all the room they need. And, of course, the 'no difference' crowd who also seem to be reliant on corporate media's indifference to facts.

'frivolous'…and Bush, Cheney and Rice were 'stoic' and 'resolute'….right?

Clinton offered $100 billion at Copenhagen, but it didn't go very well if I recall correctly. The stated position of the US is that China and India needed to reduce emissions, back in 2009 that was scoffed at. Obama and Kerry finally got China to do that now so Lima seems quite promising.

that prefers to use him as a target for the GOP's constant propaganda campaigns.

for a decade and, to a lesser degree, since 1971. Most of the attacks are just stupid - questioning his intelligence and competence when it is pretty obvious that in very tough times, he has had more successes than any other American diplomat in recent times.

The great thing now is that these attacks are far less likely to make him less successful - and when things are said and done - his legacy will be what he has done, said and stood for. Unlike most politicians, he already earned his place in history by the time he was 27. With the current poll showing over half the country things the torture done was justified, his loss in 2004 is even easier to explain. Years ago, someone posted a link to an Ohio studied involving detailed interviews on the 2004 choice done after the election. Not surprisingly in those traumatized times. national security was the deciding issue. What was shocking to me, was that many saw Kerry as the more intelligent, principled, moral man -- and for that reason - voted for Bush, because they thought he would use any means (legal, moral or not) to defend the country.

The attacks on his effort to reach out to the Islamic world are genuine policy disagreements. It is fascinating that he has done so much on this -- and it is something that is really something he has cared about for years and has studied. His 2008 Yale talk on interfaith relations was not far from the speech he gave when he announced the person leading the Islamic outreach this year. It is interesting that since Kerry met with leaders all across the ME to create the anti-ISIS coalition, Imams across the area have denounced ISIS as not reflecting Islamic values. Only time will show whether Obama/Kerry will succeed in countering the ISIS narrative that they are the caliphate and the struggle is Islam vs the infidels.

Here, the right, has a view that is the mirror image of that of ISIS. Instead of the "infidels" who ISIS sees as pure evil, they see Islamafascists as pure evil and the US as the perfect democracy, ignoring completely that our role in that part of the world has been less idealistic. Both take complex relationships, with long troubled histories informing each side's interpretation of events and turn them into good/evil battles as simplistic as the earliest computer games.

That is particularly difficult when speaking of ISIS, which really is a violent extremist group. However, it ignores the condemnation of most of the Arab League nations and the fact that the UN resolution against ISIS won the votes of many many Islamic nations. One thing I have wondered is whether just as on environmental issues, Kerry's sensitivity towards religion and his long relations with some in that area might have been key to getting the Imam denunciations of ISIS and possibly even gaining the support of some of the less directly affected Islamic states.

Here, Kerry has to know that every time he sends out greetings for an Islamic holiday or speaks of the religion at all, the right will go crazy. It is very likely that he thinks those outbursts are worth

Last edited Wed Dec 17, 2014, 01:29 PM - Edit history (1)

This is part and parcel with much of the media not being interested in any complicated issue that does not have a flamboyant angle. Here, the top print media is different - as the NYT article (and the guardian one though it is not American) show. They did cover it.

The environmental media has been mixed - there are some that were very pessimistic saying that what was done is too little. From the point of view of what needs to be done to prevent things getting worse, they are correct. Many others, though, note that what was done is real, moving in the right direction and clearing what what a complete roadblock (the refusal of the developing nations to do anything - arguing that the developed nations prospered causing the current problem with their energy choices). The take away after reading some of this is that the US/China pact really has created momentum that did not exist before -- and that one reason that some environmentalists were unhappy is that each country was NOT required to make their commitment in a treaty that was passed by the entire government. This was likely because - as we know - our Congress won't pass ANYTHING on this - and wouldn't even when we had 59 Senators and the House.

As to the US, Obama can change the carbon numbers significantly by his executive actions. In addition, the bill that changed the required fuel efficiencies for cars - the 2007 CAFE standard bill (passed after we won the House and Senate) and the 2012 bill both required ever more efficient cars - greatly reducing the average fuel usage over time to go the same distance. The 2012 bill has requirements out to 2025.

I suspect that another thing that will be done is that efforts will be made through the states, cities, and even companies - especially those not controlled by Republicans. Many states are themselves working towards more solar and wind. In addition, from Kerry's book tour in 2007, there were examples where it was in the interest of companies to use energy efficient designs for their buildings. I would not be surprised if Kerry became very involved in advocating for things like this after he leaves the state department.

In 2009, an advantage of having carbon reduction done through legislation was that only will legislation could the country as a whole share the cost and burden of the change. One problem then, was many of the coal state legislators could not be persuaded even though those states would have been compensated for their high costs. This will not happen when the change is done by regulation. If regulation actually is allowed to work, these Senators (Democratic and Republican) actually will have hurt their own states.

The problem with regulation being the driving force is that it could change when the President changes. The good news is that if a dirty plant has been cleaned up or shut down and replaced by something cleaner, there is no economic incentive for a power company to move backwards. What this says is that the US does best moving as fast as possible NOW while Obama is leading this. The interesting thing is that - if Kerry is right (and I for one think he usually is), states will begin to see the positive side effects that Kerry spoke of as far back as 2004 - their air and water will be cleaner and thus people will be healthier. As clean energy sees greater demand, there may be more research, that will improve technology and the companies that do that will both help the economy and create jobs. These next 2 years could show that moving from fossil fuels is a win/win proposition -- except for people like the Koch brothers.

Thank you.