The Washington Post lamely attacks Obama’s climate ideas 12

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 7:56 am
   27 Feb 2008

   Simpler answer on the biofuelsAll the candidates think that biofuels are the golden answer to our problems.
   
   (Cept for say Kucinich and Gravel)
   So while Obama may be wrong, he's no more wrong than any other candidate.

   Permalink

2. 

   BrianSchmidt Posted 8:09 am
   27 Feb 2008

   Mallaby has a history of problemsHe attempts to be contrarian, even when the evidence doesn't allow it.  I see resemblances to John Tierney.
   I caught him doing something similar while praising Bush Administration AIDS policies:
   http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2006/05/giving-too-mu ...

   Permalink

3. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 8:27 am
   27 Feb 2008

   Nah...All the candidates think that biofuels are the golden answer to our problems.
   Nah, they just think it's the golden answer to the farm lobbyists/unions official endorsement.
   
   

   Permalink

4. 

   tico89 Posted 10:45 am
   27 Feb 2008

   Is Obama's climate plan missing something?No, definitely not.
   In fact, it's got a lot of stuff I wouldn't mind if it was missing. Like expanding biofuels, and the twin oxymorons of clean coal and safe nuclear.
   Still, I guess it could be worse. The rest sounds all right.
   
   If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

   Permalink

5. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 11:31 am
   27 Feb 2008

   Lame Is As Lame Does
   
   The amazing thing here is that while Greens rail night and day about all the Baddies (corporations, George Bush, Bob Lutz) who take a definite, but contrary to Green Orthodoxy stand, they, at the same time, fail to articulate a clear consistent statement as to what we can do as an alternative.
   That is because many Greens, despite their initial childish rantings, are essentially smart wonks themselves and once they delve into the numbers they can see than any plan proposed so far is essentially useless even if they are the truest of true believes of AGW (which many Greens will admit is just a wedge to enact their other proposals).
   Make insurance tied to mileage?  Why?  Is a drunk driver who goes one mile safer than the Little Old Man from Pasedena who still has his wits, drives 10 mph under the speed limit and is super safe?   And if you are saying that it's just a way to tax carbon, well, then why not hitch up any other metric possible to get your tax.   Why not put a CO2 tax Carls Jr, because a driver who drives more miles is more likely to go to Carls, Jr and order the Famous Star burger with cheese (like I did last night...times 2...with double fries and a vanilla shake thank you very much).
   
   

   Permalink

6. 

   el mono Posted 1:09 pm
   27 Feb 2008

   thanksThanks Joseph,
   I certainly hope the author of the WaPo article reads your post.  Climate policy is a difficult enough issue without shoddy journalism getting people confused and discouraged.
   I think Obama's climate plan is top notch, and I sincerely hope we get to see it in action.

   Permalink

7. 

   amazingdrx Posted 3:24 pm
   27 Feb 2008

   WhoopsYou (and others here)are harming your credibility in your bias towards Barack.  No need for that, we all can still support him for prez while still trying to get him to back plugin hybrids and a renewable smart grid, instead of fuel farming and flex fuel vehicles, a dead end greenwash that increases GHG.
   "Corn ethanol, which is what he attacks, was not considered a "good answer to global warming" by any energy or climate expert I have ever met."
   Corn ethanol has been touted by all kinds of experts and endless agribizz commercials as carbon neutral, that fake carbon cycle argument cycles over and over, your statements here imply that you believe it too Joe.  
   The cO2 that is released is recaptured by crops, thusly the fake cycle is explained.  Somehow research will make it carbon neutral?  No way.
   "Obama supports "a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard," which would block any fuel that increases greenhouse-gas emissions"
   Cellulosic ethanol increases GHG by 50% over gasoline.  Because it's a farmed fuel that stops soil carbon sink activity.  The only fuel that does not increase GHG is renewable kwh charging a plugin hybrid.
   " -- or that he supports accelerating the development of cellulosic (i.e., low-carbon) ethanol? These are good ideas."
   No, cellulosic ethanol is not a good idea.
   
   
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

8. 

   Pangolin Posted 5:58 pm
   27 Feb 2008

   Just scientific validity.Proposing a plan that can't actually meet your goals for goals that won't actually reduce climate change seems to be the norm.
   The amount of GHG's we can afford to add to the atmosphere is zero. Already feedback mechanisms that will cause climate forcing are in play. Siberian permafrost is full of organic matter that turns to methane when the permafrost melts. The permafrost melts as reduced arctic ice coverage allows the sun to warm the ocean there. The warmer ocean heats the atmosphere further melting more permafrost and releasing more methane. And away we go.
   As far as Obama's environment plan having little to do with reality that is no different than anybody else's climate plan. Judging by the political fates of Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards I would suspect truth telling on the environment is no way to get elected in the US.
   The question that really is relevent is "is Obama smart enough to know the difference between the politically correct environmental plan and a real plan that will make peace with the biosphere?" I'm not sure how I would find the answer to that question.
   
   Put the Carbon Back

   Permalink

9. 

   amazingdrx Posted 9:16 pm
   27 Feb 2008

   Vinod timelyThe Vinod Khosla presentation here certainly was timely, because of something not widely reported.
   Bill Clinton has been in on the ethanol bidness, with Khosla, Branson, and big investment firms, just like the bush family is in on the oil bidness.  Barack is a minor player, only in respect to his corn ethanol state representation.
   And they are ALL touting cellulosic ethanol as the new green direction, corn ethanol having failed the GHG test now officially.  
   It is truly hard to believe that Romm is touting cellulosic ethanol here too now.  Since the same studies that claimed corn ethanol doubled GHG, claims that cellulosic ethanol increaes GHG by 50% over simply burning oil based fuel.
   DR is clearly now in the cellulosic camp, but that is no surprise.  His technical knowledge is obviously extremely limited.  And his support for Barack seemingly trumps all other considerations lately.
   When bio-d gave in on it, and said give cellulosic a chance?  That's it, this publication has changed it's opinion on ethanol too.  The distinction between corn, sugar cane, and cellulosic makes no sense from a GHG increase perspective.  All forms of fuel farming are a GHG disaster.
   Completely disregarding the science recently revealed, but long suspected.  As Romm says "...(it)was not considered a "good answer to global warming" by any energy or climate expert I have ever met."
   This is a very bad sign, this publication was the last hold out on endorsing fuel farming.  I am also seeing zero support for organic ag and biodigestion as a source for organic fertilzer.
   Evidently organic ag is just too far oput for the engineering or think tank mindset.  In fairness they do let others talk about it in vague terms.
   
    
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

10. 

    2wheeler Posted 4:24 am
    28 Feb 2008

    some good pointsThe OP (Romm) makes some good points about the WaPo writer Mallaby glossing over and missing the subtlety of some of these matters.  Such as the Clean Development Mechanism vs. carbon trading between developed and undeveloped countries.  In a nutshell we must agree that if China and India are not brought into the fold we are all likely toast.  Carbon neutrality at the global level needs to be the practical goal.
    Pay as You Drive (along with a carbon tax on fuels and probably appropriately low emissions caps) has to be a partial solution to resolving the present externalities of the environmental costs of driving. As a bike and bus commuter who owns a few cars for occasional use (camping trips, hauling bikes and canoes, etc.) it continues to steam me that my insurance rates are so high for leaving my car parked out in front of my house 28 days a month.  Yes PAYD is an old concept, amazing how little traction it has had in the political arenas where we need change to enable such progress.
    I have no doubt that Obama as the next President will be "smart enough" to craft a solution that is workable, and which does not sell out to corporate interests that have dominated the current W administration.  He's come too far based on support from the grassroots people, to do otherwise now.
    The points being made above re: all forms of ethanol being bad for atmospheric carbon, are still not widely known and must be publicized if we are to undo the damaging decisions to invest so heavily and mandate domestic production in that sector.  We need to focus on things that work, to reduce our carbon footprints right away rather than such distractions.
    
    Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

    Permalink

11. 

    strong like bull Posted 10:37 pm
    28 Feb 2008

    RE to Lame Is As Lame DoesIt is a bit unfair to brush of PAYD with the comparison of a drunk driver and a little old man driving.  You may as well compare night to day because there is a huge difference between the two as it pertains to safety.  Why do insurance companies constantly want to know how much driving you do and, gasp, your driving record?  Duh, it is because they are indicators of risk which impact price.  Anyway, PAYD, may not be the "saviour" of the carbon world, but why should innovative products that will have a positive effect be brushed aside because it may only be a small portion of the public that will drive less as a result?  I drive how I drive, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have a product to meet my needs should I feel the desire to change my habits.  Consumers deservie choices.

    Permalink

12. 

    Doctor No Posted 12:23 pm
    02 Mar 2008

    Why Biofuels?Biofuels and discussion of GHG can open a door to establishing World Government, via agreements and taxes foisted on us by the people who have done us no favors in the past.
    I personally do not think this is a good reason to have another layer of administration above us all, due to the fact that We cannot control the amount of Federal Government we have now.
    Why anyone but a Trans National Energy Giant or a Large Banking Institution would want such a mechanism like a World Government is beyond me.
    Think You would have a voice in a world Government?
    I say, lets read "Alcohol Can Be A Gas" Learn about Permaculture  and cut the subsidies to alternative energy and also the  ten to twenty times more subsidy to Big Oil.
    Let us clean up our environment by taking personal responsibility for our actions. Let's bring suit against Polluters with real evidence of damage and can the EPA that is shielding Corporate Polluters.
    As far as GHG, GW,  and CO2 goes,,,
    As R. Buckminster Fuller said, Man has used energy, in total, from day one up to 1980, 1/500,000 of our daily energy income from the sun.
    If anyone can convince a Jury that Man's contribution to GHG warming has had any damaging effect I would love to see proof.
    BTW, the sun's output has drastically fallen off this current cycle. We  might need a way to warm things up if this trend continues...
    I am far more worried about Big Oil and the pollutants left behind by drilling, refining, and release of toxic leftovers from burning waste products in our cars that we mistake is 100% Gasoline. Cancer rates are now about 1 in 3.
    Ethanol Engines are 46% efficient, while engines designed for pump gas are only 20% efficient.
    Land to make Ethanol can be empty gravel pits or even waste lands unfit to grow grass. google "Ten sections per county" There need not be any food vs. fuel debate.
    Is health, efficiency, self and local empowerment, local jobs, economy, no pesticides, and no commercial fertilizers, even increased sequestration of CO2 when Permaculture is employed a good reason to look at Ethanol?
    I think so.
    
    http://roberto-de-sonora.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html

    Permalink