The Obama Carbonized Climate Plan

Preparing and presenting for a number of international climate conferences has sapped my rather limited energy, keeping me away from my blog.                            

However, when I got down to what the Obama Climate Action plan is really about, I was forced back to an UPRAGE blog.

The long awaited Obama Climate Action Plan is a cover up, a great deception to fool America and the world to hang onto the belief that President Obama is the global climate change Messiah.

It is a phony fossil fuel PR plan to keep increasing American fossil fuel production, which, under Obama, has reached an all-time high.

We have to get atmospheric CO2 down below 350ppm fast – with a planetary emergency climate action plan. Today it is 400ppm. Under the Obama plan, it can only keep going up fast.

URGENT  All those Americans who want a true clean-energy future – who want a future at all for their children – please go to http://lpo.energy.gov/resource-library/solicitations/advanced-fossil-energy-projects-solicitations/ and tell the Obama energy office no, No, NO! This Uprage blog explains why. 

It is said that the US only has two political parties. If you understand global climate change, America only has one party: the US Green Party, led by Dr. Jill Stein. Obama's climate plan sure proves that. Jill Stein's harsh description of the Obama plan didn't get attention. It hits the mark and is worth repeating. 

"You can't give your child an 'all of the above diet' with toxic lead and arsenic, and think that adding some spinach and blueberries is going to make it OK. Likewise, reducing carbon pollution from coal does not make fracking, tar sands oil, deep water and Arctic drilling OK. The climate is spiraling into runaway warming. Obama's promotion of cheap dirty fossil fuels makes coal regulations just window dressing on a disastrous policy."

It is easy to rate a climate plan, but it seems America doesn't know the climate science basics. Basic climate science fact number one is "zero carbon" (see onlyzerocarbon.org). If we don't stop emitting carbon, we can't stop, or even slow, global warming.

It is definite that the global temperature and ocean acidification cannot stop increasing unless industrial carbon emissions get to zero. You probably haven't heard this fact because it means the end of the fossil fuel industry.

It simply means all fossil fuel energy must be replaced by clean, zero-carbon energy. It means that although some fossil fuels are worse polluters than others, any fossil fuel energy (including natural gas) production has to stop and be replaced by real, clean, zero-carbon energy. It means that any climate action plan that does not drop carbon emissions is a deadly dirty lie. 

What has happened to US fossil fuel production under President Obama? American fossil fuel energy output has never, ever been higher.

Since Obama came to power, US fossil fuel production has soared, matching the fastest increase in rates of production ever. Surely people have heard that America under Obama is set to be a world leader in fossil fuel production again?

"US to become world leader in oil and gas thanks to fracking"

— The UK Independent, 13 November 2012

"The United States will leapfrog Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world's biggest producer of oil and gas in the next five years as the controversial practice of 'fracking' for hydrocarbons contained in shale rocks has enabled the country to increase production massively. US oil and gas production is set to leap by about a quarter by 2020 as the rapid growth of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, propels the country towards providing all its own energy by 2035, according to the World Energy Outlook report from the International Energy Agency.

"It (fracking) was initially used to extract gas but it is increasingly being used to produce oil in states such as North Dakota and Texas.

"The fracking boom will push US oil production up from 8.1 million barrels a day last year to 11.1 million in 2020 while gas extraction will jump from 604 billion cubic metres a day to 747 billion, the International Energy Agency IEA said.

"Maria van der Hoeven, the IEA executive director, said: 'North America is at the forefront of a sweeping transformation in oil and gas production that will affect all regions of the world.'"

This will affect the entire planet forever.

"US may soon become world's top oil producer"

— Associated Press, 19 February 2013

"U.S. oil output is surging so fast that the United States could soon overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest producer.

"Driven by high prices and new drilling methods, U.S. production of crude and other liquid hydrocarbons is on track to rise 7 percent this year to an average of 10.9 million barrels per day. This will be the fourth straight year of crude increases and the biggest single-year gain since 1951."

Obama is proud of his record American oil production: "Now, we absolutely need safe, responsible oil production here in America. That’s why under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years." (February 2012)

SAFE OIL PRODUCTION?! With atmospheric carbon at the highest level it's been in 15 million years and ocean acidification the highest in 300 million years, there's no such thing as safe oil production any more.

Obama is getting away with planetary-scale climate change murder.

Check the Obama climate action plan for any evidence of a decrease in fossil fuel production any time in the future. It is all continued increase, and it is locking America and the world into another 50 years of fossil fuel energy dependency – only by then, civilization will have collapsed.

From the Obama Climate Action Plan:

"Unlocking Long-Term Investment in Clean Energy Innovation:

"The Fiscal Year 2014 Budget continues the President's commitment to keeping the United States at the forefront of clean energy research, development, and deployment.… This includes investment in a range of energy technologies, from advanced biofuels and emerging nuclear technologies – including small modular reactors – to clean coal."

CLEAN COAL?! Only the coal industry talks the "clean coal" oxymoron, which makes Obama a coal man in the White House, as well as an oil man. There is no such thing as clean coal or oil, and, in any case, the cleanest fossil fuels would be far from zero-carbon.

BIOFUELS?! Burning food is an obvious obscenity. Burning biofuels emits CO2 and incurs a carbon debt from the land being used to produce biofuels – it is nowhere near a zero-carbon energy.

Where is the long-term investment in real, clean, zero-carbon, everlasting energy?

All this money is being used as fossil-fuel cover-up, to deceive Americans into thinking there is such a thing as "clean coal" and "ethical oil." All government money should be going to true clean, zero-carbon energy development. If we are to survive, it has to. Yet this is a fossil-fuel-promoting climate action plan. Obama has no intention of replacing or displacing fossil fuel energy from its longstanding energy dominance.

This climate "action" plan is designed to maintain American and world fossil fuel dominance of the energy market.

Now that Obama has got US fossil fuel production up to all time record levels, he placates his environmental supporters with the clean-fossil-fuel energy big lie, and they fall for it. It is, of course, too good to be true.

Here's more cover-up from the Obama climate plan:

"To continue America's leadership in clean energy innovation, the Administration will also take the following steps:

"Spurring Investment in Advanced Fossil Energy Projects: In the coming weeks, the Department of Energy will issue a Federal Register Notice announcing a draft of a solicitation that would make up to $8 billion in (self-pay) loan guarantee authority available for a wide array of advanced fossil energy projects under its Section 1703 loan guarantee program."

Here is the real Obama plan – his advanced fossil fuel energy projects. All new fossil fuel projects are backward, retrogressive, and impel us faster to global climate catastrophe. These projects are designed to advance the insane planet-destroying agenda of the fossil fuel corporations. 

From Obama's advanced fossil fuel action plan, we read the future he has planned for American and world energy. It is a future that won’t last long.

"Advanced Fossil Energy Projects (http://lpo.energy.gov/resource-library/solicitations/advanced-fossil-energy-projects-solicitations/)

• Novel oil and gas drilling, stimulation, and completion technologies, including dry fracking, that avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases;

• Coal-bed methane recovery CO2 capture from synthesis gases in fuel reforming or gasification processes;

• CO2 capture from flue gases in traditional coal or natural gas electricity generation;

• CO2 capture from effluent streams of industrial processing facilities;

• Coal or natural gas oxycombustion."

"DOE notes that the scope of this Solicitation is intended to be broad. All fossil fuels, including, without limitation,

• coal,

• natural gas,

• oil,

• shale gas,

• oil shale,

• coal bed methane,

• methane hydrates,

and others, are included in references in this Solicitation to 'fossil fuels.' DOE will consider both electrical and non-electrical fossil energy use."

Wait, what the $#@! are methane hydrates? 

It's frozen solid methane gas (hydrate) along coastal sea floors. It is the biggest fossil fuel bonanza ever. The US Geological Survey has estimated that there are somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 trillion cubic feet of frozen methane gas in the methane hydrates. There is as much or more energy in methane hydrates than the total amount of all fossil fuels on the planet. Natural gas is mainly methane. The big plan is that as natural gas infrastructure expands with the rapid increased in fracked gas, methane hydrate gas will just be added to the system. This will further boost global CO2 emissions, as more and more gas is burned.

These are all projects to support the big clean-energy lie. The fossil fuel industry is not wasting money on research into "clean" fossil fuels, which are bogus. The industry knows that feigning "clean" would add huge costs to fossil fuel energy in the attempt. But these US government projects permit the fossil fuel industry to keep up the clean fossil fuel myth. It is fossil fuel PR.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) language is now being used to make fossil fuel energy projects appear to be zero-carbon.

The US oil and gas fracking technology has fast become the end-of-the-world model for the rest of the world to follow. So much for President Obama and the great climate change hope for greenhouse-gas-polluting energy change. 

When President Obama talks about American leadership, he means leadership in shale oil, shale gas and methane hydrate gas. He is leading America and the world to climate Hell.

Climate Change: Food Crisis & Future Hunger Wars

Climate Change and its Effects on Food Production

Climate Change

In a recent post I wrote about Overpopulation: Food Crisis and future Hunger Wars. The article focused on the impact of the population explosion on food supplies – will there be enough food for a population of 9 billion in 2050? There are many interrelated and complex factors affecting worldwide food production. Climate change is singularly the most critical factor.

The “Final” Wake-up Call

There have been many so-called wake-up calls about the environmental slippery slope humanity finds itself on. The summer of 2012 – raging wildfires, drought, extreme heat, (more than 3000 high-temperature records broken)  “affecting 87 per cent of the land dedicated to growing corn, 63 per cent of the land for hay and 72 per cent of the land used for cattle” and now hurricane Sandy. Americans collectively have reached the "wow" moment. Even prior to hurricane Sandy, 70% of Americans believed that climate change is not a hoax. See previous blog - Common Sense Revolution.

The U.S. drought is having global effects as the world's biggest grain exporter struggles with shortfalls. Drought conditions affected over more than 60 percent of the lower 48 states, the government said. The same is happening elsewhere around the globe.

A Centre for Strategic & International Studies report by (Johanna Nesseth Tuttle & Anna Applefield) stresses that corn prices have risen 45 per cent since mid-June as a result of the drought. Global food prices are at an all-time high. Since the United States is the world’s top exporter of both of these crops, significant disruptions in domestic production can impact global food prices. In fact, 40 percent of the wheat and soya beans traded on the global market last year were grown in the United States.

Climate change is now widely believed to be the cause of the intensification of weather patterns that disrupt food production around the globe. Human-induced climate change will intensify the geographic extent, duration and severity of storms – winds, flooding, drought, extreme heat and snowfalls.

"Perhaps the biggest single question about climate change is whether people will have enough to eat in coming decades", says Justin Gillis in the NYT Environment/Green Blog:

Rising temperatures during the growing season in many large producing countries are cutting yields below their potential, the research suggests. On top of that background factor, extreme events like droughts or torrential rains can destroy crops altogether. Extremes have always been part of the agricultural picture, of course, but they are expected to increase on a warming planet.

Extreme weather will intensify and aggravate future food crises. An article appearing in Arctic News recently highlights that:

Storms and floods do damage to crops and cause erosion of fertile topsoil, in turn causing further crop loss. Similarly, heatwaves, storms and wildfires do damage to crops and cause topsoil to be blown away, thus also causing erosion and further crop loss. Furthermore, they cause soot, dust and volatile organic compounds to settle on snow and ice, causing albedo loss and further decline of snow and ice cover.

Arctic News also features the Diagram of Doom which pictures three kinds of warming and 10 catastrophic feedbacks.

Diagram of Doom

Changing extreme events

An IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (November 2011) highlights the following findings:

• Observations since 1950 show changes in some extreme events, particularly daily temperature extremes, and heat waves

• It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation will increase in the 21st century over many regions

• It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur...very likely—90 per cent to 100 per cent probability—that heat waves will increase in length, frequency, and/or intensity over most land areas.

• It is likely that the average maximum wind speed of tropical cyclones (also known as typhoons or hurricanes) will increase throughout the coming century

• There is evidence... that droughts will intensify over the coming century in southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, central Europe, central North America, Central America and Mexico, northeast Brazil, and southern Africa.

• It is very likely that average sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme sea levels in extreme coastal high water levels.

Impacts of Climate Change on Yield

The following excerpts are from a UNEP study about the impact of environmental changes on world food production – The environmental food crisis – The environment’s role in averting future food crises:

Global climate change may impact food production across a range of pathways... 1) by changing... general rainfall distribution, temperature regime and carbon; 2) by inducing more extreme weather such as floods, drought and storms; and 3) by increasing extent, type and frequency of infestations

The estimated impacts of changes in the general climate regime vary with the different models in the short to mid-term (2030–2050), but after 2050 an increasing number of models agree on rising negative impacts

Furthermore, projected changes in the frequency and severity of extreme climate events are predicted to have more serious consequences for food

...by 2080, assuming a 4.4° C increase in temperature and a 2.9% increase in precipitation, global agricultural output potential is likely to decrease by about 6%, or 16% without carbon fertilization...as climate change increases, projections have been made that by 2080 agricultural output potential may be reduced by up to 60% for several African countries, on average 16–27%... these effects are in addition to general water scarcity as a result of melting glaciers, change in rainfall patterns, or overuse.

  

Projected losses in food production due to climate change by 20 80. (Source: Cline, 2007).

Impacts of Water Scarcity

Water is essential not only to human survival but in food production. The UNEP study reports that:

Agriculture accounts for nearly 70% of the water consumption, with some estimates as high as 85% (Hanasaki et al., 2008a,b). Water scarcity will affect over 1.8 billion people by 2025 (WHO, 2007).

Projections suggest that water demand is likely to double by 2050...one major factor beyond agricultural, industrial and urban consumption of water is the destruction of watersheds and natural water towers, such as forests in watersheds and wetlands, which also serve as flood buffers.

It is evident that in regions where snow and glacial mass are the primary sources of water for irrigation, such as in Central Asia, parts of the Himalayas Hindu Kush, China, India, Pakistan and parts of the Andes, melting will eventually lead to dramatic declines in the water available for irrigation, and hence, food production...of great importance, therefore, is the effect of climate change on the extent of snow and glacial mass and on the subsequent supply of water for irrigation. Climate change could seriously endanger the current food production potential, such as in the Greater Himalayas Hindu Kush region and in Central Asia. Currently, nearly 35% of the crop production in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan is based on irrigation, sustaining over 2.5 billion people. Here, water demand is projected to increase by at least 70–90% by 2050.

Projected losses in food production due to climate change by 2080

The wars of the future will be 'Hunger Wars' fought over the resources that are left.

The Great US Unpresidential Election Campaign

Mitch Potter of the Washington Bureau has summed up this US presidential election campaign as - miserably unpresidential. His article, U.S. election — It’s all over but for the rage, describes this campaign as the "the longest, ugliest, most expensive, most lie-infested campaign ever."

A perfect theme for UPRAGE. 

This campaign has been an incredible trip, falling further and faster down the rabbit hole of American political Wonderland, where where things are not always always what they seem.
  In this case it's a land of incredible fiction far removed from reality. It's no wonder the American voter is so cynical, because the main American political attraction has been made a most devious distraction.  

Perhaps democracy would be better served if the candidates were hooked up to lie detectors in their debates. At least a running record of the lies could be kept (they are so blatant in most cases). I dare say Obama would gain the least lies advantage.  

"It’s been dreadful — in many ways the worse campaign I’ve ever lived through," said Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar who served four different White House teams in remarkably bipartisan fashion. 

Hess describes them as "Mad Men, really — who said tying themselves in intellectual and moral knots was the way to win."

Americans are peed off with the affair, claims the article. The voters, like Alice, feel belittled and are reluctant guests to the Mad Hatter's tea party, invited by the Cheshire cat grinning candidates. 

"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.

"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat. "We're all mad. I'm mad. You're mad."

"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.

"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

Who is the Mad Hatter? 

The article quotes media observer Robert Thompson: "You didn’t need Saturday Night Live to satirize it. The comedy was built in to the real thing."

The centerpiece of the American election circus is called the "presidential debates," though they were not presidential and certainly not debates. They were the worst kind of insults to the real world situation of American citizens today, dragged down from their former security by corrupt American politics, representing moneybags instead of people. "It’s sinful, how much money was spent," says a quote from David Biette.

The article says that the poison from this campaign will be followed by the rage of the sore, barely losing side. This is rabbit hole talk. That rage will be just more drama.

The losing side is the American public who would be right to rage because, as the article points out, nothing much is going to change. That makes the loser the citizenry of the world because corrupt PR-spun American politics is dragging us all down. Here is where the joke ends.

America was once the nation that could take on the most overwhelming logistical challenge and win. Today there are nearly 1 million homes and businesses still without power in New Jersey, and about 650,000 in New York City. Their governments cannot even afford to cope with Hurricane Sandy and the main candidates for power maintain their guilty silence on climate change, condemning them to many more much worse Frankenstorms. 

America once led the world to defeat the evil of Nazi fascism. Now it leads the world in bullying and trashing other nations for world fossil fuel dominance. The American corporate corruption of Iraq's reconstruction is legendary, the rebuilding a dismal failure. The living conditions in Iraq, "liberated" by the US's illegal invasion, remain far worse than under the much publicized evil of Saddam Hussein. The governance is a human rights nightmare but the oil is freely flowing under private corporations. 

Under Obama, the use of unmanned assassinator drones has become standard military practice in Middle East oil regions. Only this is much more and much worse than assassination. It's a hi tech version of Hitler's secret weapon V rocket or "buzz bomb."  Obama personally signs off on the kill list. 

A 2012 study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law found the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%. It's an American terror weapon killing, maiming, and traumatizing civilian populations. From June 2004 to mid-September 2012, available data showed that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children. These strikes also injured an additional 1,228 - 1,362 individuals.

This strategy can only breed a generation in these regions enraged against America. It's a strategy that makes any US president a war criminal. Only this isn't war- it's a US reign of terror ordered by the oil industry. These are not smart weapons and it's not smart, legal, or humane foreign policy. It's inhuman and was once un-American.  It's more blood letting more oil flow.  

America leads the world in obstructing any chance of nations honouring the UN climate convention. Once the US fought the enemy of civilization. Now it leads the world on a heading to end all civilization by catastrophic end of the world atmospheric greenhouse gas pollution.   

Whichever candidate is elected, business as usual will go on, only it will be much worse for most Americans and for the world than has been usual in the past. 

This election with all its fanfare is a fictional distraction from who really makes the decisions. It is the "Money Power" (as Thomas Jefferson called it) held by the big banksters that makes the decisions, under whomever is the next president. The president signs off on the decisions of the big bankers. Everyone knows this, but the televised election smoke-and-mirrors show pretends it's not. This is the biggest lie behind all the belittling lies of the battling candidates.

Who is the Mad Hatter in top hat? The banker -- mad with making money out of money no matter what the cost.  

The Economy, the great American deception, is uneconomic. It does not distribute wealth amongst the nation. It redistributes wealth to the increasingly wealthy. Fossil fuel energy is vastly uneconomic if fully costed, even excluding the greenhouse gas pollution costs. All the human and environmental costs of fossil fuel pollution continue to be excluded -- "externalized" the economist lackeys of the banks call it.

The suicidal fossil fuel subsidies survive in the US to this day even as the crops wither from the great American grain belt drought and deathicanes pound the Atlantic coast.    

The show keeps any candidate who might change business as usual out of public attention.In the TV circus, there are always only two contenders in the ring and they are the stars paid to perform. This is not democracy. 

Cast back to the last election in which Hope and Change were sold to the American people. What was the last act and the first act of that electoral revolving White House door? At the last US presidential power takeover, the big banksters made off with many trillions of dollars of taxpayer money, in the greatest bank robbery of all time. Their timing was perfect. The robbers were the robber baron bankers and they stole, by the grossest fraud ever, trillions in the biggest and fastest transfer of public funds ever, by far. The reverse heist amounted to at least $20 trillion. 

The outrageous fraud was permitted and the money handed over, with no accountability whatsoever, by the outgoing GOP and the incoming Dem president. The bankers blackmailed the US government, but it was a criminal act of presidential treason that paid them off, and was rapidly repeated in all wealthy nations. America is leading the world to economic ruin.

As a result we have the insanity of both today's candidates saying, directly and indirectly, that America cannot afford to do anything to prevent global climate catastrophe. The climate policies of both are no policy: business as usual, increasing dependence on fossil fuels for the US economy. That is a global death sentence making the next American president committed to global treason.

No doubt it would all be worse under Romney, but it is all still a most terrible crime under Obama. We are still left hoping for a great change in America and the world deserves so much better. 

The main message from this election comes from an unsaid oxymoron. America and the world must be ruined for The Economy. Remember the image in Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth -- the scale with the planet and the bars of gold? On today's tospy turvy scale, the planet goes down as the gold goes up. 

What are the big mad robber bankers doing behind the scenes of this presidential election distraction, I wonder?  

  

Still Time Left to Talk about ‘Climate Change’ in US Elections

Previously posted on BoomerWarrior by Rolly Montpellier

In spite of an obvious reluctance for President Obama to discuss Climate Change, I hold the strong belief that he must, at the very least, mention the issue during the remaining weeks of his campaign. Not doing so is morally irresponsible and disappointing.

President Obama during Second Debate

During the second Presidential debate, we heard all the confusing rhetoric about the middle class, tax cuts & plugging tax loopholes, Obamacare, job creation, the economy, restoring America’s glory, Libya, military spending, etc. These are important issues but little has been said about Climate Change – the mother-load of all crises facing America and humanity. And yet not a single reference to ‘Climate Change’.

Tackling the Climate Crisis is a moral imperative. It’s the right thing to do. Period! There is a huge divide between Obama and Romney on Climate Change. Voters who believe that the environment and the future of their children and grandchildren is at stake have nowhere to go but to Obama.

Could it be that the Obama Campaign Team is waiting for just the right moment to capitalize on the climate change gap between Obama and Romney? Is it not time to use the climate issue to their political advantage? In a recent article “Is Climate Change the Sleeper Issue of the 2012 Election?, some organizers and strategists believe that they:

could be using the climate issue to their political advantage, especially after a summer of drought, wildfires, and record heat. Ever since the collapse of cap and trade, it’s been “strong conventional wisdom, even within major environmental organizations, that it can hurt us to talk about climate change,” explains climate strategist Betsy Taylor, whose consulting firm Breakthrough Strategies and Solutions just released a new report on the subject. “And I think that was a mistake.”

Climate Change Communication

A report by Yale University, Climate Change in the American Mind deals with the potential impact of global warming on the presidential election and highlights the following:

A new national survey finds that 11% of likely voters remain undecided about whom they will vote for President. The majority of these undecided voters say the Presidential candidates’ positions on global warming will be one of several important factors determining how they cast their vote.

The survey found that Undecideds are much more similar to likely Obama voters than likely Romney voters across a range of climate change and energy-related beliefs, attitudes, and policy preferences.

Another report on Canada.com - Climate change a ghost issue in U.S. Election - states that:

Four years ago climate change was a dominant campaign issue for Obama who promised leadership and immediate action on an international scale, but never delivered…now it is a mere phantom of that time. A ghost issue that hovers in the background of a campaign

most voters agree that the government should take steps to reduce carbon emissions…one independent poll this week found that 85 per cent of Obama voters, 83 per cent of undecided voters and 73 per cent of Romney voters believe more clean energy should be used. Four separate polls indicate that about 72 per cent support federal regulations to curb greenhouse gases from power plants, cars and factories to reduce global warming. That included 61 per cent of Republicans.

More recent polls show the climate change concern continues to be rising. People are starting to fear their future and fear is a great motivator.

The lack of leadership on the climate crisis is highlighted in several previous posts on BoomerWarrior: U.S. Elections – Where is the Leadership on the Climate Crisis?, Common Sense Revolution Needed to Tackle Climate Change, Who is Jill Stein?, Will Jill Stein (Green Party) Hurt Obama’s Chances?

Hundreds of initiatives started by ordinary Americans and organizations have failed to generate much discussion by candidates about climate change (with the exception of the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein).

One such group – Friends of the Earth – is advocating

for voters to break the silence and “take a stand to ensure that climate change is addressed. This year, extreme weather causing unprecedented Arctic melting and widespread drought and wildfires has shown the dire need for action. The longer the candidates refuse to take a direct, vocal stance on the issue, the more our world is endangered”

Second Chilling Climate Change-Censored Debate

My fossil fuel d!ck is bigger than yours

Second US presidential debate climate change coverage:

Climate: ZERO

Environment: ZERO

Energy: FOSSIL FUELS TO THE DEATH

The two candidates are agreed that the priority is American energy independence. Fossil fuel independence – not independence from fossil fuels.

They are agreed that the US and the world are to remain dependent on and dominated by fossil fuel energy.

They possibly have minor disagreement on how much the small contribution of clean, renewable and everlasting energy will be.

Energy transcript

ROMNEY: President Bush and I are - are different people and these are different times and that's why my five-point plan is so different than what he would have done. I mean, for instance, we can now, by virtue of new technology, actually get all the energy we need in North America without having to go to the - the Arabs or the Venezuelans or anyone else. That wasn't true in his time, that's why my policy starts with a very robust policy to get all that energy in North America - become energy secure.

OBAMA: The most important thing we can do is to make sure we control our own energy. So here's what I've done since I've been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years. Natural gas production is the highest it's been in decades.

We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment. But what I've also said is we can't just produce traditional source of energy. We've also got to look to the future. That's why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars. That means that in the middle of the next decade, any car you buy, you're going to end up going twice as far on a gallon of gas. That's why we doubled clean - clean energy production like wind and solar and biofuels.

And all these things have contributed to us lowering our oil imports to the lowest levels in 16 years. Now, I want to build on that. And that means, yes, we still continue to open up new areas for drilling. We continue to make it a priority for us to go after natural gas. We've got potentially 600,000 jobs and 100 years worth of energy right beneath our feet with natural gas. And we can do it in an environmentally sound way. But we've also got to continue to figure out how we have efficiency energy, because ultimately that's how we're going to reduce demand and that's what's going to keep gas prices lower.

Now, Governor Romney will say he's got an all-of-the-above plan, but basically his plan is to let the oil companies write the energy policies. So he's got the oil and gas part, but he doesn't have the clean energy part. And if we are only thinking about tomorrow or the next day and not thinking about 10 years from now, we're not going to control our own economic future. Because China, Germany, they're making these investments. And I'm not going to cede those jobs of the future to those countries. I expect those new energy sources to be built right here in the United States. That's going to help Jeremy get a job. It's also going to make sure that you're not paying as much for gas.

ROMNEY: Well, let's look at the president's policies, all right, as opposed to the rhetoric, because we've had four years of policies being played out. And the president's right in terms of the additional oil production, but none of it came on federal land. As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent. Why? Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands, and in federal waters.

So where'd the increase come from? Well, a lot of it came from the Bakken Range in North Dakota. What was his participation there? The administration brought a criminal action against the people drilling up there for oil, this massive new resource we have. And what was the cost? 20 or 25 birds were killed and brought out a migratory bird act to go after them on a criminal basis.

Look, I want to make sure we use our oil, our coal, our gas, our nuclear, our renewables. I believe very much in our renewable capabilities; ethanol, wind, solar will be an important part of our energy mix. But what we don't need is to have the president keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal and gas. This has not been Mr. Oil, or Mr. Gas, or Mr. Coal. Talk to the people that are working in those industries. I was in coal country. People grabbed my arms and said, "Please save my job." 

The head of the EPA said, "You can't build a coal plant. You'll virtually - it's virtually impossible given our regulations." When the president ran for office, he said if you build
a coal plant, you can go ahead, but you'll go bankrupt. That's not the right course for America.

Let's take advantage of the energy resources we have, as well as the energy sources for the future. And if we do that, if we do what I'm planning on doing, which is getting us energy independent, North America energy independence within eight years, you're going to see manufacturing jobs come back - because our energy is low cost - that are already beginning to come back because of our abundant energy. I'll get America and North America energy independent. I'll do it by more drilling, more permits and licenses.

We're going to bring that pipeline in from Canada. How in the world the president said no to that pipeline? I will never know. This is about bringing good jobs back for the middle class of America, and that's what I'm going to do.

CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me just see if I can move you to the gist of this question, which is, are we looking at the new normal? I can tell you that tomorrow morning, a lot of people in Hempstead will wake up and fill up and they will find that the price of gas is over $4 a gallon. Is it within the purview of the government to bring those prices down, or are we looking at the new normal?

OBAMA: Candy, there's no doubt that world demand's gone up, but our production is going up, and we're using oil more efficiently. And very little of what Governor Romney just said is true. We've opened up public lands. We're actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous administration and my - the previous president was an oil man.

And natural gas isn't just appearing magically. We're encouraging it and working with the industry.

And when I hear Governor Romney say he's a big coal guy, I mean, keep in mind, when - Governor, when you were governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, "This plant kills," and took great pride in shutting it down. And now suddenly you're a big champion of coal.

So what I've tried to do is be consistent. With respect to something like coal, we made the largest investment in clean coal technology, to make sure that even as we're producing more coal, we're producing it cleaner and smarter. Same thing with oil, same thing with natural gas. And the proof is our oil imports are down to the lowest levels in 20 years. Oil production is up, natural gas production is up, and, most importantly, we're also starting to build cars that are more efficient.

And that's creating jobs. That means those cars can be exported, 'cause that's the demand around the world, and it also means that it'll save money in your pocketbook.

ROMNEY: I will fight for oil, coal and natural gas. And the proof, the proof of whether a strategy is working or not is what the price is that you're paying at the pump. If you're paying less than you paid a year or two ago, why, then, the strategy is working. But you're paying more. When the president took office, the price of gasoline here in Nassau County was about $1.86 a gallon. Now, it's $4.00 a gallon. The price of electricity is up.

  
If the president's energy policies are working, you're going to see the cost of energy come down. I will fight to create more energy in this country, to get America energy-secure. And part of that is bringing in a pipeline of oil from Canada, taking advantage of the oil and coal we have here, drilling offshore in Alaska, drilling offshore in Virginia where the people want it. Those things will get us the energy we need.

CROWLEY: Mr. President, could you address, because we did finally get to gas prices here, could you address what the governor said, which is if your energy policy was working, the price of gasoline would not be $4 a gallon here. Is that true?

OBAMA: Well, think about what the governor - think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney's now promoting. So, it's conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies, we might be back in that same mess.

What I want to do is to create an economy that is strong, and at the same time produce energy. And with respect to this pipeline that Governor Romney keeps on talking about, we've - we've built enough pipeline to wrap around the entire earth once. So, I'm all for pipelines. I'm all for oil production. 

What I'm not for is us ignoring the other half of the equation. So, for example, on wind energy, when Governor Romney says "these are imaginary jobs." When you've got thousands of people right now in Iowa, right now in Colorado, who are working, creating wind power with good-paying manufacturing jobs, and the Republican senator in that –
in Iowa is all for it, providing tax breaks to help this work and Governor Romney says I'm opposed, I'd get rid of it, that's not an energy strategy for the future. And we need to win
that future. And I intend to win it as President of the United States.

ROMNEY: Candy, I don't have a policy of stopping wind jobs in Iowa and that - they're not phantom jobs. They're real jobs.

ROMNEY: I appreciate wind jobs in Iowa and across our country. I appreciate the jobs in coal and oil and gas. I'm going to make sure - we're taking advantage of our energy resources. We'll bring back manufacturing to America. We're going to get through a very aggressive energy policy, 31/2 million more jobs in this country. It's critical to our future.