Image: r White House/Sonya Hebert
Climate change appears to have climbed to the summit of policy promises yesterday when President Obama vowed in his second inaugural address to confront carbon emissions, because anything less would "betray our children."
He lingered on the issue in a speech filled with snap references to national priorities, devoting more time to the interwoven policies of climate, energy and environmental hazards than to war, deficits and immigration. It was a promise for action that stood in dramatic contrast to his near-silence on the politically difficult issue in the months preceding the November election.
"We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations," Obama said to cheers. "Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms."
The address captured what some advocates had hoped to hear from Obama following the bruising impacts of widespread disasters last year, including a drought that sizzled 60 percent of the nation and damages from Superstorm Sandy exceeding $50 billion. Last year was the warmest on record in the United States, which registered 90 percent of the world's insured losses from disasters.
If advocates doubted the president's strategy before, those concerns seem to have dissolved with his curtain-raising speech.
"President Obama's clarion call to action on the threat of climate change leaves no doubt this will be a priority in his second term," Alden Meyer, policy director for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement. He added that it will take a "sustained campaign" to establish policies that reduce emissions.
Now the question turns to what Obama can accomplish. His climate priorities are unknown and his address yesterday failed to set out his goals, but that could come later in his State of the Union address.
Marching orders for a revised Cabinet
Still, the speech stands to set a tone for a largely reconstructed Cabinet with new leaders at the departments of State, Interior, Treasury and Defense; in U.S. EPA; and perhaps at the Energy Department all taking cues from Obama's muscular second-term entrance.
Since the election, he has repeatedly placed climate change among his top three or four priorities. But it's unclear whether there is enough political energy, and time, to achieve every goal, especially if heavy doses of political capital are expended on, say, pursuing immigration legislation or deficit reduction. Climate advocates learned that lesson during the first term with health care.
"In the end, what's going to count is what happens during those [next] four years, not what he says" in the address, Eileen Claussen, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, said before the speech. "We're starting off really partisan here. The fiscal stuff is not going to end in two months or three months. It's going to go on for a long time. I'm sure they're going to try to do gun control and immigration while it's going on. The question then is, is how much energy is left" for climate legislation?
She suspects that the bulk of progress will occur in the regulatory arena, not the legislative one.
EPA has already proposed rules to limit the emission of carbon dioxide by new power plants to 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour, a level likely limiting the construction of future coal-fired plants. The rule is expected to be completed this year. It is less clear whether Obama will reduce emissions from other sectors, like industry and transportation.
"The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult," Obama said yesterday. "But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries -- we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure -- our forests and waterways; our croplands and snow-capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God."
See what we're tweeting about
57 Comments
Add CommentI don't see how a modest carbon tax that offsets payroll taxes would be objectionable to Republicans. It would be revenue neutral and reward employment and hard work while making it cheaper for employers to hire more workers, spurring economic growth. There would be no "free riders" and no way to game the system either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only thing I can think of is that fossil fuel companies are giving close to 90% of their campaign contributions to Republicans and they want something in return for that money. Combine this with the fact that the right-wing infotainment complex has made acceptance of ESTABLISHED CLIMATE SCIENCE a cardinal sin and it is clear why they are almost all climate deniers.
Well, at the very least, the President should force the issue to get the Republicans on record saying silly denier nonsense so that future generations know what a bold-faced denial of reality looks like. Whether they step up to the challenges of the 21st Century or keep themselves mired in the 20th is up to them.
Make a wish upon a star. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA modern version of FDR's depression ending New Deal building nuclear plants would eliminate GHG emissions from the US in 15 years or less, drive the economy to prosperity only dreamed of - an example for the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2500 new mass produced nukes scattered around the US at $2500B financed by the $800B paid every year into the coffers of Big Oil/Coal for their deadly products - payback 3 years ROI 40%. No single large scale state investment has this kind of potential return That's without adding in the carbon cost.
Factory produced Nuke power is by far the least expensive form of energy at less than 2.5 cents a kwh
GTL plants like Shell's new Qatar plant using natural gas to make diesel at $35 a barrel and easily adaptable to nuclear hydrogen/atmospheric CO2 as feedstock, would provide liquid fuels.
The effort to replace all fuel sources with nuclear would be similar to the industrial effort required to produce Liberty ships or Sherman tanks in WW2 - easy since our economy today has ten times the industrial capacity 20% idle.
The Obama administration while dumping tens of billions of development money into GHG spewing worse than coal Big Oil's wind solar and gas has barely a dime ($250M annually) for advanced nuclear.
There are at 3 least 3 types of Gen IV units ready to built one already blueprinted - the GE Prism (IFR) with similar units in service already and this year in India and Russia, one HTGR under construction in China for 2017 service and the other the DMSR needing a minimum $2B and 2 years for a commercial demo unit to be built.
Here's IFR advocate Stephen Kirsch begging the nuclear obstructionists betraying their country in the White house to let the IFR go to no avail.
Google "why-obama-should-meettill"
All it will take is one large warming based event that kills a lot of people like losing the Pine Island glacier in the Antarctic raising sea level meters over a single year, the shutdown of the gulfstream, or a series of devasting Sandy like storms and the folks will begin to realize the extent of the corruption infesting their 100% Big Oil owned politicians and media and demand action and criminal penalties and much much worse.
These evil and corrupt politicians, poetry based greenies and business/media executives promoting wind/solar/coal/oil/gas domestic and exports now running the Obama administration should remember what happened to their kindred spirits in 1917 Russia.
"I don't see how a modest carbon tax that offsets payroll taxes would be objectionable to Republicans".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishuh?
Are you talking about the USA? Any carbon tax would gain support of one or two senators and they would be Democrats. 98% of both Demos and Reps would not vote for such a tax.
Carbon tax....dead in the water.
sethdayal..meanwhile, back in the real world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRepublican governers around the country are lowering income taxes while raising sales taxes. While this is highly regressive, ofsetting payroll taxes with the carbon tax in a revenue-neutral way like I said would be pretty much the same thing except for it would actually make taxes more progressive in this country. Maybe this progressivity is the only reason Republicans would oppose this policy, but that's a silly justification!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou wrote about creating a “modest carbon tax”.
I am not a republican but I can offer questions regarding the carbon tax you seem to advocate.
How much would the proposed carbon tax reduce fossil fuel consumption in the US given the relative inelasticity of fossil fuels to price changes? In Ireland a carbon tax was shown to not reduce consumption at all. If you are advocating such a tax solely as a means of increasing government revenue it would meet that goal, but unless the tax is very substantial it will not reduce consumption to any significant degree.
Are you advocating a carbon tax because it makes you feel better to do something or because it will reduce US CO2 emissions enough to have a noticeable impact on the climate?
20 little words that place total fear in all Progressives and DC lobbyist, members of Congress, and the President and all his men and women. Read them here as they are coming to a city near you very soon - the end of DC power is near - no money and no power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://tinyurl.com/agxtpfk
For one.... it is acknowledged that the climate is changing but climatology is an infant science and no matter how much the tiny few climatologists want to claim they have it all figured out... they do not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to trying for global weather control... and that is what we see advocated.... how about waking up to the reality that we have not got one realistic clue what any of our efforts might accomplish, if anything.
Hubris is a huge problem... that and intransigence that is more sourced in political preferences than a legitimate scientific conscience.
No.... it is sad but true, we are not yet Gods... and global weather control is among the most insanely hubris-laden proposals one can imagine.
You are correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can however control how well be build and maintain infrastructure to protact us from bad weather. The bad news is that many countries do not make building infrastructure a priority and that the US does not make a priority of maintaining what has been built to work as designed.
First, climate science is not in its infancy. Second, climate scientists have a pretty damn good idea about what is going on. Third, who is "advocating for global weather control?" I would agree with you that it is an asinine idea, but disagree that anyone with any scientific credibility is pushing for such a thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoss
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt depends upon what you mean when you write that "climate scientists have a pretty idea of what is going on".
What do you believe can be reliably predicted by a climate scientist?
You are incorrect, as is Sisko, we are already changing the climate by our activities. Accept the science and move on, or leave a steaming mess for your children, and justify to them why you ignored the science and the evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Over the last three years, with its economy in tatters, Ireland embraced a novel strategy to help reduce its staggering deficit: charging households and businesses for the environmental damage they cause.
Environmentally and economically, the new taxes have delivered results. Long one of Europe’s highest per-capita producers of greenhouse gases, with levels nearing those of the United States, Ireland has seen its emissions drop more than 15 percent since 2008.
Although much of that decline can be attributed to a recession, changes in behavior also played a major role, experts say, noting that the country’s emissions dropped 6.7 percent in 2011 even as the economy grew slightly."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/28/science/earth/in-ireland-carbon-taxes-pay-off.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Carbon Taxes DO work and it's about time we start incorporating environmental damage into economic decision-making.
Nothing! Most of the stuff I've read or seen points to the Sun as the culprit. So, unless he's going to smite the sun. Watch the movie "Cool It" (can't remember the guy's name). He explains it very well, in scientific and better yet economic terms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhatever we do now will be too late. The lack of effective environment policies under liberal capitalism will have very adverse effects as time goes by.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only solutions are energy efficiency and renewables. Any attempt to continue present ressource management will fail miserably.
The plunging human sperm count will mean sterility for all men living in 'developped' countries within 20 to 30 years. At best we will only succeed in limiting ecological damage to some extent.
The fact of the matter is that the President is little more than a figurehead. His only real power lies in his signature - to either approve or veto legislation that is sent to him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, he can make "clarion calls"... but these are useless if those who make the rules ignore it.
Those who think the science of climate is not in its infancy.. are the ones who imagine much and know precious little of the history of climate studies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe amount of dogmatic acceptance of tentative explanations for accepted observations is mind-numbing.
It is a truly beyond the pale to claim that climate control is not "global weather control" as the very definition of climate is global weather.
Hubris... this is the true problem... people who cannot sort out their political prejudices well enough to make allowances for them while they work at science is another huge problem.
That the climate has warmed is no secret.. that human activity has impacted it is hardly amazing.
Climatology, however, simply IS an infant science hardly 50 years old... and which has an incredibly tiny number of researchers who, also simply, have not even begun to explore and understand an incredibly complex collection of phenomena.
It is truly irresponsible to pretend that these gazers upon the past can engineer the global climate to meet some human-ordained goals.
This is like a historian trying to manage and predict future human behavior stating based upon their analysis of the past. They may be able to understand what went on before but they are barely able to predict the future and they are especially unable to engineer it.
So too, are the defects in the claims of those who would decide their examination of the past history of the climate can engineer world climate for the future.
It grows ever so tiresome to see the crybaby footstomping out of those who so obviously are making politically motivated claims that they can fix the climate.
They are quite simply.. wrong. They do not know enough to do what they claim they can do.
@ salty: apparently you have only scratched the surface in your readings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ naive caroline: climate science goes back prior to 1824, when Fourier hypothesized the "Greenhouse Effect". A little later, in 1896, Arrhenius described in more detail, the cause of such effect (CO2 and water vapor).
Please do not refer to climate science as "dogmatic", and also please do not refer to those who understand the sience as those that promote an utterly rediculous idea of "global climate engineering". It demeans us both.
Why is Solyndra always a reference to the viability of solar power? The only reason it failed was because of a disparity in production costs due to wages. The fact is, solar has doubled as a resource every year for the past four. Why not subsidize solar? Every single power source we rely upon (less, to some extent, geothermal and hydro) has ultimately come from the sun. And, after the construction of solar powered infrastructure, it is virtually free.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat don't you understand, that CO2 traps heat or that we've increased its concentration in the atmosphere by 40% while showing NO signs of slowing down? You can't just be a concern troll about a scientific discipline; you have to post proof that backs up your claims. And it had better be extraordinary evidence to back up these extraordinary claims because the scientists of the world have agreed that human CO2 emissions and the resulting climate change they cause is a big problem. Peer-reviewed studies are the only proof that counts in science, so good luck in finding any that support your position!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease share with us this proof, "the stuff I've read or seen points to the Sun as the culprit." Considering that solar activity has been flat or DECLINING over the last 30 years, the same 30 years we've seen some dramatic temperature increases mind you, those had better be some rock-solid and peer-reviewed papers you have there!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, what a bunch of circular reasoning there! No need to participate in a rational debate OR add any proof of your own!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI admit, a lot of government spending is waste. A lot of private sector spending is waste too. Why does a health insurance company need to hire thousands of people that specialize in denying coverage to people all while wasting doctor's / hospitals' time haggling over paperwork? Why does the PRIVATE Medicare Advantage program cost 15% more than the PUBLIC Medicare program? (I think this is part of the "...500 billion of[sic] waste in medicare[sic] Obama said was there." you mentioned, but with over-payments to hospitals and other waste, to it's more like $700B!)
Why do we need to subsidize oil companies when they are making RECORD PROFITS and they are using those profits mainly to BUY BACK THEIR OWN STOCK? Why do we need to let the pollution from coal power cause $100B - $500B in YEARLY damages while still claiming coal is "cheap"? This is a lot of scratch to "spend on global warming"!
Yeah, it was AWESOME when the government was out of the way and RIVERS CAUGHT FIRE FROM THE POLLUTION FLOATING AROUND IN THEM, right? Or how about the AWESOME time when CFCs were eating a hole in the Ozone Layer while the government was minding its own business? Remember acid rain, lead in gasoline and even lead paint? Man, those were the days!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If that is true there is no possible way Obama could know enough to make any kind of decision."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood thing he has these things called "advisers"! You know, like Nobel Laureate Dr. Steven Chu. He's probably a smart guy, right?
Sault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe NY Times article is interesting but it seems potentially misleading. Over at Judith Curry’s site about a year ago I had a discussion with one of the sponsors of the legislation in Ireland and he acknowledged that the fossil fuel tax had not lowered consumption to any significant degree. It is just economics. I know you can rightly state I have not provided a link to that discussion, but it would be a hassle to find.
Another point to consider can be shown in the following links data on page 13. You will note the US emissions dropped after 2000 by over 20% and we didn’t have the tax you advocate. That is very strong evidence that the Irish tax was not a significant cause for their lowered emissions. If the tax was not a significant cause for the lowered emissions in Ireland, why implement such a tax in the USA unless it is to either raise revenue, or to make people feel good about believing they are doing something for the environment?
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/PBL_2012_Trends_in_global_CO2_emissions_500114022.pdf
Sault- is it possible that you have made a value judgment regarding how you perceive all US citizens should live and decided it would be better if we behaved like the Irish in the NY Times article? We should be weighing our trash and be taxed based upon what the government thinks we should or shouldn’t consume?
I am not saying that you are wrong. It seems to be your perspective on how US citizens should live. Isn’t it just as valid for people to have a different perspective and to not wish to have government to be that involved in their lives?
There is a socialist pattern here. Before Australia’s last Federal election, the Labor socialist candidate, Julia Gillard, in response to strong public resistance, repeatedly stated, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithin weeks of winning government by forming an alliance with independents & greens, she announced that there would indeed be a carbon tax.
In the recent US elections, the environment barely was raised. The Democrats would likely have lost if a strong AGW platform had been advocated. If the Democrats could not campaign with this as a policy they should not be now calling it a major policy agenda. Just like our PM, if they actually do initiate such a policy, the Democrats will wear the results of their ideologically driven actions for a generation to come.
They did not have the guts to put it before the voters.
I don't know what kind of math you are using, but even figure 2.2 in the link you provided shows that US CO2 emissions declined by about 5% between 2000 and 2011. (you cherry-picked your reference; yours is per-capita, and you have now been called out as a liar) Here is a graph that shows the same 5% from a different source:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html
Also, CO2 emissions are up in the last 2 years even though fracking technology has has replaced some less efficient ways of producing energy. Ironically, one of the reasons CO2 output is up is because of (among others, such as an increase in economic output) an increase in the use of air conditioning.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html
Does it really matter, though (figure 2.1 in your reference says it all)?
Didn't your island burn down or turn to dust last week?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Moss Boss,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is pretty plain you truly do not know much about science and the history of climate science.
I would suggest you keep your smug remarks to yourself since it is plain you engage in mere rhetoric.
It is quite interesting to see a person like "Moss Boss" posting here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe is quite obviously a troll... and a politically certain troll besides. Moss Boss quite obviously has a political agenda... and has the same "powerful understanding of science" as we see in literal Creationists.
This kind of absolute certainty is often to be seen in those consumed by dogma and who want to pretend to a mastery of knowledge they simply do not possess.
While it is off the topic of climate change per se, this individual stands as a perfect study of the psychology of a pseudo-scientist who works from foregone conclusions and desperately scrapes around for proof well after the conclusion has been determined.
This type of person is sometimes considered a sociopathic sort. A sociopath will assert their correctness even in the face of unassailable evidence they are wrong and will dodge and evade with absolutely no limit. They just keep it on up no matter what.
Moss Boss types are what is termed "true believers" who really have no interest in objective interest in exploring a subject, they are only determined to hammer away at others in the absolute certainty that the notions that fill their skulls need no input from the outside and cannot be refuted.
They blind and deafen themselves and truly cease to be reasoning beings worthy of anything but compassion as they are lost.. sadly lost.. in a defective mentality that prevents any real communication with the outside world.
@Sault and Moss Boss: As I already stated and as you would already know if you could read and comprehend what is written for you to see, it is well known that the climate is changing and that human activity has an effect on climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe details, though, are far from settled. Climatology is beyond dispute an infant science and is engaged in by a very tiny collection of scientists.
As has already been stated, and as I restate for you here, it is pure insanity and hubris to pretend that "we" can manipulate the climate on purpose to yield a desired result.
Being able to come up with a hypothesis to explain observations on past climate variations is an entirely different beast from pretending to know how to change the climate with a goal in mind.
I would suggest a too steady diet of anime and scripted science fiction entertainment has bloated the egos of ideologues who also dabble at science.
Sadly... the only solutions to "too many people whose activity has affected climate" is to drastically reduce the number of people creating those inputs.
The insane rush to manipulate world weather reeks of the same kind of hubris that has resulted in no end of environmental disasters due to the law of unintended consequences. Even the simple seeding of clouds to create rain robs one region of rainfall to provide it to another. We see efforts to control rivers to prevent property damage that, in the end cause more damage but of a different sort than they prevent.
And now we see ideologues hellbent on world weather control based upon the most primitive and tentative understanding of the underlying climate cycles that would exist even absent human activity.
The existence of human effect upon the climate is undoubted... just what that effect is, is far from settled and what is the veriest of speculative lunacy, is the absolute certainty that these selfsame blind and deaf ideologues have got it so perfectly figured out that they are now going to ascend to the level of mini-gods and rule the skies.
And now to the political part of this discussion:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is more than hilarious to see the political and economic prognostications and predictions made by climate theory fans as they seem to have less than zero understanding of law, taxation and business.
They are forever dreaming up simplistic "all you gotta do...." plans for solving pollution issues involving greenhouse gases absent the slightest understanding of the way taxes, law and the economy operates.
The depredations that "too many people and too few resources" work upon the planet cannot be fixed unless the population is drastically reduced.
It is hardly an advance for chickenhood, for example, that we can now stack them three to a cage on industrial egg ranches. We see an endless supply of schemes to pack still more people on this planet in a manner not unlike the egg ranch chicken.
The thing that people need in order to live human and humane lives is space... lots and lots of space.
We see our "wonderful suburbias" some of our, supposedly, best environments turning out people who are little more than lifer indoor pets who are missing something ineffable that would render them fully aware adults. We see even worse results in other areas where to many people are crowded in too close proximity to too many other people. They are reduced in humanity through no fault of their own.
We see blind and silly efforts to figure out how to pack the maximum number of people into industrial egg ranch environments. Egg ranch chickens are theoretically alive in that they eat, poop and die.. but they have no life worthy of a bird as they are trapped in a tiny cage... they have no space.
We see lunatics working madly to ensure we can pack as many people onto this planet as possible and to make sure they live lives analogous to the egg ranch chicken.
It is hard to imagine the shortsighted stupidity that informs these people.
Re: carbon tax and its supposed salutary effects on energy consumption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI personally experienced a North America wide three hundred per cent rise in the cost of gasoline through the period of the seventies.
Prior to that dramatic increase, fuel consumption was rising by about six per cent per year. After the price surge the rate of _increase_ dropped from 6 per cent to 3 per cent per year.
Now I don`t know what amount of revenues carbon tax advocates have in mind but if they are going to be effective then they are going have to be huge. And I mean huge.
They are not neutral in their impact unless you don`t use carbon based energy in your economy. We have a supposedly neutral carbon tax where I live. The new carbon tax was offset by lowering income taxes. Except a funny thing happened. All of a sudden there was a campaign to bring back the previous income income tax level on whatever groups that could be demonized like the rich, the fat cats, the one per cent etc. This group included anyone who made more than senior bureaucrats and media people. All of a sudden it wasn`t so revenue neutral anymore.
the results are in the next post
continue from previous post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResults of carbon tax
Of course large energy users were immediately impacted. These were things like public transit, hospitals, public schools, universities, local governments etc. All of them had to suddenly increase their fees or reduce services, usually a combination. Unlike the dreamy eyed advocates the people implementing the new tax in the real world knew that exempting government agencies, charities, non-profits and whatever would eviscerate the tax.
Another effect was the new tax laid on top of existing fuel taxes which impacted transportation companies to the extent that they looked for alternatives. The ships, planes, trucks and buses, being highly mobile, found them in other regions where they didn`t have to pay anymore than the customary fuel taxes. This had the effect of transferring the wealth from the fuel tax to adjacent regions depriving ours of revenue without having any impact on carbon consumption overall.
Of course I still drive to work but I just spend more on taxes and less on everything else. The company I work for pays more taxes for its energy but simply reduced costs by laying off a few workers and producing the same amount at lower quality for a higher price.
The consequences: Well, the size of government relative to the economy increased slightly. The influence of the government increased geometrically because of selecting who should get exemptions and by how much (picking winners and losers). The average consumer had to pay more to get the same amount so savings were reduced and debt levels increased
Oh, and energy consumption increased slightly.
Only in places where the Greens prevented fuel reduction burns in the cooler months.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly in places where the Greens prevented fuel reduction burns in the cooler months.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother reminder of my old blue cattle dog. Thanks for that. You are so clever & your humour so exquisite. I can see you reading & re reading your post. Gurgling contentedly. Like my old dog chasing his tale & grinning at his own stupidity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut CO2 emissions DID go down while the Irish economy GREW! All the while, those efficiency, conservation and clean energy developments reduced fossil fuel consumption! Believe whatever you want, but the reality the rest of us live in doesn't care either way...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe graph of U.S. emissions is on page 31, but who's counting. You need to get your eyes checked because emissions PEAKED in 2008, not 2000, and they're starting to creep up again in the absence of a prudent climate policy.
YOU'RE the one who brought up the carbon tax in Ireland as proof that it doesn't work. I have PROOF that it does; you have some conversation with who-knows saying it doesn't. If you don't even know how to debate rationally, that's not my problem. Sorry, but carbon taxes reduce emissions. Again, believe whatever you want, but don't expect reality to mesh with the delusional.
And to cap off your flimsy "argument", you try putting words into my mouth. Answer me this, where in ANY of my posts did I say we should be weighing our trash? Nice move, combining the strawman argument with a mischaracterization...not too hard to see through, though.
Look, you'll need a lot more proof than some "conversation" you might have had with "some guy" and a bunch of logical fallacies to argue your case.
Which country is this so we can check your facts?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWRONG.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama was talking up the climate issue in the campaign, most notably in an interview in Rolling Stone last year:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/obama-on-climate-change-rolling-stone_n_1452645.html
It's the corporate media that has let climate change fall off the map. With all those oil, gas and coal companies buying ads all over the TV dial, is it any mystery that newsrooms are inclined to ignore the subject?
Sorry, you're WRONG:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
Sorry, CO2 traps heat and the science is clear that doubling CO2 concentrations will warm the earth by 2.5C - 4C. So yes, there is uncertainty in that figure. However, even in the nearly impossible likelihood that the Earth's climate sensitivity is as low a 2C, that STILL means that we need to cut emissions YESTERDAY!
34. moss boss in reply to Carlyle 11:34 PM 1/22/13 Didn't your island burn down or turn to dust last week? As I have stated, wihout the Greens blocking controlled burns, we would not have suffere uch dmmage. Not least os f life ofntive & farm aimals in the thousands.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur litte Island is larger than your Lower48. Larger than Europe with England & Ireland thrown in. There was nothing unusual about the heat wave we had & the preditions were BS as I comprehensively showed in:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2013/01/08/australias-climate-bureau-get-used-to-record-breaking-heat/
And: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2013/01/13/its-time-to-accept-the-facts-about-climate-change-and-move-on/
strange how you have failed to adjust your claims re CO2 in light of: http://www.thinkglobalgreen.org/blackcarbon.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice green link for you.
Jan. 15 2013: Black carbon potentially twice as bad as originally thought.
It has a greenhouse effect two-thirds that of CO2, and greater than methane.
"...the very definition of climate is global weather."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, you are so far out of the loop that you don't even get the DEFINITIONS of things. It must be a denier thing...just waltzing into this debate without huge chunks of fundamental knowledge.
I already quoted the actual researchers in that study to you. Dealing with black carbon will help in the short term, but they specifically warned that we STILL need to deal with CO2, otherwise all the gains from reducing black carbon will be "swept under the rug". From your own link:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Because black carbon remains in the atmosphere for only a few days - unlike other greenhouse gases, which may remain in the atmosphere for over a century - reducing black carbon emissions may be among the most effective near-term strategies for slowing global warming and avoiding some of the most imminent climate change tipping points."
CO2 has a half-life in the atmosphere of several decades to nearly a century by comparison. It's just like if you were overweight, smoke and have heart disease. Quitting smoking would be like cutting black carbon. Changing your diet and exercising would be like cutting down on CO2 emissions. Both actions improve your health and lower the odds that you'll have a heart attack or a stroke, but they work at different speeds and through different mechanisms.
I'll be the first one to admit that climate change is a complex issue requiring thousands of different solutions to deal with it. However, until I see you applauding OUR President for enacting stricter soot polution standards and pleading for people to donate to the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (http://www.unep.org/ccac/About/tabid/101649/Default.aspx), then I can be sure you're not entirely serious about the black carbon issue and are merely using it to derail this discussion.
You refuse to admit that this new finding Must substantially reduce the contribution CO2 has contributed to global warming. The degree of warming over the last decade has stalled despite a huge increase in emissions yet you & your ilk cling to the fairytale.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Carlyle:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck this out. It is on youtube, but I originally found it on skepticalscience.com. Kinda refutes your assumption that warming has stalled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk&feature=player_embedded
@rediculous Caroline:
No trolling here; just responding to your insidious claims that some entity (one who you have not identified) wants to control global weather. ZERO political axe to grind; I wish politics were not a part of the predicament we have gotten ourselves into, as politics is the biggest roadblock to potential sustainability.
Sociopath, you say? Don't quite know how to respond to that.
The subject of climate change has already been explored, and, if we have not already altered the composition of the atmosphere in such ways that the results of which are nearly impossible to abate (or at least moderate), we will look back as a species with embarrassment and disgust.
You refer to me with the use of terms such as "dogma" and "Creationism". . . . I am science based, read everything I can from objective sources, have a BA degree from a very good school in environmental science, deal with statistics on a daily basis, and do not believe in any god or an afterlife.
I have been commenting on this site for a couple of years, and have general disputes with other posters (sorry Carlyle), but I have never been referred to as a "troll". I am consistent with what I write, and, when serious (sorry again, Carlyle), my sources are credible.
The only conclusion I can make, by your statements and (to use one of your words) infancy on this site, is that you are the troll.
Nothing that scepticalscience claims can be taken at face value. I do not give them any credibility. There are plenty of much more credible, even what I would call AGW sympathetic sites, that acknowledge that the rate of temperature increase reverted to long term average up to 16 years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisName them, Carlyle. Just interested. What site would you call better, as you do not "give them any credibility"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am busy at work at present but simply google for it. East Anglia in Britain I think. Certainly the BBC recently reported on it & gave references. In the video you linked, no credentials what ever were given for the person in that video. That is exactly the kind of thing scepticalscience does.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is another for you to follow up on: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/spiegel-speculates-on-why-global-warming-stalled/#more-26578
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResearchers Puzzled About Global Warming Standstill
• Date: 18/01/13 Axel Bojanowski, Spiegel Online
How dramatically is global warming really? NASA researchers have shown that the temperature rise has taken a break for 15 years. There are plenty of plausible explanations for why global warming has stalled. However, the number of guesses also shows how little the climate is understood.
Another: Dr. James Hansen and Reto Ruedy of NASA GISS have written a paper (non peer reviewed) with a remarkable admission in it. It is titled Global Temperature Update Through 2012.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay gaia save us all, from the ever present, unintended Obama consequences, and good intentions pavement. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best thing Obama can do immediately to curb global warming is to shut up and stop spewing hot air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResign. B Obama looks nice, his wife and daughters too, but there's a highly powerful warning signal about him: he's the only USA president contemporary to the tyrant Fidel Castro that Castro has praised, and you shouldn't forget that the 2nd star product of the Castrist regime, (a regime that put Cubans into extreme poverty, although shared equally by everybody but some top party members), Ernesto "Che" Guevara, was simply a serial killer. Even more, Obama never gave any explanation on a reason why for his bending of head in front of a King of Arabia. There's nothing like impeachment, before things go much worse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe MIT advocates geothermal as the best power option for the US: http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would complement geothermal with thorium nuclear, which is far more abundant than uranium and fossil fuels combined, is better against proliferation if used in one of its two possible cycles, and is suitable for use in mini-plants the size of a house which could be put in every neighborhood.
world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html
singularityhub.com/2012/12/11/norway-begins-four-year-test-of-thorium-nuclear-reactor/