³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Turing a supertanker takes time and even longer if you are not at the wheel. It was naive of anyone to think that changing the President would change the USA. Their greed and addiction to conspicuous consumption of far more than their share of the World's resources is enshrined in the very structure of the society and it will take a very long time and great determination to change.

However Chrysler's and GM's bankruptcy may help the country on the way, but on the downside California (one fifth of the USA about) is proving itself ungovernable according to its right wing governor which doe not bode well.

Can you really see the average overweight American citizen squeezing into a Fiat Topolino! Not I think in this life! The other problem is that they are talking about Carbon Trading which is so far not a successful strategy anywhere. (Essentially too many credits are always given away to existing 'polluters' at the start and this wrecks any possible downward pressure on emissions.)

Te only way to persuade the average Joe to cut back his/her use of carbon is for him/her to find it is unaffordable - and that ain't gonna happen!

It is better to plan to live with higher carbon dioxide, sea levels and a redistributed World weather system - don't buy homes under 50 m above sea level and live in the middle of the world's temperate zone not too far from the sea than to expect the USA to change!

See also /blogs/worldtonight/2009/05/obama_and_bush_spot_the_differ.html

Obama becomes more and more realistic every day.

"At a stroke the new bill has threatened the viability of the great hope for clean fossil fuel plants, CCS."

Erm... Kingsnorth?

*Ducks the flying objects being hurled at her*

I am curious though as to how come it's OK for an American coal plant to propose to build CCS, but in the UK it's not acceptable and is subject to much hatred and protesting.

Granted it's not in place yet, but then neither is the American one. Presumably that American coal power plant will now go ahead without CCS, as the sale of electricity generated from coal is still profitable if done without the expense and reduced efficiency of CCS.

@Jane,

We live in crazy times.

Rationality, genuine science, and even common sense have all been left behind.

It's a kind of mass delusion and hysteria. An incoherent emotional outpouring: like the Diana funeral - but writ large.

But more and more people are questioning this madness.

A good start is the blog of Anthony Watts:

Justin:
A few things in response to your Sweetwater, Texas video:
1. While America is becoming more aware and engaged in the global green movement, the majority of us do not want to be anything like Europe or the UK. Your country and the EU are models of socialist disaster. Hopefully, we will learn from your mistakes.
2. While Texas may be the largest polluter in the U.S., it should be pointed out that most of the oil and gas in this country is located in or near it. And, thus, it is covered with the industries that go with the production/transportation/refining of those natural resources. Without such 'pollution' you, and your fellow Brits would still be sipping your ale in caves and hiding out from the Normans/and or Germans while watching the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ in the dark. And Nancy Pelosi would be taking a slow wagon train from California to Washington, D.C. instead of the corporate jet she now enjoys.
3. Our consumption per capita is high in the U.S. This is a natural by product of our high standard of living. We need to change it. But it cannot be changed by everyone involved in a "polluting" industry being fired because someone in San Francisco or London wants a green universe and either can't or won't work at a job that produces any useful product.
4. Those of use who have worked in an industry that actually produces a product of value view those of you who likely have never ever really gotten your hands dirty with much skepticism. While I personally believe folks like you have value in that you keep pressure on the capitalistic system to be accountable and to work toward responsible 'greenness', I view you as low hanging fruit.
5.You seem to have access to information and people, but I see nothing original or new coming from your stories. Certainly, little of it is objective enough to give it credence beyond that provided by the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳-which in America is about zero.
6.I have been to Sweetwater. Your video did not do it justice since you showed only a few select areas. For that alone you will never have credibility with me.
As a 'jounalist', without credibility you have nothing.

The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ has a house opinion on all kinds of subjects from George Bush through to Plastic Bags. Both are bad things at the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳.

Justin's film covers quite a few of these ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ fetishes: bashing America, bashing 4x4s, pushing the global warming idea. It just needs a promo for islam and a mention of organic muesli and it would have a full house.

For seasoned viewers it's fascinating to watch the coverage of a totally new story. There's a brief window of objective reporting before a ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ viewpoint emerges and the coverage turns lopsided. This kind of norming process is covered in Group-Think 101.

A recent example was the Georgia vs Russia war - we got very good objective coverage for about 2 days before the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ had decided which side was the good side.

Prompted by the 'disappointing response' (quantity? quality? Or level of support?) challenge in twitter, I can assure you I care very much about the future of my kids on this planet.

However, I do have some concerns about how well it is being served by those who have either appointed themselves or are in privileged positions to help share information in such a way so free thinking folk can make their minds up in an objective atmosphere. And hence, while the message can often have value, I tend to view the messengers, from individual to corporate, quite critically. Especially when 'they' claim to speak for 'me and mine'.

So, taking that last line of the piece, speaking of using less energy....

I fear I had to crank my eyebrow quite early at the notion of using a helicopter for a few seconds' shot 'to picture the scale' of the gently turning wind farm blades.

Like the Hummer-driving-engineer, it seems that many industries - even green-supportive media - can't seem to 'do their jobs' without breezily excusing away certain compromises that are not often accorded lesser mortals struggling to make a crust. This can create a sense of them vs. us situation, often erring on 'do as we say, not as we still like doing because we're creating 'awareness' between which an empathetic bridge is hard to forge.

I was also a bit intrigued about the priorities that can come across, which seemed to me to be;

1) Making money
2) Reduction in GHGs (not clear if that is to 'target' and hence often subsidy-supported, which often is not quite the same as doing right by the planet) and....
3) Production of enviROI+ energy

I would have thought that, beyond reducing at any viable, reasonable, practical point, the generation of energy in a form that produces the lowest 'harmful' by-products should be the main aim, and any advocacy challenged to prove they are so.

And while gimmicks can have a place, especially to help entertain to encourage education and hence information, they can distract. Hence I'd still like a lot more science, and if issues are not clear-cut, well debated by professional scientists and engineers, and not a gaggle of usual suspect interest groups that may make for good TV or meet agendas, but hardly help me arrive at a view on worthy initiatives to support.

For instance there was one point mentioned that I would have liked delved into a lot more. And that was the fact that this vast wind farm was actually located near a town of just 10,000 folk. Now, maybe that's because it's where the wind is. But how does it stack up against, say solar, on a cradle to grave basis (with subsidies stripped away to get a true cost/benefit comparison. It looked pretty darn sunny there. And, just as I subscribe to the notion of wearing a jummie to crank the thermostat down here in winter, I'd probably suggest a suit and tie might lead to the a/c getting cranked up more than it need be where the sun do shine).

And this in turn leads to further questions on massive generation vs. microgeneration, as surely remote locations at distance from consumption do mean compromises to efficiency of delivery.

These are key points that often get glossed over when the discussion seems mainly to be dominated by interest groups, pols and those involved with money on the line. Even academics can be tainted by dubious associations and hence motivations. Hence contentious areas really require more than a couple a views, preferably around the same table, and moderated by chairperson(s) qualified to keep hyperbole in check and call questionable claims to account.

Not something I see or here very often throughout the MSM, and oddly so considering the criticality of the topic and passions that can be aroused in debate.

Hence the decisions made, not made and bottling of by our currently less than stellar political classes become very hard to call.

ps: Did T Boone's people strap you/Justin to the chair for that interview? You/He looks terrified. Can't think why, Mr. Pickens seems a guy well worth listening to?

President Barack Obama has also done a u-turn on the military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees, and he also intends to hold prisoners without trial indefinitely, which is against our basic human rights. Indefinite detention will act as a recruiting sargent for extremists as they will say this is how they treat muslims why should you show them any respect.

@ tattoo0616, just in case you check back:

1. Could you clarify a few things for me? Why do you think the European "models" of climate change are a socialist disaster? We think we're leading the way and everyone else should be following in our footsteps. Aside from the fact that we're falling short of our ambitious targets we're doing everything we can and constantly pushing to do more. How is that a disaster? The sheer scale of change in Europe compared to elsewhere in the world speaks for itself - we're very successful, and the problem is that America doesn't want to follow. If it did, saving the planet would be an achievable goal. Unfortunately America is capable of sinking us all, no matter how successful Europe is on its own.

2. I think this is a bit of "Brit bashing" going on here, but I should point out that if your implication is that without America we wouldn't have housing or electricity I would remind you that the British invented commercial uses of electricity (Michael Faraday - inventor of the first electric dynamo), and without electricity, hence sitting in the dark, we wouldn't have a working television either. Furthermore the British had housing before America was colonised.

3. What does low-hanging fruit mean? Is it a compliment or a criticism?

I should reveal that I work in the electricity industry myself. We view the green movement as crucial to the path to a better way of life, one that doesn't involve fossil fuels. With the pressure of the green movement we're able to get government backing of renewable generation and financial support for its research and development. All change must first be desired, then be realised.

Wind energy is just at the right place at the right time, but it may not be the best solution. Hydrogen, algea, other organic electricity producers will in the long run produce better options. The problem will be that once wind-power gains a dominant position it will be like gas and coal producers and use its' influcence to minimize research and impelentation of other fuel sources. Just the way of the world and there are no signs that business is going to change the way it acts and cerntainly no indications that political power can't be bought.
President Obama has one big problem and that is Congress. Congress, readily on the take from corporate lobbyist and corporate fund-rasiers has no intention of changing the way business is conducted in Washington. When the financial crisis first began it was very apparent that Congress when given the oppunity to regulate derivatives and hedge funds did nothing at the request of the money-laudndries of Wall Street. Congress has its own rules and those are that Congress accepts no blame for anything that happens and is willing to use taypayers money to correct problem that they create by viture of graft and corruption. Congress is corrupt, plain and simple. Find the member who stood up and said that they warned about the financial crisis, find the member who introduced legislation, find the member who didn't have their own personal money in housing stocks. Thomas Jefferson warned that the people would need to go to Washington and run Congress out of town about every 8 years because lobbyist would be making all the decisions. He was right. Too bad it didn't become a tradition.

I saw Ethical Man on Newsnight for the first time last night and thought the report was innovative and very informative. It was very interesting to hear of energy sources in California, and the "Weatherisation" of homes which is one of Pres. Obama's schemes.

How does all that work in Arnie's Republican manor? Arnie's leading the way on sustainable energy.

It was the first time I saw the LA pig farm report which made me laugh.

More, Ethical Man, more.

This is a bit tangential, but why on earth do you call yourself "Ethical Man"? You don't write about ethics, you write about climate change.

There's more to ethics than climate change, and the ethical issues concerning climate change are not clear cut.

So this blog is not what I expected. It's indicative of a weird new left-wing subculture in which the ethical life is conflated with the environmentalist life, right and wrong is just a matter of saving carbon, and Aristotle is just some old Greek guy.

I have lived in America (and loved living in America) for the past 23 years. I have seen Presidents and government judged left, or right, and have come to the conclusion that this means slightly right, or slightly left of status quo. Under these circumstances it is unrealistic to expect anything more of President Obama, as, once in office and firmly in the company of Senators who have been in office far too long, ideology always seems to fall away.

Regrettably, once in power, both political parties turn from reform to self-perpetuation. This is why John McCain, a man with contrary and mostly responsible views, and no chance (therefore less likely to succumb to pressure) of a second term, may have been more a part of the solution than most gave him credit for.

The world is probably justified in viewing the self-indulgence of many Americans as a national epidemic of greed and bloated self-entitlement but, as with any population, there is a core group of those who do try to do the right thing. Americans, when faced with harsh reality, are still an innovative and committed people. Lets just hope that the message does not get through too late.

On ethical man on 9 july the statement was made that Texas was where the oil situation started, not so. It started in Pennsylvania, right around Oil City, Pa. Enjoy your program, we live in Las Vegas and are in Norway for about 3 Months. Keep up the good work, I am almost alone among most of my friends that Global warming is real. Valiant Fred

We forget that the USA has real democracy.
If the President could just push anything through, (as Britain`s parliament does when it sees fit),,he would start a new revolution, as the States voted to do something different after CONSULTATION with their own electorate. They would then make State Laws, ratified in their State legislature , by THEIR State Supreme Court.
But still what I have described is real democracy! Somethin we seem to be missing in Bitain.
President Obama wants a 2nd term,he will compromise on things to get one!!