Wednesday, April 22, 2015

President Obama on the Climate Crisis.

I sincerely believe President Obama is dedicated to establishing a stable biotic content to Earth. I don't say that lightly. He literally has had the most progressive presidency when it comes to stabilizing Earth's climate.

A fisherman poles his boat in the shallows of snake bight in Florida Bay in Everglades National Park in 2007. 

April 22, 2015

In his first ever visit to the Everglades (click here) on Wednesday — Earth Day — President Barack Obama hopes to connect climate change impacts already unfolding in the imperiled wetland to wider risks across the nation.
Obama plans to tour the Everglades, as long as it doesn’t rain, and make a speech about the importance of protecting the environment — not just for the planet’s sake, but also to boost the economy, protect national security and guard public health.
The president will tout his administration’s record on tackling environmental problems, including imposing a historic cap on carbon pollution and spending $2.2 billion on Everglades restoration projects. He further plans to unveil new ways to assess the value of the country’s national parks, including a study that shows protected wild lands play a major role in keeping carbon out of the atmosphere. Visitors to parks also poured $15.7 billion into surrounding communities, the administration said....

A couple of things. Let's start with coal. The coal fired stacks in the country are being removed from the landscape. That translates politically as a war on coal. It is nonsense. The USA has the largest coal deposits in the world. There will always be some degree of coal mining in the USA. The question to ask is what QUALITY is the coal they are mining. Anthracite was the coal mined in Pennsylvania. Those mines are closed because Anthracite is gone. Complete depletion of the only coal that was the best in the world.

President Obama never lied stating he will back a clean coal technology. That technology never manifested. Lots of reasons why. Coal is not a clean fuel. Clean includes the CO2 component and it has to contain a CO2 component.

The TPP and the TiPP

First I find it really interesting the USA is in the middle of those two trade agreements. Who was the control freak and plutocrat that started this mess? Whoever started it is in the USA and covets this country for economic purposes only. 

President Obama stated in an interview yesterday these trade agreements will include significant demands to combat the climate crisis. I believe him. I would like to see the documents, but, I remain open minded. 

He and Secretary Kerry in two different public appearances stated the same thing; "The USA is doing it's part today with an EPA actively involved to a successful outcome. But, more and more of the CO2 emissions are coming from emerging economies. We have to do something to bring about responsible governance of that sector of any economy in the world."

I don't know why a CLIMATE AGREEMENT can't occur outside of the economic agreement, but, let's just say that it is intertwined for now. The question is are we sacrificing jobs for climate deals?

There is a climate conference coming up later this year. I am grateful President Obama's administration is in office. They are engaged with the climate concerns. The concerns are huge, such as destruction of rainforests with peat floors replaced by palm oil groves or cattle ranches. The oceans are acidifying. The concerns are huge. 

I believe President Obama isn't leaving things up to chance. He wants the changes included in any and all agreements to move the climate back into a positive feedback loop. At least the Obama Administration understands the science and outcomes. It isn't politics President Obama seeks.

I think both issues, the trade agreements and the climate conference has to be actively engaged by environmental groups to decide what is going on with the agreements. Also, environmental groups need to include in that idea the PROMISE of the agreements in regard to trade and jobs. The agreements won't be any good if they fail, so the climate inclusions will fail, too. 

The agreements have to work. They have to succeed. There should be a sundown clause for any of the countries if they determine their benefits are negative and/or deteriorating. The PROMISE has to matter, so the outcomes of the agreements have to be stated as what is EXPECTED and if the promises are proving absent, then a country has the right to resign from the agreement with a parliamentary vote. 

Americans have to engage these agreements; after all it is they most coveted by both coastal economies. It's ridiculous really. I mean, who did these agreements? Just a little OCD. Paulson, did you have something do to with this?

Read more here:

What happens if the election monies today aren't tamed to drown out the voices of America?


The Plutocrats simply dump huge amounts of money into the elections until they are significant parts of the GDP and then the elections will be seen as a financial element to the survival of the country.


Think carbon dioxide. Why can't the USA simply flip a switch and end the CO2 emissions? 

Because OIL and NATURAL GAS are a high percentage of the GDP. So, what are the choices of the economy? Revisit 2008 and crash the entire global economy to the WAY THINGS SHOULD BE or continue to entertain THE ELEMENT OF DANGER until the country is ready to make that transition?

Go ahead, make that choice in a mind game of possibilities and what have you got?

So, what is the USA suppose to do with elections allow them to escalate to a high percentage of GDP or trim it's sails and bring the power of elections back to the citizen?

Choice is easy.

Happy Earth Day.

Talking about big election, it is an issue. Right now candidates do not have a choice but to accept ridiculous amounts of money from those that have it. What happens then? Does a candidate have to be sure those same donors survive their politics in office so the elect turns into a re-election. It is horribly corrupt.

I also don't believe there are two extremes in the private donation club. On one hand there is the wealthy purchasing their candidates and on the other hand there is nothing but public funding. The idea there has to be those two extremes is a hideous argument. That argument is not based in facts and/or democracy. Purchasing candidates is Anti-American and anti-democracy.

How does this effect Earth Day? Who are the big donors? What relationship do they have with Earth and a very hot and dry planet? Who is financing these elections? Those that have moral arguments or those that will corrupt our democracy to protect the people from a dangerous climate? Are the elections already corrupted by a negligent and inept Supreme Court? Do I have to answer these questions here? I would think not. 

There is a greater morality in life than declaring a woman's uterus the property of government. Babies need more than mother's milk to survive and live a comfortable and productive life.

March 18, 2014
By Michael E. Mann

...The misunderstanding stems (click here) from data showing that during the past decade there was a slowing in the rate at which the earth's average surface temperature had been increasing. The event is commonly referred to as “the pause,” but that is a misnomer: temperatures still rose, just not as fast as during the prior decade. The important question is, What does the short-term slowdown portend for how the world may warm in the future?...

The manifestation of the upper tropospheric vortexes changed the outcomes scientists were expecting. The graph changed from a flat line to a parabola. The deterioration of the biotic content accelerated. It is still accelerated with a negative feedback loop. 

There are two choices today, push the biotic system back the other way and return function to Earth's troposphere or completely compromise the outcomes of Earth. I wouldn't wait too long to make that choice.