Vicariously I

No.

If someone can find a way to send a message of hope and unite the youth of America we can stop going down that path and change directions.

Hillary Clinton is the same old politician who stands to lose from real change. That's why Obamas message of hope and change are "just words" to her because she wants them to be "just words" to everyone else as well.

Words are always just words until they inspire people to act.

__________________
"It's hard to face reality when you're busy living in the American Dream."

Vicariously I

OldManOnFire

I wonder if you have EVER bothered to read the energy/environment plans for both candidates?? I'm guessing you have not so here is your chance to shine on this issue!!

Barack Obama's Plan

Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.
Confront Deforestation and Promote Carbon Sequestration: Obama will develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.
Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.
Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce: Obama will use proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program to invest in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production. Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.
Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.
Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S
Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025: Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.
Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology: Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology.
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.
Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.
Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Barack Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. The standard requires fuels suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by ten percent by 2020.
Increase Renewable Fuel Standard: Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Obama's plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.

Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies. Obama will also invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines.
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Barack Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.
Establish a Grant Program for Early Adopters: Obama will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency.
Invest in a Digital Smart Grid: Obama will pursue a major investment in our utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate modern energy requirements, such as reliability, smart metering, and distributed storage
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change
Create New Forum of Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters: Obama will create a Global Energy Forum — that includes all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa –the largest energy consuming nations from both the developed and developing world. The forum would focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.
Re-Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: The UNFCCC process is the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem and an Obama administration will work constructively within it.


Hillary Clinton's Plan

Centered on a cap and trade system for carbon emissions, stronger energy and auto efficiency standards and a significant increase in green research funding, Hillary's plan will reduce America's reliance on foreign oil and address the looming climate crisis.

Setting ambitious targets, the plan would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of global warming, and cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds from 2030 projected levels, more than 10 million barrels per day.

Hillary would transform our economy from carbon-based to clean and energy efficient, jumpstarting research and development through a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund and doubling investment in basic energy research. She would also spur the green building industry by funding the retrofitting and modernization of 20 million low-income homes and take concrete steps to reduce electricity consumption, including enacting strict appliance efficiency standards and phasing out incandescent light bulbs.

Recognizing that transportation accounts for 70 percent of U.S. oil consumption, Hillary would increase fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, but would help automakers retool their production facilities through $20 billion in "Green Vehicle Bonds."

To take the steps necessary to transition to a clean and renewable energy future, Hillary will urge all of the nation's stakeholders to contribute to the effort. Automakers will be asked to make more efficient vehicles; oil and energy companies to invest in cleaner, renewable technologies; utilities to ramp up use of renewables and modernize the grid; coal companies to implement clean coal technology; government to establish a cap and trade carbon emissions system and renew its leadership in energy efficient buildings and services; individuals to conserve energy and utilize efficient light bulbs and appliances in their homes; and industry to build energy efficient homes and buildings.

Hillary's plan to promote energy independence, address global warming, and transform our economy includes:



A new cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards energy independence;

An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs;

A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy. The SEF will finance one-third of the $150 billon ten-year investment in a new energy future contained in this plan;

Doubling of federal investment in basic energy research, including funding for an ARPA-E, a new research agency modeled on the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Aggressive action to transition our economy toward renewable energy sources, with renewables generating 25 percent of electricity by 2025 and with 60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030;

10 "Smart Grid City" partnerships to prove the advanced capabilities of smart grid and other advanced demand-reduction technologies, as well as new investment in plug-in hybrid vehicle technologies;

An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, and $20 billion of "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards;

A plan to catalyze a thriving green building industry by investing in green collar jobs and helping to modernize and retrofit 20 million low-income homes to make them more energy efficient;

A new "Connie Mae" program to make it easier for low and middle-income Americans to buy green homes and invest in green home improvements;

A requirement that all publicly traded companies report financial risks due to climate change in annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and

Creation of a "National Energy Council" within the White House to ensure implementation of the plan across the Executive Branch.

A requirement that all federal buildings designed after January 20, 2009 will be zero emissions buildings.

__________________________________________________ ______

So in your eyes Vicariously I, all of these words on energy and the environment, which are copied directly from Clinton's website, are meaningless??

She is a complete liar--can't be trusted to follow through on these words?? She is duping the US and all of her supporters??

And you can find 'huge' differences between the Obama and Clinton plans that prove Obama's is better, and Clinton's are just hollowed words??

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

Vicariously I

Well lets slow down a little bit here.

When has Obama said that hers are "just words"?

Second Bush said a lot of things too.

And guess what?

He was full of shit.

It's not what the person says, it's the person. If the person is real and sincere then you can bet their words are too.

For well over a decade I have voted for the lesser of two evils.

For the first time I feel like this is not the case.

Change can be discussed as issues in a political setting but in the real world all change has to come from within. People have to want to change because even these energy plans will not succeed unless the people are willing to help. People have to feel inspired and Hillary is anything but inspiring.

__________________
"It's hard to face reality when you're busy living in the American Dream."

Vicariously I

Titanium Cat

Yes I agreed that climate change is a more accurate description.

Of course the IPCC and most scientific organizations have been referring to it as climate change for a long time, however maybe 0.1% of the population has actually read their reports. The media and politicians used to refer to it more often as global warming, Luntz actually used study groups to see which terms people found "softer" and then included it in his strategy.

Which models would you be referring to? The general theory of greenhouse gas induced climate change involves significant polar amplification in which the Arctic (and later the Antarctic) will warm faster than the rest of the earth. Thus the coldest areas on earth will warm the most, it will be rare for them to become cooler. And that is happening right now. I would be interested in seeing models that actually predicted any sort of long term cooling in certain regions.

I don't know of any climate models that make such a prediction. CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and will increase long wave radiation everywhere especially in colder climates. Predicting major changes in ocean currents isn't something mainstream GCM's are doing.

Yes but an increase in major storms is a generalized prediction that is difficult to apply regionally with a significant degree of accuracy at this point. Models predict that some areas which are quite wet right now will become drier and some areas that are dry will become wetter. It's not accurate to state that wetter areas will get wetter and drier areas will get drier, the effects of climate change will be much more variable on the regional level.

Titanium Cat

I have seen the movie which was IMHO really bad on many levels. The Day After Tomorrow isn't just a movie, it's wild science fiction and I haven't read anything by a respected climatologist that even comes close to agreeing with it's scenario. Although Gore points to the melting in Greenland as a possible disruption of NA thermohaline circulation, this is not being considered as a likely event and certainly not in the near to medium future (several hundred years). Models predict that ocean circulation in general will weaken with warming but not collapse. Evidence from previous ice age transitions might if anything contradict the prediction of weakening currents.

ocealdia

Your right, last summer where I live, we had the most cool and wet summer ever recorded. It is normally hot and dry. It was like living in Seattle last summer.

OldManOnFire

You wrote: "Hillary Clinton is the same old politician who stands to lose from real change. That's why Obamas message of hope and change are "just words" to her because she wants them to be "just words" to everyone else as well. Words are always just words until they inspire people to act." You indicated that Clinton does not intend to create 'real change' yet her daily statements and website indicate desired change all over the place!! Next you're going to tell me his change is better than her change, or that he can achieve change better than she can...come on.

So if Bush was full of crap, then why wouldn't Obama and Clinton and any politician be full of crap?? Regarding Obama, he is a complete unknown! No one has any idea what his capabilities might be.

This is complete nonsense. And there is no way imaginable that you or anyone can decide between Obama and Clinton which one is more real and sincere--it can't be done...period. Now if you are best friends with both of them, then perhaps you might know more than the rest of us clueless idiots. But if you are not, then you belong in our group.

At least you voted. You simply like to make your statement negative by saying the 'lessor of two evils', when in fact, you actually voted for the one you thought would be better.

This is great to vote your 'feelings' but in doing so you cannot convey to me any logic why things should be the same for me.

First, there are millions of people who are emotionally and financially supporting Clinton and Obama--this is a fact! It's okay if 'you' believe Clinton is anything but inspiring, but for you to assume that her millions of supporters feel the same as you is narrow-minded and ridiculous!

These energy plans require a president to push the ideas, they require a Congress who will overwhelmingly support the ideas, they require an electorate who can understand the issue and support the ideas, they require a business community who supports the ideas, they will require lots of time to implement, and they will require lots of money of which the USA has zero. Maybe you can't see it Vicariously I, but the president plays a small role in achieving these ideals...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

OldManOnFire

I'm just a layman on the topic although I read nearly everything I can.

There are many many models, none of which use empirical evidence, and depending on the variables there are many potential outcomes. One data that is known today is the average increase in temperature of the Earth. Models predict all sorts of ranges what temperature will do in the next one hundred years, but it appears the average increase might be 3 degrees C.

Who knows what will happen; what the ocean acidity might be, what will happen to ocean currents, the impact of extreme weather events, wind shear, cyclonic activity, melting of ice caps or maybe the opposite, etc.

Further I believe these events will evolve such that changes we see in the next ten years might reverse themselves in the following ten years depending on all the variables.

And I know some of the things I have stated are conflicting to you, but I also know that much of what I see and read on the topic, which is at a fever-pitch right now, is also conflicting in many areas. I believe this is part of the problem with the American public, other than being lazy and stupid, is that we are seeing so much conflicting information--no true consensus.

Yesterday 220 square miles of ice broke into the ocean and I doubt a handful of people in the US gave a rip. Perhaps when people wake up with ocean water sloshing up against their beds, they will finally know something is not good.

I personally believe global climate changes might be the most critical issue facing us in the next fifty years. But I also know that what I do, or the US might do, is small peanuts in the world scale, therefore, it will take a world-wide effort IF there is any chance to check or reduce the potentially devastating outcomes.

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

OldManOnFire

Some information for you:

Current theories on the cause of abrupt climatic change focus on sudden shut downs and start-ups of the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) (also referred to as the thermohaline circulation), which is a global network of density-driven ocean currents. The Meridional Overturning Circulation transports a tremendous amount of heat northward, keeping the North Atlantic and much of Europe up to 9�F (5�C) warmer, particularly in the winter. A sudden shut down of this current would have a ripple effect throughout the ocean-atmosphere system, forcing worldwide changes in ocean currents, and in the path of the atmospheric jet stream. Studies of North Atlantic Ocean sediments have revealed that the Meridional Overturning Circulation has shut down many times in the past, and that many of these shut downs coincide with the abrupt climate change events noted in the Greenland ice cores.

How does one shut down the Meridional Overturning Circulation ? First, one must examine the MOC itself. The MOC, or Great Ocean Conveyor Belt, is a system of interconnected ocean currents that girdle the planet.

At the surface, warmer ocean currents are driven by the winds, and so move parallel to the wind direction, except where continental land masses block the way. Water can also move vertically in the ocean. High density water sinks, and low density water rises. Salty water is more dense than fresh water, and cold water is more dense than warm water, so that wherever we find cold, salty water, it tends to sink. Colder currents are deeper and have higher salinity.

In the tropical Atlantic, the sun's heat evaporates large amounts of water, creating relatively warm, salty ocean water. This warm, salty water flows westward toward North America, then up the East Coast of the U.S., then northeastward toward Europe, forming the mighty Gulf Stream current. As this warm, salty water reaches the ocean regions on either side of Greenland, cold winds blowing off of Canada and Greenland cool the water substantially. These cool, salty waters are now very dense compared to the surrounding waters, and sink to the bottom of the ocean. Thus, the oceanic areas by Greenland where this sinking occurs are called "deep-water formation areas". This North Atlantic deep water flows southward toward Antarctica, eventually making it all the way to the Pacific Ocean, where it rises back to the surface to complete the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt. It takes about 1000 years for the water to make a complete circuit around the globe.

Since the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt is driven in part by differences in ocean water density, if one can pump enough fresh water into the ocean in the key areas on either side of Greenland where the Gulf Stream waters cool and sink, this will lower the ocean's salinity (and therefore its density) enough so that the waters can no longer sink. As a result, the Atlantic conveyor belt and Gulf Stream current would shut down in just a few years, dramatically altering the climate.

How much fresh water is needed to shut down the MOC?
It is unknown precisely how much fresh water is needed to shut down the MOC. Scientists are fairly certain that the last two abrupt coolings seen the Greenland ice core, the "Younger Dryas" event and the "8200 years before present" event, both occurred when huge North American glacial melt-water lakes flooded down the St. Lawrence River into the North Atlantic when the ice dams restraining the lakes broke. The sudden addition of low-density fresh water presumably partially or totally stopped the sinking of ocean waters in the North Atlantic, slowing or completely stopping the Meridional Overturning Circulation. Once the fresh water got into the North Atlantic, it stayed, puddling on top of the ocean and freezing in winter. The Meridional Overturning Circulation stayed shut off for about 1100 years during the Younger Dryas event, then suddenly restarted, for reasons scientists don't understand. Current computer models of the climate cannot reproduce the observed sudden shut-down or start-up of the Meridional Overturning Circulation at the beginning and end of the Younger Dryas period.

Other sudden shut downs of the Meridional Overturning Circulation observed in ice core and ocean sediment records are not thought to be due to sudden melt-water floods into the North Atlantic. These events may have happened simply because Earth's climate system is chaotic, or perhaps because some critical threshold was crossed when increases in precipitation, river run-off, and ice melt put enough fresh water into the ocean to shut down the Meridional Overturning Circulation.

How likely is it that global warming will trigger abrupt climate change?
Global warming will increase precipitation, river run-off, melting of the Greenland ice sheet, and melting of polar sea ice, all of which will increase the amount of fresh water flowing into the critical deep-water formation areas by Greenland. In the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers it states that, based on current model simulations, it is very likely (90-99% confidence) that the meridional overturning circulation (MOC) of the Atlantic Ocean will slow down during the 21st century. It also confirms the scientific consensus that is very unlikely the MOC will undergo a large abrupt transition during this century. Today's science is such that any long-term assessments of the MOC cannot be made with confidence.

How would the climate change if the Meridional overturning circulation shut down?

A shut down of the Meridional overturning circulation would suddenly decrease the amount of heat in the North Atlantic, leading to much colder temperatures in Europe and North America. A 2003 report prepared for the Department of Defense outlines what would happen if an abrupt climatic change similar to the 8200 years before present event were to recur today:

Annual average temperatures would drop up to 5° F in North America, and up to 6° F in northern Europe. This is not sufficient to trigger an ice age, which requires about a 10° F drop in temperature world-wide, but could bring about conditions like experienced in 1816--the famed "year without a summer". In that year, volcanic ash from the mighty Tambora volcanic eruption in Indonesia blocked the sun's rays, significantly cooling the globe. Snow fell in New England in June, and killing frosts in July and August caused widespread crop failures and famine in New England and northern Europe.

Annual average temperatures would warm up to 4° F in many areas of the Southern Hemisphere.

Multi-year droughts in regions unaccustomed to drought would affect critical agricultural and water resource regions world-wide, greatly straining food and water supplies.

Winter storms and winds would strengthen over North America and Europe.

Dr. Wally Broecker of Columbia University, the scientist who first pointed out the link between the Atlantic's conveyor circulation and abrupt climate change, wrote a letter in March 2004 to Science magazine, accusing the authors of the study of making exaggerated claims that "only intensify the existing polarization over global warming". Broecker argued that a global-warming induced abrupt climate change is not likely to occur until 100 years or so into the future, by which time Earth's temperature will have warmed sufficiently to offset much of the abrupt cooling a Meridional overturning circulation shut down would trigger. Broecker added: "What is needed is not more words but rather a means to shut down carbon dioxide emissions." The authors of the study defend their scenario thusly: "We have created a climate change scenario that although not the likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately".

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

OldManOnFire

You cannot make any judgement based on a single year's weather events. Global climate changes are based on information collected over decades, or hundreds and thousands of years. More than likely, your next summer will be hot and dry just like most of them have been.

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...