Imagine a world where the only political issue is whether to sequester CO2 emissions from coal burning power plants.

Joe: I think the killer detail in your piece is the second bullet–the interaction between peak oil and GW. This is the effect I’ve long feared, that peak oil (or, for those who reading CP don’t believe in it, much higher oil prices) would come along and throw a bag full of wrenches into the policymaking process just when we’re trying to get serious about addressing GW. PO or GW alone would be a tough enough challenge, but dealing with both at the same time is exponentially worse.

(If it doesn’t happen, we’re screwed. I don’t think it’s an overstatement at this point to say that civilization as we know it hangs in the balance of this election.)

Why a game changer? To quote your old Salon article Joe:
http://www.salon.com/ news/ feature/ 2008/ 03/ 15/ obama_clinton_global_warming/ index.html

“Obama said in early February he would start working on a global climate effort as soon as he becomes the Democratic nominee (which at the time he probably thought would have happened already): “I’ve been in conversations with former Vice President (Al) Gore repeatedly, and his recommendation, which I think is sound, is that you can’t wait until you are sworn into office to get started … I think we need to start reaching out to other countries ahead of time, not because I’m presumptuous, but because there’s such a sense of urgency about this.”"

It could be the right stuff.

But I’d also like to know, now that Obama is the nominee, per the quote, what’s he working on specifically regarding it?

FDR also had to deal with ranting and raving Conservative obstructionists - as he remade American society.

To maintain my modicum of optimism - I must believe the same will be possible with a President Obama.

It’s my hope and belief that if the election goes the way it needs to, the conservative lunatics will suddenly occupy an “irrelevant fringe” they so justly deserve.

Honestly I don’t see a drift. Obama’s always been pretty centrist and pragmatic. (I’d say the same for FDR too.)

Obama’s coattails are growing right now, not shrinking. (And he’s got the progressive vote no matter how much Greenwald wants to rant about FISA.) The big question to me about coat tails is: How many women and Latinos will McCain bleed between now and November?

(and yes, moving to plug in hybrids at that price point would save us some gas and collapse the entire electric grid)

This entire debate right now is nothing but onomastic fantasies without dealing with cars. Reducing industry CO2 levels is fine, but without accounting for cars you just trying to score some cheap political points.

Seems like a good strategy would be for local environmental groups to turn up the information burner and educate their fellow citizens about what the future is likely to bring them if things go as badly as they might.

Folks in these states are not as likely to listen to outsiders as to people who live where they do (I’m guessing).

Informed voters are going to either change the behavior of their elected officials or replace them.

Obama gets energy, fundamentally because he does believe in government-led solutions. Also, please remember, he didn’t fall into the “gas tax holiday” pandering trap.

Also, PLEASE read Obama’s energy/climate plan online. It ain’t the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Bill.

We need a visionary, persuasive president if we are to have a shot at 450 ppm.

B-L-W is a poor metric. First off, it had the support of only 38 Democratic Senators. Second, it was a Cap & Auction bill, not a Cap & Trade bill and attempts paint it as cap/trade amount to bait and switch. Conservatives could support a true cap/trade that allows everyone including individual consumers into the market.

Legislation is like making sausage. Senate Republicans have crafted a comprehensive energy bill supported by 43 members of their caucus. Yes, more than the Democrats for B-L-W! Read it and you will understand the Republicans love alternatives; they just don’t hate coal and oil.

I like to talk about ability of the people to act in association beyond government and politics. That is why I have formed Replacing Fossil Fuel, an association dedicated to alternative deployment. It is officially launching on the 4th of July and I will be inviting everyone to join.

Such a world view has no basis in fact — and is something I would expect from a Newt Gingrich type, not you.

Absent a tax or cap, high oil/gas prices will cause crude oil to be replaced with coal-to-liquids, oil sands, and methane hydrates. Any one of those is a disaster.

Eli Rabett said, “Imagine a world where the only political issue is whether to sequester CO2 emissions from coal burning power plants.”

Do you think the Republican party is going to allow the government to impose sequestration on America’s coal plants? They will oppose it with the same vehemence as they did on B-L-W.

That’s a fantasy worthy of Bush or Cheney (e.g. “we’ll be greeted with roses”). I suppose the coal-to-liquids plants in the planning stage right now will just decide to shut themselves down and declare bankruptcy? Dream on.

I agree that he’s always been somewhat of a centrist, but he tacked left when Edwards dropped out and stayed there until a few days ago.

Since then, he has showed signs of moving to the center. He supported the FISA sell-out, was silent on two recent Supreme Court rulings that were egregious, and he’s soudning more corporate friendly by the day.

Now, Obama has a great energy platform. He understands climate and he understands why addressing it intelligently won’t break the bank — and his policies relfect that.

But he will need support in the House and Senate of like-minded people, and he won’t get them if he keeps drifting center. He’ll get an assortment of blue-dog Dems, centrists and progressive Dems, but he won’t get the 60 enlightened Dems he needs for rational climate legislation.

The question isn’t how popular Obama is; it’s what he’s popular for. If he moves too far to the center, we’ll get Dems — but we’ll get too many of the kind who have consistently voted against proessive climate and energy legislation.

Paul;

You must be joking. In legal and debate circles, you’d be judged guilty of making mere assertions — and your “arguments” would be weightless. Jury and judges might even be instructed to disregard them, and they could be stricken from the record. I can’t strike them from the record, but I will certainly ignore them, unless you can provide a basis for them. (Sorry, Milton Friedman economics won’t suffice).

Given the tremendous growth in alternatives already experienced and the technologies expected in the very near term, yes I think it probable ppm will stabilize at 450 in 2040 even if no laws were change. (the exception is all the states must mandate buyback) There is no current federal law that prevents the deployment of available technologies and efficiencies necessary.

Before going on, I reiterate. I am not an advocate for coal, oil or any fossil fuel. I am an advocate for replacing fossil fuel. I’m staring an organization to do just that.

For Joe an explanation of such a fantastical statement about the future:
I note that automobiles are now to be removed from table. Might as well, the market has already put in place the solution you seek. There is no doubt auto fleet emissions in 2040 will be 60 to 80% below today’s.

Wind and Solar, macro and micro are about to explode. The market really wants wind and solar to succeed. Venture capitalists are increasingly coming on board. No new laws are needed here.

It is very likely that by 2040 CO2 eating algae and bacteria will provide most of our liquid fuels. CO2 capture will be a market imperative.

Because of it’s possible impact on my rosy view of the future, I’d like to know a lot more about the old coal conundrum. You have put it out in bits and pieces. Could you lay it all out and answer questions I might have?

Plug in hybrids, the cars expected to be available and affordable in 2020 are not zero emission. Also, please consider the time needed for fleet changeover.

Markets are dominated by consumers.

Let me say first that the same way 60 Dem Senators wouldn’t guarantee anything, I don’t think Obama needs 60 Democratic Senators - it would be nice though. It’s the power dynamics that will matter….

The projections I’m seeing vary from 53 to 58 Dems. The two independents (Sanders and Lieberman) would presumably be with Obama too. Then you have a handful of Repubs that supported B-L-W. Seems very doable.

John,
I disagree. Obama doesn’t need to be reproving his liberal creds to “the left” every step of the way through the general election. And the Dems that are going to live or die with Obama are already selected. So the number one question IS Obama’s popularity - for sure. If he doesn’t get elected were done - game, set, match - toast (per David Benson). Let’s save the civil war for when there’s actually some spoils to fight over.

If Obama can win convincingly enough with long enough coat tails, he will actually have the mandate Bush always - falsely - claimed (whether or note he has 60 Dem Senators). If he doesn’t make the right choices with that power then we hold his feet to the fire. But to claim that his “centrist” general election politics will lessen his power down the road is putting the cart before the horse.

Huh? Is this a typo or extreme delusion?

[JR: “would go up $.41-$1.01 a gallon.”

>>Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) said the bill would add $8000 in additional energy costs on Texas households, and actually blamed Democrats in Congress for the recent spike in gasoline prices.

but i know that reduction curve. i worked it out after reading mr bush’s climate proposal in april. stopping the growth in emissions around 2025, wouldn’t you say that’s what technological development will do?

aren’t you the clever whisperer. kinda.

It is certainly true that global warming deniers are very “convincing.” That’s because they aren’t bound by the facts or scientific evidence — so they can craft a narrative that is more compelling to people than the narrative they can be crafted by scientists, who must base what they say on the facts.

I am perfectly aware that it sounds hard to believe that humans are going to destroy the livability of the planet simply by burning fossil fuels. That is the point of the scientific method, to tell us the truth even when it is counterintuitive.

It is a political mistake to ban coal outright. You want to ban CO2 emissions. As long as the coal industry believes in CCS, it may go along. California passed SB1368, which did it this way. What happens in California often finds its way elsewhere over time.

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

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

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.

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.

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!