JR: Obama apparently has to go to Australia to talk about the reality of climate change and the benefits of carbon pricing and emissions reductions.
AP Pool Photo
Obama: Slashing carbon emissions is ‘good for our economies’
President Obama said Wednesday that policies to curb carbon emissions bring economic benefits but acknowledged that crafting an international deal that imposes commitments on China and India will be a “tough slog.”
Obama, at a press conference with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, touted U.S. policies including increased auto efficiency standards and green energy research investments.
“As we move forward over the next several years, my hope is, is that the United States, as one of several countries with a big carbon footprint, can find further ways to reduce our carbon emissions,” Obama said in Canberra, Australia.
“I think that’s good for the world. I actually think, over the long term, it’s good for our economies as well, because it’s my strong belief that industries, utilities, individual consumers – we’re all going to have to adapt how we use energy and how we think about carbon,” Obama added, according to a White House transcript.
JR: Ya think? Here’s more from Obama, including his strongest remarks on climate in a long time:
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT
Obama noted Australia, which is moving ahead with a carbon pricing and trading system, is pursuing a “bold strategy” and also affirmed his belief in the threat of climate change.
“I share the view of your Prime Minister and most scientists in the world that climate change is a real problem and that human activity is contributing to it, and that we all have a responsibility to find ways to reduce our carbon emissions,” Obama said.
Report Calls for Changes in the Energy Department
Already under fire for granting a $535 million federal loan guarantee to Solyndra, the Department of Energy now faces a critique from within.
On Tuesday, the department’s inspector general, Gregory H. Friedman, issued a report calling for a wholesale restructuring of the department’s far-flung laboratories and other operations. He warned that “painful” staff reductions were certain to come as Congress sought deep federal budget cuts in the months ahead.
In one of his more striking criticisms, Mr. Friedman wrote that the department spent nearly $13 billion a year to run 16 separate laboratories but that only about half of that money went toward actual research, with 49 percent paying for overhead and capital spending. That ratio is “out of sync,” he said, and could be improved by combining some operations. The report noted that the Energy Department has three centers for nuclear weapons work, two for Navy propulsion reactors, five for energy technology and 13 for general science. “The department’s research complex is organized essentially as it has been for over a half-century,” it said.
Mr. Friedman called for the creation of an independent panel to examine ways of consolidating the labs.
Pipeline Twists Create New Uncertainties
Over the last year, images of Randy Thompson in his cowboy hat have become a symbol of opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline and the source of the rallying cry, “Stand with Randy.”
As he took a break from fencing chores on Tuesday, Thompson acknowledged that TransCanada’s deal to move the pipeline out of the Sandhills might not make any difference on the portion of route where his family owns land in Merrick County.
“Ironically, I may have helped save the Sandhills,” he said, “but I might not have done myself any good.”
Uncertainty about where TransCanada goes following Monday’s announcement could be expected to run high among people who live east of the original route and west of the first Keystone pipeline, now carrying oil across the Missouri River and into Nebraska near Yankton, S.D.
Spokesman Shawn Howard confirmed that there are no plans to change Nebraska’s entry point for Keystone XL in Keya Paha County. Beyond that, there really is no plan, at least not one the company is ready to make public.
Carbon Trading May Be Ready for its Next Act
Gone are the days when carbon trade was seen as a vital policy tool to cut emissions at the cheapest cost, and not many people talk about its prospects for overtaking the oil market in terms of traded value anymore.
Its reputation has been battered by a €50 million, or $69 million, scandal over permit thefts and a €5 billion fraud in the European Union’s emissions trading program, the world’s largest.
The United Nations’ main carbon offset market, the Clean Development Mechanism, has also been tainted by an association with land grabs and human rights abuses in poor nations.
The prospect of a second European recession in four years has compounded these woes, slamming the price of carbon emissions permits to near three-year lows.
The slump has prompted an exodus of brokers and traders and means few companies will now switch from coal to cleaner power generation or invest in zero-emissions technology, like carbon capture and storage.
Yet the idea of buying and selling pollution remains attractive, as recent events in Australia show. One-third of global emissions could be capped and traded by the end of the decade, according to some estimates, up from current levels of 6 percent.
“The carbon market is not dead,” said Wolfgang Sterk, a policy analyst with the Wuppertal Institute in Germany. “It is still seen by many as the most flexible way to cut emissions. Australia and California don’t care how low prices are in the E.U.”
Solyndra Highlights Long History Of Energy Subsidies
When Energy Secretary Steven Chu appears on Capitol Hill on Thursday to defend the Obama administration’s solar energy subsidy program, he will face questions about the solar panel firm Solyndra, which went belly up this summer.
The Energy Department has drawn stiff criticism over a government loan guarantee program that lent the company half a billion dollars, but the government has a long history of subsidizing many forms of energy.
Chu says he does not believe Solyndra should alter U.S. support for clean-energy companies.
“The government should play a role in this because it’s a competitive world out there,” he says. “Other countries are helping their companies. In order to even just level the playing field, the U.S. government should play a role.”
U.S. Brings Diplomacy to Politics Of Energy
The State Department is creating a bureau to focus exclusively on energy, a sign of the growing importance of energy issues to U.S. foreign policy and national security.
The new Bureau of Energy Resources, which opens shop Wednesday, is designed to help shore up stable supplies of affordable energy for the U.S. and avoid crippling effects of supply shocks and disruptions.
The agency also will promote clean energy and changes in markets to make alternative-energy technology more competitive, an effort to open the door for U.S. exports in a fast-growing sector. It will also promote sustainable energy in developing countries as a way to boost economic growth.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flagged the creation of the new bureau in a speech last month, saying: “You can’t talk about our economy or foreign policy without talking about energy.”
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Obama’s statement that imposing an international deal that would include China and India is a “tough slog” is revealing. We have to be very careful about blaming emissions growth on these two countries because of futuristic IEA charts, and the difficulty of getting them to change. Oil company shills love to cite China and India as excuses for us to do nothing.
The United States is the true laggard- we have no carbon price, giant historical emissions, and one of the highest per capita fossil fuel consumption rates. “Imposing” anything at all on other countries is ridiculous in these circumstances.
We don’t know how China and India would react to serious action in the US, since our own corrupt government and media have prevented this from happening. Leaders in both China and India, who have ties to fossil fuels themselves, are let off the hook because of our inaction, in a kind of sick symbiosis.
Memo to the president: aggressive leadership here will go a long way. You need to step it up, big time. Included would be administrative actions- as you know, there are a lot of options here- and communicating privately to China and India that climate negotiations will include economic sticks as well as carrots. Humans are at a precipice, and it’s way past time to screw around.
Agree with you Mike. Policy makers in India and China will not step up unless USA makes serious commitments to cut it carbon footprint.
Hundreds of coal based power plants are being planned in India – a friend was telling me that 28 major power plants will be set up in just one district, Angul,in Orissa. Yet as Jeff points out time and again- both wind and solar may become reasonably competitive in 5-10 years – specially with carbon pricing/taxation. These coal based power plants must be stopped for this interim period of a decade. In India at least, I foresee strong role of grassroots social and environmental resistances against the massive social and environmental disruption which would be caused by the power plants. In the same Angul district, at least 8 power plants are facing serious grassroots resistance from people who are being displaced or environmentally affected.Supporting such resistance may be the greatest favor that Indian environmentalists can do the world and themselves.
You are right on target, Mike, as usual.
Obama’s relative silence about climate, the most vital threat and opportunity facing America (and the world,) is tantamount to his endorsing denial as the official position of the United States of America. With so many lives at stake, not to mention the ongoing property damage, the loss of species, and more, this is shameful.
I urge CP readers, and their respective organizations, to support the idea of President Obama speaking out on climate.
Go to http://www.facebook.com/climateaddress, ‘like’ the idea, and spread the word.
As Bill McKibben argues in some recent articles, including one in Salon (found at web.salon.com/2011/11/15), global warming could be used as a campaign issue by clever Obama re-election strategists.
We climate-concerned-citizens need to help our president realize that his speaking up about climate is a win-win-win situation.
Thank you, Mike, Steve, Joe, Bill, and all the others friends of CP who see the wisdom of this idea. This could be the watershed.
P.S. Tell Obama, too, at 202-456-1111, 9-5.
The Energy Department is also tasked with clean up of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation near the Columbia River. The Hanford Advisory Board recently announced that $115 billion may not be enough to finish the clean up.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016704089_apwahanfordcleanupcost2ndldwritethru.html
RE: More cap-and-trade problems. It’s time get Waxman and Markey to move to fee-and-dividend.
James Hansen was right when he said “cap and trade is what governments and the people in alligator shoes are tryin to foist on you…. (I)t cannot work…. I have already made up my mind about the uselessness of cap-and-trade…. The biggest player is expected to be Goldman Sachs.” Storms of My Grandchildren, p. 211 et seq.
Fee-and-dividend can work. It’s time for Waxman and Markey to make the switch.
Still, as much as I’m a fan of fee-and-dividend, I like to see a sober analysis of the issue by Joe or others.
It’s as dead as cap and trade since the GOP views them as indistinguishable. Sorry.
But this strategy can not blossom, they cornered themself and they are politically bancrupt. So change is on the horizon and Obama’s recent remarks about the real problem echo this.
According to many poll’s the majority in the USA also regards global warming as a serious threat. Now if you add up the economical prospects, there are no alternatives – when it comes to growth.
The GOP should not keep on fighting this topic, they can only loose what ever credibility they might have left.
Oil companies should now start with bold steps to transition to the new economy, the industrial revoltuion 2.0
Those who not should be sized-slashed whatever, considering what is at stake.
The GOP will stop fighting the topic when they stop getting bribed to do so…
Or are no longer in office…
The GOP will stop fighting the topic when they stop getting bribed to do so…
Nature is voting now.
Climate Change is a real problem that must not be ignored. It is our responsibility to ensure that we alter our carbon emissions. One way to become more educated on how to decrease your impact is through sustainability courses. For more information, visit http://carbonmanagementtraining.com/2011/11/15/climate-change-is-not-overnight/.
Yeah, great, so I can teach my kids to be good citizens, but without a carbon tax what I’ll really need to teach them to be is good swimmers.
Cut your own footprint only to make your argument to conservatives more persuasive. In terms of actual effect, it is of course meaningless, but somehow that point doesn’t make any dent in the right-wing mind. Somehow, when I say I drive a hybrid and turn off the lights when I leave the room, it somehow makes discussions about meaningful policy and science more plausible for them. How the authoritarian mind works is a wonder to me.
I disagree with the sentiment that what you do personally is meaningless. That is exactly the argument that Obama is making about China and India. It is what tar sands say in Canada and every coal plant in the world says about their own emissions.
The tragedy of the climate crisis is that nobody in the world controls enough carbon to be meaningful (not to mention sufficient) and yet it is “necessary” that everyone cut emissions.
There is no scenario where each of us doesn’t need to cut emissions. It is required by everyone.
At the root the entire project is voluntary at every level and people just need to step up and make it happen everywhere they can. That is what will bring momentum to the stalled “what I do alone doesn’t matter” situation we are in.
China and India will have a much easier time transitioning to a carbon-free economy when the US leads the way. I can’t innovate low carbon steel-making, low cost solar panel manufacture and standardized installment, he’ll I can’t even get an electric car that will carry my family of five. Elect people who put in a real carbon tax, though, and the US, the most productive and innovative place on Earth, will do all that and more.
Without a real carbon tax we’re all screwed, and it looks like we only have a couple more years to get it in place.
Yay, I dress my kids in hemp. No carbon tax? Too bad, my children will die.
Yay, I compost! No carbon tax? Might as well toss me in the pile.
Part of making a price on carbon the heavy lift of the second term is putting climate change into our election cycle here in the US.
I think it is very interesting that President Obama is speaking about climate change in a country that recently went through the legislative hoops.
Yes We Can Put a Price on Carbon!
Part of that though is talking about the next industrial and economic transformation that the new energy revolution will bring us.
Wind and solar are power getting cheaper, as this awesome blog shows nearly every day. The transportation cost of a BEV with cheap solar on your garage will be hard to beat.
The administration is doing the work in clean energy of a moonshot – without giving us the vision of the moonshot.
Putting a price on carbon and betting our future on a clean energy economy will change the way we make products, foster innovation and jobs, and ultimately put more money in our pockets from selling our excess electricity, to tightening our houses, and by shifting away from fossil fuels.
I completely agree. The President of the United States needs to say, up front, we need a carbon tax or we might all die. And if those Denialist coke-whores (I mean the fuel made from coal) like Inhofe argue there’s no reason, let the President call up physically the science faculties of every college and university in America, and let these coke-whores walk up Monkton and that fool Curry, and that pathologically contrarian Lindzen (if he’d come), and the Alabama Creationists, stand one “side” against the other, and put this “controversy” to bed like he made the Birthers go away.
And then pass the tax. And then save the world.
I hope, but do not expect, that Obama talking about climate change in Australia is the beginning of a “pivot” to talking about it everywhere.
I’d like to give you an Australian perspective on why President Obama spoke about Climate Change in Australia. And why this response is very disappointing.
Carbon pricing legislation is no longer popular and may well cause our current government to lose its majority. Climate Change is a highly divisive issue for our population. A few years ago the failure to act on climate change policy was the principle cause in the downfall fall of our two most recent former Prime Ministers. However, the mood has changed and support for Carbon Pricing recently led to a challenge and the dumping of our former Opposition Leader too.
Our current Prime Minister (Julia Gillard) promised prior to the election she would never bring in a “carbon tax”, but under pressure from a large number of “green” politicians she changed her mind shortly after the election. She declared a carbon tax was “the right thing to do” and those who oppose it are on “the wrong side of history”. There is no hotter issue in Australia with people travelling the country to rally for and against it.
Those opposed to pricing carbon point to the economic cost and declare that the small amount of gas reduced will not have any meaningful impact on global temperatures. However those, like me, who support it argued that if we start pricing carbon it will help ratchet up the pressure on countries like the US, China and India to start taking meaningful actions.
It was not possible for your President to avoid this question when in Australia. What does he think of Australia’s Clean Energy Bill? Does he think it will make a difference? When can we expect the USA to introduce something similar? Our journalists were calling out.
sorry tim but that is incorrect
the carbon tax has dropped from 12% to 5% as the most important issue in the latest roy morgan poll
Couldn’t find the poll you quote, but sounds about right. However …
I bet the issues that rated higher were economics – interest rates, employment, rising cost of living etc. And if we asked the public why they were concerned about these issues they are highly likely to blame the “carbon tax. Because Abbot has spent the last six months telling the public that the carbon tax will take away our economic security.
From my perspective the carbon tax is the most contested piece of political ground this year in Australia.
Tim, if you support our pricing of carbon, please try to get your facts straight. We do not have a carbon tax: we have a 3 year fixed price prior to the trading scheme kicking in. She did not change her mind. The ALP has promised a trading scheme for yonks.
To get any legislation through a hung parliament she needed to negotiate the trading scheme – the 3 year fixed price introduction was one result of that negotiation in the multiparty committee, ME
Call it a carbon tax mate and be done with it.
Even Julia Gillard conceded from day one that attempting to argue that the introduction of a legislative based trading rights scheme with a temporary fixed price is anything other than a tax would be counter-productive. She also concedes she broke an election promise. (However I bristle every time I hear people calling her a “liar” since there is a difference between breaking an election commitment due to changed circumstances and purposely setting out to deceive)
But this is not the point – We needed Obama to say something along the lines that:
He is very impressed with what Australia has achieved. That the world should take note of what Australia did and it will put pressure on global negotiations to achieve outcomes. That he hoped the US would be ready soon for a price on carbon.
To help shut up the critics we needed him to say – Australia can be influential in helping the world to confront climate change. The best we got was “bold” and this might be good for the economy in the long run. We also got a comment that a global agreement was a hard slog. This is middle of the road stuff that offends nobody.
You just have to open The Australian to realise how the carbon tax’s critics are twisting his weak words to support their position.
It must be election time and emperor Obama, in his new clothes, is in our corner again, at least till we vote, on climate change.
Hearing him say this after selling us all out on climate change by his choices as commander in chief over the years since in office requires a head vise.
SPIEGEL’s frontpage now
Droughts, storms, floods: Extreme weather is regarded as most serious consequence of climate change. A must on Friday appearing UN report analyzes expected future disasters with which the human race. The essential data SPIEGEL ONLINE has previously received – they paint a contradictory picture.
There is a secret project until recently. For three and a half years, scientists working on behalf of the United Nations (UN) on a report that will show how extreme weather could change the course of heating. Extreme weather such as droughts and storms are the greatest threat of a human-induced climate change.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fwissenschaft%2Fnatur%2F0%2C1518%2C798143%2C00.html
That’s the lame “contradicting” style of Axel Bojanowski writing yet again a lame piece on climate change. He and Gerald Traufetter brought last year a 5 page story about Climategate (still online, still no correction of flawed misleading assumptions).
This is on pair with the lame NYT reporting. Someone exchange these lame doubters and force them to write a clarification about their several misleading posts on climate change. This btw happens very often, when scientist are urged to ask the journalist to retract “claims” or falsehood.
Stefan Rahmstorf’s blog, has also a lot of insides about the misleading, denial in the german mediasphere
http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/blog/klimalounge/medien-check
Example SPIEGEL article from april this year
Climate scientists-bashing
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scilogs.de%2Fwblogs%2Fblog%2Fklimalounge%2Fmedien-check%2F2010-04-01%2Fklimaforscher-bashing-beim-spiegel
Use google translate to hook up certain blog posts or ask me or better ask Rahmstorf himself, he might like to publish a english post about the denial in the german main stream media.
The “old” CEO Stefan Augstein, was known to hate renewables and was an active activist against wind power projects in and around Hamburg.
Basing opposition to Keystone based on the route it would take is fatal. Please everyone – keep the eye on the ball: doing all we can to bar tar sands development! To argue over routes is to lose the war before it is fought.
We are fighting delaying actions until America comes to its senses. This is like the end of Saving Private Ryan (hopefully). Sometimes I feel like Tom Hanks lying on his back, shooting at a Luftwaffe fighter with his pistol. That frickin thing has got to explode sometime…
We need all the tools in the box. NIMBY has stalled, delayed and totally prevented plenty of windfarms and nuclear plants.
If the locals stick to NIMBY and everyone else joins in with the larger objections / objectives, then you’ve got all your troops deployed on the tasks that suit them.
A Question: Will It Be Asked, and Will We Make Sure It’s Asked and Answered?
JR: “Obama apparently has to go to Australia to talk about the reality of climate change…”
That quote serves as a good intro to what I’d like to say. Here’s a question that could and should be posed to President and candidate Obama:
“President Obama: If you are reelected, will you approve, or not approve, Keystone XL?”
That is a clear, simple, fair, warranted, and necessary question. We should ask it. We should expect an answer. We should insist on an answer. And we should keep asking until we get a clear answer.
If we would (genuinely) prefer for President Obama to talk about climate change here, rather than just in Australia, then we must ask ourselves: Will WE pose this question to President (and candidate) Obama?
I’d like to know whether Bill McKibben and 350.org will be posing this question clearly to President Obama, starting now. I’d like to know whether the main environmental organizations will be posing this question to President Obama, starting now. I’d like to know whether you, Joe, and CP will be posing this question to President Obama, starting now? I’d like to understand whether you see it as a fair and warranted question at this point in time.
Cheers for now, (and back to other stuff),
Jeff
I don’t expect anything really serious to be asked of Obama by many of these environmental organizations. They may look like they are asking it of him, but ultimately I think some of these organziations only play politics over principle as well. And while I know that Republicans have done the most to stall progress on this, the President of the United States still has the bully pulpit. If he truly cared about addressing this he could and would use it to talk straight to the American people about the scientific findings and the urgency of this but he hasn’t.
It was his State Department that approved the Alberta Clipper pipeline and the first phases of Keystone were already approved. BP is being allowed to drill in the Gulf again. Shell is being allowed to drill in the Arctic. Where is the outrage by environemtnal groups on that? And I don’t mean just asking him politely not to approve a pipeline which totally ovrlooks where the oil going through it comes from and how it gets there. TransCanada is also now stating it is willing to reroute the XL just like Nebraska wanted, so where does that leave us and the climate balance of our planet with all these other projects?
After approving all of these other pipelines then standing up now and saying that “cutting carbon emissions is good for our economies” how can he even look credible? There comes a time when you have to stop blaming and start taking the reins of the authority you have and using it. I for one am waiting to see any environmental organization ask him the tough questions that need asking. But since there is also no one challengin him on the Democratic side all we have seen are the buffoons of the right which allows him to skate away.
Perhaps when we get to the point in this country when the environment is not made a political issue will we see some real progress on this.
I completely agree that we should put the question dead center in the campaign debate. Does this planet have a future or not?
Asking about Keystone XL in the context of actions to address climate change is one of the steps to that larger debate.
On one side debate we don’t see any problem with burning up the planet – on the other side an administration that has opened up 20M acres to solar, invested heavily in battery manufacturing tech…..
Ultimately the CAFE improvements are essential for a competitive auto industry and DOD’s green initiatives are essential to our national security and our energy independence. The SunShot innovations have helped grow the solar industry to be larger than our steel industry, where one out of every two employers is hiring.
Trucking dirty sand to American refineries where it will be exported and add to the carbon pollution warming our planet doesn’t make sense in terms of a clean energy economy.
Ultimately we have better solutions to the Keystone XL pipeline, like the TransWest express HVDC transmission line which will bring wind power from Wyoming to Las Vegas – enough to power Los Angeles cleanly forever.
“Does Keystone XL make sense in terms of a clean energy economy?”
Nice open ended question. See where it goes.
Canadian oil companies go to fallback plan to raise tar oil prices after XL pipeline delay
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203699404577041901234224874.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories#articleTabs%3Darticle
Amazing, the price of West Texas has shot up by ~$25 a barrel over the last month or so.
One of the primary objectives of the Keystone XL expansion was to raise the price of all tar sands oil being sold.
Tar sands oil being sold out of the two tar sands pipelines (that President Obama approved in 2009) is sold at West Texas Intermediate oil prices which have been about 25% less than the Brent Crude oil price that the rest of the world and much of the US buys its oil at. Because of this the heartland of the US and the US economy got a 25% break on oil prices.
The XL expansion was going to supply a route directly to the Gulf which had refineries that could handle the sour crude from the tar sands and allow it to be sold at Brent Crude prices (and be exported). This would raise that tar oil price by 25% there. But it would also mean that the tar oil currently going to the midwest would be reduced until that West Texas Intermediate price rose up to Brent Crude Prices – allowing all tar sands oil to be sold at Brent Crude prices (i.e. raise US oil prices).
Well the XL was delayed and the Canadian oil company Enbridge had a back up plan to get their tar sands oil to Brent Crude prices.
They just purchased ConocoPhillips 50% stake in a Gulf coast to midwest (where tar sand oil currently goes) refinery pipeline and will reverse the flow. Now the extra oil that was supplying the midwest refineries and keeping the price down about 25% from world markets will flow out to the Gulf coast where it will fetch Brent crude prices and the Midwest oil prices (West Texas Intermediate will rise until it reaches parity with Brent). I.E. this Canadian purchase will raise the price of oil for a big chunk of the US population by 25%.
I couldn’t figure out what was causing the rise in West Texas Intermediate prices over the last month, but this obviously was it (people knew this was coming) – its now over $100 a barrel from in the $70′s only a month or so ago.
Our government shouldn’t allow this to happen, it is slapping a 25% tax on oil prices to the US midwest economy.
“Obama apparently has to go to Australia to talk about the reality of climate change and the benefits of carbon pricing and emissions reductions.”
This is a similar reason to why Discovery is not airing the last episode of the Frozen North which covers Climate Change.
Its self censorship based on ….. that the hard bit.
Some time I wonder if his family has be threatened or something….
The US and other industrialized nations will continue to transfer their manufacturing to China and India to access cheap labor. This will improve executive compensation packages and help to mitigate CO2 emissions from industrialized nations, while drastically increasing these emissions from the developing world. This pattern will continue as long as politicians like Obama embrace free trade while simultaneously doing nothing to limit global CO2 emissions.
I believe that individual action is important–(my personal carbon footprint)-but that political action is more important. I personally have the advantage of teaching college classes, so I can make the nature of the scientific evidence and consquences known to my students. Political actions is really important. Supporting the Sierra Club and other national and local groups is a way to have a political impact beyond one vote.
He didn’t say the words carbon tax. He is not a leader. I am sick and tired of these politicians Obama included who just talk and are too timid to use the bully pulpit HERE. Standing next to Gillard who managed to pass a carbon tax in an absolutely nasty atmosphere and compare that to auto emission standards that aren’t even going to take effect for several years yet as our only accomplismment on this global crisis where we may only have five years to do anything of substance to avoid a tipping point is an embarrassment to me not only as an American, but a citizen of the world.
Jan, he didn’t say the words ‘carbon tax’ because that would have hurt Gillard who before the election said that there would be no carbon tax, meaning that there would be a trading scheme. But the opposition has beaten up the 3 year fixed price period into a ‘carbon tax’ so the dummies can run around saying ‘you lied to us’.
He was just being a respecful guest, ME
I dare anyone – anyone to go anywhere – anywhere and ask them this simple question;
Is your weather getting weirder? they will definitely tell you YES. Try it.
Well after reading the NY Times Andy Revkin’s piece (of crap)again confusing weather extremes with (start the hand wringing) simple physics and higher water vapor and more drought it seems the NY Times is kissing the Kochs butt, again, or they are so into process that it will take years for them to cut to freaking chase. It looks to me it is both. Someone needs to investigate money ties to 1% in either the IPCC and the NY Times.
Obama has made a weak effort to begin the profound problems we face with climate change-
The postponement of the Keystone XL Pipeline for now is a start- he needs to address climate change with much more vigor then this.
In the 2020′s when all hell lets lose- will the then President be so reticent to action action? We can only hope not.
Frankly the extreme weather and disasters are nearing an inflection point.
“My hope is…” – code for: it is totally out of my hands. The Executive branch of government is completely impotent regarding this issue.
“…the US…can find further ways to reduce our carbon emissions,” – besides deepening our economic recession? Because that is all you got Mr President. So by how much has the US reduced carbon emissions? It is tough to not sound like an inept fool when standing next to a national leader who has actually accomplished something. Most powerful leader in the world? What a joke. Sir you should avoid visiting countries that have actually taken courageous action, or at least avoid mentioning it. You are there to secure the Prime Minister’s blessing on our new military presence (the only thing we are really good at) but you should be here fighting for jobs and making sure that joke of a super-committee doesn’t bail on its responsibility to the American people.
“As we move forward over the next several years…” – I left this part of his preface for last because this indicates our President’s true area of optimism: Re-election. But the only way the US will be able to actually “reduce our carbon emissions” in any meaningful way will be to pass a climate bill. President Obama you will need to retake the majority in the House and you will need to win 60 seats of actual progressive Democrats in the Senate. You cannot depend on the blue dogs or Independents like that useless waste of skin Lieberman.
National 90-day forecasts for 2012 are either drier, or hotter, or both drier and hotter than normal for Texas and the Southwest.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/90day/
In the months immediately preceding the November 2012 election, excess heat is expected in the northern states and southwest, while Texas gets a reprieve of sorts.
Video – 4 dead, dozen hurt as storm hits Southeast
Suspected tornadoes were reported in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45326461/ns/today-weather/t/dead-dozen-hurt-storm-hits-southeast/#.TsSNT2BORXU
Looks a bit like Joplin…
Nice track about climate change from OceanLab
http://grooveshark.com/#/s/Miracle/2zozoG?src=5
Is it coincidence that this strongest talk on climate in a long time follows closely on the heels of 12,000 surrounding the WHite House to complain about the Keystone piepline? I think not. If we build a real movement, that will pay political dividends.
Exactly. Obama’s up against a lot of people with a lot riding on delivering for the $$$ they’ve taken from certain sources. (Of course, we shouldn’t forget that the reason they accepted – or even sought – that financing indicates their stance anyway.)
If Obama has film, pictures, other records of lots of citizens pushing in the other direction, he’s much better able to stick to his original statements. Citizens can’t sit back and watch him try to deliver on these issues on his own.
The people opposing Obama from behind closed doors have to be opposed in turn by many more people out in the open. They have to see that their arguments are worthless. It’s not just Obama they have to convince, it’s Obama + several thousand visible citizens arguing otherwise. And again. And again.
what would happen if obama declared global warming was a “clear and present danger” to the USA
could he declare a national emergency and announce he will take emergency action?
(basically the scenario in The Great Disruption by paul gilding)