Obama outlined his anti-carbon policy to The San Francisco Chronicle in 2008: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
The State of Florida was predicted to lose 19 inches of coastline by the year 2050 (using data from the U.S. Geological Survey, one group mapped all areas along the continental U.S. coastline containing homes that lie within one to 10 feet from the water level at high tide).
So, are we to assume that it's mostly multi-millionaires like Rush Limbaugh (living in beachfront mansions in Florida) that have the most to lose from climate change? (But they have insurance, so no big deal.) But even so, then why aren't we more concerned (today) about jobs for 20 million unemployed Americans? (9 million counted as unemployed and 11 million who left the labor force since the Great Recession.)
Yes, we've had record severe storms and temperature changes...but what can we do today that would guarantee any future changes, especially if the US is the only country that is serious about enforcing any of these changes? No one at this blog is denying the science: yes, there has been change. But who can really say with 100% certainty as to what percent of the latest change is due to man-made circumstances and to natural circumstances?
The Earth can be hit by an asteroid tomorrow, or a million years from now, or never again while our Sun still burns. Man-made global warming won't be solved any time soon, although we should start making plans for any eventuality (in case humans defy history and outlive other species before finally becoming extinct). But climate change shouldn't be hyped as an immediate concern because it drives too many people away from other (more immediately remedied) progressive ideas.
The constant beating of the global warming drum is a bit like hollering, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" I suggest we get more people on board with other progressive ideas before nudging them into the "climate change" camp — which has been a very derisive debate. Would anything we do today prevent the remaining glaciers from melting? What brought Earth out of the last Ice Age before there was ever any man-made industrial or auto carbon emissions?
Two articles at Al Jazeera (by David Cay Johnston) also leads me to believe that no matter what we do about climate change today, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket". The price of electricity would still soar under the latest scheme by Wall Street financial engineers (the oligarchs, plutocrats and banksters) to game the electricity markets — because the US electricity markets will always be anti-consumer.
The US has been bleeding millions of jobs to China, a country who builds one coal power plant every week. The latest agreement Obama made with China (some people say) is a beginning to dealing with man-made climate change. But most of the onus falls of the US, who pollutes less and is starving for jobs. So why self-impose yet another roadblock to our economic well-being when others won't? Can America save the world all on its own while more and more of its citizens are being driven into poverty?
As an aside: From the YouTube video: The Largest Submarine in The U.S. Navy, about the USS Pennsylvania, which is an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine that has been in commission since 1989. (Go to the 3 minute mark in the YouTube video.) The sailors on board get their breathing air from seawater using electrolysis. By passing electricity (created by the onboard nuclear generator that creates steam) through the seawater, they split the components parts into two: oxygen and hydrogen. What happens to the hydrogen; and can we use the ocean as a source of clean hydrogen energy? And wouldn’t that also help to counter rising sea levels from melting glaciers? Just a thought.
The agreement at the APEC summit calls on the U.S. to, by 2025, be producing 26 to 28 percent less carbon gas emissions than it had produced in 2005, while China would cap its output growth by 2030.
ReplyDeleteFor the United States, there were ongoing efforts behind the scenes of the APEC summit to finalize a proposed free trade agreement — the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) — with 11 other nations that would create a massive free-trade zone.
Not surprisingly, China views the TPP -- from which it is excluded -- with strong suspicion, and Beijing used the APEC summit to promote its own proposal for a regional economic plan, the Free-Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP).
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/11/12/china-us-apec.html