Of strategic thinking and presidential candidates

Why? Let’s look at his stance on Global Warming. In a sense, this amounts to a strategic game of ‘Red Rover’ where we all line up to stop a freight train by linking hands and willing it to stop. I’m saying that if you take the science seriously, and the conclusions that have been made from the data, the whole idea of carbon trading and sequestration is tantamount to trying to close the door after the cow’s bolted. If you listen to Al Gore (ManbearPIIIIG!!!) and the broader scientific opinion we’re slated for serious climate change. And if you take their arguments seriously you have to laugh at them when they say that simply cutting carbon emissions is going to turn it all around, even in your great-great-great-great grandchildren’s time(Seven tenths of a degree by 2050 in temperature savings is what we get if we went the full Kyoto. I wonder how long it would take to get back to what people say we should be at, or to return to what we had in 1986?). Look at how much a change you’ll get in 50 years. Oh, and don’t forget the cost, either. You think this current economic downturn is bad and requires all kinds of gov’t bail outs for people? Jeebus, that looks a whole lot worse to me.

So, this is true strategic thought? Hardly. You want a *real* strategic thinker on this? Find the politician who is following Bjorn Lumborg’s recommendations or Tom Barnett’s instead of ManbearPIIIIG’s!!! and you’ll have a real visionary instead of someone reading from the Book of Dystopia, Chapter Doom, verse Gloom. If you really believe in the predominate scientific view you are left with no choice but to accept that sea levels will rise, and the problems that come with that. If you accept said view you also accept that weather patterns will shift in ways that make the Dust Bowl, in many places across the US and the world, possible and likely. You have to accept that very real problems will come down the pipe that have to be dealt with, and that by simply capping carbon emissions (or moving them in the negative direction) those problems will not be resolved.

What’s Obama planned to do on these? Nothing, at least nothing in his publicly declared positions. What’s he going to do about crop failures from drought and weather pattern shifts? What’s his plan to ensure potable water is available to continue agriculture (even if we all became vegan soy eaters)? Sorry, saying he’ll support waste water plants out in CA is not having a broad visionary plan, particularly since those plans were already in place and moving ahead (my home town already has treated waste water being fed back into the watershed from which it draws water, something they started building in 1998. When I was helping my Mother out this summer I was drinking that foul smelling and tasting stuff.) He’s got nothing so far, same caveat as before. So, this is strategic thinking? I. Don’t. Think. So. A real strategic thinker wouldn’t take what amounts a plan that would halt the oncoming crisis back in the 1950’s and push it now, as if it was visionary and going to halt the freight train, nor would a real visionary try to pass off to the country stuff that someone else already did as something he’s bravely moving to support (it’s done and over, sir, they never needed your support.).

He’s running with a forty year old plan on this. One that isn’t likely to work without killing a large number of people off, whose cost is major (you think people are annoyed at how they’re suffering because of the housing crisis and current economic slow down? Look at the cost in standard of living *if* we follow the Ed Bagly Jr. inspired plan in the link above.), and only deals with the ‘first half’, to steal a Barnettian phrase, while it ignores all the other problems that are inescapable if you accept ManbearPIIIG’s numbers.

Sorry, I’m not buying Obama as having ‘the vision’ over the other two (Clinton or McCain), not if his environmental plan is an indication of this ‘strategic vision. If he did he’d have plans, in place and delivered publicly, to deal with the potable water issue, soil erosion issue, dike and levee ideas to protect things like Manhattan (or, if one were really bold, most of India). Sorry, Sen. Obama (and J), but you’re not selling gollum on this vision thing. You really aren’t showcasing it.

What I’m seeing, when I read the plans listed on his web site linked above, is populism and the cynical use thereof. It may sound tough to walk into Detroit and tell them need to be more fuel efficient, but it isn’t really when they’ve been working on hybrids, flex fuels, and other non-petroleum derived energy source vehicles for a decade (that dang educated populace thing Jefferson talked about comes up to nip the good Sen. In the ankles). The way his stated plan reads, and he’s not alone in this, it looks like he believes in a closed carbon loop/perpetual motion machine. Who taught these people thermodynamics (sure wasn’t BCR, that’s for sure.)?

If he comes up with a real long range and truly visionary plan--- instead of the hodgepodge of green-truther, ‘I’ll create jobs!’, and petroleum boogie man hating that he’s put out--- I’ll listen. You got plans to actually deal with the real problems of climate shift(feeding people, keeping shoreline communities from being ‘Veniced’ given the inevitability of sea level rise, etc) then fine, I’ll listen. Come to the table with something like building the Taiwan 101 but using it as a self-sufficient as possible agro-dome that’s got much of the engineering problems resolved, or a massive aquaduct system ala what Jerry Brown came up with in CA lo these many moons ago, and I’ll call you a frackin’ visionary, ‘cause you would be. But what Obama has put forward is not visionary.

Sorry, J.

(Note: ry doesn’t buy the anthropogenic theory, yet. He finds the data sketchy and other theories (like the albedo shift or the increase in solar radiation theory) to be equally supported. Hence, he says doing something about the real problems (crop failure, water shortage, coastal city drowning) is more important than anyone’s pet whipping boy---whether that be the evils of consumerist culture, big oil, non-vegetarian living, or what have you in the mid-to-long term.)
--ry