Climate

Obama: “The science is beyond dispute… Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.”

It is judgment day, deniers and delayers. There is a new sheriff coming to town, and he isn’t an anti-scientific stooge like the current one or his boss VP.

President-elect Barack Obama gave ringing remarks to the governors climate summit:

“My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process. That will start with a federal cap and trade system. We will establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050. Further, we will invest $15 billion each year to catalyze private sector efforts to build a clean energy future. We will invest in solar power, wind power, and next generation biofuels. We will tap nuclear power, while making sure it’s safe. And we will develop clean coal technologies.

I have already heard some enviros attack Obama for “only” going back to 1990 levels by 2020 — even though that is the same goal that Arnold Schwarzenegger has in California, which has had years to develop and employ more serious and aggressive strategies. In fact, getting back to 1990 levels will require all of the talent, eloquence, and magic PEBO has — and he’ll need the support and hard work of every last one of us.

Some enviros are also attacking Obama for spending any money to try to develop clean coal. Certainly clean coal has no prospect whatsoever of helping achieve 2020 goals, and probably not even 2030 goals, but gasifed coal and biomass with carbon capture and storage may be a critical element of a long-term effort to get back to 350 ppm.

Anyway, enough with what the snipers and kibitzers have to say. Here are Obama’s full remarks:

Let me begin by thanking the bipartisan group of U.S. governors who convened this meeting.

Few challenges facing America — and the world — are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.

Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security.

I know many of you are working to confront this challenge. In particular, I want to commend Governor Sebelius, Governor Doyle, Governor Crist, Governor Blagojevich and your host, Governor Schwarzenegger –all of you have shown true leadership in the fight to combat global warming. And we’ve also seen a number of businesses doing their part by investing in clean energy technologies.

But too often, Washington has failed to show the same kind of leadership. That will change when I take office. My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process.

That will start with a federal cap and trade system. We will establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050.

Further, we will invest $15 billion each year to catalyze private sector efforts to build a clean energy future. We will invest in solar power, wind power, and next generation biofuels. We will tap nuclear power, while making sure it’s safe. And we will develop clean coal technologies.

This investment will not only help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil, making the United States more secure. And it will not only help us bring about a clean energy future, saving our planet. It will also help us transform our industries and steer our country out of this economic crisis by generating five million new green jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced.

But the truth is, the United States cannot meet this challenge alone. Solving this problem will require all of us working together. I understand that your meeting is being attended by government officials from over a dozen countries, including the UK, Canada and Mexico, Brazil and Chile, Poland and Australia, India and Indonesia. And I look forward to working with all nations to meet this challenge in the coming years.

Let me also say a special word to the delegates from around the world who will gather at Poland next month: your work is vital to the planet. While I won’t be President at the time of your meeting and while the United States has only one President at a time, I’ve asked Members of Congress who are attending the conference as observers to report back to me on what they learn there.

And once I take office, you can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations, and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change.

Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all. Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high. The consequences, too serious.

Stopping climate change won’t be easy. It won’t happen overnight. But I promise you this: When I am President, any governor who’s willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that’s willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America. Thank you.

37 Responses to Obama: “The science is beyond dispute… Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.”

  1. paulm says:

    Hallelujah!

  2. Brian D says:

    This clip got me in trouble at the lab earlier. Apparently, my cheers of jubilation were rather distracting.

    On an unrelated note, you write:
    “…gasifed coal and biomass with carbon capture and storage may be a critical element of a long-term effort to get back to 350 ppm.”
    Could you go into a bit more detail in a subsequent post? The prospect sounds interesting, and all I’ve seen about it so far was your suggestion that it could count as BACT earlier.

  3. David B. Benson says:

    Dr.Vermin — Don’t believe anything in The Telegraph without doing other checking. For example,

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mountains-and-molehills/langswitch_lang/fi

    or the corresponding thread here, down a few.

  4. John Hollenberg says:

    > Yup, the science is solid…
    > Except when it isn’t.

    Old news, transcription error that when corrected produced the 6th hottest October on record. Let’s face it–the earth is warming. Untrue/irrelevant Denier talking points not needed here.

  5. Milan says:

    As good as this news is, ‘PEBO’ remains an unsettling acronym.

  6. Konstantinos Skarlatos says:

    Incredible video, and a clear message from the first Great Leader of the 21st century to the fossil fuel, climate denialist lobby: BAU is over. That message extended to everybody that is involved in energy investments too: they should take this video very seriously.

    @Brian_D
    You weren’t the only one cheering!!

  7. Jim Bullis says:

    Well, it looks like efficiency fell off the list. If anyone is serious about global warming they will stop yearning for solutions that are not yet feasible on a large scale.

    Wind power from wind farms is rarely close to peak ratings. Solar installation costs alone are far above affordable on a mass scale. (I just checked on cadmium telluride, which seems in reach at $1 per watt manufacturing cost, but cost of installation was still high. On top of that, the California installer for First Solar rejected my house due to nearby trees.) Nuclear wins for any government since the waste problem gets passed on to future generations, like paying off bond issues for irresponsible schemes. Biofuels are inevitably tied to high food prices since they compete for growing capacity on the earth.

    There are ways to build efficient cars, generate electric power without huge waste of heat, and retain heat in buildings. If done right, these could have zero or negative cost and would be enormous achievable progress. No need for pie from the sky technology.

    It looks like the creative forces dried up in the future government and the lobbyists are back in control.

  8. Brian D says:

    Jim Bullis:

    Efficiency isn’t as sexy as solar or wind, or as hot-button as nuclear, and thus doesn’t show up in the addresses or speeches. That doesn’t mean it’s absent from the platform. (For instance, no one seriously thinks that Obama’s tax plan, which showed up in the speeches as “a tax cut to the middle class”, is truly as simple as just that!)

    Take a look at his transition website’s section on energy and environment, for instance (or anywhere else that he or his team has gone into more detail, where content matters more than presentation). Efficiency and insulation are there, both explicitly (listed as “the cleanest, cheapest, fastest energy source”) and implicitly (through increased fuel economy, tax credits on efficient cars, and plug-in hybrid deployment). It’s often integrated under the “green jobs” label (the same green jobs that got more time in this speech than wind an solar combined!) — for instance, Change.gov mentions plans to properly weatherize a million homes annually — but it’s present nevertheless.

    On a side note: It’s interesting to see this unfold so soon after I’d finished reading The Green Collar Economy. They appear to overlap substantially.

  9. hapa says:

    isn’t comparing “california to 1990 levels” to “USA to 1990 levels” sort of apples to oranges? california is already using a lot of the current best-of-class methods for carbon footprint reduction. the rest of the country has a lot more “low-hanging fruit.”

    it’s not like the prez-elect just promised to bring nationwide per-capita emissions to california 1990 levels — which is obviously possible — because california is already doing so.

    i’m gonna stick my neck out here and say this “1990 by 2020” thing will live maybe another 2 years, at which point we’ll go into wartime overdrive and aim for at least gore’s “repower america” goal BECAUSE AFTER THAT LONG EVEN THE MOST IDEOLOGICALLY-BLINKERED CORRUPT FOOL IN THE UNIVERSE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT THE DEEP RECESSION, THE NATURAL RESOURCE CRUNCH, AND THE OIL DEPENDENCY ARE A THREAT TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES.

    if they care.

  10. Raven says:

    Meanwhile the Germans are asking for exemptions for their heavy industry, the Russians think warming is good for them and the Chinese and Indians won’t sacrifice development unless the Americans to pay them to reduce their emissions.

    Obama can spout all he wants but that does not mean he will accomplishing anything other than ensuring the current US economic recession is longer and more damaging than it needs to be.

  11. hapa says:

    raven is making my point.

    Obama can spout all he wants but that does not mean he will accomplishing anything other than ensuring the current US economic recession is longer and more damaging than it needs to be.

    i just don’t see how anyone will continue to believe that new local industry and saving money on energy, present and future, would be bad for the economy.

    enough people will leave talking-point-land in the face of necessity.

  12. Jake Schmidt says:

    With the next international climate negotiation set to occur in Poland in just under two weeks, he also signaled that he will restore America’s leadership in international global warming negotiations (as I discussed here: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/obama_signals_leadership_on_global_warming.html).

    With his statement today and his request for a report back from Members of Congress attending the Poland meeting, the President-elect has sent the signal that the delegates have waited so long to hear.

  13. alex says:

    In a classic case of the law of unintended consequences, it seems that solar PV could be a net contributer to climate change.

    http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2085

    Even wind power has a massive carbon footprint when you take into account all the material and energy required to manufacture, deploy, distribute power, maintain and decommission.

    The only clean energy that is 100% guaranteed clean is conservation.

    [JR: Well, we can’t conserve our way to 450 ppm. In any case, wind has a small carbon footprint and PV not much bigger, and likely to get smaller.]

  14. Raven says:

    hapa,

    You should read up on the broken window fallacy. Forcing people to spend more money on energy will only take resources away from other types of economic activity. It is a zero sum game. In fact, since “green” energy is always more expensive any move to these sources can only result in a reduction in standard of living.

    That said, I am sure Obama will find billions to spend on his pet projects but there is no reason to believe that any of them will be more successful than the ethanol. In fact, the ethanol fiasco is a perfect example of why we should distrust any politician promising “green” jobs. 10 years from now we will be talking about the ‘wind/solar power’ fiasco in the same way we talk about the ethanol fiasco today.

  15. Jim Bullis says:

    Brian D.,

    Do you have a link to the Obama transition website?

    Thanks for reporting that the sensible things have not fallen off the table.

    My concern still exists that the sexy things will get the money and our finances and patience will wear out long before real progress is made.

    Even under the heading of efficiency, there is plenty of opportunity to chase heavily promoted, but wrong solutions. The kind of plug-in cars and hybrids that Detroit is cooking up will be serious disappointments as far as global warming is concerned.

  16. hapa says:

    raven: i know how it looks but our farm policy is not the same as engineering our future energy grid.

    i wish there was something i could say to convince you that democrats and their allies are patriots and want america to succeed and would not advance a policy that would wreck us the way you’re saying.

    it’s hard for me to argue that because i just watched the republican majority blow away the economy by letting bankers turn home mortgages into a giant ponzi scheme.

    i know that politicians pander to powerful interests.

    but i also know that america is an industrial power and those powerful interests stand to lose EVERYTHING if our electrical grid goes wrong, somehow.

    this is not just a political project. it’s something that industry wants done.

  17. A hopeful day–I don’t remember a more hopeful one in the 20 years I’ve been thinking about climate change.

  18. Peter Sinclair says:

    A relevant example of economic progress and success in moving toward renewable energy is the experience of Colorado.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/17/AR2008081702193_pf.html

    as outlined in the Washington Post, Colorado, after passing a 10% RPS in 2004, succeeded in meeting the requirement by 2007, 8 years ahead of schedule.
    Since then, the formerly skeptical utilities, including Xcel, have now thrown their weight behind doubling the RPS to 20%, saying, “..its GOOD for the system, and GOOD for the customer..”
    IN the meantime, the law has set off a boom in manufacturing jobs making
    components for renewable energy systems.
    Those that continue to insist on pursuing 19th and 20th century technologies
    will be disappointed, as the renewables continue to exceed economic and technical expectations whenever they are applied.

  19. Brian D says:

    Jim Bullis: Change.gov. It’s the same source for the original video. I don’t post links because every time I use HTML tags my posts get caught up by filters.

    When I wrote the original reply above, I hadn’t looked past the Energy/Environment subpage on that site. I’ve since looked into most of the Agenda section. These same issues — efficiency, deployment, investment, and so on, using enviro-energy action *as* the economic stimulus — permeates almost the entire agenda. (I mentioned the Green Collar Economy earlier; the similarities are eerie.)

    I’m still skeptical — as always, really — but that doesn’t stop me from being hopeful. I share your concern exactly, but concern alone isn’t enough. If it were, the environmental movement would have succeeded ages ago (as would have the “limits to growth” and “population bomb” people). Instead, you need both concern and solutions — the latter stem from hope as much as realism.

    I wouldn’t call this an optimistic view, but it’s close enough to see optimism on a rainy day.

  20. Kota says:

    and any talents I can offer, support I can give and hardships I can endure will be my honor to provide so your grandchildren will have a chance to have a beautiful planet of trees, flowers, rains and animals to enchant their lives as they have enchanted mine.

  21. paulm says:

    alex said – The only clean energy that is 100% guaranteed clean is conservation.

    Reduced consumerism and population.

    Even when we switch to renewable, there is still a lot of work to get to sustainable.

  22. john says:

    Raven:

    You are in desperate need of some courses in economics — energy is a factor of productivity just as labor is. If you produce more with less labor OR WITH LESS ENERGY — or with less raw materials, the economy grows.

    Indeed the two engines of economic growth — productivity gains and innovation — are both integral strategies for tackling climate.

    What will cost us is failing to tackle climate — we’ll end up buying clean technologies from countries that did, even as we continue to buy oil from folks who hate us.

    Get a clue, dude.

  23. A Siegel says:

    This is a tremendous statement.

    A tremendous change from what we’ve been living under.

    Change is in the air and in the ‘tubes’.

    And, it is a change for the MUCH, MUCH BETTER.

    The statements about denial and delay not being acceptable. About the seriousness of the problem and potential for solution.

    Of course, there are ‘missing’ elements (where is, as others note, efficiency … but there were a limited number of words, and I’ve seen BHO speak to energy efficiency elsewhere) but those are hard to complain about.

    On the other hand, you shouldn’t be so dismissive of questioning of the items in the speech.

    Only fools are saying Clean Coal / CCS merit zero R&D investment. If it can work, on large scale, at a reasonable cost; YEAH! But, the words in the speech did not say ‘research Clean Coal”, it committed to developing it.

    More importantly, if not environmental organizations and those focused on global warming, who should highlight that the stated targets fall far below IPCC levels? Or, should that discrepancy never be mentioned?

  24. Peter Wood says:

    This is a good speech. Obama highlights seriousness of climate change; he makes a commitment to capping and reducing emissions; he makes a commitment to investing in low emissions technology; he highlights the economic and employment benefits of emissions reductions; most importantly he commits the United States to leadership and cooperation with other countries in international negotiations on climate change. This sends a very important message in the lead-up to the negotiations in Poland. This will increase the likelihood of global cooperation and this is very significant.

    It is important to be realistic about what Obama’s targets mean. They are consistent with a stabilisation target of 550 ppm, and only if a large amount of the burden of emission reductions are borne by countries with low per-capita emissions. A target of 550 ppm is 200 ppm higher than where Hansen suggests that we need to get to. Stern (p 195) estimates that 550 ppm is 41% likely to lead to warming of over 5 degrees C. It may be possible to go from a trajectory consistent with 550 ppm to a trajectory consistent with 450 ppm or 350 ppm. This would be an overshoot scenario and would be more difficult and expensive than a non-overshoot scenario. It would be easier than staying on a business as usual trajectory and then trying to stabilise at safe levels.

    While I am critical of Obama’s targets, I hope that this is not misunderstood as attacking Obama. What would be useful is if Obama stated that he would be willing to reduce emissions to lower than 1990 levels by 2020 if other countries were to do their fair share. This would be politically difficult, but if anyone can do it, Obama can.

  25. Bob Wallace says:

    Don’t make the mistake of assuming Obama to be an energy/climate change expert. He isn’t.

    But he is a very intelligent guy who is a very good listener, a quick
    learner, and a careful thinker.

    He’ll almost certainly surround himself with the experts that he needs and at the same time will listen to those with different ideas. That’s his style.

    Perhaps his plan isn’t perfect at the moment. But I suspect we’ve got ourselves a president who will continue to improve and refine.

    Much better than a president who stays locked into the dogmatic thinking that he had on the first day that he showed up for work.

  26. Cyril R. says:

    Raven and Alex are clueless and visionless. Let’s hope they will check their facts and start thinking sensibly before making blanket statements that are shamefully easy to refute.

    Blog Rule Number One: base your positions on facts, which you have double-checked before you post, and please base your opinions on these verified facts, because we already have enough unsubstantiated positions and they’re not helping to advance the discussion.

  27. Richard says:

    @Raven…

    If oil goes to $100 a barrel again — and I’m confident that will happen sometime next year — the US will be paying more than $500 billion annually to import oil. Can’t you at least concede that this money would be better spent within the US, especially since it’s money that would create US jobs?

    I couldn’t find the original story that I was going to link to… so consider this one instead, talking about the revitalization of small towns in West Texas…

    http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008271.html

    @Bill Mckibben… It was a great day. I haven’t stopped smiling since the election, and I’m Canadian.

  28. Jeff says:

    Back to the export of our energy dollars. It becomes part of the return on investment. The more we make at home the more we get to keeep for ourselves. Energy efficiency is also return on investmnet.

    Eventually down the road we will be able to make our infrastructure on solar and wind further reducing our carbon footprint. Biofuels made with renewables instead of the heat process with coal. It may not happen in my lifetime, but its important to happen in my grandchildren’s lifetime.

  29. Perhaps we can all agree that we live in a round and bounded {not flat and limitless} planetary home, one which is rapidly filling up with people and peoples’ products, including millions upon millions of gas guzzlers, other polluting machines and thousands upon thousands of smokestack factories. This is to simply say, absolute global human population numbers are projected to reach 9+ billion people and the leviathan-like global economy is expected to grow in a near-exponential way by many trillions of dollars in the next 42 years…..provided we keep choosing to keep doing what we are doing now.

    Please consider the following proposal as an alternative to what appears to be a soon to become unsustainable business-as-usual course of action. This idea for change results from the realization that we have to protect both the Earth’s ecology and the human community’s manmade economy.

    First, the Earth and its environs are to be spared further wanton dissipation and reckless degradation; and second, the global economy needs to be rescued from becoming patently unsustainable in the relatively small, evidently finite and noticeably frangible world we are blessed to inhabit.

    What could be accomplished if the human family determined to provide “stewardship incentives” to people who choose to protect the Earth and its environs, the same kind of incentives that are now routinely handed out in huge annual payouts to people who are supposed to be growing the global economy….. something the economic powerbrokers are clearly not doing now?

    Please note that billions of dollars are being proposed in financial bailouts for companies building unsustainable products and factories and that year-end bonuses are being directed to “wonder boys” in investment houses and banks who have been uneconomically growing humanity’s global economy by collusively creating dodgy financial instruments (e.g., credit default swaps) and fraudulent business models (e.g., Ponzi schemes). These self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe have ignored requirements of practical reality and turned a great economic system into a paltry gambling casino, making themselves the primary beneficiaries of pseudo-business activities along the way. In the light of such avaricious risk-taking and conspicuous hoarding behavior, they can no longer be called by any name other than “thieves of the highest order”.

    Perhaps reasonable and sensible people can agree that the greed of arrogant, self-serving tycoons and bankstas no longer is to be condoned, much less extolled as somehow good, and that the preservation of Earth and its environs needs to given some immediate attention in terms of funding substantial stewardship incentives equal in size to the financial rewards now directed to the economic powerbrokers.

    By redirecting wealth, my generation of elders can begin to put the global economy on a sustainable, more reality-based foundation as well as to more reasonably and sensibly fulfill our responsibilities as good enough stewards of the Earth.

    Steven Earl Salmony
    AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
    established 2001
    http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1176

  30. Jake Schmidt says:

    Happa,

    I think your commentary on what the Chinese are saying is a bit dated. Yes that is what they were saying and sometimes their rhetoric is still along those lines, but they just released an official Chinese document from their Cabinet that said:

    “The developing countries, while developing their economies and fighting poverty, should actively…reduce their emissions to the lowest degree…”

    So this no longer says that they will only do what they get paid for as I discussed here: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/changing_climate_in_china.html

    Also, that isn’t exactly what other developing countries are saying as the South Africa (as I note here: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/south_africa_stakes_out_its_effort.html) and South Korea (as I note here: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/south_korea_will_announce_climate_target_next_year.html) are saying similar things…they will take some level of action on their own.

  31. David B. Benson says:

    Jake Schmidt — Thanks for the update. :-)

  32. Ronald says:

    In Dec. 1941, after Pearl Harbor got bombed by Japan and the United States was entering the war against Japan and Germany, Winston Churchill said he ‘slept the sleep of the saved.’ (or something like that)
    He felt that there was some chance for his country with the might of the United States with him.

    Climate Change sure is a quietier, much less immediately deadlier problem than what they faced in World War II. But Climate Change is the problem of our time. It sure does seem that the United States now has a good leader that can help. lets hope our hope turns out to be realized.

  33. Allan STD says:

    For any GW deniers maybe these real hard facts will make you realize that CO2 is bad for the planet. It is one of the many things that we doing that is is causing a collapse of the oceans ecosystems. This attitude that we can do anything to this planet without consequences is plain stupid. Our children will pay a heavy price for our selfish attitudes.

    Acidifying Oceans Add Urgency To Carbon Dioxide Cuts

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080703140716.htm

    ScienceDaily (July 6, 2008) — It’s not just about climate change anymore. Besides loading the atmosphere with heat-trapping greenhouse gases, human emissions of carbon dioxide have also begun to alter the chemistry of the ocean–often called the cradle of life on Earth.

    The ecological and economic consequences are difficult to predict but possibly calamitous, warn a team of chemical oceanographers in the July 4 issue of Science, and halting the changes already underway will likely require even steeper cuts in carbon emissions than those currently proposed to curb climate change.

    Oceans On The Precipice Of

    Mass Extinctions And Rise Of Slime

    http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Oceans_On_The_Precipice_Of_Mass_Extinctions_And_Rise_Of_Slime_999.html

    by Staff Writers
    San Diego CA (SPX) Aug 15, 2008

    Human activities are cumulatively driving the health of the world’s oceans down a rapid spiral, and only prompt and wholesale changes will slow or perhaps ultimately reverse the catastrophic problems they are facing.

    Salt-Water Fish Extinction Seen By 2048

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/02/health/webmd/main2147223.shtml

    Study By Ecologists, Economists Predicts Collapse of World Ocean Ecology

    (WebMD) The apocalypse has a new date: 2048.

    That’s when the world’s oceans will be empty of fish, predicts an international team of ecologists and economists. The cause: the disappearance of species due to overfishing, pollution, habitat loss, and climate change.

    The study by Boris Worm, PhD, of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, — with colleagues in the U.K., U.S., Sweden, and Panama — was an effort to understand what this loss of ocean species might mean to the world.

    The researchers analyzed several different kinds of data. Even to these ecology-minded scientists, the results were an unpleasant surprise.

    “I was shocked and disturbed by how consistent these trends are — beyond anything we suspected,” Worm says in a news release.

    “This isn’t predicted to happen. This is happening now,” study researcher Nicola Beaumont, PhD, of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, U.K., says in a news release.

    These two documentaries will show you where the GW deniers came from and who they are . you may be surprised to see the real truth.

    The American Denial of Global Warming

    http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459

    ( uctv.tv documentary 58 minutes; 12/12/2007)
    Polls show that between one-third and one-half of Americans still believe that there is “no solid” evidence of global warming, or that if warming is happening it can be attributed to natural variability. Others believe that scientists are still debating the point. Join scientist and renowned historian Naomi Oreskes as she describes her investigation into the reasons for such widespread mistrust and misunderstanding of scientific consensus and probes the history of organized campaigns designed to create public doubt and confusion about science.

    The Denial Machine

    http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/video.html

    CBC Documentary can viewed on line

    In the past few years, a rhetorical firestorm has engulfed the debate about global warming, pitting science against spin, with inflammatory words on both sides. That debate only intensifed recently when former Vice-President Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize for his populist environmental campaign.

    The Planet Part 1

    http://www.linktv.org/programs/special_planet1

    This outstanding documentary series outlines the challenges faced by humanity in the grip of global environmental change, making a strong case for mankind’s own contribution to this life threatening problem. Not limited to climate change, The Planet examines global changes brought about by overpopulation, the destruction of plants and animals, high levels of consumption, growing economies and industrialized farming.

    for more news visit
    http://www.aroadmap2extinction.com

  34. hapa says:

    jake: raven said what you attributed to me. how’d you do that, anyway?

  35. Cyril R. says:

    Olivine sequestration is a cost-effective method for reducing both atmospheric CO2 levels as well as ocean acidification directly.

    I hope Obama, or at least a few companies, will open up a couple of olivine mines near the coast. It’s likely to be highly lucrative and support local jobs creation with Obama’s proposed cap-and-trade system, considering it’s pretty ambitious, the price for permits should exceed the cost of olivine sequestration relatively quickly.

  36. Johannes20005 says:

    To Allan STD:
    Thank you for the wealth of information and the links to information that I believe all ppl. alive today should be made to see! [not that one could sadly, but we must try eh?] I try to have the information to help others to see just how dire the situation may be but the finding is not easy if you don’t know where to look, so thanks, I copied them all, and will check and learn. It is great how once you begin to investigate for yourself, you are led to other places and sites that also teach.

    John.