Barack Obama also addressed the crowd at the Clinton Global Initiative today, via satellite, outlining four issues he'll address should he win the November election. The first global challenge he pledged to address is the combined challenges of energy and climate change.
"No single issue sits at the crossroads of as many currents as energy," said Obama. "Our dependence on oil and gas funds terror and tyranny; it has forced families to pay their wages at the pump; and it puts the future of our planet in peril. This is a security threat, an economic albatross, and a moral challenge of our time. The time to debate whether climate change is man-made has past -- it's time, finally, for America to lead."
The senator reaffirmed his pledge to reduce emissions 80 percent by mid-century, implement a cap-and-trade program, and invest $150 billion in alternative energy over 10 years.
"We need to do more than drill. Now is the time to develop every form of alternative energy -- solar, wind, and biofuels, as well as technologies that can make coal clean and nuclear power safe," he said. "We need to raise fuel-economy standards, put more plug-in hybrid cars on the road, and find new ways to be energy efficient."
He also pledged to reengage the United States in international climate negotiations, arguing that the country "must get off the sidelines." He said that his administration would create a new "Global Energy Forum" consisting of the biggest carbon-emitting nations, which would "lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols." He also pledged to create an alliance of oil-importing nations that could together determine methods to reduce demand and reduce the power of OPEC.
Obama noted that the methods for confronting climate change should also be able to alleviate poverty. "We know that it is the world's poor who will feel -- and who may already be feeling -- the effect of a warming planet," he said. "If we fail to act, famine could displace hundreds of millions, fueling competition and conflict over basic resources like food and water."
Obama's full remarks are below the fold:
It's great to speak to you this morning. I'm sorry that I can't be there, but I did enjoy the opportunity to sit down with President Clinton recently in New York. He has helped to create a model for individual responsibility and collective action through the Clinton Global Initiative.
CGI brings people together to take on tough, global challenges. In four years, you have made concrete commitments that have affected over 200 million people in 150 countries. And I applaud your new commitment to help 20 million poor children get a healthy meal. It's time for us to come together to get this done.
You are meeting at a time of great turmoil for the American economy. We are now confronted with a financial crisis as serious as any we have faced since the Great Depression. Action must be taken to restore confidence in our economy.
Let me be clear: it's outrageous that we find ourselves in a position where taxpayers must bear the burden for the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street and Washington. But we also know that a failure to act would have grave consequences for the jobs, and savings, and retirement of the American people.
Over the last few days, I've been in close contact with Secretary Paulson and leaders in Congress. I've also had the opportunity to speak directly to the American people about what we need to do moving forward. I've laid out several clear principles that I believe must be a part of our response to this crisis.
First, we need to set up an independent board, selected by Democrats and Republicans, to provide oversight and accountability for how and where this money is spent at every step of the way.
Second, if American taxpayers finance this solution, they should be treated like investors. That means Wall Street and Washington should give every penny of taxpayers' money back once this economy recovers.
Third, we cannot and will not simply bailout Wall Street without helping the millions of innocent homeowners who are struggling to stay in their homes. They deserve a plan too.
Finally -- and this is important -- the American people should not be spending one dime to reward the same Wall Street CEOs whose greed and irresponsibility got us into this mess.
Congressional leaders have made progress in their negotiations, and appear close to a deal that would include these principles. President Bush addressed some of these issues last night, and I'm pleased that Senator McCain has decided to embrace them too. Now is a time to come together -- Democrats and Republicans -- in a spirit of cooperation on behalf of the American people.
Later today, I'll be traveling to Washington to offer my help in getting this deal done. Then, I'll travel to Oxford on Friday for the first of our presidential debates. Our election is in 40 days. Our economy is in crisis, and our nation is fighting two wars abroad. The American people deserve to hear directly from myself and Senator McCain about how we intend to lead our country. The times are too serious to put our campaign on hold, or to ignore the full range of issues that the next President will face.
Since CGI is about deeds, not just words, let me tell you about four specific commitments that I will make on four issues that CGI has focused on -- climate change, poverty, education, and health -- if I have the opportunity to serve as President of the United States.
Here's how I approach these issues.
We live in a time when our destinies are shared. The world is more intertwined than at any time in human history. Walls that divided old enemies have come down. Markets have opened. The spread of information and technology has reduced barriers to opportunity and prosperity, and opened doors to new competition and risk. We have heard this time and again since the end of the Cold War. And over the last few weeks, this truth has been reinforced anew.
In America, we have seen that there is no dividing line between the ability of folks to live their dreams on Main Street, and the bottom line of investment banks on Wall Street. There is a lesson that cuts across this economic crisis. Prosperity cannot be sustained if it shuts people out. Growth cannot just come from the top down -- it must come from the bottom up, with new jobs that pay good wages, and new innovation that creates opportunity across the globe.
And in the 21st century, we must also recognize that it's not just prosperity that comes from the bottom up. Our security is shared as well.
The carbon emissions in Boston or Beijing don't just pollute the immediate atmosphere -- they imperil our planet.
Pockets of extreme poverty in Somalia can breed conflict that spills across borders.
The child who goes to a radical madrasa outside of Karachi can end up endangering the security of my daughters in Chicago.
A deadly flu that begins in Indonesia can find its way to Indiana within days.
Climate change. Poverty. Extremism. Disease. These problems offend our common humanity. They also threaten our common security. You know this. The question is what we do about it.
We're not going to face these threats of the future by grasping at the ideas of the past. In many cases, we know what we have to do. We talk about the solutions year after year. This must be the time when we choose not to wait any longer. We must marshal the will. We must see that none of these problems can be dealt with in isolation, nor can we deny one and effectively tackle another. That's why you've come to CGI. Because that's what this moment calls us to do.
No single issue sits at the crossroads of as many currents as energy. Our dependence on oil and gas funds terror and tyranny; it has forced families to pay their wages at the pump; and it puts the future of our planet in peril. This is a security threat, an economic albatross, and a moral challenge of our time. The time to debate whether climate change is manmade has past -- it's time, finally, for America to lead.
The first commitment that I'll make today is setting a goal of an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
To do our part, we'll implement a cap-and-trade program so that there's a price for pollution, and resources to transform our energy economy. I've proposed an investment of $150 billion in alternative energy over ten years, which will create millions of jobs and break the cycle of our addiction to oil. We need to do more than drill. Now is the time to develop every form of alternative energy -- solar, wind, and biofuels, as well as technologies that can make coal clean and nuclear power safe. We need to raise fuel economy standards, put more plug-in hybrid cars on the road, and find new ways to be energy efficient.
Abroad, the United States must get off the sidelines. We'll reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum to lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. We'll build an alliance of oil-importing nations, and work together to reduce our demand, and break the grip of OPEC. And as we develop clean energy, we should share technology and innovations with the nations of the world.
This effort to confront climate change will be part of our strategy to alleviate poverty. Because we know that it is the world's poor who will feel -- and who may already be feeling -- the affect of a warming planet. If we fail to act, famine could displace hundreds of millions, fueling competition and conflict over basic resources like food and water.
We all have a stake in reducing poverty. There is suffering across the globe that doesn't need to be tolerated in the 21st century. And it leads to pockets of instability that provide fertile breeding grounds for threats like terror and the smuggling of deadly weapons that cannot be contained by the drawing of a border or the distance of an ocean. These aren't simply disconnected corners of an interconnected world. That is why the second commitment that I will make is embracing the Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015.
This will take more resources from the United States, and as President I will increase our foreign assistance to provide them. But resources must be focused on the right priorities. No one wants to put good money after bad, or ignore the underlying causes at the root of these problems.
We shouldn't just settle for a status quo -- anywhere -- where you can't start a business without paying a bribe. Corruption wastes our tax dollars. It also ruins lives. This is a human rights issue, and we need to treat it like one.
We shouldn't help those in need without helping them help themselves. That's why I'll partner with the private sector in creating a new fund for Small and Medium Enterprise, so we're investing in ideas that can create growth and jobs in the developing world.
Above all, we must do our part to see that all children have the basic right to learn. There is nothing more disappointing than a child denied the hope that comes with going to school, and there is nothing more dangerous than a child who is taught to distrust and then to destroy.
That's why the third commitment I'll make is working to erase the global primary education gap by 2015. Every child -- every boy, and every girl -- should have the ability to go to school. To ensure that our nation does its part to meet that goal, we need to establish a two billion dollar Global Education Fund. And I look forward to signing the bipartisan Education for All Act that was first introduced by Hillary Clinton -- a true champion for children.
Finally, we must continue the progress that's been made to advance the cause of global health. I've been proud to support the PEPFAR program. I think President Bush -- and many of you there today -- have shown real leadership in the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. This is a fight that I will continue as President.
Disease stands in the way of progress on so many fronts. It can condemn populations to poverty, and prevent a child from getting an education. And yet far too many people still die of preventable illnesses. Today, I'd like to focus on one: malaria.
We have eliminated malaria in the United States, but nearly one million people around the world still die from a mosquito bite every year. 85 percent of the victims are African children under the age of 5. In Africa, a child dies from a mosquito bite every thirty seconds. Beyond the devastating human toll, malaria weighs down public health systems, setting back global capacity to fight other disease.
So today, I want to join with the global malaria community that is meeting here in New York in making a new commitment: when I am President, we will set the goal of ending all deaths from malaria by 2015. It's time to rid the world of death from a disease that doesn't have to take lives. The United States must lead, and when I am President we will step up our focus on prevention and treatment around the world to get this done.
The first project of my Small and Medium Enterprise fund will be investing in the developing world's capacity to meet the demand for 730 million bednets. We'll also increase access to doctors and nurses through a new program -- Health Infrastructure 2020 -- that trains medical professionals in countries around the world, and gives them incentives to stay there. And we'll invest in research and development into new vaccines, and ensure that low cost anti-malaria drugs are available everywhere.
This effort must bring together governments from around the world. It must be a public-private partnership that draws on the resources, and ideas, and resilience of business and non-profits and faith groups. It must be a cause for countless individuals, and a common goal that unites us all.
In short, the effort to eradicate malaria must draw on the spirit that drives not simply the commitments at CGI -- but the commitment that is visible everywhere that people go to work to make their communities, their country, and our world a better place.
The scale of our challenges may be great. The pace of change may be swift. But we know that it need not be feared. The landscapes of the 21st century are still ours to shape.
We see the potential for progress every time someone starts a job creating new energy, or an idea carries a community out of poverty; we see it every time a girl walks through the doors of a new school, or a boy lives to see another day because he had a simple net around his bed. These are the dreams that we must make our own.
We live in a time when our destinies are shared. But our destinies will be written by us, not for us. Now, it falls to us to get to work.
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Threaded
vakibs Posted 2:45 am
25 Sep 2008
Coal can never be clean, and is dirty as hell. And nuclear power is already safe, and is getting only safer.
Will you please stop the travesty of using coal and nuclear power in the same phrase ?
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:43 am
25 Sep 2008
There is no solution for safe storage of nuclear waste.
There are continuing serious problems in design, construction, and operations of nuclear facilities.
Spending a small amount of money to seek solutions to these problems isn't a bad idea, IMO. A few millions, not billions.
Coal might be made clean. It's a very, very long shot. About as long a shot as making hydrogen vehicles efficient.
But spending some money on research on both goals is a good idea. Often we learn valuable stuff when doing research on something else.
And there's no travesty in putting coal and nuclear in the same phrase. I'll give you a good one.
"Coal and nuclear were power sources that found some use in the 20th Century but were phased out in the 21st as clean, safe, less expensive renewables made them untenable."
See?
Permalink
vakibs Posted 4:52 am
25 Sep 2008
I will happily reply to you, but please promise you won't use the same arguments against me the next time.
Nuclear is not safe.
Well you should quantify your statement. Where is it not safe ? I will reply on two possible topics
(a) nuclear plants might meltdown : No, the nuclear plants of the current technology will never melt down. If everybody supervising the plant suddenly dies or disappears mysteriously, the plant will cooly shut itself down. This feature is called inherent safety. All 3rd and 4th generation nuclear reactors have such feature. So no more 3-mile island (which itself produced zero deaths and minimal radiation leaks, btw) Chernobyl is not even being discussed because Soviet Union no longer exists. Sorry.
(b) nuclear plants leak radiation outside : You can measure radiation using Geiger counters. Take one of these instruments yourself outside a nuclear power plant and see how much radiation is getting leaked. Zilch. Note down the number and take the same instrument around your kitchen utensils. You will find there is more radiation.
Statistically speaking, nuclear power has the least number of deaths amongst all possible modes of power production (counted in deaths per giga watt hour). And this is including chernobyl disaster. Hydropower is the most dangerous (all your renewable technologies need pumped storage, which has essentially the same level of danger as hydropower)
There is no solution for safe storage of nuclear waste.
Yes there is. Nuclear waste will be annihilated and will be transmitted as electricity to your home.. So that you can watch TV or charge your plugin vehicle. Cool isn't it ?
But some profound philosophical reason, people like you didn't like this idea in 1994, so they are currently trying to store nuclear waste deep underneath the Yucca mountain.
There are continuing serious problems in design, construction, and operations of nuclear facilities.
The design of new nuclear plants is completely different from the older ones. It is as different as a macbook is different from an ENIAC. But people like you want to have ENIACS and not macbooks. What can I say ?
There are continuing serious problems in construction of nuclear plants. Yes, precisely. People like you are preventing this construction. Faced against such monumental odds, how can nuclear plants have any hope ? I mean, it is probably easier to circumnavigate the known universe in a fusion-powered space ship.
Spending a small amount of money to seek solutions to these problems isn't a bad idea, IMO. A few millions, not billions.
In fact, there was a moment in 1994, when you didn't have to spend any money. Nuclear power was just sitting there, all for free. The Japanese wanted to spend 60 million dollars so that American nuclear scientists can work in peace.
But the US senate said "No, you guys pack up and close the project."
The scientists replied that packing up costs more money than just letting them work peacefully for just another 2 years. And that, after 2 years, we will have plans for unlimited energy for a several thousand years.
"No" said the US senate, "If we let you continue to work for 2 more years, the North Koreans will steal the plans and proliferate nuclear weapons"
"But", said the scientists, "our technology has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. It actually has potential to reduce nuclear proliferation. And how anyway, can North Koreans steal our secrets ? "
The US senate said "Blah-blah-blah.. Nuclear power, nuclear weapons.. it is all the same.. Your project is dead. Case closed".
So the Integral Fast Reactor had its obituary written. Ten years later, the North Koreans built the nuclear bomb anyways.
Coal might be made clean. It's a very, very long shot. About as long a shot as making hydrogen vehicles efficient.
When you burn coal, you get CO2. If you don't want CO2, you don't burn coal. Coal = dirty. Dirty = coal.
Clean coal is something like smart Bush. It exists in an alternative universe consisting entirely of antimatter. If you discover such a universe, please let me know.
"Coal and nuclear were power sources that found some use in the 20th Century but were phased out in the 21st as clean, safe, less expensive renewables made them untenable."
Humanity has been using coal .. since.. let me see ... 10,000 years ago. You have been slightly off the mark when you said 20th century.
We have discovered nuclear power due to some pinheads such as Marie Curie, Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, Nicolas Tesla etc.. It has been 100 years since these discoveries are made, and we still are burning coal ? This is essentially the strength of our character. Let's say phooeey to all the pinheads. They belong to the 20th century. We are the brave 21st century folks.. we will be spinning windmills, lining up solar panels (<small>.. and burning all the oil, coal and natural gas that is ever there to find ..</small>)
Oil, coal and nuclear power.. This is how it goes. With increasing level of danger. All evil stuff. As far as we are concerned, they are all the same.
And we 21st century folks enter the brave new world through our such intelligence .. A brave world which is 6 degrees warmer than the 20th century. A brave world where sealevels rise and spread watery happiness. A brave world where old species get exterminated and new species rise. A brave world where Bangladeshis drown, along with their Royal Bengal Tigers. A brave new world where polar bears find eternal peace, without the mundane hassles of a fish-eating life.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Spence Posted 4:59 am
25 Sep 2008
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 6:48 am
25 Sep 2008
---
On April 12, 2003, the licensee for South Texas Project Unit 1 (STP 1) discovered small boron deposits around two of the unit's bottom mounted instrumentation penetration nozzles during a bare metal visual examination of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) bottom head. Subsequent nondestructive examination of all 58 nozzles at the South Texas nuclear power plant confirmed the existence of leaking, axially-oriented flaws in the two nozzles.
---
The federal agency agreed to a meeting after a petition by 22 environmental groups last January cited leaks in the last decade at nuclear power sites in Braidwood and Dresden, Ill.; Lynchburg, Va.; Salem, N.J.; Haddam Neck, Conn.; and Indian Point and Long Island, N.Y.
Since the petition was filed:
Two more plants -- at Palo Verde, Ariz., and Byron, Ill. -- have reported groundwater leaks.
Illinois has sued Exelon over the Braidwood spill, caused by a broken concrete pipe.
A new spill was reported at Indian Point.
Most of the leaks involve tritium, a byproduct of nuclear power generation. Tritium also occurs naturally at low levels, but large amounts, if ingested, can lead to cancers, birth defects and miscarriages.
The biggest known tritium leak was at Exelon's nuclear reactor at Braidwood, where 3 million gallons of tainted water spilled in 1998 and 2000. Late last year, tests detected tritium in the well of a nearby homeowner, indicating that the leak had spread.
(link below - site software funky)
--
Nope. No danger here. This nuclear power stuff is so safe.
--
BTW, do you understand that we could provide all our electricity from wind turbines and a few hours of compressed air and pump-up hydro storage?
And we could do it for less than half the cost of providing our electricity needs with new nuclear?
Why haven't we built all that wind yet?
Because the cost is too high to mount a very large construction campaign.
Same reason we won't build lots of new nuclear plants.
But over time we will build wind farms and solar fields.
If you're a nuclear engineer it would be a good time to find a new career.
--
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11996239
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:42 am
25 Sep 2008
Will you do me a favor Bob, and produce information on all the above leaks with precisely the amount of radiation contamination that has been leaked, in REM.
The impact on the affected population depends exactly on the levels of REM.
For comparison, the average person living in the United States is exposed to approximately 0.15 REM annually from background sources alone.
Reported dosage due to dental X-rays seems to vary significantly. Depending on the source, a typical dental X-ray of a human results in an exposure of perhaps, 3[3], 40[4], 300[5], or as many as 900[6] mrems (upto 0.9 REM).
My guess is that the radiation levels of these "leaks" are so minor that they are less than what you get when exposed to, say, on a chest X-ray. In which case, I will please request you to spend more time and effort criticizing (a) lead poisoning due to paints (b) mercury poisoning due to bulbs (c) any other poisoning due to any other unscrupulous industry.
But above all, as I already mentioned to you, the design of 2nd generation nuclear reactors has nothing to do with the 3rd and the 4th generation reactors. The reason nuclear scientists have built new reactors is precisely to avoid problems as you have mentioned.
BTW, do you understand that we could provide all our electricity from wind turbines and a few hours of compressed air and pump-up hydro storage?
Yes, in the sense we could find enough windy areas, either on land or offshore.
But no, because the environmental costs of this construction will be too prohibitive.
I don't care about dollar costs. But since you asked..
And we could do it for less than half the cost of providing our electricity needs with new nuclear?
No. This is completely false. Please show me the break up costs of energy production
a) Land lease costs for the construction of wind turbines ?
b) The amount of steel and concrete needed, and their corresponding costs.
c) The amount of transmission cable that needs to be laid.
d) Multiply your estimates by the inverse of the capacity factor (If your capacity factor is 1/3, you need 3 times as many wind turbines)
e) Similar construction costs for the storage.
f) The amortization costs for this construction
g) Add The decomissioning costs divided over the plant life time
h) Add the operational costs for manpower + cleaning + maintenance
Then you show me the numbers and prove that wind power is cheaper than nuclear.
Vakibs, you have now passed solidly into sockpuppet territory. What do you do for a living, please?
This is me.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:57 pm
25 Sep 2008
No.
My point is that the industry is not safe. People talk a good game but the facts are that mistakes are made and nasty stuff gets outside where it's supposed to be safely kept.
You want some numbers?
Here's a couple pages for you to read.
I'll give you a shortcut.
Prices for delivered electricity from new (yet to be built) nuclear. Nuclear industry numbers generated in the last 12-18 months.
$0.14+ per kWh.
Prices for large wind farm electricty.
$0.07 per kWh.
These costs include construction, fuel (where needed), land, transmission, operation/maintenance, and financing.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/13/11021/6597
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php
Permalink
vakibs Posted 7:24 pm
25 Sep 2008
Somebody has just accused me that I am a shill or a sockpuppet.
Now, you are citing me a study prepared by none other than Amory Lovins, who is a "consultant" to several fossil fuel companies. Are you kidding me ?
I don't want to know what the costs are. I want to know "why" the costs of wind power will be lower than the costs of nuclear power. Trying to find out why is the key to the scientific debate. Please respect that.
I won't take your numbers for granted, because as we all know there are several subsidies to nuclear power. Who knows, nuclear might cost even higher without the subsidies ? :)
The same is true for the subsidies being received by renewable power (we know that renewables are not getting a lot of subsidies .. but if you divide the subsidies per Giga Watt of electricity produced, you will see there is a substantial subsidy for renewables). Let's not bicker about who is getting subsidies.
Let's break down the costs and look at the blueprints of power generation. Let's compare the costs of nuclear vs your-favorite-renewable power, across each and every domain. Is anybody up for this challenge ?
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:35 am
26 Sep 2008
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:51 am
26 Sep 2008
The oil is extracted for biodisel, about half the dry weight of the best oil producing strains. Then the rest is converted to biogas.
Feed fertilizer in the form of waste into the biodigestion system, take biodisel, biogas, clean water, organic fertlizer, and electricity out.
The best part is that this biofuel scheme takes no land area based biomass out of sequestration. Depletes no soil. In fact the organic fertilizer can restore depleted soil.
Do you want big floating installations protecting coastal fisheries from huge industrial illegal fishing fleets with pond nets miles long? Yeah, I think that could work.
Think of these energy "ships" as the analog to the liberty ships of WW2. supplying real clean carbon neutral and carbon negative energy and fuel to revive our economy.
How fast would a buildout need to happen to reduce oil and fossil fuel use 5% per year? That's the question. How would this production/investment and job growth rate compare with WW2 industrial performance?
Now where are those algae production estimates?
40k gallons per year per acre.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:56 am
26 Sep 2008
Refining organic fertilizer from toxic sludge. Yes it's possible. The seperated metals and toxins can be concentrated by successive biodigestion stages, then extracted with a solar furnace.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink