Tweet
In his acceptance speech last Tuesday, President Obama stated that: “We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.”
The President’s words will be put to the test very shortly.
As Glenn Hurowitz points out on Grist, a bill is about to land on the President’s desk that will allow US airlines to ignore a European Union climate law.
Hurrowitz writes:
“If he signs the bill, Obama will not only be failing to take sufficient action to address climate change, but actively going out of his way to stop another country from doing so – a pretty extreme act at the worst possible time.”
This is a line in the sand and a really big deal. We will soon know if President Obama plans to stay true to his word on his commitment to curb the emissions of climate change pollution by industry in the United States.
Hurrowitz’s piece is well worth the read, as it goes into a lot of detail on the issue of transnational aviation and climate change policy.
So what do you think? Will he keep the President remain true to his word?
3 Comments
It kind of outrageous to pass a law that requires domestic industries, which use foreign assets, to disobey the laws of the foreign countries that are responsible for those assets.
That aside, I tend not to take any climate catastrophist seriously who ignores the Chinese and Indian economies contribution to CO2 production. Your reference pegs air travel at all of 2% of anthropogenic CO2 production.
So, if the President really believes in CO2 climate catastrophism, this bill can’t constitute a litmus test.
I predict that the President doesn’t really care about CO2 climate catastrophism – or at least not more than keeping the Big Oil and Big Money people happy. Because, if he did, he’d announce a Manhattan type project for funding promising dense energy sources, that the Chinese and Indians could eventually use to replace their petro fueled power plants.
In fact, if the President was really serious, he’d be rallying the US and, indeed, the world’s population, to crowd-fund research for alternative, dense source of energy, and not wait for governments to lead the way. If governments respond and come up with the cash, fine and dandy. But if they don’t, why risk cooking the earth because, as they say, “boys will be boys”?
Here in NJ, Eric Lerner has beat the big boys in fusion research, BUT STILL HAS TO WASTE TIME AND ENERGY FUND RAISING.
So-called “cold fusion” was first discovered in the US, but the government pretended it was all a mistake (or worse), while still researching it in government labs. (We found that out when one of them blew up.) There are efforts going on around the world to figure this out, but why doesn’t Obama put his foot on the gas pedal (so to speak), here in the US? Although I’ve read that Siemens has workable models, I don’t see them released in the US (another matter worth looking into, for a genuinely “serious” President), and this recent article in Discover Magazine suggests other “cold fusion” sources.
I’ll take Lerner’s hot fusion, or the so-called cold fusion, any day over some extra pollution controls on airliners that weigh in at 2% of anthropogenic CO2. And I’m not a CO2 catastrophist, but mountaintop removal, tar sands, and drilling for oil at the bottom of oceans clearly point to a societal problem.
But what I’d like to know is, where the hell are the CO2 catastrophists when you need them?.
IMO, they can’t all be saps and ignorant of Chinese and Indian CO2 production. Some of them surely understand the game, and are playing their part.
A better marker is the Keystone XL, which my money says will be approved by March.
I also agree with the above commenter that we cannot conserve our way out of climate change. The world simply is not going to use less energy leaving the only viable solution alternative energy sources. The sooner we crank up our innovation and development efforts the better.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Let me point out that it is possible for the US planes to greatly reduce their emissions while maintaining the same number of flights, by using Alcohol-based fuel instead of Petroleum-based fuel.