But I agree that if Obama turns out to be a Clinton – we’ve got a disaster on our hands.

My hope of hopes is that we’ve got with Obama another FDR or LBJ. Both leaders rose more in the center than outside it. (LBJ a corrupt political machine and FDR while “progressive” he was certainly an “establishment” fixture – both completely suspect to “true progressives”. ) And they actually lead more in the center than outside it. Yet – with the obvious exception of Vietnam – they generally lead the country in difficult and needed directions, moving the country markedly forward.

I disagree that 67 votes are impossible. By Jan 2009 the climate news is going to be so damn awful – and we’ll have a Republican Party, or at least the nutty conservative wing, hopefully, in tatters. It will all very much ride on Obama’s political skill.

I’m not not naive, just eternally optimistic.

After all, Obama did just slay the mighty Clintons – that’s got to count for something.

Bottom line is we must get as many officials elected as possible that will support Obama’s climate change platform – as a starting point. I hope everyone here who cares is donating money up and down the ballot!

I don’t think anybody disagrees that it is possible to stabilize at 450 ppm. If you don’t think it possible, then I suggest you put all your efforts into adaptation. Our only disagreement should be whether it can happen even if no new laws are put in place. I believe it can. The technologies and efficiencies required are being deployed at an exponential rate. There are in the near pipeline technologies that will make capture & sequestration economically desirable. These are the facts that inform my belief.

First, in debate, facts matter even in an “opening statment.”

But you’ve yet to offer anything like evidence that would make your contention that we’ll peak at 450 ppm even remotely plausible. Saying it over and over again does not make it so. Nor does arcane neoclassical theories about market behavior — theories which have been proven wrong now on virtually every issue for decades.

Kenlevenson:

Krugman has a good piece in the Times today. He contrasts Reagan — who ran overtly on his conservative platform, with Clinton — who ran on a centrist triangulation devoid of a coherent philosphical framework.

The result is that Reagan fundamentally changed the terms of the poltical debate in way that has endured for 40 years now (in a negative way), while Clinton governed more wisely but let the Reagan poltical framework intact. Indeed, part of what we’re fighting in the Climate debate is the legacy of public perceptions about government, science, and the private sector that Reagan left behind.

Being popular is all well and good, and both men were, but at the end of the day you have to govern, and the room you have to maneuver is defined by what you claim to stand for.

Centrists don’t change the terms of the debate, and if you believe we will get the kind of legislation we need — not to mention a treaty — without fundamentally changing not simply perceptions about Climate Change, but also about the roles of government and the private sector, then we will have to agree to disagree. But as Earl points out, treaties take 67 votes and we’re toast without a treaty. Obama won’t get that kind of support because people think he’s a good guy, or even because his numbers are good — in my opinion, he’ll only get that kind of support because he’s moved the center to the left a good bit, and he’s got broad support for progressive ideas and a progressive government role from the people.

At the end of the day, that’s the only counterweight to the special interests and entrenched power that dominates politics today.

For what it’s worth, I hope you are right and I am wrong … becuse he certainly seems to be doing the Shrumm thing.

Oh yes, and a feeder branch down to the Denver area.

some of the comments on this blog are making the global warming debate sound like a religious dissertation and not a scientific dicussion

Whenever I see anyone use ‘religion’ and ‘climate change science’ together, I know that person has no argument.

Best,

D