aware of #7)
7. The war on drugs has been waged primarily in communities of color where people of color are more likely to receive higher offenses. According to the Human Rights Watch, people of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites, but they have higher rate of arrests. African Americans comprise 14 percent of regular drug users but are 37 percent of those arrested for drug offenses. From 1980 to 2007 about one in three of the 25.4 million adults arrested for drugs was African American.
On Danger to Society or Victim of Injustice?
Posted on November 30 at 3:26 p.m.
It was also once a place where there were many military associated jobs - more than now. They also provided good salaries and good pensions, better than non-military government.
I guess when it is government-military it is OK, but government-education, not OK.
On Santa Barbara: Paradise?
Posted on November 27 at 12:55 p.m.
Low oil prices by OPEC are aimed at getting rid of the shale boom in the US. The lawsuit will probably go nowhere because it will be too expensive to have "1,000 cyclic-steaming wells near Pinnacles National Park ."
"Many have attributed the increase in global oil supply to increased production from US shale producers, which has ramped up sharply in the last couple years.
Fedun said that OPEC's objective is to "clean up" the US shale market, and that oil prices will eventually rise once this occurs.
"In 2016, when OPEC completes this objective of cleaning up the American marginal market, the oil price will start growing again," Fedun told Bloomberg.
And regarding Thursday's announcement from OPEC, Fedun told Bloomberg, "The major strike is against the American market.""
On San Benito County Drilling Ban Looking at $1.2 Billion Lawsuit