Quite a bit of detail:
Only one thing grated - he repeatedly described the improvements that have or can be made as "taking carbon out of the atmosphere". No. Reducing the regularly added load, yes, but in no way sequestering the carbon already there, which is what that phrase actually means. This may be just a result of sound byte simplification, but I worry it bespeaks a deeper misunderstanding of the gravity of our situation.
I think it bespeaks the lack of regular conversation about it. I assume that this is not a daily topic in the White House. (It should be, of course.)
What I wish, more than anything, was that I could trust any of the talk. But until I actually see the walk—and it leads from where we are presently to somewhere better, and not just in circles—I remain just this side of cynical. Jill Stein, whose platform is for combating future climate change and dealing with the reality of the climate change we are facing regardless of what we do now, has been all but shut out of the running. But in the arena of brass tacks—? It seems clear that Obama is the better choice. That his effectiveness will depend on whether or not congress continues to be dominated by the lunatic fringe cannot be moot, yet what else can it be at this point? Four years of congress stonewalling, playing the contrarian in all matters progressive and needed, attempting to legislate the Bronze Age into reality, has shown that a bird with one wing in bondage or broken cannot effectively fly. It will, doubtless, be recorded in the history books somewhere that these were, indeed, "interesting times," perhaps as a sidebar to a chapter excoriating our unconscionably willful myopia as a nation. Will Obama rise to the challenge, if elected again, and throw off the yoke of the fossil fuel industry? Will he be allowed to do so by congress? Will the American people make it happen, ensuring a hopeful future with their votes? Well, good luck to us, I say.