President Obama Edits Out Climate Change From His Earth Day 2012 Proclamation

You’ll be glad to know that in the last 12 months, that whole climate change problem went away. At least that’s the impression left from comparing President Obama’s 2012 Earth Day proclamation with the 2011 one.

Last year’s proclamation was pretty rousing on the issue of global warming:

… Looking to the future of our planet, American leadership will continue to be pivotal as we confront the environmental challenges that threaten the health of both our country and the globe.

Today, our world faces the major global environmental challenge of a changing climate.  Our entire planet must address this problem because no nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change.  The United States can be a leader in reducing the dangerous pollution that causes global warming and can propel these advances by investing in the clean energy technologies, markets, and practices that will empower us to win the future.

While our changing climate requires international leadership, global action on clean energy and climate change must be joined with local action….

Can’t argue with any of that. Sure, Obama isn’t doing bloody much on climate change, and he’s nonsensically censoring it from his major speeches even though it may be one of the definitive wedge issues of our time (see Democrats Taking “Green” Positions on Climate Change “Won Much More Often” Than Those Remaining Silent).

But at least one day a year, when people are focused on the environment, surely we can all come together and at least mention, in passing, without too much fanfare, in a meaningless proclamation, the gravest preventable threat to the Earth’s environment and humanity’s well-being.  Yes we can — not!

Here’s the full 2012 proclamation:

On April 22, 1970, millions of Americans came together to celebrate the first Earth Day.  Students, teachers, activists, elected officials, and countless others challenged our Nation to confront our most urgent environmental issues and rallied around a single message:  the success of future generations depends upon how we act today.  As we commemorate Earth Day this year, we reflect on the challenges that remain before us and recommit to the spirit of togetherness and shared responsibility that galvanized a movement 42 years ago.

America rose to meet the call to action in the months and years that followed the first Earth Day.  We passed the Clean Air, Clean Water, Endangered Species, and Marine Mammal Protection Acts; founded the Environmental Protection Agency; and ignited a spirit of stewardship that has driven progress for over four decades.  Today, our air and water are cleaner, pollution has been greatly reduced, and Americans everywhere are living in a healthier environment.

While we have made remarkable progress in protecting our health and our natural heritage, we know our work is not yet finished.  Last July, my Administration proposed the toughest fuel economy standards in our Nation’s history — standards that will save families money at the pump, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and significantly reduce our dependence on oil.  In December, we finalized the first-ever national standards to limit mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants, helping safeguard the health of millions.  We have taken action to protect and restore our Nation’s precious ecosystems, from the Gulf Coast to the Great Lakes.  And we continue to make landmark investments in batteries, biofuels, and renewable energy that are unlocking American innovation and ensuring our Nation stays on the cutting edge.  Our country is on the path to economic recovery and renewal, and moving forward, my Administration will continue to fight for a healthy environment every step of the way.

As we work to leave our children a safe, sustainable future, we must also equip them with the tools they need to take on tomorrow’s environmental challenges.  Supporting environmental literacy and a strong foundation in science, technology, engineering, and math for every student will help ensure our youth have the skills and knowledge to advance our clean energy economy.  Last year, we launched the Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools recognition award to encourage more schools to pursue sustainability, foster health and wellness, and integrate environmental literacy into the curriculum.  In the days ahead, we look forward to awarding the first Green Ribbons and recognizing the accomplishments of green schools across our country.

Forty-two years ago, a generation rallied together to protect the earth we would inherit.  As we reflect on that historic day of activism and stewardship, let us embrace our commitment to the generations yet to come by leaving them a safe, clean world on which to make their mark.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim April 22, 2012, as Earth Day.  I encourage all Americans to participate in programs and activities that will protect our environment and contribute to a healthy, sustainable future.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth.

Yes, they snuck in the phrase “cut greenhouse gas emissions” about fuel economy standards (though technically, the standards, by themselves, won’t cut our emissions, but merely slow their growth).

As A. Siegel notes in his excellent column on the proclamation, “The White House Effect”?

… there is nothing there about why ‘cutting greenhouse gas emissions’ would be something that anyone should be concerned about on Earth (or any other or, well, more accurately, every other) Day.

There is simply no possibility of achieving the proclamation’s core aim — “let us embrace our commitment to the generations yet to come by leaving them a safe, clean world on which to make their mark” — without an explicit focus on climate change.

As the International Energy Agency has said, We’re Headed Toward 11°F Global Warming and “Delaying Action Is a False Economy.” Even 7F warming is “incompatible with organized global community, is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems & has a high probability of not being stable (i.e.  4°C [7F] would be an interim temperature on the way to a much higher equilibrium level),” explained Kevin Anderson, director of Britain’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change (see here).

Heck, the IEA’s chief economist said of 11F warming, “Even School Children Know This Will Have Catastrophic Implications for All of Us.” If only the White House Communications team had some school children on it.

Related Posts:

36 Responses to President Obama Edits Out Climate Change From His Earth Day 2012 Proclamation

  1. Dan Ives says:

    I’m waiting for Clinton or Timeslayer to get on here and say, “What? Would you rather have Romney leaving climate change out of his Earth Day speech?”

    Anyway, it’s pretty pathetic that on the one day Obama can talk about climate or the environment and have maximum insulation from GOP attacks, he still won’t do it. Or perhaps it’s not pathetic, it’s revealing.

    All this time I’ve been thinking Obama will soon return to the progressive populist rhetoric that got his base so fired up in 2008. Apparently he takes those votes for granted to the point that he won’t even bother with lip service anymore.

    Yay democracy!

  2. It seems increasingly unlikely that President Obama or any of his successors will do anything whatsoever to save humankind from driving itself extinct. The cause is hopeless for many reasons, the most prominent of which are innate flaws of humankind.

    Humans have spent the last 10,000 years (at least) in a state of undeclared war against Nature, a war against all life (human life included), and our technology has simply amplified this destructiveness beyond the existential threshhold.

    Capitalism (actually all economic theories, but capitalism in particular because capitalism is successful and appeals to the lowest common denomination human traits) serves to addict humankind to various self-destructive behaviors and all of the financial incentives serve to protect self-destructiveness and prevent any sort of escape for humankind from the curse of human nature.

    Who will rescue humankind from itself? Who will save humankind from self extermination?

    It is without doubt an already lost cause. Certainly the Earth will recover and life will go on after humankind has gone extinct. Until then, things will become increasingly worse until they are truly horrific.

  3. Dano says:

    Its an election year. He needs fossil money. Just like all the other pols at the national level.



  4. John Mason says:

    Makes me wonder about getting all of Skeptical Science lasered onto titanium or perhaps tungsten plates and sealed in a cave (with a “dig here” sign), in case the aliens finally turn up and want to know what happened! We could sign off with, “at least we tried”!

    Heck, no. We fight on, all of us. No mileage in giving up :)

    Cheers – John

  5. Why of course Climate Change has been solved. Just like the Gulf of Mexico was properly cleaned up under the close supervision of the Coast Guard. Which is why the blind shrimp coming from there are a new delicacy and the dead fish floating are great if they are placed in a pickling solution before the bloating gets more than 50% of normal body size.
    And then there is the runaway nuclear reactors in Japan that they still haven’t gotten under control. But that ‘stuff’ from the city where all the radiation escaped is now washing up on the North American continent, even though we were told that would never happen. And our tax Dollars are going to subsidize the runaway building of new nuclear plants in this country with unproven reactors and our ‘watchdogs’ are letting worn-out reactors and their crystallized reactor vessels run for another 20 years even though we were told that would NEVER be allowed to happen back when they were initially built. Yeah, climate change has gone away. Because we have finally wrecked the Earth sufficiently that it will eventually be uninhabitable.

  6. Joan Savage says:

    I’m missing Ted Kennedy. We need a new “Lion of the Senate” with a healthy mix of fire and diplomacy. He or she’d know how to build national environmental policy though a series of legislative steps. Where are the Senators and Representatives to provide leadership, and coach the President on climate change policy?
    Obama seems like he never got either the basics of science and engineering, or the coaching from policy makers who did. He’s proven vulnerable to bogus notions like ‘clean coal.’

  7. Sasparilla says:

    Excellent article Joe and not an easy one. It’s sad to see the President not even mention Climate Change on Climate Day, not terribly surprising (given his previous choices), but sad nonetheless.

    The obvious question is what would have been the downside to the President if he had mentioned climate change? Frankly I don’t see any, none, even from an Obama 2012 election perspective – anyone that would object to Climate Change isn’t going to be listening to or voting for him anyways. It would appear, as Joe points out, there’s actually only upside here if he had.

    Why he’d leave Climate Change out on this particular day leaves me grasping at fossil fuel campaign donation conspiracy straws. Sad.

  8. Lou Grinzo says:

    I’m sure he understands the basic climate science and the “feeds and speeds” of carbon flows and their implications just fine. The system is so totally broken, thanks in no small part to Citizens United (which I contend will one day be seen as the worst SC decision of the 21st century), that he would look you straight in the eye and say, “What choice do I have? I’m facing a mountain of money funding right wingers running against me and for every seat in the House and the Senate. If you want to see a disaster, just try to imagine what happens after one or two election cycles when all the progressives are pushing a carbon tax or cap and trade. The Republicans will have the WH, the House, and the Senate, the latter two by huge majorities. Then we’ll really be in trouble.”

    As much as I’m disappointed in all the so-called Democrats in power, I can’t argue with the above view. As I so often point out, it’s just like that moment in Apollo 13 when the engineer tells the astronaut (Gary Sinise), “You’re telling me what you need, and I’m telling you what you’ve got.” We can type at each other until our fingers bleed about what Obama “has to” or “can’t” do, as so many online do, but the simple truth is he’s stuck in the same busted system we are. And if you could get a completely honest answer out of him, he’d likely ask why, if this is the biggest problem in the history of mankind (and I certainly think it is), aren’t there people gridlocking Washington DC and every state capital with street protests? Why are 95% much more concerned about the upcoming NFL draft or iPhone vs. Droid debates or something equally inane? Why are we so lazy and inattentive that sleazy campaign ads work in the first place, making all that money sloshing around an effective weapon against our own best interests?

    The system got broken because not enough of us did enough to prevent all that from happening. (Forget Nader — how many lefties didn’t even freakin’ vote in 2000 and 2004?) And it will stay broken as long as we’re “too busy” or “not interested enough” to do anything about it.

  9. M Tucker says:

    All of the urgency has gone out of the message to end GHG emissions. Not one member of the executive branch has a message that calls for immediate action. All that messaging during the 8 years of BushII and the messaging right after the current president took office about the need for immediate action is now gone. Immediate action is no longer necessary. A few congress people have been calling for a new climate bill but the need for action now has fizzled. This is because our leaders are resigned to accepting somewhere in the range of 2 to 3 degrees Celsius of average global warming. They are resigned to the extreme weather events this will bring. They are resigned to the sea level rise, the water and food shortages, and the ocean acidification this will bring. Because they have reset the acceptable temperature increase they have also reset the ‘supposed’ time frame to begin reducing and eventually ending GHG emissions while they kid themselves that it will somehow all work out.

  10. Some European says:

    Humans are like cockroaches. First, 90%+ of the Earth’s species will have to go before we do. We know from the past that it takes literally millions of years for biodiversity to recover from mass extinctions. Also, in the past, there was only so much carbon to be released from the soils and oceans. Now we started off with a nice fossil appetizer before the feedbacks can do the rest of the job, so who knows whether we’ll avoid the Venus syndrome and a total, definitive wipe-out? I hate to ruin your optimism…;)

  11. NJP1 says:

    Ive read lots of posts on different sites, not many tell the truth: Obama is stuck with the same busted system as the rest of us. You and I are in a minority

  12. Timeslayer says:

    Well said Lou.

    Another thing President Obama (and all progressive Democrats) are facing is pretty much the WORST IMAGINABLE corporate mainstream media a developed country could ever have, which endlessly amplifies denialist nonsense and ignores progressive ideas. Our relentlessly terrible media plays a large destructive role in the erosion of democracy in our nation.


  13. prokaryotes says:

    I can just assume that he want make the impression that he is constantly warning about climate change. He made it clear that this is a big problem and his politics show that he tries to get off of the causes, when trying to end fossil fuel subsidies.

    My impression is that he/his team is waiting for the right moment, i.e. really large impact – climate disruption. For example Kathrina 2.0, a major heat wave, his second term.

    I’m pretty sure he is doing everything he can. But one has to be realistically with the current political spectrum. As long there is no current threat level, nothing will change – except in the event when the GOP or congress comes to it’s senses. And to change this requires a paradigmen shift or the threat level.

    But i hope to hear a bit more of climate change from this administration as well. For example because of the unusual seasons we experiencing. This actually calls for a task force and coverage on the television, where prominent Scientists speak with decision makers, public figures and so on.

    It will happen, just when? The problem is that the climate system has such a big inertia and we just now see the effects from the emissions, emitted 30 years ago. We have to act today, in order to prevent worst case scenarios.

    The time for delay is over!

  14. DrFredB says:

    I think you’re making too much of this. It’s clear where Obama stands on climate change and the EPA. Voters who care about the issue will support him. In a second term, he can afford to push harder and be more explicit, but let’s be pragmatic here and get him re-elected first.

    And while we’re at it, get him a Congress that might actually go along with policies to limit CO2 emissions with some real teeth in them. I’m pushing my Senators and my Representative on this at every opportunity. Anticipating their “jobs” reply, I usually emphasize that going green creates jobs now and preserves them later.

  15. Toby says:

    The President does not want to obstruct those bipartisan opportunities with the GOP Congress he just knows have to start happening soon.

  16. Mark Shapiro says:

    “maximum insulation from GOP attacks . . . ” = zero.

  17. Mark Shapiro says:

    I repeat my challenge to all fellow ClimateProgress readers:

    1) Write the best global warming soundbite.

    2) Write the best global warming sentence.

    3) Write the best global warming paragraph or speech.

    Now that we have complained again that the President is not using his words, why don’t we write them for him? Joe has posted several times about great rhetoric, and he gave us some broad hints yesterday in “Let’s rename Earth Day”.

    The one and only rule: they must be effective in the toxic political environment of 2012.

    This is not easy.

  18. Eduardo Vargas says:

    In October of 2011, 97% of the energy experts in Washington said that Keystone Xl would be approved by Obama. LOOK HOW THAT WENT HORRIBLY WRONG!
    And when you say that it is increasingly unlikely that Obama or anyone will stop this menace from destroying us, you are clearly not seeing the whole picture. Yes, Obama is clearly ignoring much of the subject, for whatever reason he has. But then, again, we have hundreds of thousands of people getting trained for civil disobedience several who belong to If they turned the tide once why the heck can’t they again?

  19. ltr says:

    This is President Obama, so why should we be at all surprised to find that all Obama cares about is the coming election. Policy only matters if Obama thinks policy will gain votes. I find no environmental concern, only a concern for votes and easy votes at that. I could not be more disappointed with this President who I worked so hard for before but will not work for again.

  20. Guy Forfun says:

    He’s never stopped campaigning.

  21. prokaryotes says:

    Good idea. CP even had similar topics like.. should repeat this more often?

    At the crossroads: Floods, fires and the speech Obama should give on climate change

  22. prokaryotes says:


    Why Barack Obama will have to talk about climate change
    Despite avoiding climate change in his State of the Union address, the Keystone XL pipeline and EPA regulations on power plants will make it hard to avoid

  23. Mark Shapiro says:

    Don’t give up.

    Don’t think that any one President — or any leader — will solve this singlehandedly.

    Don’t worry: we’ll always have work to do.

    Be as angry, frustrated, scared, and disappointed as you need to be, and then pick yourself up again.

    And read the posts by Mike Mann and about Wendell Berry.

  24. Merrelyn Emery says:

    David, it is only in the last 200 years that we have put ourselves above the Earth. Most of the old cultures respected the planet and observed her laws. If they had to kill or destroy, they had ceremonies that were basically apologies that explained why they had to do it and said ‘sorry’. They kept the place in great shape.

    Our climate crisis is not caused by ‘human nature’ and saying that it is, is just an excuse for doing nothing, ME

  25. Mark Shapiro says:

    Bill Becker’s speech had a lot of info, but how will did it use the rhetorical tools that Joe espouses here?

    Especially metaphors.

  26. Sarsaparilla says:

    Very well said Lou. Although he truly did choose to blow his opportunities early on when something could possibly have gotten done – doesn’t matter at this point.

  27. Roger says:

    If Obama would think (~outside the box) it really would not be that hard. (I’m available, for free, to help if he asks;)

    All he needs to do is ask his best speech writers to draft a simple talk that will explain our situation, and the fact that we need to work together to solve the problem. Then he should declare a “war on climate change,” nationalize the largest companies in the energy business, and go from there.

    This would be a piece of cake–he just doesn’t have what it takes to do what’s needed. It’s so much easier to “be nice.”

  28. caroza says:

    I have to say, for the other 94% (those of us who don’t live in the US but watch US politics in a “canary in the coalmine” sort of way), it’s starting to look like the best approach is to up the pressure for the international financial markets to go off the dollar and onto the yen. Right now a bankrupt, finished US without the money to keep trashing the climate seems to be the best we can hope for.

    China is undemocratic, has an appalling human rights record, and is going with green energy at a rate of knots because they see the danger and aren’t held back by needing to pacify either the people or the oil lobby. So we may as well start bowing to our new superpower now.

    What a choice to have to make. And we all hoped so much that Obama would change things.

  29. mulp says:

    Obviously, environmentalists don’t vote Democratic. If environmentalist voted, then in 2010, they would have defeated Republicans and voted more Democrats into the Senate to get over 60 environmentalists in the Senate to override all Republican pillage and plunder advocacy that opposes sustainable capitalism. Instead the environmentalists supported the quick and dirty promises of better living by burning and destroying capital faster and faster with no accounting for the costs.

    American environmentalism is colored black, the color of the landscape left after blowing the tops off mountains, of vast open pit mines, and oil spills and smoke stack emissions.

    Capitalism is considered evil by the voters – labor devoted to building up the capital stock of solar arrays of water heaters and electric power and wind turbines and power lines connecting the West wind alley to the Left and Right Coasts, making and buying electric cars, etc., denies everyone the immediate consumption possible by simply burning capital without regard for the future.

    The green environmentalist are just arrogant and lazy while the black environmentalists are active and begging for the votes by promising the free lunch of greater wealth from burning capital. And who comes out in opposition to capitalism? The greenies who denounce capitalism, which merely reinforces the message that burning capital is a great idea, so let’s be anti-capitalist and pillage and plunder America.

    Given the voters clear desire to pillage and plunder, who is Obama to condemn the choices of the voters?

    Why should Obama be the champion of capitalism when the voters want capital destruction at faster rates?

  30. Kindler says:

    Obama omitting climate change from an environmental call to action at this point in history would be like FDR trying to rouse the nation to fight WWII while failing to mention Hitler and Pearl Harbor.

    When Big Lies are ascendant, that is when they most need to be challenged. I am a committed Obama supporter, but you can’t call running and hiding from such an urgent and enormous issue “leadership”.

  31. Kent Otho Doering says:

    Have you watched the first round of the French elections. The french “left” are pushing for shifting Frances aging nuclear to deep geothermal. Germany will follow that initiative.
    Europe is moving much faster in cutting fossil fuel consumption with a broad synergy of technologies. Obama´s mistake in “Green Policy” was thinking America could size the lead instead of inviting allies in who have experience in “sustainability solutions”.

    Now, I hate to say it, but the polar cap is pretty much melted. You´ve already seen massive tornadoes as a result, and more will be coming this summer and fall. One bad season of tornadoes, and two terrible hurricanes ripping up the gulf coast and slamming the east coast this fall before the elections are going to convince a lot of voters that climate change in no fucking joke, and they will demand vision and solutions.
    Open coastal arctic wates mean cold fronts coming down and clashing with warm fronts… and that means “tornado weather.” CO2 in the oceans mean they store more heat before releasing… and increasing hurricane violence crossing the Atlantic. Last year was relatively mild, storm wise, meaning a lot higher energy potentials building up this year. (Goodness, the mediterrean basin was clobbered by mid-winter tropical storms and unprecedented flooding. Russia will suffer droughts again this year.
    if Obama could only get the cajones to confer with other leaders to declare a “global war on global warming.” Sustainability mobilization for that would pull us out of any global recession and put us back on track again.
    The technologies are there. We only have to apply them.
    Two promising technologies are coming out of Germany. Advanced aqueous fuel systems which do violate the Helmholtz first and second laws of thermodynamics. (water as fuel systems which emit no co2, and gravity field retransformation.) A Munich team successfully upgraded the older Bullular model of the atom to establish a link between the positron and electron electo-magnetic functions of the atom, and gravity.That is, quantum gravity. And that in turn is enabling gravity field retransformation technologies for a broad range of synergetic applications. (Applied GFR will even let us “re-freeze” the North Pole and cut storm damage, by pulsing low pressure fronts across the Atlantic earlier in the season. GFR also enables Carbon recapture and breakdown systems.

    Leave it up to the Europeans to think outside the box and come up with viable solutions. France is in the process of electring a “left” and Socialist government”, and Germany will be even more environmentally friendly when a Red-Green coalition is elected in in 2013, as sure as eggs are eggs.
    The key to cracking quantum gravity was upgrading the older non-source-free Bullular model of the atom (ref- Ramon Lull, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibnitz, E. Swedenborg, KCF Krausse)And while taking the model´s inherent “quantum EPR effect” into account, still establishing homeostasis within the model framework by postulating that Beta particles are cryogenic. A paradigm shift of the 2nd order-for solutions of a 3rd kind.

    Soon ‘Germany will present how it violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Helmholtz illustrated those laws using the example of a mid-19th century steam engine.. not to efficient. “you can´t run a steam engine off its own steam.” But that was the 19th century. Today, a team in Munich is perfecting the art of radical magnetic resonance ionisation of steam- for steam ignition in internal combustion engines, and in gas turbines.
    GFR enabled by the successful upgrade of the Bullular model, also enables spin off technologies such as gravity field retransformation mass desalinisation and sewage treatment which in turn will enable greening the sahara and the Arabian peninsula..cooling the earth. It also enables carbon capture- co2 breakdown.
    With these two emerging technologies added to an already broad array of synergetic sustainable technologies, Germany will lead the way and be off of fossil fuels in toto by 2025! Sustainability also means solid economic growth, and less than 3% unemployment. (Munich, a sustainability capital of the world, has less than 3% unemployment due to Green tech.) Green tech is anti-inflationary as it takes the speculative pressure off fossil fuels as well. Cut consumption- increase performance.

    Germany will replace all of its 10 million heating oil units with “aqueous fuel based” CHP units, combined heat power, smart grid coordinated. That will not only save an average of 880.000 barrels per day, but also the coal used in power generation. Aqueous fuel powered automotive and rail tech will also add to slashing consumption, costs, and emissions.
    Upgrading the older Bullular model of the atom to Q.E.D. is what enabled establishing the critical link between the electro-magnetic functions of atomic level matter and gravity. You´ll think you are smart, check out the Bullular models by Ramon Lull, Leibnitz, Spinoza, Swedenborg, KCF Krausse, and upgrade to Q.E.D./Q.C.G. for quantum gravity- the link between matter and gravity. If you talk about “thinking outside the box”, then think outside the box for soljutions to theproblems of the 21st century.
    Germany has again declared war- this time a war on global warming. And we´re developing the technologies eh to win it. We are not waiting for American leadership on this, we are doing it.
    The goal is off of fossil fuels by 2025 here.
    Catch up if you can. We already have cracked quantum gravity and the secret of aqeuous fuels and steam ignition. (Yes, you can get an engine to literally run off its own steam.)
    (Steam is loaded with electro-weak infra-red energy, and the trick to igniting steam is utilizing the energy in it. The restwas easy.
    Of course, we expect a pouting response from the yanks who cannot “think outside the Rutherford Bohr model box on this”, and hear something like: “You bastards, why didn´t we think of this first.”
    Don´t even argue with “Climate Change deniers”. ust go for the real paradigm shifts and develop the technologies. Don´t argue with Tea Party people: Recall the 8th corollary to Murphy´s law: “Never argue with a fool, you might not notice the difference.” German GM Opel subsidiary developed the tech in theChevy Volt… with ample German subsidies. Good, now GM is profiting from the free r & d. Okay. Our satisfaction is hearing the fat and ugly gas bag Rush Limbaugh helplessly raging at it. Now imagine how much more he will explode in red faced, red necked rage at all aqueous fuel tech driven cars that will also be coming out of Germany. Americn capitalists have lost yet aother opportunity to catch up and clean up on clean tech. Their tough shit. Germans invented quantum physics and now they cracked quantum gravity to the point where they can use gravity field re-transformation in a broad synergy of applications. And yes, you can literally get an engine to run off its own steam.”

    We will be to sell you the clean tech along with the Chinese. Not our problem that U.S. capitalists are not investing in cutting edge r & d, or developing cutting edge clean tech.

    And to paraphrase Andy Grove, don´t tell us it is impossible because we went ahead and just f-wording did it.

    Don´t say getting off fossil fuels is impöossible, just f-wording do it. If you don´t we will do it for you intellectually lazy suckers.

  32. Gil Friend says:

    The one reason I voted for Obama (aside from making sure those other two didn’t get anywhere near the White House) was his remarkable talent for oratory and inspiration. I thought he might use that to call the country to higher purpose. Sad to say, he retired that mojo on election day.

    Just a reminder of Ron Dellums’ and Van Jones’ exhortations that politicians don’t lead, they follow. They follow wherever we (or our opponents) force them to go. So let’s do that.

    PS: I like Mark Shapiro’s suggestion.

  33. CJ says:

    I can imagine that with such a total collapse of the American economy we could quickly become a stellar third world nation. Absolute control of the resources by international corporations without even token governmental interference. Fossil fuel exports will continue grow exponentially, the lower market costs will most likely increase international consumption. China’s much touted green policies have never been intended to power their economy, coal is their fuel of choice. Current forecasts project that their coal demand will grow in excess of 2.5% per year for the next 25 years, and they already use more than the United States.
    Your despair is misguided, it is the rising economies that pose the greatest threat, not the declining nations of the west.

  34. Jim Baird says:

    Mark, the following is the speech I’d like to see President Obama give but then as the inventor of the solution involved my motives are sure to be questioned.

    In my nomination victory speech, I stated, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

    Much has been made of the fact little has been accomplished to that end during my first term.

    I apologize for the inaction. The near collapse of the global economy diverted me from the long term goal of healing the planet, which I intend to tackle in my second term.

    Two factors contributed to sea level rise. The first is thermal expansion: as ocean water warms, it expands.

    The second is from the contribution of land-based ice melting. The major store of water on land is found in glaciers and ice sheets.

    Sea level rise is supporting evidence for the view the climate has been warming and is also projected to be one of the serious consequences of that warming.

    Carbon emissions and land use changes have contributed to the sea level rise observed in the latter half of the 20th century. It is also predicated that in view of the thermal inertia of the oceans, as much as four meters of additional rise is inevitable even if we stopped putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere immediately.

    In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected that during the 21st century, sea level will rise another 18 to 59 cm (7.1 to 23 in), but these numbers do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon feedback loops nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flows.

    The ice sheet uncertainty is addressed in a draft paper, by NASA’s James Hansen and Makiko Sato, which points out that during the early Pliocene, between 2.5 and 5 million years ago, when temperatures where only 1-2°C warmer than current levels, sea levels were between 15 and 25 meters higher than they are today.

    The authors state, “If we maintain our business-as-usual greenhouse emissions path, multi-meter sea level rise within this century becomes “almost dead certain”.

    Fortunately it has come to my attention two patent applications have been filed, 12/408,656 and 12/838,172 for the Global Warming Mitigation Method, which not only respond to the sea level problem they address the cause of global warming.

    Through implementation of the four approaches proposed in these applications: converting ocean heat to productive work producing energy by the ocean thermal energy conversion method – in the process limiting thermal expansion, desalinating ocean water and moving this to productive terrestrial use – primarily by irrigating the earth’s driest regions, the hot deserts, converting part of the ocean’s liquid volume to its gaseous components, hydrogen and oxygen and then recombining these on land to produce water and energy and, capturing some of the melting land based ice before it can enter the oceans to swell their volume, the dead certainty of sea level rise is exchanged for a solution that draws down atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, the genesis of the problem, by sequestering the carbon in the vegetation grown in irrigated deserts and, through ocean absorption because cooler water can dissolve more gas than warmer water and the ocean is cooled as its excess heat is converted to productive work.

    I make this promise to you today, because our planet hasn’t another moment to waste.

  35. kelly says:

    fantastic idea! i can’t help thinking that some day, someone will look upon the wreckage we leave in our wake and ask – why didn’t anyone DO anything?? some of us are trying!!