What do you think will happen politically with global warming in 2009?

Question

The USA is the biggest roadblock to international action against global warming at the moment.

In 2009 we will have a president who acknowledges that humans are the primary cause of the current warming and that we need to do something about it. Every Democratic nominee has said so, as have Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee. The only other nominee with a remote shot at winning is Thompson, who's basically a fence-sitter on the issue (as he is with most issues).

Once we elect a president who acknowledges this reality, do you think the USA will finally lead the way in forming an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gases? Or do you think we'll continue to pay the issue lipservice while failing to take any kind of meaningful action?

Jello - seriously, why do you even answer questions? You never add anything remotely relevant or constructive. Do you answer simply to try and confuse people?

Answer 1

Well, two things (I think).
First, we will see some real action on global warming. I DON'T expect to see the kind of turnaround on policy that's needed. But we'll see increased support for energy efficient technologies and methods (e.g. home insulation, etc.) and mass transit. We will ( I hope) also see the proposal earlier this yer (which seems to have gone nowhere) implemented to require new cars to have improved gas mileage. A lot of the chanes will be focused simply on rebuilding what's left of the EPA and related agencies, which have been gutted by the Bush administration.

That's a start--and its not nearly enough. But that's about what we can expect.

However--there's another factor--and it's one that practially everyone, including the environmental people--are overlooking--and ts a biggie. We are on the verge of technology (some of it--wind turbines,for instance--is already here, just not yet widely implemented) that does potentially make fossil fuels obsolete. I've said this before, and it is NOT an exaggeration. And that changes the "equation" entirely.

This kind of situation is not unprecedented, incidentally. Back around 1900 the big issue in American cities was pollution--from horses (further details better left to the imagination!). It was a health concern, causing traffic problems, etc. There were loud cries at every attempt to regulate this "vital transportation;" alternatives were ridiculed, and endless meetings, studies, etc. took place.

Then the automobile came along and rendered the horse obsolete in the space of a few years. End of problem--the new technology simply replaced the old one. Of course, a lot of businesses who insisted on tying their fortunes to the status quo and the good old horse and wagon went belly up--or declined to be minor firms. But that's jsut how capitalism works. In our case , it will be the oil companies that take the hit. I'm not shedding any tears!

Answer 2

The recent Supreme Court decision stated that the EPA currently has the authority in the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2. Some in the U.S. Industry are pushing for a deal in Congress before the 2008 Presidential elections. They feel that they can maybe get a better deal now under Bush than under a more liberal administration after 2008. Time is running out, however. If they can't get something proposed by mid-2008, there's no way a bill will get passed before the elections.

Answer 3

I'm with Bob on this one. Third paragraph, exactly.

To that I have a couple of questions for you:

Do you think that we are going to spontaneously stop what we are doing in the absence of a crisis that hits home with the previously unaffected affluent western world?

Do you think we are going to start working together before or after we have this huge global crisis?

The whole point of my answers here is to alert people to the possibility that the system may reach a point of no return before it becomes obvious that the threshold has been passed.

It will have become too late to do anything about it.

It will take a global crisis to get everyone’s attention.

The very nature of that crisis, that it will be global and affecting everyone, everywhere, in an unprecedented way, will be such that it will be irreversible.

A tautology, true, but one that fits with our psychology.

Answer 4

I'm very opposed to a USA lead in action against global warming. Most if not all presidential nominees pay lip service to just about EVERYTHING. Even when they get in office it's usually the same old same old.

The global warming issue is littered with political agenda. Global warming is used to fatten an already huge federal government. It's also a way to undermine US business competitiveness in the global market.

What we need is a president that will take a stand on Social Security reform, entrepreneurial healthcare, lowering taxes and restricting government spending.

Besides, it's the legislative body that counts. Even when presidents get a majority with their own party in the congress it's still hard to get things done. The congress is the thing you ought to focus on if you want anything done. The president should focus on his core responsibilities, law enforcement, national defense and the like.

Answer 5

Me as well as the rest of the world really hopes for a big change but unfortunately I think you'll be too far on the wrong road to be able to "lead the way" for a long time.

I hope I'm wrong because the world really needs strong actions from the American people but it WILL be difficult for America to all of a sudden change direction in a speed that is needed. It would have been much easier if you've started long ago.

P.S. President Bush stated that cutting CO2 would ruin the American economy, but please look at the situation in Europe, who does take actions (although not as much as needed), and America who doesn't (at least not on a governmental level). According to economic growth, it looks to be the other way around...

Answer 6

Since June 2001, the United States has had a President who acknowledged, "And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity." Thus, I think the same thing will happen politically with global warming in 2009 as has happened since 2001.

Answer 7

Here's what will happen. Hitlery and her Democratic Congress will continue to fund an oil war they don't have the balls to end now, they will continue to buy vote in farms states by supporting subsidies for ethanol farming, and they will continue to take money from companies whose operations have moved to China.....who is the actual "biggest roadblock to international action against global warming at the moment."

Nor will Hillary restore the funding to fusion research her husband cut.

Answer 8

global warming is a natural cyclical occurance and almost all greenhouse gases occur naturally, however the issue has been co-opted by the left with the general message being "vote for the Democrat or everybody dies within 10 years".
The issue has also been bastardized by liberals in an attempt to garner more governmental power over the individual.

For those wanting to "save the earth" and do something for their fellow man, I'd suggest fighting for individual freedoms and free'er market conditions, which raises standards of living everywhere it's been tried.

Also, be assured liberal solutions to the so-called environmental crisis will be anti-free market which will result in more poverty and misery around the globe

Answer 9

Politicians, do they ever mean what they say ? or done what they said they will do ? Rolling a dice would be a better solution as long as its not loaded of course, you never can tell what the repubs will do to win. Putting aside all the arguments on AGW and CW we should have a president who would tackle the problems of the Smog hovering on all the major cities and please don't tell me to rely on the wind to take care of this.

Answer 10

The most likely scenario.

A Democrat wins the White House (we'll still be in Iraq and no Republican can win with that hanging around his neck).

They'll talk a good game. And then make some lame compromise that's totally ineffective. Especially if it's Ms. President, who is wedded to the corporate establishment. The Democrats failure to make any changes to fuel mileage standards, or to support alternative energy, is illustrative.

Richardson would actually do something, but he's not going to win. Obama might, but there's not enough track record to say. Edwards? I dunno, but I'm not optimistic. Not at the top of his agenda.

I think the best we can hope for is that they stay out of the way of the States.

punker_rocker. Please tell me. Are most all the world's scientists and leaders (of whatever political stripe) stupid, ignorant, or part of a giant conspiracy?