President Obama was in a good mood Tuesday night at the State of the Union. His “we can fix this” spirit and “built for this moment” words were signs of a White House ready to push a progressive agenda regardless of congressional support. For environmentalists, it proved a watershed moment. Obama discussed efforts to reduce pollution and seek sustainable sources of energy as signature domestic initatives on par with immigration reform and gun control. A new Senate bill on climate change will be introduced this week.
But despite the positive spirit, Obama also admitted defeat. For the first time at that podium, a president conceded that, when it comes to climate change, we are already too late. The litany of destruction that Mother Nature delivered during Obama’s first term will likely be repeated in the years ahead. Even subtracting Hurricane Sandy’s $60 billion price tag, the last two years have brought about utter devastation. There were at least 21 extreme events — floods, droughts, wildfires and storms — that each cost over $1 billion in disaster relief funding.
Comments
Electing Markey to the Senate would help in the effort to fight global warming.
What bill, acts, reform measures, has Markey proposed in his 20+ years?
Markey was head of telecommunication for too many years and did nothing. We are unable to pick and choose the programs we want on our television. The U.S. wireless phones and the high cost of U.S. call plans are the most expensive in the world. The majority of the U.S. phones do not work in Europe. Also, now the U.S. wireless phones are sealing the sim chips so it is impossible to transfer another country's sim chip to enable calls when out of the country.
Tell me again . . . what has Markey done to fight global warning? nada, nada.
You don't know very much about Markey, do you? The Waxman-Markey bill was the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, and it passed the House. Unfortunately the Senate shot it down, but it would have established a cap and trade system to decrease CO2 emissions.
Disaster preparedness might sound good but there are too many climate change nonbelievers and outright government haters in Congress to allow much of anything of substance to be accomplished. Personal opinion, but the Tea Party must be destroyed before any real change can happen, but they have gerrymandered themselves into power - witness the more than one million more democratic votes for the house in the last election - doing nothing works for Tea Party government haters.
If we assume that "climate change" is a real thing, caused by man, how much difference can one little country have on the whole planet's use of carbon based energy? Practically none. But, of course, there is no reason to believe that this theory is true. The bigger truth, is that it is the religious belief in this theory that gives liberals the license to regulate, control, and tax. This is what this is all about.
The idea that more regulation control and taxation could prevent naural disasters, like Sandy, is just plain stupid. But stupidity is what has given us this government, and stupidity will be what continues to grant them power. Wiser people know that even if the US were to stop using all sources of energy that liberals believe cause "climate change", that will only put a minor dent in the planet's overall use of these. But even if the whole planet stopped, we would still have natural disasters.
But since we are now in the season of Lent, those who worship at the alter of "climate change" should be grateful. The nation elected a fellow cult member to be president.
I guess throwing in the towel, as you propose, is one answer. Most Americans I know, however, have a bit more fight in them than that.
excellent moral vision there Richmond. "We're just one country, so screw it." We have a moral responsibility to do SOMETHING.
I love the "if we assume climate change is a real thing" comment. Buddy - time to wake up. 100% of scientists believe climate change is "a real thing" as you put it so eloquently. All you have to do is look at statistics and data, and you can't refute that. 99% of scientists believe it's man-made.
Now, i suppose i should cue the "it's a government conspiracy" response - which is the standard American response these days to anything you don't want to believe is true.
Don't use storms as an argument for climate change. Global temperatures yes, not hurricanes.
Read about the 1938 hurricane in New England- that killed between 600 to 800 people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_New_England_hurricane
What do you say to a person who says there is no climate change? Or who says, there is but there is nothing we can do. How do you converse with a person who says Obama is a secret Muslim or that George Bush planned 09/11? How do you talk to people who believe a woman's body rejects rape sperm? How can a rational discussion be held with folks who simplify the world into "God's will" or Republicans are evil or Dems are all socialists. I have no idea.
I have watched over my years as the conversations that take place at a political and scientific level in this country slip into some bizzare world of utter nonsense and absolutes on both sides. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the comment section and especially when it comes to issues that touch upon the scientific and the moral. One expects nonsense in the moral discussions but in the scientific ones it is outright depressing.
How do you talk to these folks? You don't. You merely hope that brighter minds work on possibilities and solutions.
What do you say to a man with two black eyes? Nothing; he's already been told twice.
Or people who reject vaccines or people who use hurricanes as an example of global warming - or demand ethanol in our fuel even though the process of making the ethanol uses more fossil fuel than just not using ethanol at all.
Luckily for us the use of natural gas by fracking has reduce the carbon footprint in the USA. Not that Obama or Kayyem would admit this.
and no coverage of his worse than Katrina response to Sandy and the BP oil spill. Climate change is BS
Yes, honeyman, BS
This comment has been removed.
I think there's another group that has been overlooked; that is those who believe in climate change, and or the plausibility of same; but who find the cases that have been presented for it so far as lacking credibility.
Why do you say "climate change is BS" ?
It is false.
Why do you think so? Most think it's true.
This comment has been removed.
who are "most"
"most" means a majority.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/07/poll-more-americans-convinced-climate-change/1899487/
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/272969-poll-4-out-of-5-call-climate-change-a-serious-us-problem
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/09/1170901/rasmussen-poll-68-percent-of-american-voters-see-global-warming-as-a-serious-problem/
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-18/record-heat-wave-pushes-u-dot-s-dot-belief-in-climate-change-to-70-percent
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-07-13/national/35488343_1_climate-change-tax-increases-greenhouse-gases
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/science/earth/americans-link-global-warming-to-extreme-weather-poll-says.html?_r=0
This comment has been removed.
Obama! The "Master of Disaster"! The "Failure" of promised responses! The "Leader" of an immoral and unethical bunch!
No, Obama is not the leader of the Republicans.
From the article:
"...the government is considering whether to allow people to use federal funds to rebuild homes in areas that will, inevitably, be at risk once again."
If the government can't figure this one out, we're in deeper trouble than I thought.
if there wasn't government insurance - people would NOT build there - sort of like mortgages and college education.
There is no doubt that there is climate change. We can all pretty much agree there was an ice age? Now there isn't. That would tell us that things have been warming up.
As to whether we are warming up a LOT faster? Because of people? Welllll....it seems back in the 1800's we went into a mini ice age, there was one before that too. Looks like things don't happen on nice straight lines weather wise.
But if you are a scientist, you got to earn your pay somehow! Sorta like those scientists back in the 1400's that just knew the earth was flat.
This comment has been removed.
History, the Industrial Revolution, and the associated burning of coal, then oil and natural gas, started between the late 1700's and early 1800's, depending on where you lived. The argument for a human contribution to a warming of the climate stems from observed increases in carbon deposition in sediment and ice core samples that begin around 1850 or so. That represents a correlation between increased use of fossil fuels, carbon deposition, and increased temperatures. Naturally, that does not prove causation, and it does not prove that in the absense of human activity the observed warming would not occur. It may indeed be solely a natural process, or it may be a natural process exacerbated by human activity. You are quite right that there is no straight line. The hypothesis is derived from observed data. It's not about earning one's pay. And, a hypothesis is subject to revision as more data comes available. There is a stronger argument to be made about 'carbon footprints' if you consider how much cleaner cities like Pittsburgh and London have become once they burned less coal, and how much worse Beijing and Shanghai are getting because of uncontrolled pollution. If you take 'global warming' out of the picture there is still the spectre of health effects from pollution, and exhaustion of finite resources. For scientists and engineers and the like that is an incentive to find better ways to do things so as to avoid the deleterious effects of current activity.
Although, Honeyman, this is a good piece from USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/13/kirsten-powers-state-of-the-union/1914215/
Yes, thanks, I especially liked "Obama is not a liberal visionary with deep desires to institute a progressive agenda. If he is, he's a miserable failure. You need look no further than his own record (starting with foreign policy) and then Tuesday night's speech for evidence."
He's a miserable failure any way you want to cut it.
I should listen more to Chris.
hat world does Chris Matthews live in? The MSNBC anchor on Wednesday saw nothing liberal in Barack Obama's State of the Union. Talking to Chuck Todd, the Hardball anchor puzzled, "There's nothing lefty in here. What's the left-wing part? Objectively, was there a left wing piece to this speech last night? I mean, truly left? I didn't see it."
Again, Obama isn't much of a liberal, much less a radical, as you like to paint him. Why do you think there are real leftists out there who are so unhappy with him?
(such as your friend Kirsten Powers)
"begolfing" Well sad to hear you not be golfing. I just finished although it rained over the last two holes.
Also sorry to say that as many times as you say "climate change" is not agreed upon, it is agreed upon. But let us say the odds are 50-50 that it is caused by man. Do we do nothing? Some folks ask for perfection. Some of us say all we can do is try.
As to left-right - Mandatory health coverage was "right" before it was "left". The extension of American power was "left" before it was "right". Balancing the budget was something Repubs. did before Dems. did it. Deficits didn't matter on the right but mattered on the left until it mattered o the right. You really believe this left-right nonsense. Currently Reagan is a lefty and Ike bloody close to being a Commie. And Nixon my God the man wanted mandatory insurance through employers.
It's all politics, forget left-right and as the question about the politcy not the politics.
Not only from Nature but also from every word that he eloquently sprews on us taxpayer in the name of CHANGE for IMPROVING THIS COUNTRY similar to a sunk ship
Ahh a word from the modern "knownothing" Party. Let us skip the discussion of the issue and go straight to the insulting of one political party or another or one pol or another. The issue? Who cares? Who knows? That's why it is called the "knownothing Party".
Gee Attaturk, I thought you provided a great description of that "other party".
Run the earth into the ground. We can always find a new one.
Not likely that we would find a new one, but there's no lack of non-eukaryotic life on the planet that will carry on happily in harsh environments long after we've wiped ourselves out.
This comment has been removed.
The sad thing is that back in the thirties we had the ability to get unpolluting energy. I could prove my
point but I dare not since it will be shot down immediately. Why state the truth when the truth is the last thing most people want to hear. Why debate with a man who blocks his ears?
"Why debate with a man who blocks his ears?" Thank you. I'm going to put that up over my desk.
............accompany it with "and who doesn't lipread"
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
The fact that climate change is a natural phenomenon gives us MORE reason to be concerned the effects of CO2 and methane relesed to the atmosphere, not less. If the climate was naturally very static and unmovable, it would be less likely that mere humans could knock it off kilter. The fact that it is changable means that pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is very likely to affect what would otherwisebe the natural path, rate and magnitude of change.