1. cannot distinguish between that paragon of capitalist virtue (with its death squads, US military bases, overt electoral fraud and disappearances) that is Colombia, and its neighbour Venezuela, in which none of the things he’s referred to – “electoral fraud, arresting the opposition, shutting down opposing newspapers and ballot-box stuffing” – have taken place under Chavez’s watch (unlike his exemplary predecessors). (Or is Jimmy Carter simply another Chavez stooge?). Or…

2. MarkL is clearly off his medication and as delusional as always.

MarkL – “I think Wombo is a socialist”.

Genius. Pure genius. What was it that gave it away? The advocating of socialist democracy? Or the blog name containing the word “communist”? (Not that any of this means I support the Soviet Union, or its “electoral” practices – the very opposite in fact). Maybe it was hidden in code in the reference to a quadruped marsupial. Who knows?

Nevertheless, I hereby submit more evidence of the global socialist chavista conspiracy that is out to steal MarkL’s precious bodily fluids: http://links.org.au/node/1418

The problem becomes if other countries decide that without a signed treaty America is not locked in and therefore they shouldn’t take part. I think this would be an excuse – if Obama’s got 60 votes for, its not likely a future president could get 60 votes against to back out. However, we’ve seen plenty of evidence some countries need an excuse not a reason to back out of their part.

“Havel’s on mine – and you are known by the intellectual company you keep.” Actually Vaclav Havel is very much supportive of action on AGW. It’s Vaclav Klaus who doesn’t believe in it. Despite the common first names they’re actually bitter enemies, and Klaus has a pretty nasty record on human rights. That is the company MarkL is keeping, so I think I’ll pass on hearing what his children and there peers think about global warming – particularly since everyone in my physics department is worried about it, even if they dispute ferociously whether nuclear’s the answer.

Poor Gore. He’ll make his first billion from the gullible fools who believed in AGW, but not a second. How ever will he afford another private jet?

Unless he has changed his mind and transportation preferences lately Gore does not own a private jet and has no plans to buy one.

In NOV 08 I predicted that Obama in his first term would be tied up with “reconstruction rather than transformation”. He be happy with largely token or limited reforms in his three main policy areas (finance, health and environment).

Obama will have his hands full with reconstruction rather than transformation. The US polity is in a shambles after a decade of REP iniquity and incompetence. Banks ruined, Army shot to pieces, borders leaking like sieves.

FOr the first term at least, Obama will be more janitor than Messiah.

I would be surprised if the Obama govt in its first term committed itself to more than token moves towards grand ideological committments such as universal healthcare and a green revolution.

He will conserve his political capital for his second term. If he gets reasonable political results in the 2010 Congressional and 2012 Presidential elections he will spend it heavily in 2012-14.

It is more likely that Obama will try and husband his political resources in the first term to build a robust political consensus for more positive change in the second term. He will have to convince the largely conservative US public to go along with major Leftist changes (such as universal health care and carbon cutting) on their own merits (which are considerable.)

My general feeling is that Obama over the next four years will make most progress on health care, will be happy with the patch up job on finance and will be struggling to make head-way on carbon constraint.

I do not the US polity experiencing a revelation on climate change policy. No major interest group is really committed to it. So Obama’s position will be what I characterize as the classic social democratic politician’s dilemma, of “taking the path of least resistance between the populace’s…Left-leaning political opinions and elites…Right-leaning policy interests”.

With the added problem that there is a considerable Right-wing populist opposition to climate change policy, as proven by the L/NP’s grass-roots rebellion.

I conclude that the US will not subscribe to an effective climate change policy under Obama, unless the PRC makes it conditional on some larger bi-lateral economic settlement.

In short, at this point, I trust the PRC’s decision making process more than the USA’s, at least on climate change and financial regulation.

And the North is still plenty cold in winter time and not really feeling the global warming pinch.

Yeah – and why the hell do they hold COP in Copenhangen in December? That’s bad stage direction. Hold it in Melbourne in February.

The vehemence seems to be at least partly red meat for a Republican primary audience, but, still, does this sound to you like somebody just itching to sign up to anything approaching the kind of deal that’s actually required to save the climate?

And that’s the kind of person Obama has to get to vote for any treaty that comes out of the Copenhagen process.

I am not surprised to see that the US’s Climate Change policy is hostage to the fortunes of denialists. In NOV 08, way back before Obama was elected I predicted that his program would be stymied by right-wing opposition:

Obama comes accross to me as a canny centrist populist politician. Pretty much Bill Clinton without the sleaze. Undoubtedly he will swing the US polity to the Left. But he will also remember that the US polity has a fairly large mass of (temporarily submerged) Right-wing ballast. CLinton discovered this to his dismay in 1994.

The USA is not like AUS, it is far more socially polarised (diverse) in both class and racial terms. Therefore it is hard to get political consensus on any major policy change. And since the higher status are much more Right-wing than in comparable countries it follows that any equilibrium political position will be more skewed to the Right, giving the US a Right-wing gridlock.

In some ways that is in line with the founding Fathers original constitutional intent.

There is just not the same degree of political urgency about climate change in the US as there is in AUS and EU. The South is generally just plain agin’ Washington sticking its nose in Southern business. And the North is still plenty cold in winter time and not really feeling the global warming pinch.

People don’t undertake great changes to safeguard their future unless they are hurting real bad in the here and now.