Originally Posted by playwrite

I've actually been to Somalia

Photos or it didn't happen!

Originally Posted by Odin

Photos or it didn't happen!

PW thinks that the point of view from a foreign occupation trooper is sufficient to understand a place.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

And Part 2 tomorrow, same time.

Did you get to watch it? If so,what did you think about the documentary?

Originally Posted by Deb C

Did you get to watch it? If so,what did you think about the documentary?

Yes, I did watch it. Chilling. I hadn't realized how devastating the Dust Bowl had been. And that with the wheat boom in WWII, they went back and repeated their mistakes? Aieee!

And with New Mexico in drought again, very thought-provoking.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Yes, I did watch it. Chilling. I hadn't realized how devastating the Dust Bowl had been. And that with the wheat boom in WWII, they went back and repeated their mistakes? Aieee!

And with New Mexico in drought again, very thought-provoking.

My sentiments exactly.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Sure. While we already deal/trade with Somalis on a daily basis, we are always willing to look at new investment opportunities and new markets (you would be amazed at some of the places we have brick and mortar). That should not be a surprise really. As I understand it, a lot of companies and people have been successfully investing in Somalia (some for nearly a decade now).

Well there goes your last chance at a Libertarian free-market economy.

Maybe you could try the borderlands around Pakistan and Afghanistan.

More or less the same outcome - your quick demise.

Unless, of course, you wanted to offer up some other example on the globe of your nirvana.

Hurricanes seem to have it in for the Republican Party. Two hurricanes attack their conventions, and then Sandy dooms Romney. Rachel Maddow lays out the situation now.

http://youtu.be/dkBGKvNS0iM

(Gee, I wonder why that is....)

Note to Denialists:

7 REASONS CLIMATE CHANGE IS ‘EVEN WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT’ : "New Scientist" Special Report

1. The thick sea ice in the Arctic Ocean was not expected to melt until the end of the century. If current trends continue, summer ice could be gone in a decade or two.

2. We knew global warming was going to make the weather more extreme. But it’s becoming even more extreme than anyone predicted. (Remember: the IPCC predictions were the most "conservative", i.e. assuming the least effects)

3. Global warming was expected to boost food production. Instead, food prices are soaring as the effects of extreme weather are kicking in.

4. Greenland’s rapid loss of ice means we are in for a sea level rise of at least 1 meter (~3 feet) by 2100, and possibly much more.

5. The planet currently absorbs half of our CO2 emissions, which has made the oceans 30% more acidic. All the signs are it won’t for much longer.

6. If we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, we might be able to avoid climate disaster. In fact, however, we are still increasing emissions.

7. If the worst climate predictions are realized, vast swathes of the globe could become too hot for humans to survive.

Full article (pay walled):
http://www.newscientist.com/special/worse-climate
Commentary by Joe Romm (Think Progress) with links to previous free articles on the 7 reasons:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...an-we-thought/
http://ecowatch.org/p/air/climate-change-air/

TAKE ACTION:
http://gofossilfree.org/
http://endfossilfuelsubsidies.org/
http://350.org/
__________________________________________________ _____
"The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any."
"Activism is my rent for living on the planet."
-- Alice Walker

The biggest problem is, Eric, that if we really accept the facts about fossil fuel use, depletion, and global warming, then we have to change our way of life drastically. Very few of us would have any idea how to manage that - I certainly don't, other than a general hunkering down for the winter - and nobody wants that, either.

Any politician who preached that would probably be lynched, unless it was in the context of an emergency so great that nobody could avoid seeing it. Then, it would take Winston Churchill ("blood, sweat, and tears") to pull it off.

Not to mention there is no way we could control what China chose to do!

Not saying we're helpless here. What I am saying is that the problem is extremely difficult. I guess the best approach is "Look, folks. You want a hard landing, or a soft one? Because landing you are getting; you're in the middle of it now." With specifically tailored appeals to the pocketbooks of each & every economic niche. That is, the ranchers will assuredly listen to you about drought.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

The biggest problem is, Eric, that if we really accept the facts about fossil fuel use, depletion, and global warming, then we have to change our way of life drastically. Very few of us would have any idea how to manage that - I certainly don't, other than a general hunkering down for the winter - and nobody wants that, either.

Any politician who preached that would probably be lynched, unless it was in the context of an emergency so great that nobody could avoid seeing it. Then, it would take Winston Churchill ("blood, sweat, and tears") to pull it off.

Not to mention there is no way we could control what China chose to do!

Not saying we're helpless here. What I am saying is that the problem is extremely difficult. I guess the best approach is "Look, folks. You want a hard landing, or a soft one? Because landing you are getting; you're in the middle of it now." With specifically tailored appeals to the pocketbooks of each & every economic niche. That is, the ranchers will assuredly listen to you about drought.

Good points throughout. The last President who tried to move us toward a sustainable society (AGW wasn't an issue then) was Jimmy Carter. He was right then, and lost badly for it. If he came back and just dusted-off his conservation plea, he would be up right to date ... and still a loser. Apparently, we haven't suffered enough yet.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

The biggest problem is, Eric, that if we really accept the facts about fossil fuel use, depletion, and global warming, then we have to change our way of life drastically. Very few of us would have any idea how to manage that - I certainly don't, other than a general hunkering down for the winter - and nobody wants that, either.

There is no need to exaggerate the changes that are needed. It is an inconvenient truth, but mostly inconvenient for a few CEOs who refuse to switch from mining and refining fossil fuels to constructing and operating renewable energy sources. We of course should have been on about doing this decades ago. But Reagan, and then other Republicans, have stopped us, and the result is the climate change that we see.

Not to mention there is no way we could control what China chose to do!

The USA has a lot of influence, and so does the rest of the world. But we surely don't until we set a good example. Only a few blue states have started to do it.

Not saying we're helpless here. What I am saying is that the problem is extremely difficult. I guess the best approach is "Look, folks. You want a hard landing, or a soft one? Because landing you are getting; you're in the middle of it now." With specifically tailored appeals to the pocketbooks of each & every economic niche. That is, the ranchers will assuredly listen to you about drought.

The only "extremely difficult" thing we face is the political resistance by Republicans and DINOs, and from anyone else who says "the problem is extremely difficult" and then uses that as an excuse not to support action. That's IT! And not facing the problem now is going to cause many more "difficulties" later. Is not taking action more difficult than taking it? YES.

And this is a 4T; it's time to face up to our crisis. That crisis consists of climate change, inequality, and resistance by red America to dealing with these 2 issues. 4Ts are not easy. Forget thinking that things are going to be easy for the next 16 years. They won't be.

So far, the ranchers are not listening (as election results prove again and again); but the amazing thing is that anyone should have to tell them anything now. The facts are clear; to ignore them may be a pleasant safeguarding of one's world view, but it will be disaster for their livelihood.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There is no need to exaggerate the changes that are needed. It is an inconvenient truth, but mostly inconvenient for a few CEOs who refuse to switch from mining and refining fossil fuels to constructing and operating renewable energy sources.

No, Eric, it will be inconvenient for most of us, unless TPTB are able to set up a massive infrastructure.

Imagine if the grid collapses but you have your nice little solar panel. Okay, you can keep your lights on and your house warm (or cool). Fine. Where are you going to get the food? Where will you get the wherewithal to stay in your little house? Of course, there won't be the nice internets... I could go on.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

No, Eric, it will be inconvenient for most of us, unless TPTB are able to set up a massive infrastructure.

Imagine if the grid collapses but you have your nice little solar panel. Okay, you can keep your lights on and your house warm (or cool). Fine. Where are you going to get the food? Where will you get the wherewithal to stay in your little house? Of course, there won't be the nice internets... I could go on.

This is why it's important to *stock up* at Costco.

Hearing often about the Grand Bargain. Just another word for compromise. There comes a time when compromise is as the poster below expresses.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

No, Eric, it will be inconvenient for most of us, unless TPTB are able to set up a massive infrastructure.

You are missing the point there, I believe. We just need to switch to solar, wind and other renewable sources of energy. It is the companies who can switch, but refuse to do so. The infrastructure is already there; only the sources used need to change, plus some transmission lines in some places. They are available, viable and cost-effective. Of course it takes some time, but it could have been done by now, there's no doubt at all about that. Because it wasn't, the whole world will suffer. Thanks again Ronald Reagan.

Imagine if the grid collapses but you have your nice little solar panel. Okay, you can keep your lights on and your house warm (or cool). Fine. Where are you going to get the food? Where will you get the wherewithal to stay in your little house? Of course, there won't be the nice internets... I could go on.

Food; and water, and safety from weather disasters, and many other things are under threat from global warming. That is the threat, NOT doing something about the threat. I don't know why you mentioned a problem with "food." I don't get it. Intelligent folks such as yourself taking this line, is as dangerous as the right-wingers taking it. Noone needs to take that line. The only people inconvenienced by such a conversion would be a few rich CEOs.

Imagine if we all had solar panels on our roof, for all houses, offices and businesses, just as a routine part of construction. Imagine if coal plants were replaced by solar energy plants, wind, geothermal and tidal plants. Imagine if our cars were run on electricity and hydrogen. That would likely mean no more energy problems from then on, except to further improve the new technology. The transition is already happening; it just needs to be further boosted by our government. Probably it can be done legislatively only on the state level for now, since the right-wing controls congress. But some steps have been taken already; cars must be efficient enough by the 2020s to be at-least hybrids. The EPA can now regulate greenhouse gases. Republicans and libertarians need to be taken severely to task for their resistance.

Time is running short. Already the sea levels will rise higher than expected. The methane locked in the permafrost is being released. This could double or triple the rate of warming. The price of not acting is much greater than the price of acting. That is a simple point that Americans have trouble with. Change is inconvenient for a few CEOs. But this is a 4T. Someone needs to be inconvenienced. Why should the only people inconvenienced, be those suffering from the consequences of global warming, through natural disasters and shortages, rather than those who are causing it?

Natural gas seems inevitable as a transition fuel. It can't be stopped apparently, but fracking should not be allowed to cause pollution and environmental damage. It is half as dangerous as coal, but at least that's a reduction.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You are missing the point there, I believe. We just need to switch to solar, wind and other renewable sources of energy. It is the companies who can switch, but refuse to do so. The infrastructure is already there; only the sources used need to change, plus some transmission lines in some places. They are available, viable and cost-effective. Of course it takes some time, but it could have been done by now, there's no doubt at all about that. Because it wasn't, the whole world will suffer. Thanks again Ronald Reagan.

Food; and water, and safety from weather disasters, and many other things are under threat from global warming. That is the threat, NOT doing something about the threat. I don't know why you mentioned a problem with "food." I don't get it. Intelligent folks such as yourself taking this line, is as dangerous as the right-wingers taking it. Noone needs to take that line. The only people inconvenienced by such a conversion would be a few rich CEOs.

Imagine if we all had solar panels on our roof, for all houses, offices and businesses, just as a routine part of construction. Imagine if coal plants were replaced by solar energy plants, wind, geothermal and tidal plants. Imagine if our cars were run on electricity and hydrogen. That would likely mean no more energy problems from then on, except to further improve the new technology. The transition is already happening; it just needs to be further boosted by our government. Probably it can be done legislatively only on the state level for now, since the right-wing controls congress. But some steps have been taken already; cars must be efficient enough by the 2020s to be at-least hybrids. The EPA can now regulate greenhouse gases. Republicans and libertarians need to be taken severely to task for their resistance.

Time is running short. Already the sea levels will rise higher than expected. The methane locked in the permafrost is being released. This could double or triple the rate of warming. The price of not acting is much greater than the price of acting. That is a simple point that Americans have trouble with. Change is inconvenient for a few CEOs. But this is a 4T. Someone needs to be inconvenienced. Why should the only people inconvenienced, be those suffering from the consequences of global warming, through natural disasters and shortages, rather than those who are causing it?

Natural gas seems inevitable as a transition fuel. It can't be stopped apparently, but fracking should not be allowed to cause pollution and environmental damage. It is half as dangerous as coal, but at least that's a reduction.

We're probably just talking past each other. I certainly see the catastrophes with global warming but in order for us to maintain our modern lifestyle with penicillin, open heart surgery, and fruit all year round, we will need to have an infrastructure that supports renewables. It's not easy. I'm worried.

This refers largely to the dangerous extreme temperatures. It is difficult reading, but if you think the reading is difficult, then try adapting to some of the thermal maxima likely at the end of this century.

http://www.knmi.nl/publications/full...v4.1_paper.pdf

1. One of the world's largest rainforests, the Amazon Basin, would largely disappear due to heat alone. What sort of rich plant life could exist in a place with 55C (131F) extreme temperatures? That temperature is not far from the record for Death Valley. There couldn't be enough rainfall to offset the intense evaporation -- and in much of the year in such a place, rainfall would literally scald any warm-blooded life. As the trees die, there would be huge forest fires belching unimaginable amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and aggravating global warming. Needless to say, one of the world's largest sinks for carbon dioxide completely disappears.

2. Northern India, now marginally habitable, might cross the line with a comparatively-slight 4.5C (8.4F) increase in its infernal 'spring' temperatures. A good hint: some literature from India promoting India as a tourist attraction already warns Westerners that the country is a good place to avoid in April because that is the hottest, driest part of the year between a Florida-like winter and the monsoon rains. That is enough to bring about maximum temperatures to 120F instead of 113F (the latter the record high temperature for Dallas, Texas. I had a series of jokes about evil people signing autographs outside, and that day I mentioned that Tojo was the villain of the day. I was saving Stalin for 114 and Hitler for 115).

3. My macabre reference to the "Great Texahara Desert" in the American Midwest as a prospect fits the curve. By 2095 temperatures at 40W, 100W (the location is on the Kansas-Nebraska state line -- it's thinly-populated land now, but just wait until it becomes a full desert) its summer extremes will resemble those now common in...northern India. Midwestern farmers and ranchers are a rugged lot, but not that rugged.

4. The South of France, a reasonably pleasant place for a summer excursion in the current regime of climates (extremes except for a couple years ago are usually just above 30C/86F), gets decidedly unpleasant. But with extremes about 10C warmer the summer maxima approach 41C/107F. One consequence of global warming is a rise of the sea level, so much of the Netherlands ends up under the North Sea. But it is just slightly cooler in temperature than the South of France.. but with higher humidity. A place at sea level probably has summer weather much like that of Houston today.

...

Gee, thanks, climate-change deniers. I'll keep my character-building blizzards here in Michigan and our rich corn and soybean crops, and you can keep the (climate) change. You probably never believed that I could be such a firm conservative!

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

We're probably just talking past each other. I certainly see the catastrophes with global warming but in order for us to maintain our modern lifestyle with penicillin, open heart surgery, and fruit all year round, we will need to have an infrastructure that supports renewables. It's not easy. I'm worried.

Why should we be "talking past" each other? The facts are clear. Did you read what I wrote? Which facts do you dispute? On what basis? You're a good wonkette; that should be no problem for you

Please don't just dismiss the issue like that. We all need to study and understand it. It's vital to our lives.

I'm worried because we are not acting fast enough, yes. That's the basis for worry. Lots of worry! Indeed we won't have fruit all year around pretty soon if global warming continues and droughts and floods wipe out our crops in many countries. Setting up a few transmission lines to hook solar plants up to the grid seems a very small problem by contrast. Worry, yes. About the Republicans and libertarians in power, and in the voting booth. (or in the case of Copperfield, NOT being in the voting booth, although if he were in it, his votes would be wrong; but it's also one less good vote, were it possible ) Now that they are not in power in CA, we'll see what's possible here!

As for modern medicine to cure heart problems, there's another outdated approach we need to change in the new age. If we had proper nutrition we wouldn't have heart problems. But the PTB would rather cause global warming with their big hog farms.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why should we be "talking past" each other? The facts are clear. Did you read what I wrote? Which facts do you dispute? On what basis? You're a good wonkette; that should be no problem for you

Please don't just dismiss the issue like that. We all need to study and understand it. It's vital to our lives.

I'm worried because we are not acting fast enough, yes. That's the basis for worry. Lots of worry! Indeed we won't have fruit all year around pretty soon if global warming continues and droughts and floods wipe out our crops in many countries. Setting up a few transmission lines to hook solar plants up to the grid seems a very small problem by contrast. Worry, yes. About the Republicans and libertarians in power, and in the voting booth. (or in the case of Copperfield, NOT being in the voting booth, although if he were in it, his votes would be wrong; but it's also one less good vote, were it possible ) Now that they are not in power in CA, we'll see what's possible here!

As for modern medicine to cure heart problems, there's another outdated approach we need to change in the new age. If we had proper nutrition we wouldn't have heart problems. But the PTB would rather cause global warming with their big hog farms.

Yes, I agree with you.

I misread your statement that climate change was only a problem for the elite.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You are missing the point there, I believe. We just need to switch to solar, wind and other renewable sources of energy. It is the companies who can switch, but refuse to do so. The infrastructure is already there; only the sources used need to change, plus some transmission lines in some places. They are available, viable and cost-effective.

No they aren't. Cost per Joule produced through fossil fuels is still significantly cheaper than through alternatives.

Of course it takes some time, but it could have been done by now, there's no doubt at all about that. Because it wasn't, the whole world will suffer. Thanks again Ronald Reagan.

Food; and water, and safety from weather disasters, and many other things are under threat from global warming. That is the threat, NOT doing something about the threat. I don't know why you mentioned a problem with "food." I don't get it. Intelligent folks such as yourself taking this line, is as dangerous as the right-wingers taking it. Noone needs to take that line. The only people inconvenienced by such a conversion would be a few rich CEOs.

It's statements like that that give away the fact that you only pretend to understand scientific information.

Imagine if we all had solar panels on our roof, for all houses, offices and businesses, just as a routine part of construction.

Do you even understand what energy flux is? Do you know how it is relevant to your suggestion? What do you know about the raw materials required for manufacture of solar cells? How about maintenance?

Imagine if coal plants were replaced by solar energy plants, wind, geothermal and tidal plants.

Imagine an America buried under thousands upon thousands of alternative plants necessary to replace the few hundred fossil fuel plants. Imagine the massive upgrade to the grid in order to incorporate and coordinate all of these fluctuating sources of Joules.

Imagine if our cars were run on electricity and hydrogen.

Imagine the massive infrastructure changes required to switch to a highly unstable gas as a standard fuel. What about the need for more fueling stations necessary to deal with long haul because the energy density of a gas is radically smaller than the energy density of a relatively stable hydrocarbon liquid?

Oh, by the way, you'll need to add several more thousand alternative power plants to the earlier total in order to produce all of that hydrogen.

That would likely mean no more energy problems from then on, except to further improve the new technology.

The only way you can imagine that situation is if you are living in magic pony land and don't really understand how our society's energy infrastructure works.

The transition is already happening; it just needs to be further boosted by our government. Probably it can be done legislatively only on the state level for now, since the right-wing controls congress. But some steps have been taken already; cars must be efficient enough by the 2020s to be at-least hybrids. The EPA can now regulate greenhouse gases. Republicans and libertarians need to be taken severely to task for their resistance.

Time is running short. Already the sea levels will rise higher than expected. The methane locked in the permafrost is being released. This could double or triple the rate of warming. The price of not acting is much greater than the price of acting. That is a simple point that Americans have trouble with. Change is inconvenient for a few CEOs.

The need for change is real. Your supposition that is a simple act of inconveincing a few CEO's is the epitome of Boomer arrogance and cluelessness about reality.

But this is a 4T. Someone needs to be inconvenienced. Why should the only people inconvenienced, be those suffering from the consequences of global warming, through natural disasters and shortages, rather than those who are causing it?

Natural gas seems inevitable as a transition fuel. It can't be stopped apparently, but fracking should not be allowed to cause pollution and environmental damage. It is half as dangerous as coal, but at least that's a reduction.

The absolute best strategy is to instill an ethos of conservation of existing energy sources eliminating the need for additional power plants. That can give us the time that will be necessary (and it will be a very long time) to switch over our most dirty plants to clean alternatives. Massive time, massive resources, and massive cooperation. That's a very tough call given the current political climate.

From the Newshour
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/clima...ate_12-03.html

GWEN IFILL: Finally tonight: new findings showing the planet is heating up even more quickly than expected. The journal "Nature Climate Change" reports global carbon dioxide emissions rose by 3 percent last year, and are expected to rise by nearly as much again this year.

At least part of the reason for the jump, more than 38 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions. This latest data, being presented at a climate change summit in Doha, Qatar, this week, suggests nations trying to tackle the problem may already be fighting from behind.

For more on this, I am joined by Coral Davenport, the energy and environment correspondent for "National Journal."

You read a lot of these reports, Coral. And as you read this one, what struck you as brand-new?

CORAL DAVENPORT, "The National Journal": What's new about this report is for the past 18 years, the United Nations climate change process has been working towards one specific goal. And that is cutting carbon emissions before the global average temperature increases by two degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

That has been sort of the critical point that we can't go past. It's kind of a point of no return.

What this study tells us is that the (combination) of the carbon dioxide that's already in the atmosphere and the carbon dioxide that's projected to come into the atmosphere over the next few years with development from India and China is already so much that it is almost inevitable that we will go past that two-degree -- that two-degree critical mark.

We're pretty much on track at this point now to go past the point that we have all been trying to avoid.

GWEN IFILL: And if we go past it, what happens?

CORAL DAVENPORT: It's a big point.

The two-degree mark is the point at which the polar ice sheets will melt, leading to rapid sea level rise. It's also a point at which many areas of the world will no longer be able to grow food.

So, it's likely that we could see price spikes, food shortages. These are the kinds of things that will set off a lot of other rapid and potentially catastrophic chain reactions.

GWEN IFILL: When we look at that prospect, not a cheery one, is it because we have failed in our efforts to control carbon emissions?

CORAL DAVENPORT: Well, at this point, the answer is probably yes.

GWEN IFILL: Globally, not just here.

CORAL DAVENPORT: Globally. Globally. Globally.

The U.N. climate summit that is taking place in Doha this weekend is the 18th annual such summit. They have been working towards this process...

GWEN IFILL: So, they have been talking about it. Just...

CORAL DAVENPORT: They have been talking about it for 18 years.

And there has been a couple of points at which it looks like there really was going to be an agreement. In 1997, there was the Kyoto protocol. But the U.S. never ratified that. So the U.S. never -- the U.S., which was at the time the biggest carbon polluter, never took part in that agreement.

In 2009, there was the Copenhagen agreement. But that wasn't a legally binding treaty. So, you know, the nations of the world have failed to come together on an agreement to do this.

GWEN IFILL: There are other dates, 2015, 2020. What are their significance?

CORAL DAVENPORT: So, the U.N. process is -- what they're working on right now in Doha is the third time is a charm, trying to go for 2015 for a major legally binding global treaty in which the polluters of the world, the United States, China, India, Brazil, will all commit to domestic emissions cuts at home.

If such a treaty is reached, and if it's legally binding and very aggressive, that's a big deal. But it wouldn't be enforced until 2020. So, that's another eight years. It's 2015. And there's a question as to whether that agreement can be reached. It's a key date, but then another eight years before even the terms of that treaty would be enacted.

GWEN IFILL: Even the best-case scenario. So, it sounds like the polluters are beating the policy-makers to the punch.

CORAL DAVENPORT: At this point, yes, the carbon emissions are coming out faster than the diplomats can come to an agreement.

GWEN IFILL: As you look at this globally, who is -- blame seems like such a complicated idea, but who is more responsible, I guess, for this -- these emissions, developing nations or developed nations?

CORAL DAVENPORT: Well, the rest of the world would look unkindly at the United States in this.

Throughout the 20th century, the United States was far and away the largest global -- the largest carbon polluter. China and India look at the United States and say, it's your fault.

Where you are right now, it's your fault. You grew your economy, but you put all this pollution into the atmosphere. And you didn't -- your Senate wouldn't ratify this agreement in 1997. You wouldn't commit to making these cuts.

Now there's a shift in dynamics. In the (21st) century, U.S. carbon emissions are actually slowing down, and these new developing nations, China and India, are growing, and China is now the largest polluter.

But that makes it very difficult for the United States to come into these meetings and tell China and India, you're the biggest polluter now. You need to cut your emissions.

GWEN IFILL: When they haven't done the same thing.

Does that mean that these other nations are sitting back and waiting for the U.S. to do something? Is it another one of these standoffs?

CORAL DAVENPORT: It's kind of like a game of chicken. Both sides say, well, you know, I will commit to something if I see that you are already doing something at home.

China is interesting because they are the world's largest carbon polluter right now. But the new Chinese parliament is sending a lot of signals that they intend to cut back, that they're actually going to do -- cut back on their carbon emissions. We see them talking about caps on energy intensity, caps on carbon pollution.

They're still a big polluter, but they are taking action. And right now, ironically, they're probably taking more action than the United States.

GWEN IFILL: Now, you cover these issues here in Washington. And you have heard, as I have, in the last couple of weeks climate change enthusiasts and even some Obama administration people saying, this is the moment. We can move on this.

What signs do you see that that may happen?

CORAL DAVENPORT: It's interesting.

I would say that probably the biggest block for some kind of really significant domestic climate change policy in Congress is the fact that a lot of Republicans are very concerned about the idea of signing onto something that could be attacked as an energy tax.

There's also a lot of Republicans who are skeptical about the idea that climate science is even true, that climate science even exists.

Republicans control the House. You need 60 votes to get something in the Senate. You need 67 votes to get a climate treaty, an international treaty ratified.

GWEN IFILL: But do you see movement coming from the White House to kind of goose this?

CORAL DAVENPORT: Well, it will be very interesting to see what the president does.

He did -- President Obama did talk about climate change in his election night speech.

GWEN IFILL: Right.

CORAL DAVENPORT: And there are signs that he thinks about this as kind of a legacy issue. He's someone who cares a lot about his legacy. This would be sort of a decade-, century-long legacy issue that would cement his place, but...

GWEN IFILL: So, we will see ----... we will see what we do -- what he does next, if anything.

This seems to be the final alarm bell. It is time to STOP saying that infrastructure "can't" be changed, and require that it be changed. It is time to STOP saying it can't be done, and start doing it. It is time to STOP THE REPUBLICANS and demand that the president act.