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?
