The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Keystone XL Project came out last month and pretty much said Keystone XL will not have an impact on climate change, and the project should go ahead -- but in fact the KXL pipeline will enable tarsands mining, which in turn will enable more fossil fuel use, making climate change even worse.

I'm challenged trying to follow the process. Does the study have Kerry's approval or is it waiting for Kerry's approval before it goes to Pres. Obama's desk?

If the first, Kerry can say anything he wants now that he has sold the climate down the river.

If the second, this is Kerry's time to stand up against what I am sure is enormous pressure and do what's right for the American people and the world: Say No to KXL.

No doubt it has been a dogandpony show since then to protect Clinton's candidacy. No doubt Kerry took Sec of State knowing the deal was set in stone, well aware of the dogandpony show, and that if he wanted the position to further his other priories, he best go along.

LOL

.

...Anyone at this point who thinks there is no anthropogenic climate change, driven by humans burning millions and millions of years worth of fossil fuels in a little over a century is either a nut case or a paid shill. Thus, Sec. Kerry's comments are spot on. It's just like any rational person's response to some crank who thinks quantum mechanics is actually the work of invisible fairies. You'd think they were out of their f'n minds and rightly so.

- except, unfortunately, way ahead of schedule in some cases. The rapidly shrinking ice cover in the Arctic is one example.

Meanwhile, the mechanism known to be forcing these changes (i.e. the emission of greenhouse gases) is only building over time. So yeah, future warming is as certain as it gets when dealing with a phenomenon as complex as the climate.

You really won't accept this is reality until the damn icecaps melt, will you? Pathological.

...when his /her beach front house is 1/4 mile off shore and under 15 feet of water, then, just maybe they'll come to their senses. In the mean time anything that gives them the least pang of guilt about driving their Hummer must be attacked.

it's basic physics and chemistry. The deniers have had their chance for a couple decades now, but have produced zero reputable data that suggests a different model strongly enough to replace the current one. Over time, observed evidence continues to fit the accepted model of anthropogenic climate change, driven by burning fossil fuel burning, while the ranks of those with doubts have thinned to just a few cranks with axes to grind and paid industry shills who apparently don't give a shit about the impacts of climate change on humanity. They just want to get paid. I guess if it isn't their ass, they just don't give a shift, do they?

And yes, in my mind, disputing the accepted model based on the evidence currently at hand is exactly the same as believing in fairies. Now do you understand what I meant by that or are you hopelessly obtuse?

But hey, thanks for playing!

That's what sensible people do when confronted with a problem beyond their own expertise: ask the experts. Clinging to a few marginal voices who tell you want to hear, despite massive evidence that they are wrong? That's moronic, and incredibly dangerous.

Historical emissions

Since carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere can stay there for centuries, historical emissions are just as important – or even more important – than current emissions. The tricky question of historical responsibility is one of the key tensions in the process of negotiating a global climate deal. The following figures from the World Resources Institute show the top 10 nations as measured by their cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007. The US tops the list by a wide margin – though Chinese emissions have risen significantly since these data were assembled.

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change

Or that USA's emissions / capita are the highest of all developed nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

I would find the hypocrisy laughable if it weren't so tragic. At the first United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, the first of its kind to address climate change at an international level, George HW Bush said the American way of life was non-negotiable. Since that time, it has been the job of US administrations to weaken the recommendations/findings on the International Panels on Climate Change and the subsequent conventions at Kyoto (1997) and Copenhagen (2012). The Kyoto Treaty was weak at best but did require countries to accept standards of limiting their C02 emissions.....The Obama Administration worked behind closed doors to undermine the negotiations and strengthening the Kyoto language at Copenhagen in 2012....


https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/7/bill_mckibben_climate_talks_so_weakened

I find Kerry's words disingenuous and he would be the last person I would trust to lead the world to combat this crisis.