Environmental Issues And The 2012 Presidential Race
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-10-24/environmental-issues-and-2012-presidential-race
In the final days before the presidential election, many voters are still looking for policy differences between President Obama and Governor Romney to help them decide how to cast their ballot. On environmental and energy issues, the candidates have tread carefully. Climate change has barely been mentioned by either the president or Governor Romney. They have, however, clashed on oil and gas subsidies, promotion of alternative energy sources and how energy policy might affect jobs growth. Guest host Steve Roberts talks with journalists about what the two candidates have said - and not said - about energy independence, environmental regulations and climate change.
Guests
Juliet Eilperin
national environmental reporter for The Washington Post and author of "Demon Fish: Travels Through the Hidden World of Sharks."
Coral Davenport
energy and environment correspondent for National Journal.
Keith Johnson
reporter at The Wall Street Journal.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Pancake Rankin wrote: "Famine is the most pressing issue as resulting from climate shifts and more unstable weather, all caused by CO2, methane and other human caused combustion spikes. This past season the USA lost most of its corn crop with very limited reserves. Grain crop failures are up due to droughts, flooding, unstable and intensely hot (growth stops at 96F for most grains) spells.
Arab Spring was as much due to increased food prices combined with unemployment under corporate globalism as anything else. Hungry people can never be free. Whereas indigenous culture conflicts and land tenure were the insurgent issues of the 70s and 80s, water and food prices are now the engines of conflict. See Lester Brown at Earth Policy Institute on these urgent issues. Poorer food quality also leads to plagues.
The USA is not in a scientific and nutrition bubble as much as Mitt and Barry might wish it to be. Just yesterday Diane Rehm was told that more than half of our diets will soon be imported, if not already, as fruit and vegetable inspection was discussed. Half the canned mushrooms on your grocery shelf are from China because it's too labor expensive to grow them in SE Pennsylvania as long as slave wages prevail overseas. Here in Belmont I'm trying to empower people to grow their own food but the trend is as steep as Everest."
I agree with you 100%--especially when it comes to food. I just got certified in permaculture design, and I want to use my certification to show people to grow their own food. You're also right in stating that it will be a steep climb to convince people otherwise. That's why I get the word out NOW because the way things currently are will not always be that way. I encourage people to learn to grow food, eat organically and locally, to stop eating processed and feedlot foods--our which is a great polluter.
Part 2
Many people don't realize that attached to feedlots are manure lagoons. Runoff that gets into the groundwater and into crops. Not to mention the overfarming on warm land with corn and soybeans as opposed to diversity on a farm with a plethora of crops will cool the soil--which cools the earth--which lowers CO2 in the atmosphere--which can reverse global warming.
Pancake Rankin wrote:
"... I'd be volunteering to build sidewalks and trails ... but we're kind of paralyzed without our big hunks of steel and plastic. We must go to a track or gym (often paid) to exercise our bodies, confined in a caged zone like protestors from Occupy."
Right on... There is something to be said for being free from the gym and free to go walk for one's exercise.
I generally spend my summers back home (in Switzerland) walking from alpine hut to alpine hut through the alps. It is as spiritual an experience as it is sensual... And it provides both a natural high and a wonderful exercise...
IndieLady: The name of the change is instability. The polar jet stream eddies and damns up under polar melt and there are breakouts of frigid air that hurtle south and singe the crops. Climate scientists knew this in 1963.
I am 37 and was taught about global warming in the 6th grade. We're almost in a Dark Age/Inquisition now.
Pancake Rankin:
So, are you saying that it's a "global freezing" as opposed to global warming?
IndieLady7/Part II- People eat too much meat. I went vegetarian in the 90s and never regretted it. As for manure lagoons, it is a shame we are not processing human waste for energy but instead dumping most of it in rivers.
We have composting toilets on the farm that are illegal in town. But boy do I have some deluxe perrienials and shrubs.
Nope IndieLady7 on global freezing. All I'm saying is that increased heat energy in the atmosphere along with polar melt makes worsening weather disasters more likely all over the globe. Average temperature increase is an indicator that starvation and civilization collapse happen long before we fry nature like scrambled eggs. I hate to have to explain this because the nihilists and speculators relish disaster (I don't). See Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" to understand the concept of the rich extracting from the poor under duress they have caused.
Pancake Rankin:
I agree with the composting toilets and we should use human waste. However, the vegetarian life may be for you, but not for me. I did attempt it in college and in an effort to find alternatives to meat gained weight. I did it because I didn't like the way animals were being treated for meat. However, I did discover local farms in my area that produce animals for meat organically, without antibiotics and free range. The cows eat grass, not corn loaded with antibiotics. The chickens get to run around and eat their natural diet of bugs, grass, and grain and get to scratch as opposed to living in a big chicken house with hundreds of thousands of other chickens who are crapping all over each other and beating each other to a pulp.
Now, in terms of the manure lagoons, as a vegetarian, if you're not eating local and/or organic (local and organic is better) vegetables, you're at possible risk to the salmonella and eColi. I say this because the runoff from factory farms and the manure in the lagoons (which are from animals who consumed antibiotics in their food) eventually get into the ground water--which is soaked up by crops. Think about why we've been hearing recalls of spinach, tomatoes, and peanuts for example.
The U.S. has imported more than 15 TRILLION dollars worth of oil since the '72 oil embargo, President Carter's proposed goal of "energy independence" and installing solar panels on the white house. Most of that money went to the major international oil corporations (ie Saudi-ARAMCO et al.) who now spend a portion (millions) to deny and confuse the general public on the deliterious health effects to man and his life-sustaining planet. Had we persued alternative energies and maintained imports at less than a million barrels a day those moneys would have been well spent and reduced our deficit. Corporate U.S. has fostered the developent of a fascist state wherein truth is denied in favour of profits.
Pancake Rankin wrote: "Nope IndieLady7 on global freezing. All I'm saying is that increased heat energy in the atmosphere along with polar melt makes worsening weather disasters more likely all over the globe. Average temperature increase is an indicator that starvation and civilization collapse happen long before we fry nature like scrambled eggs. I hate to have to explain this because the nihilists and speculators relish disaster (I don't). See Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" to understand the concept of the rich extracting from the poor under duress they have caused."
Oh...I see. I will check out "Shock Doctrine". Thanks. :-)
Frontline: John Hockenberry outlined how Oligarch money has trumped climate science and public information/education last night (October 23).
Try Frontline archives to review this mess.
Ferdnam wrote:
"@ ecgberht
I would agree that there is not yet incontrovertible evidence that climate change is due to human activity. It is still a question mark although there is significant probability that climate change is due to human activity. Not a certainty, a significant probability...
The environmental issue, however, is more than climate change. We have had, here in the US and elsewhere (including my own country), a propensity to use resources (space, water, energy from all sources) in incredibly wasteful ways.
There is a significant risk in that lack of restraint. Contrary to what classical economics was suggesting when I was a student, everything has a price (space, air, water). There are no free goods. Once we emerged from the pre-industrial revolution economies of scarcity, we then suffered from the illusion of inexhaustible supplies of everything... There is great risk in being deluded that we don't need to take care of our planet..."
I actually agree with most of what you say. I would take exception to the "significant probability" characterization, but otherwise, I pretty much agree. On AGW, what is critical is OUR REACTION to the possibility. When little more than a theory drives POLICY - especially heavy-handed policy, I have a huge problem with that.
But on conservation and renewable resources, I largely agree. It's why I recycle and hammer my kids about why it's wrong when they throw a can or a bottle in the trash.
Contrary to the popular characterization by the left, Conservatives are not "for dirty air and dirty water".
The state of Utah (host state of Romney's 2002 Winter Olympics and state headquarters of the LDS/Mormon Church), has an aspiration to become the next Energy Headquarters of the United States (coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy, etc.) - by 2020. This will not be possible unless Utah Senator Orin Hatch, Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert and other LDS faithful lawmakers have the advantage of re-writting the federal rules in favor of making this dream come true. Will it be with individual state house bills like the Utah house bill HB148 passed by the legislature earlier this year and signed by Governor Gary R. Herbert to recover 20 million acres of Federal land? Will it also include the proposed anti-union California Proposition 32 (which recently received a $4 million contribution from the billionarie Koch Brothers of Koch Industries, the second largest privately owned company in the United States, What about the Utah Mine Safety Commission founded to replace the Federal Mine and Safety Commission of the United States? Also Utah HB477 an attempt to destroy government transparency? If so, I cannot say the American public will be too thrilled about our country being taken back to the era of the lawlessness and exploitation of the industrial revolution, which provided very dangerous high risk, overworked employment with excessively long hours, and under paid jobs, ladened with occupational hazards. This and other similar future movements will all be made possible through the work of Utah Senator Orin Hatch (a pioneer of state's rights, and his current understudies Senator Mike Lee, and Congressman Jason Chaffetz) and other LDS faithful lawmakers (plus talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, and Glen Beck), and their big never ending push for states rights, and the dismantling of the U.S. government. I personally find the dream plan quite disturbing and I am not really sure Mitt Romney or the future Romney White House Administration has my or our children's future in mind.
Both presidential candidates seem to emphasize the importance of domestic oil production. I don't get it. Our domestic supply isn't going away. Why not use foreign supplies? And save our domestic supplies for when we really need it
Comments about food production concerns are 100% relevant. In NYS, we're very concerned about hydraulic fracturing or FRACKING of any type.
Like Tar Sands & mountaintop coal mining, fracking is 'extreme energy', a phrase coined by Michael Klare describing most unconventional fossil fuels we're using more of recently. These fuels typically require more energy and money to obtain, and so yield less 'net energy' or 'Energy Return on Energy Invested' (EROEI, EROI). Also they tend to be far dirtier than even 'regular' fossil.
Not many consider, the FRACKING life cycle may bear a larger greenhouse gas footprint even than extracting coal. Though natural gas burns cleaner than coal, recent studies find enough gas leaks in the entire gas fracking extraction chain that 'fracked' gas beats most conventional fuels in climate impact. Leaked natural gas traps heat 27+ times more than CO2. (For more info):
1) http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/Marcellus.html
2) "Marcellus Shale Debate: Don Siegel & Robert W. Howarth" http://www.esf.edu/EFB/hall/
These 'extreme fuels' are coming now in vogue at least partly simply because we used up most of our 'best' stuff. USA conventional lower 48 fossil oil 'peaked' ~1970, as predicted in 1956 by M.K. Hubbert. An oil 'peak' simply means we've used up ~1/2 the oil in the ground, and going forward it takes more $$$ and energy to extract the leftovers, while also continually increasing demand. Hubbert also famously predicted a global peak around 2000 (+ or - a few). If we don't understand this, we may find ourselves re-allocating all our disposable income, simply for meeting energy production quotas.
Climate change is the 'relevant in the living room', AS IS ALSO 'peak oil'. Both topics are typically marginalized and 'catastrophic' conversations, and often compete with each other for air time. However, they will NOT likely cancel each other out, BOTH will likely hit us AT THE SAME TIME. We need a REAL energy plan.
The Corporations are trying to put a bar-code on our beautiful Planet...and that will ultimately be the down fall of our Civilization!
Podz wrote:
"An oil 'peak' simply means we've used up ~1/2 the oil in the ground, and going forward it takes more $$$ and energy to extract the leftovers, while also continually increasing demand. Hubbert also famously predicted a global peak around 2000 (+ or - a few). If we don't understand this, we may find ourselves re-allocating all our disposable income, simply for meeting energy production quotas. "
We should at least start with the correct definitions before we begin the analsys, shouldn't we?
'Peak oil' is NOT having used up 1/2 the oil in the ground. 'Peak oil' refers to the RATE of extraction, not how much has been extracted. By your definition, when a glass of water was half empty, its "peak" would have been passed. This is erroneous. If you were sucking water from that glass through a straw, you might be sucking harder and harder (liquid extracted faster and faster) until the glass is empty. 'Peak oil' is a THEORETICAL concept. While the U.S. has probably passed its peak ( though I notice you do not include Alaska!), there is still much disagreement among geological scientists as to whether world peak has been reached or not.
If nothing else, proponents of coal and oil should look at the efficiency and cost benefit analysis, the climate impacts notwithstanding.
Natural gas is far more efficient and "clean" than either coal or oil, not to mention it is easier and less costly to transport. The proposals by T. Boone Pickens to use natural gas as an interim step toward renewables were well founded and economically well grounded. Note that Pickens is/was an oil billionaire who recognizes and acknowledges the long term science about fossil fuels and the economics too.
I also noted the lack of commenters who actually lived during the years when most homes were heated with wood, coal, and oil. Experience alone tells one that burning coal smells bad, is heavy to manage, and downright filthy......imagine waking up on a winter morning to find granules of burnt coal on everything....putrid.
Home coal furnaces mostly worked on simple piping....torrid in one room and freezing in others. And you fans of coal fires should have gone to the BeiJing Olympics........the city where it is unsafe to breathe most of the time. Talk about pollution!!
I'm so glad someone brought up the sale of public lands! Look at the current proposition put forth by the State of Arizona.....
Peer review when it comes to global warming is pretty much like the electoral college... it doesn't mean it is the consensus of the reviewers... due to many who like to stuff the ballot boxes!
Heard an interesting theory from a friend of mine with respect to oil supplies. Saudis and OPEC basically control drilling in America.
Nonsense! you say? Hear me out, then decide.
The theory goes something like this:
OPEC maximizes the price until America nears a "breaking point" (with respect to bbl price and gas price).
Once that point is reached and America threatens to drill; i.e. leases are ready to be opened up, pipelines are ready to be built, etc. they slash the price of oil to bring down the price of gas until the furor dies down, oil leases and pipelines get put on the back burner - (and it becomes economically less advantageous here to proceed with wells, pipelines, etc. because of the low ROI) ... then they begin to gradually increase the price again. He claims that this has been happening since the gas shortage of the 70s.
Don't know if you could prove a connection, but it makes a lot of sense.
I can't believe we're allowing ourselves to be so brainwashed that we're still having a debate about whether or not drastic changes that we make to our environment are causing drastic changes to the environment. The primate mind never ceases to astound in it's ability to rationalize it's own demise. I also can't believe that we've reached a point in this country where a significant number pf people think it's a good idea to build a pipeline from Canada through Texas and run highly toxic, tar sands oil through this thing to refineries in the Southern US. People are having their land in Texas taken away from them because of this thing. How is this a good idea? Can you imagine proposing something like this to the populace 20 years ago? It just seems insane to me. And Romney's ready to railroad it through and Obama's holding it at bay for political reasons. Does anyone really think this thing is never going to leak or be compromised in anyway?
Google “Pentagon and Global Warming” and you'll see that after extensive study, the Pentagon has determined that Global Warming is a Strategic Threat to the United States. Google “Arctic Ice Melt and NASA” and you'll see that the Arctic ice will melt by 2030. Doesn't Governor Romney's energy policy of pushing oil, coal and gas throughout the country and offshore undermine the Pentagon's determination that Global Warming is a Strategic Threat to our country? How can the Governor claim he wants to leave his grandchildren and all children and grandchildren with a better world when he's putting fuel on the Global Warming fire, and at the same time, threatening our country and the world by promoting such reckless policies?
@Statman:
You conflate GW with AGW. Even if GW is happening, using zero ff from this day forward may not stop it.
The following website might be helpful to see the connection between state and federal government and the exquisite silence on climate change lately.
http://www.noclimatetax.com/the-pledge/
Famous Last Words nobody in the media recorded:
- Noah's neighbors: "Looks like it should clear up tomorrow."
- Citizen of Atlantis: "We get some heavy tides here occasionally."
- Roman in Pompei: "Aetna smolders every day...nothing to worry about."
- Citizen of Rome: "This Attila person seems open to negotiation."
- Psychiatrist acqaintance of Hannibal Lector:"I'm not really fond of fava beans."
- George Armstrong Custer:"The ones with painted faces are here to trade beads."
What will the folks on the oceanfront in Illinois next century say about the thick smog and yellow sky?
Let's seriously place reclaimed water plants on our list of things to do.
@THE WORLD
Check out operation popeye - Vietnam - 1967 - 1974. Then see this:
"We are just scratching the surface," Johnson said about the growth of weather derivatives, which started trading in the late 1990s. "Companies are learning they can hedge their weather exposure."
Worldwide, about 730,000 weather derivative contracts were traded last year, according to the Weather Risk Management Association in Washington, D.C.
The total value of contracts traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange was $19.2 billion last year, down from 2006's record of $45.2 billion, but significantly higher than the $8.4 billion traded in 2005 and the $4.6 billion traded in 2004, according to the WRMA.
"Weather is becoming more volatile, and we recognize this as a new risk class," said Brian O'Hearne, head of Swiss Re's Environment and Commodity markets in New York, and a past president of the WRMA.
Businesses in the U.S., Japan, London and Amsterdam are the most frequent users of weather risk management, though companies in emerging markets like India are beginning to trade weather derivatives, Johnson said.
It's worthwhile for more companies to become involved with weather derivatives because it can affect their bottom line, said Paul Knight, senior lecturer of meteorology at Penn State University, which offers courses on weather risk and the financial markets.
"The most important reason is profitability," Knight said. "If you're an industry where weather plays a role, and that role can be quantified, then you can reduce the unknown by hedging your risk."
*****Hence the name climatewiz1**** My friends, weather was NOT meant to be geoengineered and "sold" banking on loss or gain or for acts of war. Think this might be the underlying cause of global warming? You just might be right...