Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming” and “stolen e-mails mean less than they seem”

Posted on

"Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming” and “stolen e-mails mean less than they seem”"

Share:

google plus icon

The Washington Times is the other DC newspaper, the “conservative” one.  That’s assuming you can call the primary DC paper — the one that loves un-fact-checked op-ed pieces attacking climate science and clean energy and that is now run by former Wall Street Journal editors — not conservative (see “Washington Post recycles another disinformation-filled WSJ op-ed, this time from coal apologist Bjorn Lomborg. Funny how two new senior Post editors came from the WSJ).

Still, as Wikipedia notes, The WashTimes was “founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, and is subsidized by the Unification Church community. The Times is known for its conservative stance on political and social issues.”

The WT puts out a very useful daily Washington Insight/Energy (sub. req’d), which gives another perspective on inside-the-beltway analysis.  As was widely reported last week, Obama to attend Copenhagen, announces “a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17% below 2005 levels in 2020.”³

Now, much of the status quo media remains stuck in an everything-progressives-are-doing-will-fail bandwagon, so they missed the key implications of that amazing announcement — Obama just doubled down on a domestic climate bill.  Yes, I know, you keep reading stories about how the administration is walking away from the bipartisan climate and clean bill.  Not.   As the WT put it last Wednesday:

Obama digs in on global warming

President Obama’s decision to attend the Copenhagen climate summit next month is an indication of how seriously he takes the fight against global warming.

He could have allowed the conference to happen without his presence. It had already been downgraded to a political meeting from its original purpose of finalizing a world treaty.

In addition, his administration has been working long hours on health care reform, the economy and a new Afghanistan war strategy. All three are more pressing to the public.

Yet those who thought Obama might pass on Copenhagen were not watching closely.

And were not reading Climate Progress.

Over the last two weeks, he won climate cooperation agreements with the leaders of China and India — the two major developing nations needed to make a global plan a success. What’s more, Obama aides confirmed this week that he would propose a specific U.S. emissions cut at Copenhagen.

The cut he will take to Copenhagen turns out to be the same 17 percent, by 2020, that the House included in the bill it passed in June.

Much remains to happen in Washington and in Copenhagen to turn Obama’s hope into action. But he appears to be confident that with his direct involvement, something useful will happen. In any case, he clearly is putting the Senate on notice that he will not let the chamber slough off the climate bill expected soon from Sens. Kerry, Graham and Lieberman.

Environmental groups were relieved Wednesday that Obama had scheduled the trip. Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, called the decision “an important statement of his deep personal commitment to addressing this issue.”

His opponents should take heed as well. The president will take every opportunity he can to press for an issue that remains a priority: reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Precisely.

There is going to be a bipartisan climate and clean energy bill voted on by the Senate in the spring — and with the President pushing for it, I expect it will pass.

WT also has some comments today on the scandal-known-as-climategate, noting in a headline “… stolen e-mails mean less than they seem“:

… it would be a mistake to believe that decades of scientific consensus that the planet is warming largely due to human activities will be erased or reversed by the disclosure of a few e-mails….

The world’s major political leaders … accept without reservation that global warming is a problem that must be addressed and are moving, though slowly, to do so. The saga of the purloined e-mails may be red meat to the anti-climate-change faithful, but it is nothing more than a sideshow in the grand scheme….

In summary, the stolen e-mails will not end the quest to reduce global warming….

And so, the WT concludes, they are not “game changing.”

Duh.

Related Posts:

« »

8 Responses to Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming” and “stolen e-mails mean less than they seem”

  1. Leif says:

    So again, the tin hats attempt to make a mushroom cloud out of a puff in the dust is countered with the Grim Realities of a disappearing Arctic Polar Ice Cap, world wide receding glaciers, Greenland and Antarctic ice, destabilization, etc…

    GO OBAMA, kick ass… yo’ th’ man, you volunteered, show your stuff !

  2. Wes Rolley says:

    I have always had the sense the Obama meant what he said. However, I have also always had the sense that the US Senate will be the death of any strong, substantive actions that we need, just as it was the death of the Kyoto Accord as far as the US was concerned. If it comes down to the question of what has to be done to secure the votes of Byrd, Rockefeller, Durbin and Dorgan on a cloture motion, then you have to recognize that there will be major concessions to the coal industry. Holy Coaly, Joe. Haven’t we had enough?

  3. Leif says:

    Concessions will be made but not written in stone. Grim Realities will dictate their own agenda in short order. The important thing is to get the ball moving out of the starting gate.

  4. mike roddy says:

    Obama may be able to deal with coal administratively, through EPA or even by following through on his prior promise to remove fossil fuel subsidies. What happened to that one, by the way?

    Overriding the coal state senators will be a tough political decision, and could cost Obama West Virginia and maybe even Indiana in the next presidential election. He also seems to be willing to do it anyway. Good for him.

  5. Cynthia says:

    4% below 1990 levels? That’s not digging in. That’s barely skimming the surface!

  6. Cynthia says:

    Yesterday, I read in the newspaper that polar bears weren’t able to go out on sea ice to look for seals. The ice is just too thin! So they’ve resorted to eating their babies. Yes; that bad! Miles and miles of sea ice– but too thin to stand on and it’s all breaking apart. It seems it’s all just happening too fast for people or animals to adjust.
    We truly have an Emergency situation.

    Perhaps Obama is waiting for us to demand more stringent actions– as in mass demonstrations? Then he could legitimately take swift, powerful actions on the scale necessary to fully address the problem. As he said before taking office, just one person can’t do it all; we all need to become involved!!

  7. Dan B says:

    Cynthia & all;

    There’s another way to “frame” the “disappearing polar ice” / “Polar Bears in trouble” story: Will Arctic ice melt doom Midwestern farmers?

    Let’s repeat that in many different ways while keeping the core statement.

    When asked about this it’s good to know a little climate science but leave the experts to their area of expertise. 1. In summer the cold air from the North Pole (I know that’s not exactly precise but most people don’t know where the Arctic is and will get confused that we don’t mention penguins…) meets the hot humid air from the Gulf of Mexico in the American Midwest. The thunderstorms of summer water our breadbasket. Without ice in the summer the rains could slow or cease. We’re messing with our weather and our dinner table.

    We can install thousands of megawatts of windmills and solar in the same time it takes to get the permits for one nuclear power plant. A rapid solution is needed to protect our farmers and our food security.

    Try that message.

    Dan

  8. Cynthia says:

    Dan,In the upcoming age of ever-expanding dry areas and droughts– less water for everyone and everything– nuclear power plants will be useless anyhow. (They need a lot of water for their cooling process). Your suggestion is reasonable, especially considering the beginning of huge water shortages we all face in a couple decades.