I’ve heard some frustration that, at a morning press conference, journalists seemed to be more interested in Terror, than in climate.
What bleeds, leads.
UPDATE: Obama expresses climate optimism for the long term. Outlines goals.
I’ve heard some frustration that, at a morning press conference, journalists seemed to be more interested in Terror, than in climate.
What bleeds, leads.
UPDATE: Obama expresses climate optimism for the long term. Outlines goals.
We should be honest and admit that some of those ‘questions’ are designed to hijack the conversation. Indeed, as I claimed earlier, the terrorist attack itself may have been designed to have that intent (to a small degree).
I doubt ISIS’s leader is thinking far enough ahead to view himself as a fossil-fuel player.
Agreed. But the term ‘ISIS leader’ is already a non-starter: terrorists are not ‘leaders’ but ‘followers’. My question is: who are they following? Who is pulling their strings? We should admit that those who take lethal force against powerless people who had nothing to do with their grievance may not be in total control of their motivations… and are therefore easily manipulated. By whom?
And admit, as well, that the primary spiritual and material supporter of radical Wahabbist Islam is also, by ‘happenstance’, the World’s number 1 exporter of sweet crude oil.
I would hate to be a denier now with almost all the media in the world covering climate change wall to wall and spreading inconvenient facts.
Hopefully it won’t be long before the GOP finally implodes and America can get to work.
House votes to reject Obama climate change regulations:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/01/politics/house-climate-change-obama-epa/index.html
Something we have to understand about all humans, but especially the subspecies known as Republicans, is that facts are meaningless when compared to beliefs. These people hold core beliefs that are far more real and meaningful to them than reality is. The GOP race is an extended case study of it, with example after example, one of the latest being Ted Cruz saying the Planned Parenthood shooter was reported to be a transgendered leftist:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/politics/ted-cruz-planned-parenthood-transgendered-leftist-activist/
It’s pure idiocy, but they’re speaking to the core beliefs of those with like minds. It’s like a Yankees fan cursing the BoSox with other Yankees fans. It doesn’t matter what is actually said to them. Only the intent is important.
They aren’t going away, either. They’re not going to implode. People like Lamar Smith are elected by landslides election after election because they say and do BS like this. It’s what their constituencies “believe” as well. Facts might as we be wooden nickels. They’re worthless currency to them.
There is nothing fair or just about any of this. It is what it is.
Well said… as I have learned in the few years since I started following American politics, continually aghast at the new heights of nuttiness that emerge.
The hive mind has gone nuts, polarised and dragged the party down with it, appealing to the most primitive and least honourable sections of society.
Such is the power of their media organization with propaganda and fake narratives.
They have convinced thier chickens that shares in KFC are cool.
As appalling as Trump is, it would be amusing to see how their traditional base responds if he wins the nomination. He has brought out the dark side of the right wing id and shone a light on it, even as they applaud!
Meanwhile the rest of the world looks on in horror!
I just can’t see this insanity continuing for much longer – reality cannot be ignored indefinitely.
Here’s the truly frustrating part to me. I feel like being upset about President Obama’s actions in Paris will be construed as support for those most vocally against him, the Republicans, when nothing can be further from the truth.
President Obama and the U.S. delegation are putting pressure on the summit to keep legally binding targets on actual emissions out of the wording of the agreement:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/28/france-bows-to-obama-and-backs-down-on-climate-treaty.html
“In a significant climbdown, Laurent Fabius, French foreign minister, said signatories to the planned deal would still be legally required to meet many of its terms but most likely not the carbon-cutting goals underpinning the agreement.”
President Obama, in a very typically savvy but sneaky turn of phrasing, is presenting himself as being for the legal mandates – but it’s for the instruments that monitor emissions, and not the emissions themselves. In other words, all nations are required to follow a certain protocol to monitor and report emissions, but as for the actual emissions, there are no legally binding commitments.
It’s akin to telling a teacher in a classroom that they have to do certain things to keep the kids from exchanging text messages during class, but as for the kids themselves, whatevers.
President Obama then gets to present himself as being for legally binding instruments on the international level in the agreement – when in actuality his delegation has done everything they can to cut the heart of the legally binding targets out of the “treaty” – the actual emissions.
I understand fully why the U.S. delegation is doing these things. They know the likelihood of passing a treaty with internationally binding restrictions isn’t likely to pass in a hostile Congress. But, 1) part of having the pulpit of the Presidency is fighting to convince the American people about something that is important, and President Obama is waiving this obligation without even trying, and 2) our lack of spine combined with our status as world leaders will translate into a weakened accord by all the nations together.
We’ll get a treaty with a good monitoring system. As for the emissions themselves, whatevers.
When about to hit a wall, the most important thing is to have a really accurate speedometer!
Hopefully, someone can take up the bully pulpit that actually wants to fight with some vigor on the subject. Bernie Sanders seems to have that strong stance on the subject, at least enough to do as much as is possible from the president’s position.
There was certainly problems with the Obama administration with such little said or done on the subject during the first term. A politician worried about a second term first, apparently. The vehicle mileage efficiency standards were great and all, and the power plant rules, too. There just wasn’t any attempt, at least publicly, to really get into deeper negotiations that could institute something economy-wide that could help, including those options that opposition party members at one time supported.
Maybe money talks louder in Washington than even the president.