Hello trusty FOGS!
it certainly has been quite a long few months wandering through the doldrums of a FOGS-less life, i know. for this i am sorry.
moving on however, there have been many new developments in the domestic political sphere regarding climate action. as most of you are well aware, climate change may be the most serious global crisis the human race has ever been witness to. in one of the last emails i sent out, i briefly outlined the climate action plans for several of the leading presidential candidates. since then, i'm happy to report, many candidates have realized the importance of the issue and have made significant improvements to their proposed policies. sure, maybe they realized the importance before, but now it's becoming obvious that some candidates (and parties) are more heavily invested in remedying the crisis at hand.
at last we spoke, i recall john edwards being the only candidate with a solid action plan outlined on his campaign website. thankfully, other candidates have followed suit. while i haven't conducted a thorough investigation into all candidates concerning their position on climate change, i have learned (not to much surprise) that those who have put forward climate action/sustainable future programs overwhelmingly reside towards the left of the political spectrum. Obama and Clinton have both claim to implement aggressive plans aimed at reducing our greenhouse gas emissions as a nation, while creating sustainable sources of energy to power the nation. while many plans still speak of biofuels such as corn-based ethanol, and coal gasification (both of which are ineffective at reducing GHG emissions) as possible measures to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, they have introduced some great ideas for meeting the necessary reductions of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, which scientists have agreed would save us from the worst implication of a warming global climate.
below i have listed links to several candidates who have apparently realized the importance of this issue in their pursuit of the white house.
hillary actually has a link to her green energy plan as the first and most obvious link on her homepage, but you can go straight to it here: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
she has a 14 page description of her full plan if you click on the link.
http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/new-energy-economy/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/environment/
not much from mccain, but any mention about the need to address climate change is better than not mentioning it at all... http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/65bd0fbe-737b-4851-a7e7-d9a37cb278db.htm
thompson barely mentions CO2 reductions under the "energy security" tab http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=OnTheIssues
most other candidates that i've looked into (e.g. giulliani, kucinich, romney, paul) have no mention of climate action plans.
i feel that hillary's plan is actually the most comprehensive and effective, though obama has an aggressive and effective plan as well. and that's all i've got for now, but feel free to respond to the group with any questions, comments, new discoveries, passing thoughts, etc...
geographically yours,
jimmy
ps - interesting that this is from foxnews... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309177,00.html
3 comments:
Greetings to all fellow FOGS!
james, i'm afraid i'll have to disagree with you on
one point. i don't think global warming is the the
most serious global crisis. i would have to say
HIV/AIDS might be worse. As far as the enviroment is
concerned, yes, global warming, but not over all.
rereading this, i am perhaps being a bit nic-picky.
even though i'm no scientist, it doesn't seem feasable
to try to reduce GHG 40+ years out from now. the last
time something like this was tried (Montreal, Kyoto)
for the enviroment it under performed, and became
corrupt. i don't think a plan to reduce GHG will ever
be implemented, nor serve effective for that sort of
time frame.
i think because the Republicans are more focused on
national security, they breeze over other important
issue like the enviroment, because its what got them
the white house in 2004. so far, it doesn't look like
any candiate is banking on their enviromental stance
to get them elected.
Mike Pomponi
man how i love to have some action going on in the FOGS network again!
it's true, global viruses and diseases are a major crisis. however, the vast majority of those most affected by the repercussions of global warming are communities and cultures that already suffer from environmental injustices and other maladies. if nothing is done to interrupt the climatic course we are on, we condemn those peoples to a further injustice, e.g. drought, starvation, not to mention the increasing prevalence of disease and far greater dispersion of disease vectors (especially in africa, where the greatest health crises are already going on - HIV/AIDS, malaria, etc...).
for a mitigation plan to work it must be driven by the federal government, otherwise voluntary action is left to the public and a minority of business and industries. 80% reductions are not going to be easy, but are we to merely fold and not even try to address the causes of climate change? should candidates be forwarding their adaptation strategies for climate refugees instead of posing their heavily scientifically supported mitigation policies? i do believe that we will experience some amount of environmental and social change regardless if we immediately cease all emissions (which is impossible), but we cannot afford inaction. we do have immediate control over this situation.
i've attached a slideshow that was used by one of my college professors, dr. lehman (who has testified in front of congress on many occasions regarding climate action). sorry if some slides get too technical, but there is some good information in there. including (on page 24) a list of current policies under congressional review. and if you do look into the science and economics of climate action programs, you will see that it is in fact very feasible to reduce our emissions 80% by 2050, and stimulate our economy in the process.
i do agree with you though mikey. there are so many pressing issues on the political table that it's easy to brush off climate change and sweep it under the rug of the war, immigration, health care, etc.
i love you buddy, can't wait to have you back from afghanistan! we'll be drinking cheap beer together in no time.
-jimmy
Time and time again, political candidates have preached and promised many ideas.
Only time will show who and what that person can and will attempt to do in the very close future.
Thanks as always for your words Jimmy.
~Todd Enos
Post a Comment