As will hopefully become clear over the course of this blog, my vote for President has already been won by Barack Obama. Why? Because his stances on every issue, from the environment to Iran, nicely reflect my own. Besides that, he has several personal marks that I believe have made him into the kind of man we need as President in the 21st century: He comes from a diverse ethnic and cultural background, which gives him a decided edge in this era of globalization. He is honest and forthright, traits that are directly contrary to many stereotypes about politicians - he says what needs to be said, and doesn't play those political games (any more than is absolutely necessary). He may be young, but what he lacks in experience he makes up with intelligence, enthusiasm, and confidence. Besides that, at only 46, he would be the nation's first post-baby boom president.
Think of the implications of that! The world of post-1950 has been an extremely different one from the first half of this century, marked by an ever-increasing upswing in technology, global connectivity, and wave after wave of civil rights movements, starting, for the US, in the 1960s with the Civil Rights movement (you know, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr). Obama has grown up in *that* world, was born and raised in it, and the difference, to me, is evident.
On the Iraq war, which I believe to be the hugest mistake of the Bush administration, he has opposed it from the beginning and would withdraw troops with suitable swiftness. His commentary on war in general: "I not oppose all war - I oppose rash wars," resonates very nicely with a moderate sensibility. It is not the knee-jerk response of aging and new-wave hippies in the post-Viet Nam decades, but a rational stance that promotes peace without fearing to use force.
And unlike our current administration, Obama has been paying attention to the global scientific outcry against global climate change as it has escalated over the past several months.
Honestly, the only thing that I can find anyone saying against Obama is that he *might* not be able to win votes in the south, which is hardly a poor reflection on him, but on the stiff-necked attitudes that region of our country tends to take. But the south alone is not enough to turn the election, even with Texas's thirty-odd electoral votes (don't even get me started on the electoral college).
At every turn, Obama has impressed me with his sense of vision and hope, his determination to be what this country needs: An honest, genuine leader.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Climax at Bali (Ohh yes - Yes!)
The international climate conference at Bali came to its final conclusion yesterday after going a day into overtime to resolve certain complaints held by certain party members. ::cough cough::The US::cough cough:: The outcome of the conference is optimistic, even if not Best Case Scenario. We still do not have specific goals for 2020, as scientists say we should, but this does mark a significant turnaround in the climate of climate change. In the end, the US stood deserted by all of its former allies - Japan, Canada, Australia, and Russia - who had been on its side of the debate thusfar. But in the end, it was the US that stood directly in opposition to the wills of every other nation represented at the conference.
The friction at Bali stemmed from a simple fact: No environmental treaty would succeed without the US on board. As producer of 25% of world GHG emissions, their cooperation was essential. Bush knew that, and used it to his advantage for much of the two weeks, achieving such aims as to cut out the provision of specific emissions goals for 2020 in the last few days of the conference. But what Bush and his administration failed to realize was that he had no friends in the Bali conference, and they would proceed without him if they found it necessary. This was highlighted by the EU's promise to boycott Bush's planned climate meeting in Hawaii next month, and by former Vice President Al Gore speaking out directly against his old opponant, saying: "I am not a representative of my government, so I am not bound by diplomatic niceties. My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali. [Applause.] We all know that." (qtd in "Letter from Bali: A Tragic Truth", by guest writer Andrew Light at Gristmill: Environmental News and Commentary.) (See? I did learn something in Writing 121!) With the pressure both domestic and foreign threatening to burst, the Bush administration finally decided to bow with some semblance of dignity remaining, and go along with the consensus.
As said wonderfully in an article that I, unfortunately, cannot locate at this moment, "It should be difficult for a country to make the final concession that enables a treaty to move forward and still appear self-centered and churlish. Yet somehow the US has done so."
Somewhat overlooked in the final drama over emissions cuts is one of the real successes of the Bali conference, an initiative for countries to prevent deforestation, especially in rainforest nations.
The Bali conference has made no final decisions yet: It is pending a further 2 years of negotiations to produce a treaty by the end of 2009 to replace the Kyoto protocol after 2012. Until then, the US is still the only industrialized nation to not have ratified the Kyoto protocol. Also note the careful positioning of the 2009 deadline to several months *after* Bush leaves office. There is little doubt that environmental concerns will play a huge role in 2008's presidential campaigns.
The friction at Bali stemmed from a simple fact: No environmental treaty would succeed without the US on board. As producer of 25% of world GHG emissions, their cooperation was essential. Bush knew that, and used it to his advantage for much of the two weeks, achieving such aims as to cut out the provision of specific emissions goals for 2020 in the last few days of the conference. But what Bush and his administration failed to realize was that he had no friends in the Bali conference, and they would proceed without him if they found it necessary. This was highlighted by the EU's promise to boycott Bush's planned climate meeting in Hawaii next month, and by former Vice President Al Gore speaking out directly against his old opponant, saying: "I am not a representative of my government, so I am not bound by diplomatic niceties. My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali. [Applause.] We all know that." (qtd in "Letter from Bali: A Tragic Truth", by guest writer Andrew Light at Gristmill: Environmental News and Commentary.) (See? I did learn something in Writing 121!) With the pressure both domestic and foreign threatening to burst, the Bush administration finally decided to bow with some semblance of dignity remaining, and go along with the consensus.
As said wonderfully in an article that I, unfortunately, cannot locate at this moment, "It should be difficult for a country to make the final concession that enables a treaty to move forward and still appear self-centered and churlish. Yet somehow the US has done so."
Somewhat overlooked in the final drama over emissions cuts is one of the real successes of the Bali conference, an initiative for countries to prevent deforestation, especially in rainforest nations.
The Bali conference has made no final decisions yet: It is pending a further 2 years of negotiations to produce a treaty by the end of 2009 to replace the Kyoto protocol after 2012. Until then, the US is still the only industrialized nation to not have ratified the Kyoto protocol. Also note the careful positioning of the 2009 deadline to several months *after* Bush leaves office. There is little doubt that environmental concerns will play a huge role in 2008's presidential campaigns.
Introductions
::tap tap:: This thing on?
This is the obligatory introductory post. My name is Aeryn, an environmental science student currently at Portland Community College, soon to be (hopefully) Evergreen University. This blog will be my perspective, my soapbox, my place to rant and ramble, and if some people care to read it, more's the better. I will make some attempts to remain objective, or at least to report both sides of a story, but I make no pretense at not being biased. The topics that will get my attention will be focused primarily on environmental protection and climate change, and on political commentary and happenings (especially when the two combine). However, this is also a science blog, which will follow exciting things in the worlds of biology, astronomy, and physics. It is also a geek blog, and will enjoy occasional ramblings on whatever geekdom happens to catch my interest (which, for the past several months, has been Star Trek).
In essence, this is my blog, and I'm a fickle person. Therefore, the range of topics covered will also be broad.
Keep in mind also: I'm just learning.
This is the obligatory introductory post. My name is Aeryn, an environmental science student currently at Portland Community College, soon to be (hopefully) Evergreen University. This blog will be my perspective, my soapbox, my place to rant and ramble, and if some people care to read it, more's the better. I will make some attempts to remain objective, or at least to report both sides of a story, but I make no pretense at not being biased. The topics that will get my attention will be focused primarily on environmental protection and climate change, and on political commentary and happenings (especially when the two combine). However, this is also a science blog, which will follow exciting things in the worlds of biology, astronomy, and physics. It is also a geek blog, and will enjoy occasional ramblings on whatever geekdom happens to catch my interest (which, for the past several months, has been Star Trek).
In essence, this is my blog, and I'm a fickle person. Therefore, the range of topics covered will also be broad.
Keep in mind also: I'm just learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
