2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy does Hillary have such a lack of focus on environmental issues?
She doesn't mention it very much. Does she really get that there is a problem with too much carbon emissions?
How come she doesn't campaign on fracking? What is her position on coal exports? Does she still support the Keystone pipeline?
Her silence on these major issues is a concern to community of people who want to keep the earth livable. Climate change is already causing major social problems. Does she not consider it a priority?
If she wants to be taken seriously by this community she has a lot of work to do in convincing people she understands these issues.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Please note the date of this entry. 2009.
--------------------------------------------
your concern is noted
I heard what you said, but I just don't give a shit. "Your concern is noted" is the perfect phrase for casually dismissing an opinion you disagree with. It demonstrates a lack of concern by displaying an obvious pretense of actually caring. The phrase is reminiscent of the corporate-speak companies use when accepting suggestions that they will no doubt ignore.
Joe: Obama is not an American! He has a Kenyan birth certificate! I demand he be removed from office immediately!
Sally: Your concern is noted.
by skepsci September 24, 2009
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)
quickesst
(6,280 posts)
840high
(17,196 posts)something more original.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)she needs to reach out more.
Currently she is being defined by her tone-deafness on the issue and I am troubled that she is giving the strong impression that she and her followers have no concern at all for the issue of saving the planet and slowing down global warming.
I don't think anyone thinks she is a climate denier, and yet it is hard to avoid the fact that she has been oddly silent on the issue and that Gore has refused to endorse her.
(Hopefully the style in which this is written can shed some light on my actual point, which is the way in which the most progressive candidate, Bernie Sanders, has been attacked in this sleazy manner as "not being concerned about race issues".)
Vattel
(9,289 posts)
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)some folks lack any significant or meaningful connection to the outdoors, nature, ecosystems, respect for other living things, etc. for them, they environment is to be assessed for the monetary value of available or harvestable natural resources. and they hate dirt. they think it is solely contaminated with icky disease and other disgusting things.
do you think she has ever been on a camping, hiking or backpacking trip and slept on the ground (!)?
not likely. she lacks appreciation, experience, awareness. totally foreign to her.
of course, these are my "assumptions". seem very likely to me.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)To work in a commercial fishing factory is a hard job, much tougher then 'camping'
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)"tough" is not necessarily an important nor qualifying/contributing factor to developing a connection/awareness/appreciation of the natural world, the environment. nor does "tougher" insure appreciation of other living things on the earth.
being a "pet owner" may open doors to some awareness or appreciation of other living things but not the understanding and appreciation of ecology and how the web of life happens and does not happen on this earth.
to solely interpret " toughness" as a qualifier required to the awareness and experience of valuing and respecting the environment is narrow.
one may have a job working with a "product" harvested from nature - such as working in a fishing factory. one may be led to appreciates the product of nature for the prospect of a paycheck. then, perhaps, one may understand the value of ensuring the fishery or "product" is sustainable in order to secure one's paycheck.
"toughness" is not what makes one appreciate how critical the sustainability of the natural world/environment is to the web of life & all living things. everything known for sustaining the life force on this planet (air, water, climate, earth, minerals, etc) is a precise ecology. mess with them - and we can expect disruptions and life ending scenarios.
our own species & the sustainability of the ecology of our planet is finite.
life itself is a delicate balance. sustainable life is dependent on pure water, clean air, and soils with the correct balance of minerals, bacterias, and living dirt. all of these factors affect the entire food chain upon which humans and all living things are dependent.
"tough" is not what i meant as a condition or requirement for fostering sensitivity and a personal connection to the environment or nature or ecology and appreciation of other living things.
camping is nice. some people refer to it as "roughing" it - many appreciate the challenges of sleeping on the ground and cooking over a fire and being exposed to the elements. yet, neither of these is what is required to to connect and appreciate the environment. most certainly a commercial fishing factory is not how one "connects" with nature. it can possibly happen. i will not rule out "working in a commercial fishing factory" and the accompanying challenges as a means for the connection and apppreciation of the natural world and other living things. but, it may, more than anything, with relation to a paycheck or income provide an understanding.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)with Obama, he was very much the city kid growing up even as an adult he didn't have pets or camp. I don't think he ever rode a horse in his life.
IMO, people like Salazar and his 'good old boys' took full advantage of Obama, the greenhorn in the beginning. He's come a long way, but it will not be enough they have been gaming the DOI for so many decades.
I do appreciate what he and VP Biden have done, they did listen, got Salazar to resign and added to bills a couple things I'm very grateful they did.
I think Mrs Clinton can do an even better job then Obama has, she has more experience going in, if she wins the WH.
appalachiablue
(41,131 posts)foundation for my love of nature. I'm so grateful and it's stayed with me. (I dislike asphalt suburbia, no wonder).
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)
DJ13
(23,671 posts)This far out, thats not unecpected.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)to refine in the USA (the tar-sands pipeline plan) can't pass the permit process.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)and if she wants the Large Lefty vote she better speak out and stop is ignoring us.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Is what I come away with after paying attention to her and her quest for the White house all these years
Scuba
(53,475 posts)hopemountain
(3,919 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)In a better world, presidential candidates would debate how to solve the climate change crisis. Instead, climate change and other environmental issues are another area where Republicans and Democrats disagree. In fact, most leading Republicans won’t even admit climate change is happening.
Conversely, Hillary Clinton’s record during her eight years in the Senate should be encouraging to environmentalists. The League of Conservation Voters issues a report card every year on members of Congress. During then-Sen. Clinton’s time in office, she amassed a lifetime score of 82 out of 100.
As a means of comparison, current Republican Senators Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio have lifetime scores of 11, 11, 9, and 9, respectively. There is no comparison.
While in the senate, Clinton voted to:
-- Keep drillers out of public lands, including Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
-- Support clean, safe, renewable energy.
-- Protect families by ensuring water and air are clean.
-- Seek alternatives to coal.
-- Provide assistance for low income families for help with energy bills.
More: http://bluenationreview.com/environmental-issues-hillary-clinton-brainer-rivals/#ixzz3eMFCsoCb
djean111
(14,255 posts)ONE ICY MORNING in February 2012, Hillary Clinton's plane touched down in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, which was just digging out from a fierce blizzard. Wrapped in a thick coat, the secretary of state descended the stairs to the snow-covered tarmac, where she and her aides piled into a motorcade bound for the presidential palace. That afternoon, they huddled with Bulgarian leaders, including Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, discussing everything from Syria's bloody civil war to their joint search for loose nukes. But the focus of the talks was fracking. The previous year, Bulgaria had signed a five-year, $68 million deal, granting US oil giant Chevron millions of acres in shale gas concessions. Bulgarians were outraged. Shortly before Clinton arrived, tens of thousands of protesters poured into the streets carrying placards that read "Stop fracking with our water" and "Chevron go home." Bulgaria's parliament responded by voting overwhelmingly for a fracking moratorium.
Clinton urged Bulgarian officials to give fracking another chance. According to Borissov, she agreed to help fly in the "best specialists on these new technologies to present the benefits to the Bulgarian people." But resistance only grew. The following month in neighboring Romania, thousands of people gathered to protest another Chevron fracking project, and Romania's parliament began weighing its own shale gas moratorium. Again Clinton intervened, dispatching her special envoy for energy in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans. The State Department's lobbying effort culminated in late May 2012, when Morningstar held a series of meetings on fracking with top Bulgarian and Romanian officials. He also touted the technology in an interview on Bulgarian national radio, saying it could lead to a fivefold drop in the price of natural gas. A few weeks later, Romania's parliament voted down its proposed fracking ban and Bulgaria's eased its moratorium.
The episode sheds light on a crucial but little-known dimension of Clinton's diplomatic legacy. Under her leadership, the State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the globe—part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their energy resources as a cudgel. But environmental groups fear that exporting fracking, which has been linked to drinking-water contamination and earthquakes at home, could wreak havoc in countries with scant environmental regulation. And according to interviews, diplomatic cables, and other documents obtained by Mother Jones, American officials—some with deep ties to industry—also helped US firms clinch potentially lucrative shale concessions overseas, raising troubling questions about whose interests the program actually serves.
Oh, and no point trying to smear the messenger; this info is true and available elsewhere.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Outgoing Gov. Martin O’Malley says he is ready to allow drilling for natural gas in Western Maryland, but only if energy companies adhere to some of the most restrictive public health and environmental safeguards in the country.
O’Malley (D) will propose regulations next month that start with the “best practices” of other states and nations where hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is permitted, administration officials said. The regulations will include additional restrictions on drilling locations and efforts to limit the risks of drinking-water contamination and air pollution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/omalley-says-he-is-ready-to-allow-fracking-in-western-maryland-with-strict-safeguards/2014/11/25/36234f34-74b9-11e4-9d9b-86d397daad27_story.html
djean111
(14,255 posts)I don't believe for a second that there really are any "best practices" that will be adhered to or overseen. The fracking industry just does what it wants, and sneers afterwards.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)For sure it has changed our oil industry dramatically and is responsible for a massive increase in production. However, the environmental issue are for sure troubling... no doubt. It will be good to have this debate out in the open during the primaries.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)because dollar signs obfuscate the the risks of fracking. let us begin truth. there is no compromising and nothing acceptable about fracking with toxic substances and contaminating water tables no matter how far they are located from communities. they are considered toxic for a reason. neither time nor distance can change poison.
bigtree
(85,989 posts)..anticipating that the republican governor who followed him intended to move forward with his own fracking plan.
The real story (from Mother Jones)
"O'Malley is leaving office with a mixed, or at least nuanced, record on fracking. Western Maryland, just south of Pennsylvania, has natural gas deposits that are recoverable by fracking, but they have yet to be exploited. O'Malley imposed a moratorium on fracking in Maryland in 2011. But he's about to be succeeded by Republican Larry Hogan, an enthusiastic fracking proponent. So after the November election, O'Malley announced that he will unveil regulations this month that will allow fracking under limited circumstances, following the best practices of other states and imposing additional, stricter rules to curb air and water contamination and restrict where drilling can take place.
For some environmentalists, O'Malley's willingness to allow fracking at all is their one disappointment in his record. "I would prefer that O'Malley would come out in favor of a ban on fracking in Maryland," says Tidwell. But others say O'Malley is making a shrewd move. With rules in place before Hogan comes in, Hogan may find it more politically difficult to repeal them than he would have to simply not write any himself. "The fact that we have a governor-elect who wants to move forward on fracking means we want to get some protections in place as soon as possible," Karla Raettig, executive director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters, told The Washington Post."
In fact, the regulations are so strict, requiring zero-methane emissions and other measures, no oil company would attempt to move forward with drilling. they will at least give our legislature ammunition to block the republican, Hogan. They have enough votes to veto anything he proposes on shale oil extraction.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)This commission is supposed to defend the Susquehanna watershed.
O'Malley could have used this role to defend the water and block fracking in the region.
Instead he was a rubber stamp for the gas industry, damaging and depleting the region's water, even when begged to stop by people living directly in harms way.
bigtree
(85,989 posts)...and most people in my state know that attacks on this issue are stalking horses for republican assaults on the watershed created by the Conowingo Dam. Moreover republican complaints about sediment in the river, which actually come from Pa. and NY are less important than the homegrown pollution which republicans have ignored and fought against efforts to reduce and clean-up.
The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science presented Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) with the Reginald V. Truitt Environmental Award for his environmental leadership in Maryland. He received the award Sept. 30 at a special ceremony with invited guests at the Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology at Baltimore’s Inner Harbor.
“From record farmland acres planted with cover crops to thousands of citizens growing oysters off their piers, to preserving hundreds of thousands of acres of open space, farm and forest lands, we’ve created common, publicly-available platforms and leveraged state resources to restore the streams and rivers we’ve inherited,” said O’Malley in a press release. “I’m honored to accept this award on behalf of all Marylanders — it is through their tireless dedication and commitment that will continue to establish a healthier Chesapeake Bay, and create a more sustainable future for the next generation.”
The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science’s Reginald V. Truitt Environmental Award honors a Marylander whose dedication, efforts and achievements in the fields of public service, communication and management have resulted in the better understanding and stewardship of Maryland’s environment, the release states. Past recipients of the award include former Maryland Sen. C. Bernard Fowler, U.S. Sen. Charles M. Mathias, Gov. Harry R. Hughes, Gov. Parris N. Glendening and U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes. Three of the five past recipients were in attendance. O’Malley is the sixth person to be honored with the Reginald V. Truitt Environmental Award.
“Governor O’Malley has listened to science in striving for Chesapeake Bay restoration and sustainable growth in Maryland. His leadership in responding to climate change through energy conservation and transformation has set a national standard,” said Donald Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, in the release. “We as citizens of Maryland have been fortunate to have a governor with such vision, intelligence and commitment to our environmental future.”
O’Malley has served the people of Maryland as governor since 2007 and led the region in protecting the Chesapeake Bay, according to the release. During his administration, O’Malley has been the nation’s leading governor on the environment, the release states. He has pushed for stronger environmental regulations and has led the restoration of the bay. Maryland is the only state that has consistently met its two-year milestones, ensuring that short-term progress leads to long-term restoration.
Under his leadership, Maryland has worked with its partners to adopt management strategies to rebuild the blue crab population, and has made significant progress in restoring the oyster population and expanding the aquaculture industry, the release continues. He led the creation of BayStat, a data-driven performance management tool, to steadily reduce nitrogen and phosphorus polluting the bay. He has also led the state’s efforts to adopt, and become an active member in, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the nation’s first market-based regulatory program in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
During his administration, Maryland has added more renewable energy to its grid than any time since the Conowingo Dam was built 80 years ago, according to the release. In 2009, he led the state’s efforts to pass the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act that will reduce greenhouse gases 25 percent by the year 2020.
read more: http://www.somdnews.com/article/20150123/NEWS/150129622/1059/o-x2019-malley-receives-truitt-award-for-environmental-leadership&template=southernMaryland
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)O'Malley loves collecting plaques, but it doesn't history. He's responsible for his votes.
FSogol
(45,481 posts)
Try taking a civics class, obvious sandwich.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)He is responsible for his votes. What's wrong about that?
FSogol
(45,481 posts)of government each with checks and balances. For your homework, you should look up the difference between the legislative and executive branches.
x ?
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)So who needs the civics lesson?
Do you even read the posts you are replying to before pasting your walls of text? That was mentioned in the post you replied to.
FSogol
(45,481 posts) Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)ON EDIT: Sorry I Confused "FSogol" with "bigtree". I didn't realize a new person was talking.
FSogol
(45,481 posts)Here's another wall:
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)My bad on that one.
FSogol
(45,481 posts)
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You act like you know so much, yet one minute of reading it too labor intensive for you. Wall of text? lol. It's a shame that this is the mentality of voter campaigns have to go for these days. It is a big part of the reason O'Malley is behind. He isn't campaigning to the lowest common denominator. He is campaigning on issues. How in the world is that a "wall of text." Cliff Notes must feel like War and Peace.
FSogol
(45,481 posts)that he put in place to slow Hogan's approval of fracking. You are also completely wrong about his water regulations, but will ignore the facts that everyone else posts.
Obvious..., well you know the rest.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Also I and many others consider themselves environmentalist but are still not sure one way or the other about fracking. As long as it can done with minimal environmental effect then I think I am ok with it. We do a lot things in our daily lives that have an adverse affect on the environment but we tolerate them because we consider them necessities of life.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)and I'm one of them, that are environmentalists. There are plenty of Democrats, environmentalists or not, that oppose fracking.
okasha
(11,573 posts)fracking was "part of a broader push to fight climate change," so there goes the effort to paint Hillary as "a climate denier." And "This info is true...."
Fracking has been presented as a better alternative to drilling. Unfortunately, it is just as destructive.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Maybe she really doesn't get it.
I'm afraid all we will get is empty statements like that. She needs to face the hard issues, not just the easy issues. If she wants to keep drillers out of national forests, she needs to say that very SOON, during this campaign, not some statement from a long time ago.
And you're citing Clinton's score from League of Conservation voters and saying it is better than her rivals. But here are the scores and Mrs. Clinton only got an 82% while her main rival earned a lifetime 95% !
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/hillary-rodham-clinton
http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/bernie-sanders
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Here are others near her:
Mikulski, Barbara 84%
Biden, Joe 83%
Harkin, Tom 83%
Kennedy, Edward 83%
Clinton, Hillary Rodham 82%
Rockefeller, John 82%
Carper, Tom 81%
Levin, Carl 81%
Salazar, Ken 81%
Reid, Harry 80%
jwirr
(39,215 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Hillary spoke about in her campaign kickoff.
The original post is disingenuous.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)If it looks like the other thing it's only because I copied the format.
The issue is completely serious and there is a large community of people in America who care about defending clean water and air, and stuff about climate change.
If Clinton wants to be taken seriously by these voters she will have to address their concerns.
djean111
(14,255 posts)seriously at all.
FSogol
(45,481 posts)
Vattel
(9,289 posts)
Sancho
(9,067 posts)As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton spearheaded global action to fight climate change, building international partnerships to counter its threat. Sec. Clinton worked actively to protect the planet and its inhabitants by making climate change a priority in U.S. foreign policy and built partnerships to mobilize the international community to mitigate climate change and its adverse effects. Recognizing the clear and present danger of climate change, Sec. Clinton emphasized the need for American leadership in tackling this ever-growing global issue.
MADE CLIMATE CHANGE AN AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITY
Sec. Clinton changed the way the U.S. approached climate change. According to the New York Times,“Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wrapped up her first diplomatic mission to Asia yesterday with climate change experts praising her for putting global warming at the center of U.S. foreign policy… Kenneth Lieberthal, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and co-author of a new blueprint on how to bring China and the United States into cooperation on climate change, said he thinks Clinton sent a powerful signal that was ‘fundamentally different’ from the one sent by the Bush administration over the past eight years. He noted that Clinton chose [Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd] Stern as her travel companion — and not a Treasury Department official, a nonproliferation expert or an envoy on any number of other top-tier foreign policy issues. ‘Climate change is one of these existential threats that the U.S. and other countries face, and we do not have the luxury of procrastinating anymore. I think that’s the message that Hillary Clinton brought to China,’ Lieberthal said. ‘She’s saying, “We have changed the U.S. approach to this in a huge way. We want you to know that, and we want you to know the door is wide open for serious communication,’” he said.” [New York Times, 2/23/09]
Sec. Clinton appointed a Special Envoy for Climate Change to “serve as a principal advisor on international climate policy and strategy.” According to Sec. Clinton’s remarks announcing the appointment of Todd Stern as Special Envoy for Climate Change, “The Special Envoy will serve as a principal advisor on international climate policy and strategy. He will be the Administration’s chief climate negotiator. He will be leading our efforts with United Nations negotiations and processes involving a smaller set of countries and bilateral sessions. Because the main cause of climate change is the burning of fossil fuel and because the solution rests with our ability to shift the global economy from a high to a low carbon energy base, the Envoy will be a lead participant in the development of climate and clean energy policy. He will participate in all energy-related policy discussions that, across our government, can have an impact on carbon emissions, and will be looking for opportunities to forge working alliances.” [Remarks Announcing the Appointment of Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern, state.gov, 1/26/09]
Sec. Clinton established the Bureau of Energy Resources because “how the world uses energy is a key factor” to addressing the threat of climate change. According to Sec. Clinton’s remarks on delivering on the promise of economic statecraft, “Next, on energy. We know energy can be a source of healthy competition, with countries racing to develop new technologies and renewables. But it can also be a source of conflict, fueling corruption and instability. And how the world uses energy is a key factor as to whether we will finally address the threat of climate change. So we have created at the State Department a new Bureau of Energy Resources, and made this issue a priority in our diplomacy.” [Remarks on Delivering on the Promise of Economic Statecraft, state.gov, 11/17/12]
Sec. Clinton viewed U.S. leadership on climate change as both “a responsibility we should accept and an opportunity we should seize.” In her book Hard Choices,Secretary Clinton wrote, “In our meeting in Copenhagen, the Prime Minister of Ethiopia told me that the world was looking to the United States to lead the way on climate change. I believe this is both a responsibility we should accept and an opportunity we should seize. After all, we’re still the largest economy and the second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide. The more serious the effects of climate change, the more important it will be for us to lead.” [Hard Choices, pg. 504, 2014]
ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Sec. Clinton expanded U.S. efforts to assist developing countries hit hardest by climate change. In her remarks on the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas, Sec. Clinton said, “A year ago, President Obama proposed this partnership as a forum for sharing ideas and devising solutions. And through consultation with many of the countries here today, we identified five critical areas of engagement: energy efficiency, renewable energy, cleaner fossil fuels, energy poverty, and infrastructure. And today, I propose we add two new areas to help advance the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and to be prepared for the next conference in Cancun. Those are: sustainable forestry and land use, and adaptation to assist developing countries that have been and are being hardest hit by climate change.” [Remarks on the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas, state.gov, 4/15/10]
Sec. Clinton launched the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, which has 37 countries working to reduce methane emissions. In her book Hard Choices,Secretary Clinton wrote, “I held an event at the State Department with the Environmental Ministers from Bangladesh, Canada, Mexico, and Sweden, the Ambassador from Ghana, and the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, to launch the Climate and Clean Air Coalition. In 2014, there are thirty-seven country partners and forty-four nonstate partners, and the Coalition is making important strides toward reducing methane emissions from oil and gas production and black carbon from diesel fumes and other sources.” [Hard Choices, pg. 501, 2014]
Sec. Clinton launched the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves to negate the “serious health risks” of dirty cookstoves and to reduce their contribution to climate change. According to Sec. Clinton’s remarks on the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, “The World Health Organization considers smoke from dirty stoves to be one of the five most serious health risks that face people in poor, developing countries. Nearly 2 million people die from its effects each year, more than twice the number from malaria. And because the smoke contains greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide and methane, as well as black carbon, it contributes to climate change. […] I know that maybe this sounds hard to believe, but by upgrading these stoves, millions of lives could be saved and improved. This could be as transformative as bed nets or even vaccines. So today, I am very pleased to announce the creation of the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves.” [Remarks on the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, state.gov, 9/21/10]
Sec. Clinton helped drive an unprecedented deal between major economies, developed and developing, to curb carbon emissions. According to Foreign Affairs, “Obama and Clinton barged into a meeting at the 2009 global climate change talks in Copenhagen and forced the Chinese president to agree to a nonbinding pact under which rich and poor countries alike pledged to curb their carbon emissions.” In her book Hard Choices,Secretary Clinton wrote, “Sitting [in Copenhagen] next to President Obama in the small leaders’ meeting he and I had just forced our way into, I hoped that we might finally be getting somewhere. I looked across the table at Wen Jiabao, then at the leaders of India, Brazil, and South Africa. […] In the end, after lots of cajoling, debating, and compromising, the leaders in that room fashioned a deal that, while far from perfect, saved the summit from failure and put us on the road to future progress. For the first time all major economies, developed and developing alike, agreed to make national commitments to curb carbon emissions through 2020 and report transparently on their mitigation efforts. The world began moving away from the division between developed and developing countries that had defined the Kyoto agreement.” [Foreign Affairs, May/June 2013; Hard Choices, pg. 499, 2014]
Sec. Clinton signed an agreement with Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim to “strengthen bilateral cooperation” on climate change efforts. According to a State Department fact sheet, “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim today signed a ‘Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation Regarding Climate Change’ that will strengthen bilateral cooperation between the United States and Brazil as we work to meet the global climate and clean energy challenge. This Memorandum of Understanding launches a new ‘Climate Change Policy Dialogue’ to discuss key issues, including: The implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and ways to build on the Copenhagen Accord as quickly as possible; Strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions; Joint efforts on research, development, deployment and dissemination of clean energy technologies; Adaptation; Cooperation on climate change scientific research; and Capacity-building in sectors related to climate change.” [Announcement of Increased Cooperation on Climate Change, state.gov, 3/3/10]
URGED GLOBAL COOPERATION IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE
Sec. Clinton called for a cooperative international effort to implement climate change action plans “in individual countries, in regions and globally.” According to Sec. Clinton’s remarks at the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, “All of us participating today must cooperate in developing meaningful proposals to move the process forward. New policy and new technologies are needed to resolve this crisis, and they won’t materialize by themselves. They will happen because we will set forth an action plan in individual countries, in regions, and globally. It took a lot of work by a lot of people to create the problem of climate change over the last centuries. And it will take our very best efforts to counter it.” [Remarks at the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, state.gov, 4/27/09]
Sec. Clinton: “No solution” to the climate problem “is feasible without all major emitting nations joining together and playing an important part.” According to Sec. Clinton’s remarks announcing the appointment of Todd Stern as Special Envoy for Climate Change, “As the President has made clear, he is committed to enacting a far-reaching new energy and climate plan. As we take steps at home, we will also vigorously pursue negotiations, those sponsored by the United Nations and those at the sub-global, regional, and bilateral level that can lead to binding international climate agreements. No solution is feasible without all major emitting nations joining together and playing an important part.” [Remarks Announcing the Appointment of Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern, state.gov, 1/26/09]
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)From one of the many new Hillary propaganda sites that have sprung up in the past months.
This doesn't do anything to address concerns over fracking, or the keystone pipeline, or lay out a timeline for how fast we can move America off fossil fuels, coal exports, or so many other issues.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)At least I can see some places to explore for Hillary. You are free to look at the source and decide what you think.
If you have "concerns", fine.
I have concerns about all the candidates, but little or no way to explore them except for the "sites" that you disparage. I'm quite capable of recognizing spin. I can also appreciate what appears to be an effort that I agree with on an issue.
I'm aware that IF others ever gets traction, the GOP will do all the "bashing" and "investigating" that anyone can stand. Right now, there are little dibbles that show up on DU. When I see something interesting, I am usually stuck trying to explore on my own - time consuming and sometimes frustrating. Oh well.
swilton
(5,069 posts)Climate change is complex and requires international action not a wall of rhetoric. I also find some of the 'score cards' also meaningless because they're susceptibility to gamesmanship by politicos....
Clinton's concerns for the environment seem embedded in the two greatest international policy issues immediately facing the US - trans-XL pipeline and the TPP....Both of which Clinton has embraced and/or laid the ground-work for during her SECSTATE leadership. The record speaks for itself.
Furthermore, symbolically and substantively damaging was whatever role she played as SECSTATE in controlling US participation in the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit....Overall the Summit was a missed opportunity for meaningful action to control carbon emissions. Major flaws in US international climate policies were reflected twofold: through an absence of US international leadership in establishing a substantive framework to cut carbon emissions and equally damning participation by the US in international spying to sabotage efforts by other nations in establishing such programs.
The above are just three of the major missed opportunities where she had a chance to exert some international and domestic leadership if her heart was with her current rhetoric. Certainly if Clinton's beliefs were sincere about climate change, there would have been some evidence through US participation in the 2009 Copenhagen Summit and the US would not be on the brink of accepting (at a minimum) two international trade agreements with disastrous consequences for the environment.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You are simply going to act like a minute of reading is too difficult. It is clear your op wasn't in good faith. Seriously, this takes a minute to read yet it is simply too much for you. You asked a question, then act as if reading itself is just too difficult.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You repeated it below. I think my post may have been a little too long itself. It appears you didn't read it.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)A long text is OK but in that case it was not relating to the post it was replying to.
After reading it then I was thinking, why would someone post this long text with a title seeming to refute something, but then when you read it, it is totally unrelated.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)this --> http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=416407
It was not posted in response to the OP. It was posted in response to the statement about the Susquehanna River Basin Commission
The title of the wall of text post claimed to be a response to that, but then it was not about that at all. Instead it was just an article about O'Malley's environmental stuff without saying anything about his record on the SRBC.
Sancho
(9,067 posts)“For this generation of Americans, climate change is our Space Race. It is our home-front mobilization during World War II and it is our response to the Great Depression. According to studies, the negative economic consequences of climate change will affect every part of our country, virtually every sector of our economy, and strain our local governments, cost jobs, and extract a horrific human toll.”
Hillary Clinton remarks, Council on Foreign Relations, 11/5/07
SECRETARY OF STATE
Secretary Clinton appointed the first Special Envoy on climate change. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton named the first State Department Special Envoy on climate change. The appointment sent “an unequivocal message that the United States will be energetic, focused, strategic and serious” in addressing climate change. The Special Envoy would be “a lead participant” in the development of climate and clean energy policy.
Secretary Clinton launched the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas. In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas (ECPA) to fill “a critical niche” on climate and energy issues. Over the following two years, the United States and other governments “cooperated on 40 ongoing and completed ECPA initiatives.” These initiatives addressed sustainable energy in the Caribbean; energy security in Central America; advancing sustainable biomass energy; working with the Peace Corps to advance renewable energy; having American scientists consult with governments on energy programs and education; and promoting use of shale gas. Both the State Department and USAID partnered with countries and organizations like NASA to address energy and environmental concerns.
Secretary Clinton promoted the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves to reduce pollution and improve health. Secretary Clinton announced the creation of the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, a “public-private partnership… that will work toward the goal of 100 million homes adopting new clean stoves and fuels by 2020.” Smoke from dirty cookstoves “contains greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide and methane” and contributes to climate change. Secretary Clinton wanted to reduce the millions of deaths each year from breathing “black carbon soot” coming from dirty cookstoves, cars, and the burning of waste. The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves helped slow down environmental degradation from “cutting down of trees and using charcoal for fuel for cooking.”
Secretary Clinton launched 11 EcoPartnerships with China. Under Secretary Clinton, the State Department had 11 EcoPartnership agreements with China. The partnerships shared best practices on “preventing air pollution, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, protecting water resources, developing technology for electric vehicles, increasing energy efficiency, and safeguarding natural habitats.” Through the EcoPartnerships, American state, local, and private sector organizations developed “mutually beneficial” solutions to promote energy security, economic growth, and environmental sustainability in both countries.
SENATE
Senator Clinton fought to preserve America’s natural heritage and environmental quality for the next generation. Hillary Clinton worked with her fellow Senators to protect and preserve some of America’s greatest natural treasures. Clinton joined with Chuck Schumer on legislation calling for the study and potential creation of a national heritage area surrounding Niagara Falls. Following the 2005 release of the study, the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area was officially designated in 2008. Clinton also worked with Carl Levin to safeguard wildlife and promote sound water management in the Great Lakes region.
Senator Clinton helped start clean energy job-training and promoted energy efficiency in federal buildings. Hillary Clinton worked with Democrats and Republicans alike to promote energy efficient federal buildings and create job-training programs in clean energy. Clinton joined with Bernie Sanders to create job-training programs in solar panel manufacturing and other energy-efficient industries. Clinton also worked with Jim Inhofe (a noted climate change skeptic) to expand the use of geothermal energy in federal buildings.
Senator Clinton stood up to polluters and fought to promote cleaner energy. Hillary Clinton twice introduced bills to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies and prioritize investment in cleaner energy. She cosponsored multiple pieces of cap-and-trade legislation. She also signed onto legislation to reduce the worst air pollutants from power plants.
Just saving the op a post.
Autumn
(45,058 posts)venue to say what sounds the best. Hillary's has a Keystone lobbyist on her campaign staff and her stand fracking as SOS tells you where she stands on environmental issues.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)should she talk about environmental issues in a meaningful way. She's not about to threaten the money flow by speaking to a pro-environmental position she doesn't factually hold anyway. Her silence on such issues, just as for the TPP, is profoundly enlightening...if you're paying attention that is.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but she knows where her support is....in the corporate boardroom
she has to walk a very tight line. ...trying to say all the right things but not pissing off her corporate masters who don't want any regulations to interfere with their obscene profits.
happily, bernie has no such dilemma 😄
kath
(10,565 posts)it's ALL about the corporate and Wall Street dollars.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Obviously facts do not matter to you. She has no lack of focus, rather a lifetime of working on environmental issues.
But, don't let truth get in the way of your utter bullshit post attacking a Democrat. Have I ventured into FR accidentally?
frylock
(34,825 posts)Evidently, a lifetime of working on x issues isn't good enough around here anymore.
karynnj
(59,502 posts)Gore and Kerry were unusual in that Global Warming was an issue that Gore was among the first to speak on and the environment in terms of acid rain, and pollution are issues Kerry fought since 1970, before he could speak out on the war!
I know that you will say that she is not responsible for Bill Clinton's record - except when it is something good - but one reason I really hoped Clinton would not be our nominee in 1992 was that he had a TERRIBLE environmental record in Arkansas. Note not merely not very good, terrible. It is true that there were some good executive actions in the twilight of the Clinton years in the WH, but that was never her issue.
If you said children's or women's rights - I would agree with you wholeheartedly.
As Secretary of State, there were many good things done, but you might note that she did not make achieving something at Copenhagen as much an issue as many of us would have wanted. As to the recent spurt of climate pacts, I suggest that they might be part of a lifelong history of working on the environment by the Secretary of State --- the current one!
99Forever
(14,524 posts)The corporate money she has taken in droves, cares jack about the Earth or people. Profit above EVERYTHING is the neoliberal heart and soul, exactly like neocons.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Hillary Clinton remarks, Council on Foreign Relations, 11/5/07
Secretary of State
Secretary Clinton appointed the first Special Envoy on climate change. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton named the first State Department Special Envoy on climate change. The appointment sent “an unequivocal message that the United States will be energetic, focused, strategic and serious” in addressing climate change. The Special Envoy would be “a lead participant” in the development of climate and clean energy policy.
Secretary Clinton launched the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas. In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas (ECPA) to fill “a critical niche” on climate and energy issues. Over the following two years, the United States and other governments “cooperated on 40 ongoing and completed ECPA initiatives.” These initiatives addressed sustainable energy in the Caribbean; energy security in Central America; advancing sustainable biomass energy; working with the Peace Corps to advance renewable energy; having American scientists consult with governments on energy programs and education; and promoting use of shale gas. Both the State Department and USAID partnered with countries and organizations like NASA to address energy and environmental concerns.
Secretary Clinton promoted the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves to reduce pollution and improve health. Secretary Clinton announced the creation of the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, a “public-private partnership… that will work toward the goal of 100 million homes adopting new clean stoves and fuels by 2020.” Smoke from dirty cookstoves “contains greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide and methane” and contributes to climate change. Secretary Clinton wanted to reduce the millions of deaths each year from breathing “black carbon soot” coming from dirty cookstoves, cars, and the burning of waste. The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves helped slow down environmental degradation from “cutting down of trees and using charcoal for fuel for cooking.”
Secretary Clinton launched 11 EcoPartnerships with China. Under Secretary Clinton, the State Department had 11 EcoPartnership agreements with China. The partnerships shared best practices on “preventing air pollution, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, protecting water resources, developing technology for electric vehicles, increasing energy efficiency, and safeguarding natural habitats.” Through the EcoPartnerships, American state, local, and private sector organizations developed “mutually beneficial” solutions to promote energy security, economic growth, and environmental sustainability in both countries.
Senate
Senator Clinton fought to preserve America’s natural heritage and environmental quality for the next generation. Hillary Clinton worked with her fellow Senators to protect and preserve some of America’s greatest natural treasures. Clinton joined with Chuck Schumer on legislation calling for the study and potential creation of a national heritage area surrounding Niagara Falls. Following the 2005 release of the study, the Niagara Falls National Heritage Area was officially designated in 2008. Clinton also worked with Carl Levin to safeguard wildlife and promote sound water management in the Great Lakes region.
Senator Clinton helped start clean energy job-training and promoted energy efficiency in federal buildings. Hillary Clinton worked with Democrats and Republicans alike to promote energy efficient federal buildings and create job-training programs in clean energy. Clinton joined with Bernie Sanders to create job-training programs in solar panel manufacturing and other energy-efficient industries. Clinton also worked with Jim Inhofe (a noted climate change skeptic) to expand the use of geothermal energy in federal buildings.
Senator Clinton stood up to polluters and fought to promote cleaner energy. Hillary Clinton twice introduced bills to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies and prioritize investment in cleaner energy. She cosponsored multiple pieces of cap-and-trade legislation. She also signed onto legislation to reduce the worst air pollutants from power plants.
more of above from a search
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Hillary+Clinton+environment
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)She can't fund her campaign without big corporate/polluter money.
riversedge
(70,197 posts)Here is some information.
Here's What a Hillary Clinton Presidency Would Mean for Global Warming
Clinton sees climate change as a major threat. But she still wants to boost fossil fuel supplies.
—By Ben Adler
| Mon Apr. 13, 2015 2:10 PM EDT
It's strange to remember how bitterly divisive the 2008 Democratic presidential primary battle was. Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's platforms and ideological positioning were awfully similar. And on the chief difference between them—Obama's less hawkish foreign policy—the victor wiped away that distinction by appointing Clinton as secretary of state. Now Clinton has announced her candidacy and is poised to coast through the 2016 Democratic primaries as her party's prohibitive favorite. Would a Clinton presidency be essentially a third Obama term?
......
On climate change and energy, it seems the answer is yes. For better and for worse, Clinton's record and stances are cut from the same cloth as Obama's. Her close confidant and campaign chair, John Podesta, served as an Obama advisor with a focus on climate policy. Like Obama and Podesta, Clinton certainly seems to appreciate the seriousness of the threat of catastrophic climate change and to strongly support domestic policies and international agreements to reduce carbon emissions. But, like Obama and Podesta, she subscribes to an all-of-the-above energy policy. She promotes domestic drilling for oil and natural gas, including through potentially dangerous fracking. (The Clinton campaign did not respond to our request for comment.)
Here are eight important points about Clinton's climate and energy views:
1. She understands the science. In a December speech to the League of Conservation Voters, Clinton said, "The science of climate change is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers may say. Sea levels are rising; ice caps are melting; storms, droughts and wildfires are wreaking havoc…If we act decisively now we can still head off the most catastrophic consequences."
2. She thinks the politics of climate change are daunting. In the same LCV speech, she said, "The political challenges are also unforgiving. There is no getting around the fact that the kind of ambitious response required to effectively combat climate change is going to be a tough sell at home and around the world at a time when so many countries including our own are grappling with slow growth and stretched budgets." She's not wrong, but she's looking at it rather pessimistically. Polls show that a large majority of Americans support limiting carbon emissions, and are even willing to tolerate slightly higher energy prices to do so. Moreover, investing in transitioning to clean energy will ultimately mean more economic growth, not less, and that's how politicians such as Clinton should frame it.
3. She fully supports Obama's landmark power-plant rules............
.................................
.....Conversely, Hillary Clinton’s record during her eight years in the Senate should be encouraging to environmentalists. The League of Conservation Voters issues a report card every year on members of Congress. During then-Sen. Clinton’s time in office, she amassed a lifetime score of 82 out of 100.......
While in the senate, Clinton voted to:
Keep drillers out of public lands, including Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Support clean, safe, renewable energy.
Protect families by ensuring water and air are clean.
Seek alternatives to coal.
Provide assistance for low income families for help with energy bills.
The challenge for environmentalists is to push their issues up the priority list so they make it into the discussion of a general election campaign. That would benefit Clinton, given her record, and it would help her with younger, undecided voters for whom the environment is a priority........
Read more: http://bluenationreview.com/environmental-issues-hillary-clinton-brainer-rivals/#ixzz3eQLy8sRb
Read more: http://bluenationreview.com/environmental-issues-hillary-clinton-brainer-rivals/#ixzz3eQLZtgd0
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)The states where she has lived are NOT places like Louisianna and Texas, where poor folks, especially young mothers with children, are forced to breathe polluted air and drink polluted water. If someone would direct her attention to these issues, and point out how they affect the family, I suspect she would get enthusiastic.
For instance, in Fort Worth Texas, there is an old miltary base dump which is being allowed to pollute the waterways with PCBs and other toxins. PCBs have been shown to increase infant mortality by causing early labor. Fort Worth has a huge infant mortality problem, much worse than other big cities in Texas, even though it has a huge chatrity hospital system, too. Meaning the wmen have access to healthcare. If you look through the data, Fort Worth's infant mortality problem is due to preterm labor. And the problem is worse in the areas which border its polluted waterways.
The local government does not want to talk about the issue. The want to encourage fishing tourism instead---even though the waterways are all catch and release. When the head of the Fort Worth Public Health department tried to do something about the polluted watert, the city axed the Fort Worth Public Health department, declaring that the county health department could take over its function. No one in town dares to bring up the subject, for fear of affecting the local economy, and so women continue to give birth prematurely and babies continue to die.
Someone needs to point this out to Clinton. Someone needs to ask her ti get on down to Fort Worth and promise to fix this problem. It's a military dump. Maybe the feds can clean it up.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)She doesn't mention it very much since I can't be bothered looking up the past records, I can only assume. Does she really get that there is a problem with too much carbon emissions? Because really, I can read her mind, I can't read her past records however, and it's important to assume her personal stand on this important issue without any evidence to either substantiate or refute it.How come she doesn't campaign on fracking? What is her position on coal exports? Does she still support the Keystone pipeline?
Her silence on these major issues is a concern to community of people who want to keep the earth livable. Climate change is already causing major social problems. Does she not consider it a priority since clearly I want to be a priority today? Depending on when she responds to my important issues, I may have a different priority, but for today, this one with work.
If she wants to be taken seriously by this community (and you should know I may or may not be speaking for the entirety of DU) she has a lot of work to do in convincing people she understands these issues, because you know, lets assume, since I can't be bothered to look up any actual records.
frylock
(34,825 posts)where it's non-stop JAQing off to such Berning questions such as "why doesn't Sanders talk about race issues?", or "what's Sanders' stance on same-sex marriage?"
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)they may not like all the responses...tis was the way at DU, so I've been told by Bernie supporters.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)A Presidential campaign has many facets. A GOOD Presidential campaign has more facets than you can count.
There are 16 months till the elections and like 6 months before Iowa. It'll happen.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)She's focusing on "getting Hillary elected" and nothing else.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Environmental issues were once a mainstay of Democrats. Now that we have (somewhat) cleaned up the air and water, environmental issues have been pushed to the back burner, and that burner is barely on "keep warm." Many Democrats will not touch "tree hugger issues" at all, because it opens them up to attacks of burdensome regulation that costs family jobs. The truth is, we improved our quality of life to the point that quality of life issues no longer matter to many people. Promising to make the air cleaner doesn't sound that great when even Los Angeles has clear air on most days.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I'm watching the hills around me and my own garden shrivel up and die. I have to put water out for wild animals to keep them from chewing through all my garden hoses and I haven't seen much rain in the last five years. And that's just from my personal POV. Huge climate events like mega hurricanes, tornadoes and heat events in many parts of the world causing many deaths are becoming the norm. It's all climate change and human pollution of various sorts. I'm thinking it still is a big issue.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)If you remember, it took people a while to take up environmental issues. When children in the Love Canal neighborhood started having birth defects, and the Cuyahoga River caught on fire, people started thinking "Hmm..." It's the same with global climate change. After several years of drought, desertification, etc. people will start warming (yes, pun intended) to the notion we should do something.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)We are accustomed to waiting until problems become pretty severe before we even acknowledge them. Some researchers are predicting a "tipping point," after which there will be no going back. For example, if the arctic tundra thaws and releases all the sequestered CO2, it might be impossible to deal with that.
