The first step is admitting that you have a problem.
November 11, 2014 9:23 PM Subscribe
The US and China just reached a major climate deal on cutting emissions.
On its own, this deal won't solve climate change — and it's arguably not close to ambitious enough. But it is a break from the long-standing stalemate between the two countries on the topic. And this agreement could help nudge along the upcoming UN climate talks that are supposed to culminate in an international deal on emissions at Paris in 2015.
[...]
The US pledge: As part of the bargain, the US government has pledged to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 — an extension of its existing goal to reduce emissions 17 percent by 2020.
[...]
The China pledge: Meanwhile, China has made a few pledges of its own. Xi said that China would set a goal of having emissions stop growing by around 2030 and possibly peak earlier. China would also try to get one-fifth of its energy from non-fossil sources by then. (China isn't cutting its emissions nearly as drastically as the US — the logic is that this is fair since China is bigger and poorer.)
[...]
Is this deal enough to solve climate change? Definitely not. [...] For the time being, however, this is a big shift in climate politics — and possibly a first step toward a broader global climate agreement.
Given the victory of many climate change deniers in the recent US midterms, and the very real possibility of a Republican victory in the 2016 Presidential election... what does that mean for a deal like this? Will it just get gutted by the right-wing?
posted by Saxon Kane at 9:34 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Saxon Kane at 9:34 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
This seems like a positive move - if it sticks. Meanwhile, in Australia... :| (The data in that chart is apparently sourced from AEMO.)
posted by snap, crackle and pop at 9:48 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by snap, crackle and pop at 9:48 PM on November 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile, in Australia... :|
:| is right. Hopefully this will be a clear signifier to our horribly ass backwards government that they are in fact horribly ass backwards.
posted by Quilford at 9:56 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
:| is right. Hopefully this will be a clear signifier to our horribly ass backwards government that they are in fact horribly ass backwards.
posted by Quilford at 9:56 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
I'm glad for any positive news on climate issues, and I'm glad the executive branch of the US government is one of the saner ones in the Anglosphere on this. Now if only more people had a fire under them about this stuff.
posted by Small Dollar at 10:11 PM on November 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by Small Dollar at 10:11 PM on November 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
I cannot wait for the people who delight in "rolling coal" to have a measured and reasoned reaction to this news.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 10:17 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 10:17 PM on November 11, 2014 [5 favorites]
I can't wait to hear Stephen Harper's announcement that Canada will match the emissions cuts.
posted by Flashman at 10:17 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by Flashman at 10:17 PM on November 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
Yeah, that's going to provide some head-asploding cognitive dissonance for Harper. Climate change isn't happening! Fuck Kyoto!
Wait.. the USA is stepping up?
~ kaboom ~
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:31 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Wait.. the USA is stepping up?
~ kaboom ~
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:31 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Now if only more people had a fire under them about this stuff.
I would strongly urge you to not use coal to light said fire. Thank you.
posted by The Illiterate Pundit at 11:08 PM on November 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
I would strongly urge you to not use coal to light said fire. Thank you.
posted by The Illiterate Pundit at 11:08 PM on November 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
Would this need senate ratification in the US? I suppose it's not really a formal treaty, so perhaps not... but is this statement of intent actually likely to lead to any changes, given the composition of Congress?
posted by modernnomad at 3:47 AM on November 12, 2014
posted by modernnomad at 3:47 AM on November 12, 2014
One more thing the Republicans can boast about how they will be overturning, undoing and erasing from history over the coming months ...
posted by kcds at 4:08 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by kcds at 4:08 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
I guess that it's safe for the administration to do this now that there's not a snowball's chance in hell of the Senate ratifying an emissions reduction treaty.
posted by indubitable at 4:13 AM on November 12, 2014
posted by indubitable at 4:13 AM on November 12, 2014
I believe this is an executive agreement. It is nonbinding and doesn't require senate ratification.
posted by jpe at 4:48 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by jpe at 4:48 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
I hope the Australian government feels suitably stupid and embarrassed, what with the G20 on in Brisbane at the moment and them completely wrong footed with no idea this was happening, but hey, perhaps we can compost the Russian warships on the way here and come out somewhere about even.
posted by Wolof at 5:59 AM on November 12, 2014
posted by Wolof at 5:59 AM on November 12, 2014
I believe this is an executive agreement. It is nonbinding and doesn't require senate ratification.
So in other words: Republicans (and Dems with strong polluter lobbyist ties) will make sure that this goes no where?
posted by Saxon Kane at 6:22 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
So in other words: Republicans (and Dems with strong polluter lobbyist ties) will make sure that this goes no where?
posted by Saxon Kane at 6:22 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
The key piece of information here is that President Obama said the US recognizes Tibet as an integral part of China. This is a big deal because it signals that the US accepts the primacy of China in the region and not the concept of self-determination.
posted by Nevin at 6:50 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Nevin at 6:50 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
The key piece of information here is that President Obama said the US recognizes Tibet as an integral part of China.
Cite?
posted by tonycpsu at 6:55 AM on November 12, 2014
Cite?
posted by tonycpsu at 6:55 AM on November 12, 2014
Some background on Executive Agreements from the UC San Diego School of law:
This seems similar to the Status of Forces Agreements that were debated prior to the US exits from Iraq and Afghanistan. No treaty required, but the executive had authority to strike deals with foreign powers via executive branch constitutional power (Executive; Commander-in-Chief).
The President, one assumes, has some executive authority to carry out his side of this deal -- via the EPA (and other executive powers?) .
/google expert
posted by notyou at 6:56 AM on November 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
(1) The President can enter into any nonbinding agreement that he wants, on his own authority. A nonbinding agreement (also called a "political commitment" -- see here for the definitive article by Duncan Hollis and Joshua Newcomer) is by definition not a treaty, because a treaty is binding (as a matter of international law). As a result, a nonbinding agreement is not covered by the treatymaking clause, and instead falls within the President's executive diplomatic power. (Note: this conclusion is different from Hollis and Newcomer's, but they do not adopt an originalist approach). So, if as the NYT report hints, this is just a political commitment, or voluntary undertaking, the President is on firm constitutional ground."Non-binding" in this context means that the agreement is not a law, domestically; only properly ratified treaties have that effect.
[...]
(3) But, regardless, the President cannot unilaterally enter into any international agreement that has domestic effect in U.S. law. Article VI lists the things that are the "supreme Law of the Land," and international agreements made by the President alone are not listed (only statutes, treaties, and the Constitution itself). Relatedly, the President may be able to make political commitments and executive agreements through the grant of "executive Power"; but the core meaning of executive power is that it does not include its opposite, lawmaking (legislative) power.
This seems similar to the Status of Forces Agreements that were debated prior to the US exits from Iraq and Afghanistan. No treaty required, but the executive had authority to strike deals with foreign powers via executive branch constitutional power (Executive; Commander-in-Chief).
The President, one assumes, has some executive authority to carry out his side of this deal -- via the EPA (and other executive powers?) .
/google expert
posted by notyou at 6:56 AM on November 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
Cite?
The fact that all the conservatives I know on social media have magically and suddenly become fierce advocates of Tibetan independence.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:02 AM on November 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
The fact that all the conservatives I know on social media have magically and suddenly become fierce advocates of Tibetan independence.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:02 AM on November 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
Given the victory of many climate change deniers in the recent US midterms, and the very real possibility of a Republican victory in the 2016 Presidential election... what does that mean for a deal like this? Will it just get gutted by the right-wing?
Yes. So long as Repubs are voted into office climate change will not be addressed at the policy level. If anything they will increase subsidies to fossil fuel companies to make it even harder for renewables to compete.(*) As the US goes increasingly to the right, the chances of catastrophic climate change become increasingly likely. In the end, it's up the people to vote because elections today have long term impacts. If there is any reason to vote, this is the one issue that really makes a difference. Everything in politics can be fixed eventually with enough time, but climate change doesn't have time. That's why the 2014 Republican victory is so devastating to the fate of the world, seriously.
(*) Coal accounts for most of the US electricity production while solar is a minor part. Yet solar employes twice as many people as the coal industry. If the Repubs were serious about jobs, as they say, they would embrace job-creating solar.
posted by stbalbach at 7:04 AM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
Yes. So long as Repubs are voted into office climate change will not be addressed at the policy level. If anything they will increase subsidies to fossil fuel companies to make it even harder for renewables to compete.(*) As the US goes increasingly to the right, the chances of catastrophic climate change become increasingly likely. In the end, it's up the people to vote because elections today have long term impacts. If there is any reason to vote, this is the one issue that really makes a difference. Everything in politics can be fixed eventually with enough time, but climate change doesn't have time. That's why the 2014 Republican victory is so devastating to the fate of the world, seriously.
(*) Coal accounts for most of the US electricity production while solar is a minor part. Yet solar employes twice as many people as the coal industry. If the Repubs were serious about jobs, as they say, they would embrace job-creating solar.
posted by stbalbach at 7:04 AM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
Rolling coal. I forgot that was ever a thing (insert Picard facepalm jpg).
posted by Damienmce at 7:09 AM on November 12, 2014
posted by Damienmce at 7:09 AM on November 12, 2014
Cite
It's all over Twitter. Jon Passantino, an editor at Buzzfeed, seems to be the first to have reported it.
If this is proven to be misinformation, I will apologize. For the record, I am not an American conservative, I have no special beef with Obama, but I am most certainly critical of his administrations approach to NE Asian foreign relations and strategy.
posted by Nevin at 7:14 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's all over Twitter. Jon Passantino, an editor at Buzzfeed, seems to be the first to have reported it.
If this is proven to be misinformation, I will apologize. For the record, I am not an American conservative, I have no special beef with Obama, but I am most certainly critical of his administrations approach to NE Asian foreign relations and strategy.
posted by Nevin at 7:14 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
For the record, I am not an American conservative, I have no special beef with Obama, but I am most certainly critical of his administrations approach to NE Asian foreign relations and strategy.
Sorry for any confusion, that wasn't aimed at you. It was illustrating the "Obama said something we never really talk about, time for some knee-jerk WHARRGARBL about the feckless Kenyan Muslim tyrant" reaction that I saw happening in my feeds.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:23 AM on November 12, 2014
Sorry for any confusion, that wasn't aimed at you. It was illustrating the "Obama said something we never really talk about, time for some knee-jerk WHARRGARBL about the feckless Kenyan Muslim tyrant" reaction that I saw happening in my feeds.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:23 AM on November 12, 2014
Sorry, I'm not on the twitters. Anyway, this is nothing new. From February:
Obama said the U.S. position is that Tibet is part of the People's Republic of China — though he encouraged China to protect the human rights of Tibetans.
Still disappointing, of course, but he's obviously not going to make a deal with China on climate change and then turn around and declare support for Tibetan independence.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:31 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Obama said the U.S. position is that Tibet is part of the People's Republic of China — though he encouraged China to protect the human rights of Tibetans.
Still disappointing, of course, but he's obviously not going to make a deal with China on climate change and then turn around and declare support for Tibetan independence.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:31 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
I would like to see Passantino cite that quote, though.
posted by Nevin at 7:31 AM on November 12, 2014
posted by Nevin at 7:31 AM on November 12, 2014
China pledges to continue INCREASING emissions until at least 2030.
posted by republican at 7:41 AM on November 12, 2014
posted by republican at 7:41 AM on November 12, 2014
China pledges to continue INCREASING emissions until at least 2030.
Can it not be stupid day, please? This would mean they stop increasing earlier than otherwise.
The key piece of information here is that President Obama said the US recognizes Tibet as an integral part of China.
No, that's a pretty small and silly detail. But I'll note that if added "integral", it makes the statement imply more than it is. The language of posted to the White House site is "part of". That's a fact; but it doesn't mean that splitting Tibet from China would mean splitting China; which would be Beijing's position.
posted by spaltavian at 7:51 AM on November 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
Can it not be stupid day, please? This would mean they stop increasing earlier than otherwise.
The key piece of information here is that President Obama said the US recognizes Tibet as an integral part of China.
No, that's a pretty small and silly detail. But I'll note that if added "integral", it makes the statement imply more than it is. The language of posted to the White House site is "part of". That's a fact; but it doesn't mean that splitting Tibet from China would mean splitting China; which would be Beijing's position.
posted by spaltavian at 7:51 AM on November 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
I pledged I was going to do laundry last night, but go ahead ask me if the laundry got done. It sounds like this agreement has about as much weight.
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:09 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:09 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
No, that's a pretty small and silly detail.
No, it is not a small and silly detail if you know anything about geopolitics and the risk of war in NE Asia. Trying to figure out what the US will do and will not do to support territorial integrity is a key issue for any number of nations aligned with the US in east Asia, notably Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Philippines.
China uses the word "integral territory" quite a bit in these territorial disputes.
It's not silly at all, and to frame this concern as such is quite ignorant.
posted by Nevin at 8:13 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
No, it is not a small and silly detail if you know anything about geopolitics and the risk of war in NE Asia. Trying to figure out what the US will do and will not do to support territorial integrity is a key issue for any number of nations aligned with the US in east Asia, notably Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Philippines.
China uses the word "integral territory" quite a bit in these territorial disputes.
It's not silly at all, and to frame this concern as such is quite ignorant.
posted by Nevin at 8:13 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
No, it is not a small and silly detail if you know anything about geopolitics and the risk of war in NE Asia.
I do, and I know the American's president's remarks on Tibet aren't going to make Beijing do anything differently in Tibet. Comparing this to at all to disputes with the rest of Asia's neighbors belie a complete misunderstanding of America's role in Asia. China would be all to happy to trade less bellicose actions over the Spratlys for various symbolic or small concessions; they'd cut their own arm off before backing down an iota on Tibet.
More importantly, America is not interested in Tibet and never has been: it's always been a way to hit China over the head with human rights, it's never been about independence, and even aspirational grumblings to this effect went out the window with Nixon. Those other issues: aren't about unalterable facts on the ground and concern allies, not symbols.
So yes, fretting about Obama repeating obvious facts on the ground in a dispute America wants no part of, and will never want any part of, is quite silly.
posted by spaltavian at 8:22 AM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
I do, and I know the American's president's remarks on Tibet aren't going to make Beijing do anything differently in Tibet. Comparing this to at all to disputes with the rest of Asia's neighbors belie a complete misunderstanding of America's role in Asia. China would be all to happy to trade less bellicose actions over the Spratlys for various symbolic or small concessions; they'd cut their own arm off before backing down an iota on Tibet.
More importantly, America is not interested in Tibet and never has been: it's always been a way to hit China over the head with human rights, it's never been about independence, and even aspirational grumblings to this effect went out the window with Nixon. Those other issues: aren't about unalterable facts on the ground and concern allies, not symbols.
So yes, fretting about Obama repeating obvious facts on the ground in a dispute America wants no part of, and will never want any part of, is quite silly.
posted by spaltavian at 8:22 AM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
Non-binding, you say? Well then.
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:39 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:39 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's not silly at all, and to frame this concern as such is quite ignorant.
Nevin
It's completely silly, and you're really reading too much into this since, as others in this thread have shown, this position has been stated before.
You're also not even reading into the correct text: as cjelli's link shows, Obama didn't say ""integral territory". Neither does the tweet you linked to, for that matter. In fact, that phrase seems to be something you yourself have put into what was said.
Here's something Obama did say:
“Let me reiterate that our treaty commitment to Japan’s security is absolute. And Article 5 (of the treaty) covers all territories under Japan’s administration, including the Senkaku Islands”
So yes, your fixation on this particular piece of information, part of which was not actually said, is silly.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:57 AM on November 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
Nevin
It's completely silly, and you're really reading too much into this since, as others in this thread have shown, this position has been stated before.
You're also not even reading into the correct text: as cjelli's link shows, Obama didn't say ""integral territory". Neither does the tweet you linked to, for that matter. In fact, that phrase seems to be something you yourself have put into what was said.
Here's something Obama did say:
“Let me reiterate that our treaty commitment to Japan’s security is absolute. And Article 5 (of the treaty) covers all territories under Japan’s administration, including the Senkaku Islands”
So yes, your fixation on this particular piece of information, part of which was not actually said, is silly.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:57 AM on November 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
A Day Late & a Dollar Short: Obama & China agree on Languid Climate Goals
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:57 AM on November 12, 2014
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:57 AM on November 12, 2014
anotherpanacea's double was double-meta-eponysterical
posted by univac at 8:57 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by univac at 8:57 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
anotherpanacea's post was also much better than this one. I should have probably waited until the morning for more links / analysis to come out.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:01 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:01 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Statement from Bob Perciasepe, President, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions - the statement indicates that the US target can be done under existing law (barring interference, of course, and we know that is a given)
The joint announcement by President Obama and President Xi is an extremely hopeful sign. Even if the targets aren’t as ambitious as many might hope, the world’s two largest carbon emitters are stepping up together with serious commitments. This will help get other countries on board and greatly improves the odds for a solid global deal next year in Paris.
These targets will require major undertakings by both countries. Clearly the leaders of the world’s two largest economies have decided the risks posed by climate change justify stronger action to cut carbon emissions. And they’re confident they can keep growing their economies at the same time.
In the case of the United States, the new target is pushing the limits of what can be done under existing law. We can get there if Congress doesn’t stand in the way, and if states roll up their sleeves and work with businesses and other stakeholders to craft smart, practical plans to cut emissions from power plants. But to go much further, we’ll ultimately need Congress to act.
For too long it’s been too easy for both the U.S. and China to hide behind one another. People on both sides pointed to weak action abroad to delay action at home. This announcement hopefully puts those excuses behind us. We’ll only avert the worst risks of climate change by acting together.
An article at Mother Jones offers more details on some of the planned collaborative initiatives.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:02 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
The joint announcement by President Obama and President Xi is an extremely hopeful sign. Even if the targets aren’t as ambitious as many might hope, the world’s two largest carbon emitters are stepping up together with serious commitments. This will help get other countries on board and greatly improves the odds for a solid global deal next year in Paris.
These targets will require major undertakings by both countries. Clearly the leaders of the world’s two largest economies have decided the risks posed by climate change justify stronger action to cut carbon emissions. And they’re confident they can keep growing their economies at the same time.
In the case of the United States, the new target is pushing the limits of what can be done under existing law. We can get there if Congress doesn’t stand in the way, and if states roll up their sleeves and work with businesses and other stakeholders to craft smart, practical plans to cut emissions from power plants. But to go much further, we’ll ultimately need Congress to act.
For too long it’s been too easy for both the U.S. and China to hide behind one another. People on both sides pointed to weak action abroad to delay action at home. This announcement hopefully puts those excuses behind us. We’ll only avert the worst risks of climate change by acting together.
An article at Mother Jones offers more details on some of the planned collaborative initiatives.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:02 AM on November 12, 2014 [2 favorites]
We can get there if Congress doesn’t stand in the way .. But to go much further, we'll ultimately need Congress to act
Well, nothing's going to happen in the next two years, then.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:05 AM on November 12, 2014
Well, nothing's going to happen in the next two years, then.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:05 AM on November 12, 2014
How much of the planned US carbon-emissions reductions are supposed to be accomplished via replacing coal with natural gas, I wonder? That seems like a political winner, if not really an environmental one. Many of the big US energy companies are heavily invested in natural gas, such that they probably wouldn't oppose emissions targets that only go that far.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:16 AM on November 12, 2014
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:16 AM on November 12, 2014
And of course the right-wing noise has begun already. "ideological War on Coal" and "job-crushing policies". Because there are no business opportunities whatsoever in building a new infrastructure and alternative forms of energy, and the future is obviously in 3rd century technology.
Or maybe it's because McConnell and Boehner are in the pocket of coal and oil companies... nah, couldn't be that.
posted by Foosnark at 9:18 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Or maybe it's because McConnell and Boehner are in the pocket of coal and oil companies... nah, couldn't be that.
posted by Foosnark at 9:18 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
And of course the right-wing noise has begun already. "ideological War on Coal" and "job-crushing policies".
"Obama Colludes with Fellow Communists to Destroy American Jobs"
posted by Sangermaine at 9:46 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
"Obama Colludes with Fellow Communists to Destroy American Jobs"
posted by Sangermaine at 9:46 AM on November 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
This is a nice contrast to the 2009 Copenhagen meeting.
The amount of right-wing noise directly is a sign that the deal is a good thing for climate change mitigation. Ridiculous concerns about Tibet are a fantastic thing! Even if Congress does nothing in two years, two more years of ignoramuses making fools of themselves on climate change is better than it not being talked about at all. A majority of the US population thinks climate change is happening, and making the deniers show their true colors means that there's a better chance for a more moderate government after the next election.
posted by Llama-Lime at 10:37 AM on November 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
The amount of right-wing noise directly is a sign that the deal is a good thing for climate change mitigation. Ridiculous concerns about Tibet are a fantastic thing! Even if Congress does nothing in two years, two more years of ignoramuses making fools of themselves on climate change is better than it not being talked about at all. A majority of the US population thinks climate change is happening, and making the deniers show their true colors means that there's a better chance for a more moderate government after the next election.
posted by Llama-Lime at 10:37 AM on November 12, 2014 [4 favorites]
Well, nothing's going to happen in the next two years, then.
Not so -- plenty is already happening, all of it independent of Congress, and all of it resistant to Congressional meddling.
posted by notyou at 10:51 AM on November 12, 2014 [6 favorites]
Not so -- plenty is already happening, all of it independent of Congress, and all of it resistant to Congressional meddling.
The coming rollout includes a Dec. 1 proposal by EPA to tighten limits on smog-causing ozone, which business groups say could be the costliest federal regulation of all time; a final rule Dec. 19 for clamping down on disposal of power plants’ toxic coal ash; the Jan. 1 start date for a long-debated rule prohibiting states from polluting the air of their downwind neighbors; and a Jan. 8 deadline for issuing a final rule restricting greenhouse gas emissions from future power plants. That last rule is a centerpiece of Obama’s most ambitious environmental effort, the big plan for combating climate change that he announced at Georgetown University in June 2013.Despair is a luxury.
....The administration was committed to its upcoming deadlines many months ago, in some cases under court order, after postponing a number of the actions until after the 2012 or 2014 elections. Now that Obama is almost out of time, they’re coming all at once.
On deck are even more climate actions that will stretch well into 2015. In June, EPA is due to put out a final version of its rule for cutting greenhouse gases from the nation’s existing power plants — the linchpin of Obama’s entire climate effort.
posted by notyou at 10:51 AM on November 12, 2014 [6 favorites]
"ideological War on Coal"
See, this is the problem when we try to engage in conflicts on multiple fronts. If Obama is starting a war on coal, what is going to put in the stockings of all those rosy-cheeked Christian children as part of the liberal War on Christmas?
posted by Saxon Kane at 12:19 PM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
See, this is the problem when we try to engage in conflicts on multiple fronts. If Obama is starting a war on coal, what is going to put in the stockings of all those rosy-cheeked Christian children as part of the liberal War on Christmas?
posted by Saxon Kane at 12:19 PM on November 12, 2014 [3 favorites]
Shishmaref, Alaska Is Still Falling Into The Sea
posted by homunculus at 11:30 AM on December 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 11:30 AM on December 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
« Older Aren't they all bitter pills? | A turning tide in the drug war? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I'm glad the role of nuclear energy is being acknowledged as a part of the conversation. I hope we can use it to help contribute to reaching the American emissions goals which do seem pretty ambitious.
China is also announcing today that it would expand the share of total energy consumption coming from zero-emission sources (renewable and nuclear energy) to around 20 percent by 2030, sending a powerful signal to investors and energy markets around the world and helping accelerate the global transition to clean-energy economies.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:31 PM on November 11, 2014 [2 favorites]