The Obama Administration Thread: Now With Climate Change Action!

enlightenedbum

Hey look, it's a new Obama thread! We talk about his administration here.

Currently relevant topics:
1) Holder's comments re: today's idiotic fucking SCOTUS decision
2) The climate speech he will be making momentarily as I write this
3) Their actions re: Edward Snowden's exciting adventure
4) Whatever Joe Biden and Diamond Joe Biden are doing.

Never relevant topics:
1) 2016
2) General politics news
3) LOLpublicans

Link to today's speech (live):
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/watch-live-obama-outlines-climate-change-plan-in

enlightenedbum

Major thing is that the EPA is to develop emissions guidelines for existing power plants like those we have for new power plants.

enlightenedbum

Keystone: has to be carbon neutral to get approved?

That seems to be avoiding the main environmental concern.

iTunesIsEvil

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Keystone: has to be carbon neutral to get approved?

That seems to be avoiding the main environmental concern.

"How exactly, Bob, do I factor 2 million barrels of oil leaking into our water-aquifer into our 'Is It Carbon Netrual' worksheet?"

Derrick

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Keystone: has to be carbon neutral to get approved?

That seems to be avoiding the main environmental concern.

Of course it is.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/science/global-warming/130331/exxon-pipeline-bursts-arkansas-leaking-thousands-barrels

To say my faith in this administration is waning would be a gross understatement. Hopefully Obama can summon the will to do the right thing here, but I doubt it.

Gigazombie Cybermage

I'm going to be extremely pissed if he approves that pipeline.

enlightenedbum

Further investment in wind/solar. Another 40% increase by 2020 based purely on public investment. Some of that in the DoD so it can get through Congress (cynical part of me).

enlightenedbum

Calls for global free trade on environmental technologies/goods in order to assist developing economies to skip the 20th century, basically.

enlightenedbum

Dammit, stop saying look forward and not backwards, regardless of context.

Rhetorically, this is aimed at firmly at my generation, which is interesting. It is at Georgetown, so that's part of it.

Spoit

Anything about nuclear?

enlightenedbum

Nope. I think Fukushima put the final stake in nuclear on the left.

DevoutlyApathetic

That really pisses me off. It doesn't mean we'll stop using nukes, we'll just never upgrade to the good, much safer, nukes that are available now.

enlightenedbum

It's done. Nothing super transformative, but pretty solid for what his administration can do by itself.

enlightenedbum

Everybody except the deliberately ignorant, or senators from Oklahoma, but I repeat myself, believes that climate change is the most critical issue facing the planet since some particularly bright hadrosaur in the Yucatan looked up and thought, "Hey, what's that big rock doing in the sky there?"

Have I mentioned what a national treasure Charlie Pierce is lately?

Librarian's ghost

As someone who lives in an area that gets its water from the aquifer that would be destroyed by a Keystone leak I'd be very sad if it happens. People are pretty unified against it here. There are yard signs and everything.

Hachface

Good for Obama.

In 20 years, the response (or, more accurately, the lack of response) to climate change is going to be the only issue by which we judge the leaders of today. At least this administration will go down as having done something.

The Ender

Further investment in wind/solar. Another 40% increase by 2020 based purely on public investment. Some of that in the DoD so it can get through Congress (cynical part of me).

This is the crux of the problem: human scale vs geological scale. Somewhere, a crusty old geode is listening to that brave figure and remarking, "Oh, how adorable."

The thought of a 40% spending increase in any sector by 2020 is something that no doubt causes half of America to light it's hair on fire and start screaming about pork barrel hippies, and in reality what will actually get through the gauntlet in DC will be some fraction of that promise. In practical terms, 40% is a joke; there's no way such a marginal increase in solar, wind or even nuclear (which wasn't even mentioned) will address the problem. It probably wouldn't even get the ball rolling on addressing the problem.

Tack on another zero to that increase and we can start to have an idea about the really horrible challenges ahead.

enlightenedbum

I feel like you are underestimating how massive this country is and our energy demands. Building enough wind/solar to power 60 million homes (400% increase) in 7 years is probably strictly not possible without a WW2 level mobilization.

Hachface

Well, we really do need a WW2-level mobilization on this issue.

Alas.

Mill

Yeah, he is sidestepping the main problem with Keystone. Don't know if Obama is being dumb or if this is some bullshit political calculus. I'm pretty sure he can just shoot the whole god awful thing down and spin it in a way that keeps things neutral on the electoral side.

Kind of bummed that morons keep us from looking into nuclear alternatives.

Some of the stuff in there sound pretty good. Sadly, at this point we would need WW2 level mobilization on unfucking the environment, but that isn't happening as long as people are intent to allowing the current GOP to continue winning elections.

tbloxham

Hachface wrote: »

Well, we really do need a WW2-level mobilization on this issue.

Alas.

What we really need is what the right wing thinks we already have. Vast secret leagues of scientists and 'green business' desperate to make dirty green cash by building wind power stations and solar power stations whatever the people think about them. Where are the imagined enemies of the Republicans when we need them!

Phyphor

Are those numbers inflation-adjusted, because 20% by 2020 is matching (targetted) inflation

enlightenedbum

Phyphor wrote: »

Are those numbers inflation-adjusted, because 20% by 2020 is matching (targetted) inflation

Actually it's in number of homes. Not total funding.

Phyphor

I meant the 40% funding increase

enlightenedbum

Phyphor wrote: »

I meant the 40% funding increase

Right, it's a 40% increase in homes powered by renewables. From 15 million to 21.

Forar

Yay, new thread! Wonder what the LOLpub...

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Never relevant topics:
3) LOLpublicans

Damnit. >.< You win this round, EB.

Seriously though,

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Calls for global free trade on environmental technologies/goods in order to assist developing economies to skip the 20th century, basically.

Massive thumbs up. That's a great idea.

DexterBelgium

One thing about the Obama Climate Change speech (as an international listener): "So we can show the world that we continue to lead on this issue?" Har-dee-har.

Leading so far from the back you can't even see the pack, you mean (see: Kyoto protocol, ratification of). I realize he can't say anything else, but don't you find the whole "America is exceptional, even in things where it quite plainly isn't" thing grating? Just wondering...

We'll see whether it works this time, he tried something similar back in 2010 but was reeled in by the "republicans + dems with a single coal mine in their constituency" coalition.

Fencingsax

DexterBelgium wrote: »

One thing about the Obama Climate Change speech (as an international listener): "So we can show the world that we continue to lead on this issue?" Har-dee-har.

Leading so far from the back you can't even see the pack, you mean (see: Kyoto protocol, ratification of). I realize he can't say anything else, but don't you find the whole "America is exceptional, even in things where it quite plainly isn't" thing grating? Just wondering...

We'll see whether it works this time, he tried something similar back in 2010 but was reeled in by the "republicans + dems with a single coal mine in their constituency" coalition.

To be fair, absolutely no one else is leading on this either. Did anyone actually meet their Kyoto goals?

Arch

Man I really hope Keystone doesn't go through

But I mean

It probably will

I'm kinda cynical these days

enlightenedbum

We were pretty leadery in Copenhagen... or at least the White House was. Congress never did anything about it, of course.

These, by the way, are things he doesn't need to consult with Congress on, for the most part.

DexterBelgium

Re: Copenhagen (and the "European" view on that) http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/copenhagen-climate-cables-the-us-and-china-joined-forces-against-europe-a-733630.html

Yes, the US were leadery. From our point of view they were VERY leadery on the whole "let's be vaguish and agree to contemplate thinking about looking very concerned in the photo-op" plan. Which, to be honest, met all its goals. Pity the goals had nothing to do with carbon emissions or climate change.

Europe tries to be a leader on this point, but, as with all areas where we try that, we fail before we even start due to the total lack of internal cohesion we have since the (US-encouraged) expansion rather than deepening of the EU that happend somewhere late 90's beginning 2000s, which (from my point of view) doomed the EU to irrelevance and impotence in a way not seen since the UK joined.

shryke

On the IRS issue, this seems interesting:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/the-new-front-in-the-irs-scandal-the-inspector-generals-office/277189/

When the Treasury Department inspector general for tax administration appeared before a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on June 3, he did not shy away from introducing a highly politicized framework for understanding the Internal Revenue Service's actions in targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

"This is unprecedented, Congressman .... During the Nixon Administration, there were attempts to use the Internal Revenue Service in manners that might be comparable in terms of misusing it," J. Russell George, the George W. Bush appointee who leads the IG's office, told the committee in the closely watched hearing.

"I'm not saying that ... the actions that were taken are comparable, but I'm just saying, you know, that the misuse of the -- causing a distrust of the system occurred sometime ago. But this is unprecedented," he continued.

It seemed a needlessly inflammatory statement. The impartial investigator within the Treasury Department had just, unprompted, introduced the historic specter of presidential involvement in directing abusive tax treatment of White House enemies, despite a total lack of evidence that such a thing had occurred under President Obama, according to his own findings thus far. It was the first mention of Nixon at the hearing, albeit delivered with a deliberative caveat. He wasn't
saying, he was just saying, you know?

Documents released on Monday show that the Tax Exempt Division didn't just target groups with "Tea Party," "patriot," or "9/12" in their names. The IRS also explicitly targeted groups that included the word "progressive" in their names, undermining the entire idea that conservative groups alone found themselves treated in particular ways. This revelation is not a huge surprise: By June 5 it was clear that a substantial fraction of the targeted groups since 2010 were left of center or nonpartisan, including a number whose name began with the word "progressive," as I reported at the time. There were hints of this bigger picture in the Treasury's May report, as well, but it was so narrowly written to focus on the treatment of conservative groups that it did not get into detail as to what had been done to the other groups, or what exactly who they were.

In May, George declined to answer questions about whether progressive groups were targeted, a kind cageyness that now raises questions about his impartiality in presenting findings about what went on at the IRS.

So it looks like the IG may have deliberately slanted his reporting on this case to make the IRS look partisan and conservative-hating.

a5ehren

I'll just hang out and wait for Fox to cover this part of it.

Nah, you guys just go ahead, I'll be along soon...

Uh, can you leave some water though?

...Man I'm getting hungry. This was dumb.

Shit, now I'm dead.

Feral

shryke wrote: »

On the IRS issue, this seems interesting:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/the-new-front-in-the-irs-scandal-the-inspector-generals-office/277189/

When the Treasury Department inspector general for tax administration appeared before a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on June 3, he did not shy away from introducing a highly politicized framework for understanding the Internal Revenue Service's actions in targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

"This is unprecedented, Congressman .... During the Nixon Administration, there were attempts to use the Internal Revenue Service in manners that might be comparable in terms of misusing it," J. Russell George, the George W. Bush appointee who leads the IG's office, told the committee in the closely watched hearing.

"I'm not saying that ... the actions that were taken are comparable, but I'm just saying, you know, that the misuse of the -- causing a distrust of the system occurred sometime ago. But this is unprecedented," he continued.

It seemed a needlessly inflammatory statement. The impartial investigator within the Treasury Department had just, unprompted, introduced the historic specter of presidential involvement in directing abusive tax treatment of White House enemies, despite a total lack of evidence that such a thing had occurred under President Obama, according to his own findings thus far. It was the first mention of Nixon at the hearing, albeit delivered with a deliberative caveat. He wasn't
saying, he was just saying, you know?

Documents released on Monday show that the Tax Exempt Division didn't just target groups with "Tea Party," "patriot," or "9/12" in their names. The IRS also explicitly targeted groups that included the word "progressive" in their names, undermining the entire idea that conservative groups alone found themselves treated in particular ways. This revelation is not a huge surprise: By June 5 it was clear that a substantial fraction of the targeted groups since 2010 were left of center or nonpartisan, including a number whose name began with the word "progressive," as I reported at the time. There were hints of this bigger picture in the Treasury's May report, as well, but it was so narrowly written to focus on the treatment of conservative groups that it did not get into detail as to what had been done to the other groups, or what exactly who they were.

In May, George declined to answer questions about whether progressive groups were targeted, a kind cageyness that now raises questions about his impartiality in presenting findings about what went on at the IRS.

So it looks like the IG may have deliberately slanted his reporting on this case to make the IRS look partisan and conservative-hating.

You mean the Bush-appointed IG whose prior career involves a long string of Republican Congressional staffer jobs and appointments?

Who left Washington and went back into private practice when the Dems got control of the white house and congress in 1993?

You mean he might be partisan?

You don't say.

Grey_Chocolate

a5ehren wrote: »

I'll just hang out and wait for Fox to cover this part of it.

Nah, you guys just go ahead, I'll be along soon...

Uh, can you leave some water though?

...Man I'm getting hungry. This was dumb.

Shit, now I'm dead.

I'm pretty sure that it is against forum rules to post while dead.

Or am I thinking of drunk-posting?

Viskod

Rachel Maddow did this absolutely horrifying report on the company that would be in charge of the Keystone Pipeline and how one of their other long pipelines out in the middle of nowhere Canada, sprung a leak, that apparently went unnoticed and got insanely large before it was noticed by people working for the company, and even then they decided to sit on the information for a week before announcing it officially.

She also reported how they said the Keystone Pipeline through the US would be the safest pipeline ever! However, the system that uses sensors placed along the length of the pipeline that alerts you immediately if there is a leak, naw, they won't be using that, because they said "there's no need."

jmcdonald

Grey_Chocolate wrote: »

a5ehren wrote: »

I'll just hang out and wait for Fox to cover this part of it.

Nah, you guys just go ahead, I'll be along soon...

Uh, can you leave some water though?

...Man I'm getting hungry. This was dumb.

Shit, now I'm dead.

I'm pretty sure that it is against forum rules to post while dead.

Or am I thinking of drunk-posting?

Wait. Drunk posting is against the rules?

Tofystedeth

jmcdonald wrote: »

Grey_Chocolate wrote: »

a5ehren wrote: »

I'll just hang out and wait for Fox to cover this part of it.

Nah, you guys just go ahead, I'll be along soon...

Uh, can you leave some water though?

...Man I'm getting hungry. This was dumb.

Shit, now I'm dead.

I'm pretty sure that it is against forum rules to post while dead.

Or am I thinking of drunk-posting?

Wait. Drunk posting is against the rules?

I don't think it is explicitly against the rules, but it's a bad idea because drunk posting can often become things which are, like spamming, trolling, or generally being a dick.

ElJeffe

You are free to post while drunk, though if we can tell you're drunk by reading your posts, you'll be infracted. Which means "HAY GUISE I M SO DRUNK" posts are right out.

"I M SO DEAD" posts are acceptable.

jungleroomx

We need to get climate change under control, Obama. According to my History class classmates, its the reason the moon is moving out of orbit about an inch per year. Yup. Heat expansion. I swear.

Maybe Obama should add a couple billion to education as well.

Professor Phobos

Hahaha that's silly. Everyone knows the moon is moving away because the God-Machine is malfunctioning and we forgot the proper prayer signals to fix the theomechanics.