CliMEHt Action

I finally got around to listening to President Obama’s speech on climate change, a most appropriate activity when there’s a tornado watch in one’s neighboring state.  All-in-all, it was an okay speech, but, like a lot of Obama’s proposals, my reaction to it is one big “MEH”.  There is some evidence that the president’s position, like his position on same-sex marriage, has evolved- he’s no longer talking about clean coal, except in rare cases:

Today, I’m calling for an end of public financing for new coal plants overseas—unless they deploy carbon-capture technologies, or there’s no other viable way for the poorest countries to generate electricity. And I urge other countries to join this effort.

My big problem with the speech is that the president lends too much credence to the notion that natural gas is a viable “medium term” solution to our energy needs:

Now, even as we’re producing more domestic oil, we’re also producing more cleaner-burning natural gas than any other country on Earth. And, again, sometimes there are disputes about natural gas, but let me say this: We should strengthen our position as the top natural gas producer because, in the medium term at least, it not only can provide safe, cheap power, but it can also help reduce our carbon emissions.

Federally supported technology has helped our businesses drill more effectively and extract more gas. And now, we’ll keep working with the industry to make drilling safer and cleaner, to make sure that we’re not seeing methane emissions, and to put people to work modernizing our natural gas infrastructure so that we can power more homes and businesses with cleaner energy.


Of course, natural gas extraction is extremely hazardous to groundwater supplies, a fact that even the mainstream press is beginning to report.  At least the president merely views natural gas as a “transition” fuel, though my opinion is that it is a dangerous distraction from the development of real alternatives such as wind and solar power:

The bottom line is natural gas is creating jobs. It’s lowering many families’ heat and power bills. And it’s the transition fuel that can power our economy with less carbon pollution even as our businesses work to develop and then deploy more of the technology required for the even cleaner energy economy of the future.


At least the president’s stated devotion to wind and solar power is admirable:

And that brings me to the second way that we’re going to reduce carbon pollution—by using more clean energy. Over the past four years, we’ve doubled the electricity that we generate from zero-carbon wind and solar power. And that means jobs—jobs manufacturing the wind turbines that now generate enough electricity to power nearly 15 million homes; jobs installing the solar panels that now generate more than four times the power at less cost than just a few years ago.

I know some Republicans in Washington dismiss these jobs, but those who do need to call home—because 75 percent of all wind energy in this country is generated in Republican districts. And that may explain why last year, Republican governors in Kansas and Oklahoma and Iowa—Iowa, by the way, a state that harnesses almost 25 percent of its electricity from the wind—helped us in the fight to extend tax credits for wind energy manufacturers and producers. Tens of thousands good jobs were on the line, and those jobs were worth the fight.

As is his commitment to providing clean energy solutions to developing nations:

Though all America’s carbon pollution fell last year, global carbon pollution rose to a record high. That’s a problem. Developing countries are using more and more energy, and tens of millions of people entering a global middle class naturally want to buy cars and air-conditioners of their own, just like us. Can’t blame them for that. And when you have conversations with poor countries, they’ll say, well, you went through these stages of development—why can’t we?

But what we also have to recognize is these same countries are also more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than we are. They don’t just have as much to lose, they probably have more to lose.
Developing nations with some of the fastest-rising levels of carbon pollution are going to have to take action to meet this challenge alongside us. They’re watching what we do, but we’ve got to make sure that they’re stepping up to the plate as well. We compete for business with them, but we also share a planet. And we have to all shoulder the responsibility for keeping the planet habitable, or we’re going to suffer the consequences—together.

So to help more countries transitioning to cleaner sources of energy and to help them do it faster, we’re going to partner with our private sector to apply private sector technological know-how in countries that transition to natural gas. We’ve mobilized billions of dollars in private capital for clean energy projects around the world.


Of course, the president’s proposal to use executive orders to reduce carbon emissions is a good thing, and it pisses off Republicans.  All-in-all, it was a pretty good speech, but I just can’t get overly excited by it- the president’s approval of natural gas as a stop-gap solution rankles, and I’m not the only one to be less-than-satisfied.  The president’s plan, like his healthcare plan, seems just a little too close to a plan proposed by a right-winger who stands to gain millions from its implementation.  Just once, I’d love to see President Obama play the socialist firebrand his opponents portray him to be. 

Oh, well, I knew power plants fueled by sparkly unicorn poop were too good to be true.

Cross-posted at my eponymous blog.

 

Posted by Big Bad Bald Bastard on 06/27/13 at 07:10 PM • Permalink

Categories: Geek SpeakPoliticsBarack Obama

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

Of course, natural gas extraction is extremely hazardous to groundwater supplies, a fact that even the mainstream press is beginning to report.

Which is not even the ironic part.  So many new oil wells are flaring their natural gas, or even venting it, that it offsets the carbon savings from our move towards natural gas.

Comment by Lowkey on 06/27/13 at 07:55 PM

If that big comet or asteroid had not hit the earth at that crucial time and annihilated the dinosaurs(or at least not the little ones that evolved into birds) and all those swamplands that they thrived in, we never would have had these huge carbon fuel reserves under ground and would probably have long since developed primarily solar and wind energy sources.  Of course it’s hard to say what kind of beings would have done the development.  The demise of the big dinos allowed the mammals, including primates, to get a big toe-hold.  We could be a society of birds with articulated thumbs at the end of our wings.

But fantasies aside, as it is, our Big Oil Overlords are fighting tooth and nail to put the brakes on solar and wind and it’s going to be an ongoing fight to get these technologies the funding they need.  Our Congress is a non-starter on the issue.  Executive orders are pretty much our only hope.

Our Congress is a non-starter on the issue.  Executive orders are pretty much our only hope.

Isn’t it interesting that our Congress is the biggest threat to our democracy?  We the people should be able to fix that, eh?

There are two problems with natural gas as a “transition fuel”.  One, methane is over 100% worse as a green house gas, and with all these wells, gas plants, and fracking, so much is escaping that it is totally overriding the “cleaner than coal” argument.  Two, this “transitional fuel” is currently so cheap and profitable that it is killing the renewables in their crib, which is kinda what I think the oil industry had in mind…

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main