Obama Announces New Climate Plan

[lynnvinc]

None, probably because the last 17 years of no increases didn’t happen. Temperature and CO2 concentrations have both been rising since 1996, since 98, since 2005, etc. Ocean temperatures and concentrations tell this best because unlike the air, they rise steadily rather than bouncing around a lot. And the slope is consistently upward. I’ll post the research if you’d like; didn’t both to here, as I think you and I both know you’d probably just ignore it.

I already posted the graph that showed both the rises in atmospheric and ocean temps (with the ocean temps rising more greatly). Perhaps they don’t understand that heat energy can be stored in more than one place, that we have to look in all places (land, sea, and sky) to get an idea about the heat imbalance caused by increasing GHGs. It would be good if they would get a good book on AGW and read about it, instead of parroting whatever deceptions the fossil fuel-funded denialist industry spews out. It seems futile trying to explain AGW. But I will never give up, even with my dying breath I will continue the good fight for life on planet earth.

Just imagine, if everyone were mitigating AGW, I could then turn more attention to fighting against other threats to life, or at least get back to my regularly scheduled life. As a Christian, I simply cannot give up working against the forces of death and deceptions of the devil (or dev-oil), no matter if I have to give my own life to that cause.

 

[lynnvinc]

Actually I thought passing the law would prove that people were evil by taking advantage of the poor and helpless making their lot in life worse while further enriching the wealthy and powerful at their expense.

No, it only shows that Congress is exceedingly evil bec it has failed to act when it could very well do much better than the options open to the prez. It could pass a “fee & dividend” bill, which would not harm the poor. But it would rather support a pro-death platform and not care at all about the poor, who will be (and are) suffering much more greatly from the impacts of AGW than the wealthy.

Pres. Obama is just doing what is open for him to do. It is not enough, but it is something, and for that we need to be very thankful.

Congress could still pass a revenue neutral “fee & dividend” bill that could actually be used by the poor to help them climb out of poverty, if they so choose the route of becoming energy/resource efficient/conservative and go on alt energy when feasible.

 

[torch621]

How long long do you think before this turns to manure, seeing as how everything else this God-hating government touches turns into it?

 

[estesbob]

Bec it fails to take into account that human nature is fallen, and added to that our culture has taught us to be greedy, lazy, mean, selfish, and pretty much bad…even to the extent of harming our own selves bec of wrong and evil thinking.

So you’re probably right – nothing good will come of it, bec people are NOT good. Only God is good, and who cares about God anymore.

But at any rate, I applaud Obama for trying. And I will continue to strive and do my best, even tho it is less than a drop in the bucket. Where there is life there is hope…and hope for everlasting life.

Nothing will come of it because most recognize it for what it its.A massive tax and regulation scheme designed to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

 

[SamH]

And how many computer models have successfully perfectly predicted the stock market? None. Most aren’t even close. And yet, every major brokerage in the world still uses the highest tech computers they can, and hires the best modellers to write the most intricate algorithms they can come up with to describe the system. Obviously it isn’t for nothing. Just because the computer models don’t predict things close to perfectly doesn’t mean they aren’t a lot better than nothing.

And some models have in fact been successful. Here’s a good example:climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/VEAChapter1_Robocknew.pdf

Prediction of climate response to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.

A less esoteric description here: e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/141

I don’t see the federal government passing laws forcing you to give your money to stock brokers.

 

[SamH]

Nothing will come of it because most recognize it for what it its.A massive tax and regulation scheme designed to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

Actually they don’t even claim to “solve” the problem.

 

[SamH]

No, it only
Pres. Obama is just doing what is open for him to do. It is not enough, but it is something, and for that we need to be very thankful.
.

Greatful for higher energy costs and a destroyed economy? Didn’t Bush already do that?

 

[lynnvinc]

…You are wanting families to be forced to move closer to where they work?..

I said no such thing.

There are 100s of things people can do to reduce their GHGs that save money and save the earth (and life thereupon). Moving closer to work and schools is just one of them. I gave it as an example of how it would help the people financially and in other ways, as well as help life on earth, mitigating a host of problems, including AGW. And I forgot to mention reduce risk of accidents.

If it is not feasible for a family to move closer, then there are 100s of other things they can do. Perhaps if they live in a suburb and work in the city, they could look into public transportation…leave the driving and headache to the bus-driver or train engineer. When factoring in costs, people should not only think of the gasoline, but also car maintenance (tires, breaks, etc.).

When we lived in Aurora, IL (8 blocks from my husband’s job) and I got a job in another suburb, Joliet, there was no public transportation and some rough roads connecting the 2 burbs. I found someone at my workplace who also lived in Aurora and we carpooled, cutting our driving miles and expenses about in half (occasionally we had to go separately).

If one is really keen about saving money and saving the earth, there are simply 100s of things one can do. So I encourage everyone to give it a tiny bit of thought and maybe take one or two baby steps in the direction, just to test the waters. I’m sure the vast majority of people will be able to come up with solutions that save them a lot more money than whatever the increase is on fossil fuels (BTW their price volatility causes much more increase than any gov fee that can be imagined…so the savings in mitigating AGW will probably be greater than one originally calculated).

We personally have made it a point to live close to work for over 44 years (and I do not even include that in my GHG reduction since 1990 calculation), initially due to my concern over using up a finite resource, saving it for future generations. So it’s sort of mind-boggling to me that others have not been doing the same.

And also mind-boggling that Americans have NOT been building at least passive solar homes since the 70s energy crunch, which can be built for about the same price or a bit more than conventional homes, and in fact the world has been building them for over 2500 years - see amazon.com/Golden-Thread-Years-Architecture-Technology/dp/0442240058. We seem to be the only prodigal types who refuse to use common sense and save cents and the planet.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I sincerely hope and pray China and India do not follow the U.S., which would mean total disaster, but would take a better path, one of energy/resource efficiency/conservation and going on alt energy. And it seems they are more open to that path than the U.S. is.

However, for villages that do not yet have electricity, I think it is totally unfair for us to tell them not to get it. Their children, if the family were to get a single light and a table fan to keep the mosquitos off, should have the opportunity to study and hope to go to college just like our children. It’s good those countries are interested in wind and solar power. They (at least India) are already fairly energy efficient, with CF and LED bulbs, etc.

Some are even making their own verticle-axis wind-generators out of 55 gal drums…bec of the very frequent and long current cuts.

China has already surpassed the U.S. in CO2 emissions and is heading at breakneck speed to do it even more. India will catch up, if it hasn’t already.

I understand helping third world kids have electric lights and a fan. I also understand that there are older people in this country who can barely keep their homes heated in the winter. Obama, of course, wants to make their utility bills “skyrocket”. If you’re going to sympathize with the third world kids, you have to sympathize with those in the U.S. who would like to be warm in the winter. If you do, you are morally obligated to oppose Obama’s programs.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, it only shows that Congress is exceedingly evil bec it has failed to act when it could very well do much better than the options open to the prez. It could pass a “fee & dividend” bill, which would not harm the poor. But it would rather support a pro-death platform and not care at all about the poor, who will be (and are) suffering much more greatly from the impacts of AGW than the wealthy.

Pres. Obama is just doing what is open for him to do. It is not enough, but it is something, and for that we need to be very thankful.

Congress could still pass a revenue neutral “fee & dividend” bill that could actually be used by the poor to help them climb out of poverty, if they so choose the route of becoming energy/resource efficient/conservative and go on alt energy when feasible.

Obama has never proposed a “fee and dividend” bill. He just wants to make utility bills “skyrocket”. He said it himself. At least some people in congress would give the poor a break by allowing utility and transportations to go down. That helps them too.

 

[lynnvinc]

China has already surpassed the U.S. in CO2 emissions and is heading at breakneck speed to do it even more. India will catch up, if it hasn’t already.

If you figure…

1. 
   *]The population of China and their per capita emissions, they are much much lower than per capita emissions in the U.S.
   *]The GHGs involved in manufactoring products that are shipped to us in the U.S. – those are OUR GHG emissions.
   
   …then I’d say we beat China hands down in GHG emissions.
   

   I understand helping third world kids have electric lights and a fan. I also understand that there are older people in this country who can barely keep their homes heated in the winter. Obama, of course, wants to make their utility bills “skyrocket”. If you’re going to sympathize with the third world kids, you have to sympathize with those in the U.S. who would like to be warm in the winter. If you do, you are morally obligated to oppose Obama’s programs.

   The poor elderly on fixed incomes are the ones who could benefit financially the most from reducing their GHG emissions, so I see nothing wrong in having some gov fees to spur them out of their rocking chairs and into caulking their windows, etc.
   
   As for ourselves, we will be retiring in about a year. We’ve invested in earth-saving products that had high up-front costs, but will be saving us lots of money during our retirement years. Our Volt is saving us at least $1500 a year (not figuring more savings with rising gasoline costs), and we’re calculating that the solar panels we are about to install will be saving us from $1000 to $1500 a year (not figuring in more savings with rising electricity costs).
   
   We’ve also lived very frugal lives and had squirreled away good savings and investments (for instance our SunFrost frig, which we bought in 1991 is still saving us over $100 a year, as are our low-flow showerheads, etc).
   
   It’s too bad other people do not think about investing in their children’s future by doing the EC (environmentally correct) things; otherwise, they’d now be sailing into retirement with nest-eggs that pay off.
   
   I can’t hold everyone’s hand on this, and if people refuse to listen to sound advice, I can’t force people to do the right things. It’s just too bad people are either unaware or committed to doing the wrong things. They reap what they sow.
   
   I am morally obliged to help save lives (and reduce my own harm to people), and an important way to do that is by getting people to reduced their GHG emissions. If the elderly insist on harming and killing the poor of the world and future generations (incl their own progeny) by living high on the energy/resource hog without any efforts at efficiency/conservation or going on alt energy, I don’t really have much power to convince them not to do so. They make their practical, moral, and spiritual choices.

 

[lynnvinc]

Obama has never proposed a “fee and dividend” bill. He just wants to make utility bills “skyrocket”. He said it himself. At least some people in congress would give the poor a break by allowing utility and transportations to go down. That helps them too.

Congress is the body responsible for passing legislation, so it is pretty much out of Obama’s hands, except for his bill-signing power. See my previous post on this, and see that these are Congressional (House and Senate) bills…that pretty much don’t have a chance in an anti-environment Congress.

As for Obama, he’s just doing what he can within the executive branch, which isn’t a whole lot, and it does not include the ability to establish a “fee and dividend” law. That has to come from Congress.

Maybe if we all write our Congressmen (reps and senators) to pass such a bill, that might help.

 

[scipio337]

…The poor elderly on fixed incomes are the ones who could benefit financially the most from reducing their GHG emissions, so I see nothing wrong in having some gov fees to spur them out of their rocking chairs and into caulking their windows, etc…

Compassionate environmentalism!

Meanwhile, the life expectancy in northern China has dropped 5 years in the last 19 due to coal use.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/08/chinas-coal-pollution-is-much-deadlier-than-anyone-realized/

I suppose that still beats the life expentancy of “freezing to death”.

 

[SamH]

Congress is the body responsible for passing legislation, so it is pretty much out of Obama’s hands, except for his bill-signing power. See my previous post on this, and see that these are Congressional (House and Senate) bills…that pretty much don’t have a chance in an anti-environment Congress.
.

Who pushed Obamacare? Who pushed the porkulus (stimulus) spending bill?

 

[Ridgerunner]

If you figure…

1. 
   *]The population of China and their per capita emissions, they are much much lower than per capita emissions in the U.S.
   *]The GHGs involved in manufactoring products that are shipped to us in the U.S. – those are OUR GHG emissions.
   
   …then I’d say we beat China hands down in GHG emissions.
   
   The poor elderly on fixed incomes are the ones who could benefit financially the most from reducing their GHG emissions, so I see nothing wrong in having some gov fees to spur them out of their rocking chairs and into caulking their windows, etc.

1. 
   Wait and see how much CO2 China pumps into the atmosphere. It grows all the time. I doubt you’ve seen anything yet.
   
   So you would see U.S. industry shut down because of CO2 emissions, then continue to blame the U.S. because it has to buy the products from China or somewhere. Kind of seems your objective is to blame and punish Americans, no matter what, and no matter that nothing we do will actually reduce MMGW if it exists. Maybe you should just get Russia to nuke the U.S. or something. That would certainly reduce American carbon emissions, or well, it would if they used neutron bombs only.
   
   Maybe the government would caulk old peoples’ windows with cake, huh? By golly, we need to get their creaky old bones out of those rocking chairs and on stepladders to caulk their windows, huh? And if their windows are already caulked? And the little kids in city and country whose parents can barely afford to keep the heat on, well, maybe they can burn their crayons to keep warm.
   
   This really is awful Lynnvinc. Really callous and awful. You can do better than this. Obama can’t and never will be anything but cruel to the poor and the elderly. But you don’t have to follow his lead in this.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Congress is the body responsible for passing legislation, so it is pretty much out of Obama’s hands, except for his bill-signing power. See my previous post on this, and see that these are Congressional (House and Senate) bills…that pretty much don’t have a chance in an anti-environment Congress.

As for Obama, he’s just doing what he can within the executive branch, which isn’t a whole lot, and it does not include the ability to establish a “fee and dividend” law. That has to come from Congress.

Maybe if we all write our Congressmen (reps and senators) to pass such a bill, that might help.

Obama can propose bills to Congress. But he has not proposed one on this fee and dividend business. Remember, he proposed a “gun control” bill that didn’t even pass the Senate, but he proposed it anyway. Lynnvinc, he doesn’t WANT a fee and dividend bill. He would like the “fee” part of it, and will get it through EPA fines. He doesn’t want to pay the “dividend” part to poor people. There aren’t enough of them. He’s more into middle class and corporate welfare.

 

[lynnvinc]

Obama can propose bills to Congress. But he has not proposed one on this fee and dividend business. Remember, he proposed a “gun control” bill that didn’t even pass the Senate, but he proposed it anyway. Lynnvinc, he doesn’t WANT a fee and dividend bill. He would like the “fee” part of it, and will get it through EPA fines. He doesn’t want to pay the “dividend” part to poor people. There aren’t enough of them. He’s more into middle class and corporate welfare.

That’s typical of most presidents, and Obama no less – re pandering to the middle class and corporate welfare. And he never would have gotten elected Senator from IL without S. IL coal on board.

I don’t really consider Obama much of an environmentalist, and perhaps he doesn’t know about he “fee and dividend” idea, or he is still beholden to the fossil fuel industries, bec I think “fee and dividend” might actually be more effective in getting people to reduce their GHG emissions (reducing their coal and oil use), whereas Cap&Trade and his plan probably won’t have nearly as much of an effect, only raising fuel costs, but not getting people to lower their fossil fuel consumption (thru efficiency/conservation/alt-energy), keeping the fossil fuel industries happy.

Or, maybe he’s a good chess player, and figures if he plans to do something behind Congress’s back, they’ll dust off the “Fee&Dividend” and sail it thru. Anything to go against the one they hate Sort of reverse psychology. But I doubt that’s the case.

I also think he has been having bitter experiences with Congress and really doesn’t want to propose anything (or perhaps save his proposals for issues closer to his heart), esp since anything he proposes is considered bad before they even consider it. There’s almost a “let the economy be hurt if it will hurt Obama” attitude from his 1st term carried into his 2nd term just to dump on him. It sort of seems that way to me and my husband.

 

[JamesCaruso]

There is simply so much hyperbole and heated debate regarding climate change and its possible causes that the opposition, no matter which side you are on, has served, at the very least, to call your belief, whatever it is, into serious question. Several posts ago I read that NASA has now discovered that carbon dioxide actually has a cooling effect, not a warming one, thereby eliminating the major scientific hypothesis of proponents of MMGW. But if you check the internet you will not find the other side surrendering any ground. So far I have found one “debunking” of the media’s interpretation of the NASA report. If the past holds true, new rebuttals will appear. Also, I did note a new study that it is chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, that is causing global warming. phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html

As a concerned citizen with no dog in the fight, all I want is a rational plan for correcting any behaviors that most experts agree have a link to seriously damaging the earth, or a refutation of same by most experts. It would be logical to wait until the dust settles on the recent NASA report. I have to go with “most experts” because it’s all I have to go on, unless someone can prove a systemic cause for error in their findings. I think I may be asking for too much. Apparently, we do not live in a rational world.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I also think he has been having bitter experiences with Congress and really doesn’t want to propose anything (or perhaps save his proposals for issues closer to his heart), esp since anything he proposes is considered bad before they even consider it. There’s almost a “let the economy be hurt if it will hurt Obama” attitude from his 1st term carried into his 2nd term just to dump on him. It sort of seems that way to me and my husband.

he proposes anything he thinks will satisfy some constituency, even the environmentalist constituency. But helping the poor is just not one of his concerns.

Lynnvinc, I don’t think the most avid anti-Obama person wants the economy to be hurt. On the contrary. I oppose Obama, and always did, because of his being a promoter of abortion. To that he has now added being an oppressor of the Church and a profaner of marriage. I would oppose him for those reasons no matter what. But if he had good ideas for the economy, I would favor those ideas.

Unfortunately, I know too many small business people, and am one myself. I and they know what he has done to the economy and what he threatens. That’s why the labor participation rate is so low and money that could be invested in job creation is instead being thrown at the stock market like a lottery. But I also know small manufacturers that use energy, depend on transportation and reasonable material costs. I know farmers who depend on fuel costs. All of that involves energy, to the production of which Obama is hostile.

But for radicalism, this economy and jobs would have recovered long ago. And as anyone can see, when it comes to MMGW, Obama himself doesn’t believe in it.

 

[scipio337]

That’s typical of most presidents, and Obama no less – re pandering to the middle class and corporate welfare. And he never would have gotten elected Senator from IL without S. IL coal on board…

Are you kidding me?? Have you seen Southern Illinois elect any rabidly pro-choice and anti-gun candidates? Not to mention, he had virtually no opponent in 2004.