War v. Peace, Status Quo v. Real Change and Obfuscation v. Transparency

Dear Friends,

The debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night could not have done a better job of highlighting the choice that we have between these two candidates and their policies, opinions and positions.

War v. Peace

On foreign policy, except for a short discussion about NATO where the candidates are in basic agreement, the Middle East was the focus.  Senator Sanders laid out a very clear and articulate position that acknowledged the right of Israel to exist in peace and security, but also acknowledged the same right for the Palestinian people.  Senator Sanders made it clear that the Israeli  response to the latest conflict in Gaza was an over-reaction by Israel.  Secretary Clinton refused to acknowledge that Israel over-reacted.  You cannot achieve peace between Israel and Palestine until you acknowledge the atrocities on both sides.  Senator Sanders' approach is the only one that has any chance of bringing peace.

With respect to Syria, Secretary Clinton, who has frequently chastised Senator Sanders for criticizing President Obama, laid the blame for the Syrian situation on President Obama because he did not take her advice to more aggressively arm the "friendly forces" fighting against Assad and establishing a no-fly zone which virtually all experts say would lead to more US troops fighting in Syria.  She also refused to take any responsibility for the debacle in Libya.  President Obama has said that one of the biggest mistakes of his Administration was not planning for what happens after Gaddafi is deposed.  Secretary Clinton refused to accept any responsibility even though she was a strong proponent within the Obama Administration for regime change in Libya.  She blamed the Libyan people for failing to take her advice and accept American troops in Libya.

We have a clear choice - Secretary Clinton, a clear hawk or Senator Sanders, a thoughtful person who will acknowledge reality, seek peace and use force only as a last resort.

Status Quo v. Real Change

On issue after issue, it is clear that Secretary Clinton supports the status quo, with only incremental changes, and it is equally clear that Senator Sanders believes we need big and substantive changes now.  This difference represents a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party.  When Secretary Clinton says that Senator Sanders is not a real Democrat, what she means is that he is not part of the move to the right, Republican light, Democratic Party establishment founded by her husband.  There is a great sentence going around the internet - "There is only one moderate Republican running in this election, and she is running as a Democrat."  I have said before that President Obama is about as far right as President Eisenhower was.  Secretary Clinton is clearly to the right of President Eisenhower particularly on the use of force.  President Bill Clinton formed an unholy alliance with big business.  Secretary Clinton will continue that alliance.  Senator Sanders will break up that alliance.

Secretary Clinton claims that she wants to get to universal healthcare coverage but has only plans to add an incremental number of people and attacks Senator Sanders' plan for Medicare for all.  She says he would throw out Obamacare which is not true.  He would keep Obamacare until the Medicare for all was in place.  She wants incremental change and calls it pragmatism.  She says she supports the movement for a $15 minimum wage, yet she refuses to support Senator Sanders' bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 instead she supports a competing bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour.  She claims that she wants to protect the economy from another melt down but continues to fight against breaking up the big banks even though they are bigger now than before the great recession and the Fed and FDIC have recently called them too big.  She continues to say we should regulate them but, in an implicit criticism of President Obama, says that she would be tougher.  However, she fails to acknowledge that the big banks have successfully stalled on developing "living wills" for more than five years.  She says that she stood up to the big banks before the great recession but fails to acknowledge that she completely failed in changing their behavior.  The time has come to stop coddling the big banks and break them up.

She uses the overturning of the Citizens United case as one of her two litmus tests for any Supreme Court nominee and states that big money is corrupting our political system but refuses to acknowledge that it has any impact on her.  Apparently she is immune to all the pressures that other politicians are not immune to.  She cannot answer the simple question of why she will not release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Wall Street.  Her only response is that she will not release them unless everybody does, obviously including all Republican candidates.  Senator Sanders has not made closed door speeches to Wall Street.  The only logical conclusion that I can reach is that she would be embarrassed by those speeches if the transcripts became public.

The most important area where Secretary Clinton's incremental only approach to change cannot be accepted is with respect to climate change.  With every new report we are closer to a cataclysmic tipping point than was previously thought.  The time for incremental action has passed.  We need big change now.  Senator Sanders would ban fracking, would ban further drilling on federal lands, would place a tax on carbon and would focus completely on moving to sustainable, renewable energy.  Secretary Clinton promoted fracking around the world as Secretary of State, she refuses to say she would ban fracking, she refuses to say she would stop drilling on federal lands, and she refuses to say that she would support a carbon tax.  She says we need to move to sustainable energy but will do it in a "practical" and "possible" way, which is to say with small incremental steps.  That approach will destroy the earth for my grandchildren and is unacceptable.

Of course the debate was full of moments when Secretary Clinton obfuscated the facts while Senator Sanders was transparent about his positions.  While saying she would fight climate change, she refused to indicate immediate actions she would take that would have a significant impact, while saying she supports a $15 per hour federal minimum wage, she actually supports a move to $12 per hour, while claiming she supports Senator Sanders' policy of extending the life of the social security trust fund she refuses to support raising the income cap on social security taxes or endorsing any other particular approach, while saying she would be tough on the big banks, she refuses to support doing anything more than have the regulators be "tough" which has failed miserably so far and while saying she will work for peace between Israel and Palestine, she refuses to acknowledge the Israeli atrocities only the Palestinian ones.

She also continues to distort Senator Sanders' record.  She claimed that most of the gun deaths in New York resulted from guns from Vermont which is absurd.  While acknowledging that her statement was incorrect, she refused to apologize.  Instead she made the even more absurd statement that Senator Sanders does the bidding of the NRA in the Senate.  That statement is blatantly false as everyone including the NRA knows since it gives him a D- rating.

She claims that Senator Sanders could not answer the questions in the New York Daily News interview correctly even about breaking up the big banks.  I have actually read that interview in total and either Secretary Clinton is lying or she has not read the interview.  But you do not have to believe me, you can listen to this segment of Democracy Now today (here), it is entitled, "Juan González: Clinton Has 'Really Distorted' What Happened When NY Daily News Interviewed Sanders".  Senator Sanders answered the questions of the interviewer precisely and accurately.  The question to which he answered that he didn't know was whether the Fed has the right to break up the banks.  That is a correct statement, nobody knows for sure if the Fed does have that authority.  When asked about the President's authority to break up the banks, he correctly stated the process under Dodd-Frank by which the President can break up the big banks including that in the end the banks themselves determine exactly what assets to shed, etc.

We have a clear choice and in my opinion Senator Sanders is by far the better choice.

I should also point out that Senator Sanders will win a general election against any Republican while Secretary Clinton is quite vulnerable against any Republican other than Trump.  In the most recent polls reported by RealClearPolitics (here), both Clinton and Sanders beat Trump although Sanders beats him by quite a bit more.  The interesting results are that Clinton is in a statistical tie with Cruz beating him by 1 point in one poll and 3 points in another poll.  Sanders on the other hand defeats Cruz by 12 points in both those polls.  With respect to Kasich, Clinton loses to him by 9 and 6 points while Sanders beats him by 4 and 5 points.

Sanders is by far the better candidate both because of his positions and because of his electability.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Hillary Clinton and Climate Change

Dear Friends,

As this campaign for President has progressed, Secretary Clinton has moved closer to Senator Sanders' long held positions to fight climate change.  She eventually came out against the Keystone XL pipeline, although she said it was a distraction, she eventually came out against Shell drilling in the Arctic, she eventually came out against the Trans Pacific Partnership which among other terrible things is an environmental disaster, she came out eventually against offshore drilling after a long record of support for it, and she has a plan to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels over time.  I have written about these issues before here and here.

I am happy to see that she has moved closer to Bernie Sanders on these issues, but she is still an Obama "all of the above" in terms of what our energy policy should be.  Bernie Sanders wants to keep the carbon in the ground and truly accelerate our move to alternative renewable energy sources. Bernie Sanders' tweet from last August says a lot about the difference between Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton.

We need to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and move to 100 percent renewable energy - and we need to act immediately.

In addition to the sense of urgency expressed by Bernie Sanders compared to Hillary Clinton, fracking is an issue that clearly separates these two candidates.  In fact, Senator Sanders is the only Presidential candidate calling for a ban on fracking.  Hillary Clinton has no recent statements on fracking, but has supported it historically both domestically and internationally.  Clinton entities, particularly their network of charities have taken million of dollars for the oil and gas industry, much of it when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and promoting fracking abroad.  If you are interested in more on this topic, I commend a couple of articles: the first entitled "Bernie Sanders Will Ban Fracking.  Hillary Clinton 'Sold Fracking to the World'" at Huffpost Politics (here), and the second entitled "There's Only One Presidential Candidate Who Wants to Ban Fracking" at Mother Jones (here).

The only argument for fracking is that it enables the use of natural gas which is cleaner than coal as a bridge from fossil fuels to renewable energy.  Even if you assume that argument to be valid, it is clearly an incremental approach to a problem that requires immediate and bold action.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

What is this Presidential election really about?

Dear Friends,

There are many very important issues in the current Presidential election including income inequality, institutional and persistent racism, universal healthcare, gender equity, tax fairness, discrimination in the workplace, religious bigotry, women's reproductive healthcare, and the list goes on and on.  However, in my view, there are two issues that rise above all the others because they are each, in their own way, existential issues, and they are interrelated.  The two issues are global warming and America becoming an oligarchy.

There can be no question that the monied interests control the Congress and our political system.  The monied interests had disproportionate impact prior to the Citizens United decision and have almost completely taken over the political process today.  All of the campaigns of the Presidential candidates from both major political parties, except for Bernie Sanders' campaign, are funded by monied interests.  Bernie Sanders' success, despite the fact that the average donation to his campaign is less than $30 and despite the fact that his campaign has no PAC supporting it, is nothing short of a miracle.  If we do not break the control of the monied interests soon, we will have a very well entrenched oligarchy which will be difficult, if not impossible, to dislodge.  There is no way that "money controlling politics" can be changed incrementally.  The monied interests will not permit it.  Bernie Sanders is right.  Only with a political revolution can the "money in politics" problem be solved.

I have written before about the fact that climate change and global warming are the biggest threat to us (here).  Depending on who is doing the estimating, climate change is responsible for somewhere between 100,000 and 400,000 deaths worldwide per year and those numbers will be increasing for the foreseeable future regardless of any actions that we take now.  The economic cost of climate change is so staggering that I cannot comprehend the numbers.  In 2015 in the United States alone there were 10 weather events where the damages for that event were in excess of $1 billion.  Worldwide the damages caused by climate change were $1.2 trillion.  In addition there will be millions of people displaced as the sea levels rise and persistent droughts occur, which will continue to happen even if we take bold action now.

There are also substantial health risks associated with global warming.  The zika virus is the latest one to hit the news.  While it may be too early to say that the zika epidemic is caused by global warming, it is clear that the spread of the virus is facilitated by global warming, just as other health problems will be accelerated by global warming.  The following paragraphs from an article in The New York Times (here) summarize the point very well, and for sure it will not just be mosquitos that will rapidly expand the scope of health problems as the world warms.

But these same experts added that the Zika epidemic, as well as the related spread of a disease called dengue that is sickening as many as 100 million people a year and killing thousands, should be interpreted as warnings.
Over the coming decades, global warming is likely to increase the range and speed of the life cycle of the particular mosquitoes carrying these viruses, encouraging their spread deeper into temperate countries like the United States.
Recent research suggests that under a worst-case scenario, involving continued high global emissions coupled with fast population growth, the number of people exposed to the principal mosquito could more than double, to as many as 8 billion or 9 billion by late this century from roughly 4 billion today.

History is replete with examples of scarcity and shortages causing hatred, bigotry, violence and war.  When, as a result of global warming, we do not have enough water to drink and grow food, millions of people are displaced from their homes by drought and rising sea level, and rising temperatures speed the spread of diseases, we will experience even more hatred, bigotry, violence and war than we do today.

We are well past the point where incremental changes can have a significant impact on the terrible devastation of global warming.  The carbon that we have already released will increase these problems for a long time regardless of what we do now.  Incremental changes will simply delay for a few years when we hit the tipping point after which the cumulative impact of human activity will cause warming that will destroy us.  A blog by Anthony Barnosky and Elizabeth Hadly at HuffPost Science (here) entitled "Five Climate Tipping Points We've Already Seen, and One We're Hoping For" makes my point very well.  The blog discusses five tipping points that have already occurred.  The one the authors are hoping for is a groundswell of political support and will to actually make the necessary changes.  Here are excerpts from the final paragraphs of that blog:

All of these examples, and many more, indicate that the changing climate has already tipped the world into a new normal, compared to what life was like when today's middle-aged adults were born. So far, we're coping, but not without great expense. 

The costs, both in personal suffering and economic losses, will increase dramatically as new, bigger climate-triggered tipping points hit in the next few decades, if we continue business-as-usual green-house gas emissions...

While it is too late to go back from the climate-triggered tipping points we've already caused, it is not too late to avoid the more severe ones that threaten our near future. Just as solid science alerts us to impending dangers, it also maps out feasible paths to minimizing risks. In the case of climate change, the solution is quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions to essentially zero, through replacing fossil fuels with clean energy. Studies indicate it is technically and economically feasible to replace coal, oil, and gas by 2050 with a combination of carbon-neutral approaches, including solar, wind, wave, and sustainable biofuel energy. 

That cannot be accomplished of course, without another kind of tipping point: a groundswell of popular support and political will to deal with the problem. If we do not cross that critical threshold soon, it will be too late...

The monied interests that control our political process today for the most part resist the scientific proof of man-made global warming and even those that acknowledge the science want only incremental changes so as not to disrupt the status quo in the short term.  It is clear that incremental changes will not reverse the horrific trend of global warming.

Hillary Clinton is running as the candidate for incremental change.  Bernie Sanders is running as the candidate for a political revolution with bold solutions for both of these existential problems as well as the other important issues facing us today.

I will be 70 years old later this year.  My white privilege and financial situation will protect me from the worst impacts of these two existential problems, but there will be no amount of wealth or privilege that will protect my grandchildren and all people of future generations.  We need to act now and to act boldly and radically to prevent the United States from permanently becoming an oligarchy and to leave the carbon in the ground so that our grandchildren can live in peace and harmony on an Earth that is healthy and stable.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Who will fight global warming?

Dear Friends,

For reasons that are incomprehensible to me, President Obama has given Shell approval to drill in the Arctic.  After the approval was announced, Hillary Clinton broke her silence on the issue and said that permitting Shell to drill in the Arctic was not worth the risk.  Bernie Sanders has long opposed drilling in the Arctic.

Hillary Clinton is right that permitting Shell to drill in the Arctic is not worth the risk.  However, the more important reason for not permitting Shell to drill in the Arctic is that we need to move away from fossil fuels now not gradually over decades as fossil fuel reserves are drawn down.  We must leave most of the already know reserves in the ground.  We do not need to find new ones.  We need to focus on alternative renewable green energy.

An editorial in The Guardian (here) ends with this paragraph which I think is perfect.

This is depressing evidence of a reluctance to tackle the biggest challenge of keeping the increase in global temperatures below two degrees. Since March, the Guardian has been campaigning to persuade investors that ultimately the majority of known fossil fuel reserves will have to be left in the ground. That requires a revolution not just in thinking now, but in the way we understand economic development. It can no longer be a question of exploitation of resources. Now sustainable economies must be built on a deliberate exercise in forgoing them. Every time a new area of fossil fuel exploitation is opened up, even if it is shale gas which appears less polluting than coal or oil, the risk is that the transition drifts a little further downstream. The Obama decision on Arctic drilling on the face of it is wrong because it jeopardises a unique environment. But it is even worse than that. It is another barrier to a change on which a sustainable future depends.

I think it is important to assess our Presidential candidates on whether or not they understand what the Guardian editorial is saying.  Since all of the Republican candidates are still focused on drill baby drill, I can exclude them from this analysis.  I will focus on Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

It is clear that Bernie Sanders understands that we need to stop drilling and focus on alternative fuels. He was one of 18 Senators that sent President Obama a letter urging him to deny Shell the right to drill.  The following is a quote from that letter:

Opening development on a new fossil fuel reservoir in the Arctic not only puts the natural resources, ecosystems and the dependent communities at risk, it also contradicts the President’s Climate Action Plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions and reduce climate change. It is an unacceptable and irresponsible decision,

In addition to the letter, Bernie Sanders issued a statement saying:

At a time when our planet is warming due to climate change, the last thing our environment needs is more drilling. What we need is for Congress and the White House to move toward clean energy such as solar, wind and biomass.

While Hillary Clinton has said drilling in the Arctic is not worth the risk and that she would dramatically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, she has never made it clear that she understands that we need to stop drilling.  She has good plans for incentivizing alternative fuels, but they are vague at this time.  And then there is her refusal to take a position on the Keystone XL Pipeline.  An article in The New York Times (here) contains this quote which is a great summary of where Hillary Clinton is at this point in time.

"Hillary Clinton is just half the way there,” said Bill McKibben, head of the group 350.org, which has led the grass-roots movement calling for Mr. Obama to reject the Keystone pipeline. “This is a credible commitment to renewable energy, and a recognition that the economics of electricity are changing fast. Now, we need Clinton to show she understands the other half of the climate change equation — and prove she has the courage to stand up against fossil fuel projects like offshore and Arctic drilling, coal leasing in the Powder River basin, and the Keystone XL pipeline.”

Climate change is an existential issue for the earth and all of its inhabitants.  We need leaders who are bold and passionate about stopping global warming.  We need to end our reliance on fossil fuels now and that means no more approvals for fossil fuel projects.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Clinton/Sanders - Fracking, XL Pipeline and Fossil Fuels

Dear Friends,

Hillary Clinton continues to refuse to say what her stand is on the XL Pipeline.  Bernie Sanders has been an outspoken critic of the pipeline for years.  Hillary Clinton has not spoken recently about fracking but when she was Secretary of State she was promoting fracking technology around the world.  Bernie Sanders believes that fracking should be banned.

If you like President Obama's positions on fossil fuels, climate change, fracking, the XL Pipeline and alternative energy promotion, then you will like Hillary Clinton's positions as well.  Senator Clinton has an all of the above energy policy.

• She believes that humans are causing climate change and that we must act.
• She has supported President Obama's efforts to limit carbon emissions.
• She continues to support the use of fossil fuels, but has spoken generally about limiting the subsidies fossil fuels receive.
• She supports alternative energy subsidies.
• She rationalizes fracking with a better than coal argument.  
• She supported increased drilling off the coasts of the United States.  
• Her voting record in the Senate suggests that she opposes drilling in the Arctic, but she has not commented on Arctic drilling as a new Presidential candidate, and specifically she has not commented on the Obama Administration moving ahead to permit Shell to drill in the Arctic.
• She refuses to comment on the XL Pipeline, but supported it as Secretary of State.
• She acknowledges that clean coal is a possibility.

Senator Sanders positions are very clear and very much opposed to fossil fuels.

• He believes that humans are causing climate change and that we must act.
• He has supported President Obama's efforts to limit carbon emissions, but has also introduced significant legislation to force reductions.
• He clearly wants to eliminate fossil fuels eventually and has proposed legislation to eliminate all subsidies for them.
• He has a long list of legislation that he has introduced and supported promoting alternative and sustainable energy sources.
• He has proposed a ban on fracking.
• He opposed drilling off the Atlantic Coast.
• He opposes drilling in the Arctic.
• He opposes the XL Pipeline.
• He would end all subsidies for coal.

In my view on these issues, Senator Clinton is far better than all the Republican candidates for President, but Senator Sanders is much closer to my own view on these issues.  Senator Clinton will call herself a pragmatist.  Once again on these issues, I would say that she is a very slow incrementalist that will wait until she will not get too much criticism or anger her political and foundation donors too much by protecting the environment.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

President Obama, Global Warming and Shell Oil

Dear Friends,

As you undoubtedly know, President Obama recently granted Shell the right to drill in the Arctic Ocean.  You can read about it in The New York Times (here).  President Obama's decision is wrong on many levels.  The two biggest ones are that he is encouraging dangerous drillng for fossil fuels which will further accelerate global warming, and he is letting one of the companies with the worst safety records do that drilling.  What is he thinking?

While President Obama talks a lot about a balanced approach to energy and combating climate change, his actual policies are not balanced.  They support more fossil fuels.  In addition to permitting Shell to drill in the Arctic Ocean, President Obama is pushing to open up drilling on both the east and west coasts of the United States.  Under his watch, the United States has become the largest oil and gas producer in the world.  Is there really any hope that he will stop the Keystone XL Pipeline? There is no balance.  There is no attempt to fight climate change. There is only continued support and encouragement to the fossil fuel industry.  A simple Google search will confirm this fact, but if you want a quick read, here is an article published by U.S. News & World Report (here) entitled "Arctic Drilling Undercuts Obama's Global Warming Efforts, Experts Say".

There is no safe way to drill in the Arctic.  Here is ABC's summary of a widely quoted report by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the agency within our government (the Obama Administration) that is supposed to be the expert.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the agency that approved Shell’s plan for drilling in the Chukchi Sea, admitted in a February report that there was a “75% chance of one or more large spills” occurring in the area over the next 77 years.

The drill site is over 1,000 miles from the nearest Coast Guard site that could work to constrain a spill.  So we essentially know that we will do permanent and incredible damage to this area, and yet we are approving the drilling.

To add insult to injury, President Obama granted the right to drill in very dangerous conditions to Shell Oil whose safety record is abysmal.  Here are a few highlights of Shell's Arctic Ocean drilling for 2012 from the Natural Resources Defense Fund (here):

July 2012 - Shell Oil's Noble Discoverer drill ship drags anchor and nearly drifts ashore in Dutch Harbor, Alaska.
September 2012 - Caught off guard by sea ice, Shell is forced to halt drilling – just one day after it started.
September 2012 - In an initial test in Puget Sound, WA, Shell's Arctic oil spill containment system is "crushed like a beer can."
October 2012 - The CEO of French oil giant Total says drilling in the Arctic is too risky.
November 2012 - Noble Discoverer catches fire.
December 31, 2012 - Kulluk drilling rig breaks loose from tow lines five times in heavy storm and runs aground off Kodiak Island, Alaska.

The problem is clearly summarized in the following paragraphs from The New York Times article entitled "Shell's Record Adds to the Anger of Those Opposing Arctic Drilling" (here)

[Environmentalists] said that the company’s track record in the Arctic should rule out another chance for it. Shell tried to drill in the Arctic in 2012, and the company’s multibillion-dollar drilling rig, the Kulluk, ran aground. The operator of a drill ship hired by Shell also pleaded guilty to eight felony offenses and agreed to pay $12.2 million over shoddy record-keeping that covered up hazardous conditions and jury-rigged equipment that discharged polluted water.

“Shell has already proven itself not up to the challenge of development in the Arctic Ocean,” said Franz Matzner, the director of the Beyond Oil Initiative at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “But it’s not just Shell. The fact is, there’s no safe way to pursue oil exploration in the frozen wastes of the Arctic Ocean.”

He added, “This is an inexplicable decision to do something that is dirty, dangerous and unnecessary.”

Every day I wonder more and more what happened to the candidate Obama who I so wholeheartedly supported.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Climate Change

Dear Friends,

A headline in The New York Times today reads, "2014 Was the Hottest Year on Record, Surpassing 2010" (here).  I have reprinted a few paragraphs from the article below as well as a chart that to me says it all.

Several scientists said the most remarkable thing about the 2014 record was that it occurred in a year that did not feature El Niño, a large-scale weather pattern in which the ocean dumps an enormous amount of heat into the atmosphere.
Longstanding claims by climate-change skeptics that global warming has stopped, seized on by politicians in Washington to justify inaction on emissions, depend on a particular starting year: 1998, when an unusually powerful El Niño produced the hottest year of the 20th century.
With the continued heating of the atmosphere and the surface of the ocean, 1998 is now being surpassed every four or five years, with 2014 being the first time that has happened in a year featuring no real El Niño pattern. Gavin A. Schmidt, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said the next time a strong El Niño occurs, it is likely to blow away all temperature records.

I am afraid that you cannot see the scale for the chart which shows the yearly global surface temperatures from 1880 through 2014 relative to the 1951-1980 average.  The last month where the surface temperature was below that average was in February 1985.  The sustained annual upward trend started in the late 1970s.  

Of course none of this will matter to the Republicans who deny the existence of climate change and who will, I am sure, continue to argue that climate change does not exist, that we cannot make any difference and that anything that we do will harm the economy.

Bravo, to President Obama who is going to issue new regulations to limit the emissions of methane by the oil and gas industry.  He announced that he will issue new regulations to dramatically reduce the emissions of methane during the exploration and production of oil and gas.  Here is an article from The New York Times.  President Obama is serious about doing everything he can to curb global warming and that is great.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

Climate Change Reality

Dear Friends,

As you all know, China and the United States have reached an agreement to reduce carbon emissions which as environmental activist Josh Fox said on "All in with Chris Hayes" on November 12th, "The United States and China are entering reality together."  The two largest carbon emitters in the world, responsible for 40% of the world's carbon emissions are finally publicly saying they will lead the world in reducing carbon emissions.  What a powerful statement!  The European Union has already entered reality so now the focus can turn to India, Brazil, Russia and other major carbon emitters to also enter climate change reality.

In terms of a wonderful legacy for President Obama, this agreement is a perfect example of great diplomacy serving the best interests of the United States and the world.  Secretary Kerry initiated the idea with his Chinese counterpart and after nine months of negotiations it fell to President Obama to President Xi of China to spend five hours together reaching final agreement.  Doing this is exactly what great leaders do.

The Republicans are reacting as you might expect with outrage and illogical fear mongering.  Senator Inhoff, who will be the Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in the next Congress and who is a climate change denier, said that the agreement is "a non-binding charade."  Senator McConnell said,

I was particularly distressed by the deal he’s reached with the Chinese on his current trip, which, as I read the agreement, it requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years, while these carbon emission regulations are creating havoc in my state and other states across the country.

Presumably the carbon emission regulations he is referring to are those requiring coal fired electrical plants to dramatically reduce their emissions.  Those regulations are critical to fighting climate change and are long overdue.  They are also necessary for us to stop killing people.  Here is a brief summary of a report by the American Lung Association (here):

The Lung Association’s report reveals the real public health threat from coal-fired power plants.

• Coal-fired power plants that sell electricity to the grid produce more hazardous air pollution in the U.S. than any other industrial pollution  sources.
• More than 400 coal-fired power plants located in 46 states across the country release more that 386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants into the atmosphere each year.
• Particle pollution from power plants is estimated to kill approximately 13,000 people a year.

“Power plant pollution kills people,” said Charles D. Connor, President and CEO of the American Lung Association. “It threatens the brains and nervous system of children. It can cause cancer, heart attacks and strokes.

So Senator McConnell and his fellow Republicans who are so concerned about protecting life are happy to have us continue to kill people so that we can have a few very dangerous jobs mining coal.

The other part of Senator McConnell's statement that the Chinese do not have to do anything for 16 years is absolutely false.  Either Senator McConnell does not understand reality or he is simply lying to appeal to his base and continue his fear based politics.  Or maybe it is both.  In any case for the person who is to be the next Majority Leader in the Senate to say these things demonstrates what a sorry state our country is in.

The reality of the Chinese agreement is that they will peak in their carbon emissions by 2030 and at that point will generate 20% of their electricity from renewable, non-carbon sources.  This agreement is the first time that the Chinese have acknowledged publicly that they will cap their emissions.  In addition, in order to achieve the goal of producing 20% of their electricity from renewable, non-carbon sources they will need to build renewable, non-carbon electrical plants equal to all of their current coal fired plants and also equal to the entire United States electrical generating capacity and do that in 16 years.  They can and likely will accomplish that goal for several reasons.  First, they are under significant domestic pressure to reduce air pollution.  Second, these goals in China have the effect of law.  Third, investing heavily in renewable, non-carbon energy sources will make them the undisputed leader in that technology unless the United States is smart enough to compete for that title.

If the Chinese can build renewable, non-carbon electrical generating facilities large enough to provide enough electricity to meet the needs of the United States, why can't we do that?  We could be the first country in the world to generate its energy needs from renewable, non-carbon sources.  Can you imagine what that would do for our economy and our national security?  Historically the United States has thrived on taking on big, long-term challenges and that is what made us a super power.  We can do that again, but we must have leaders with vision and guts and backbones.  If we let the current energy companies drive our policies, we will be relegated not only to a world completely degraded by the impact of climate change, but we will be left behind economically and morally.

I have from time to time accused President Obama of making great speeches but failing to follow through with actions.  In order to avoid that criticism and to really secure as part of his legacy fighting climate change, President Obama needs to take immediate actions to be clear that the United States will work hard to meet its goals under the agreement, carbon emissions that are 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025.  The first thing that he should do is deny the permit for the XL Pipeline.  Why would anybody take us seriously as a leader in fighting climate change if we facilitate the production and burning of the dirtiest carbon on the earth?

Please join me in congratulating President Obama on this historic agreement with China and urging him to cancel the XL Pipeline (here).

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Keystone XL Pipeline

Dear Friends,

Speaker Boehner has indicated that one of the first items on his agenda is to pass a bill authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline.  Several media outlets, such as Politico (here) are indicating that it is possible that with the new Congress, there will be a veto proof majority to overturn a veto of such legislation by President Obama.  President Obama has said that he would only permit the Keystone pipeline if it "does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution".

If you need some background on the science of the pollution to be caused by the Keystone pipeline, I would suggest an article in the Scientific American entitled "How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming" (here) and an article in The Guardian entitled "What tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline mean for climate change" (here).  A quick summary of the scientific facts is that the Keystone pipeline by encouraging and increasing the development of the tar sands will significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.  Consequently, President Obama should immediately prevent the Keystone pipeline from being approved.

One of the arguments in favor of the Keystone pipeline is an increase in jobs.  Of course, as  the rate of global warming increases the need to rebuild destroyed infrastructure and to overcome the negative impact of global warming will produce lots of jobs but none of them will be permanent.  The other argument is that this oil will be produced, processed and sold whether there is a pipeline or not so why stop it.  That argument is only true if we continue to use fossil fuels when there are viable alternative energy sources that would be much less expensive for the society to develop and utilize.  The last argument is that China and other developing nations are continuing to pollute at an astounding rate so we should just give up and doom our children, grandchildren and the world to a terrible future.

There is no valid economic or moral argument to support the Keystone pipeline, please join me in telling President Obama (here) and your Senators to stop the Keystone pipeline.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

EQ 12: Ecological Strain + Wealth Inequality = Civilization Collapse

Dear Friends,

A cross-disciplinary group led by applied mathematician Safa Motesharrei of the US National Science Foundation using the new Human And Nature DYnamical (HANDY) model according The Guardian (here) has reached the following conclusions:

It finds that according to the historical record even advanced, complex civilisations are susceptible to collapse, raising questions about the sustainability of modern civilisation:
"The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent."
By investigating the human-nature dynamics of these past cases of collapse, the project identifies the most salient interrelated factors which explain civilisational decline, and which may help determine the risk of collapse today: namely, Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy.
These factors can lead to collapse when they converge to generate two crucial social features: "the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity"; and "the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or "Commoners") [poor]" These social phenomena have played "a central role in the character or in the process of the collapse," in all such cases over "the last five thousand years."

 Except for the science deniers in the Republican Party, there is almost universal agreement that climate change brought on by human activity will destroy our planet if we do not act quickly to reverse human's impact on the environment.  Yesterday it became clear that there is at least one Republican that is not a science denier perhaps his courage will give other Republicans the courage to face an existential issue for our planet.  You can read his op-ed in The New York Times here.

With respect to the wealth disparity, the United States is clearly off the charts.  It has been widely reported that the Walton Family (Walmart) has more wealth than the bottom 40% of Americans.  See here and here.  That analysis uses 2010 data.  In 2007 the Walton Family's wealth was estimated at $73.3 billion.  In 2010, it was estimated at $89.5 billion.  During those same three years the median wealth of American families dropped by 38.8%.  The Walton Family wealth is now estimated to be $111.5 billion.

Huff Post Business recently published an analysis of which billionaires could purchase all the houses in which cities (here).  It is a fun article even if extremely frightening.  The top four billionaires have a combined wealth of over $322 billion.  Here they are along with the cities in which they could buy every home:
Walton              $111.5 billion     Seattle
Koch                  $78.1 billion     Atlanta
Gates                 $76.6 billion     Boston
Buffett               $56.1 billion     Charlotte

That concentration of wealth in four families is astounding and certainly speaks to the haves and the have nots.  I do not know if the HANDY model works or if our civilization will actually collapse but I do know:
The disparity between the really rich and the rest is immoral and not sustainable.
The fact that the really rich can buy our elections will destroy our democracy.
The science deniers will continue to block action to reverse climate change and other environmental disasters so long as they are backed by super rich like the Koch brothers.
That all means that we will destroy our country and our planet.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal