Slashdot Mirror
Obama's Climate Plans Face Long Fight
An anonymous reader writes "He hasn't even given his Tuesday speech yet but Obama's plans to tackle climate change are already raising objections in Washington. From the article: 'When President Barack Obama lays out plans to tackle climate change in a speech Tuesday, including the first effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants, he will unleash a years-long battle that has little assurance of being resolved during his time in office. The president has called climate change a "legacy issue," and his speech may head off a backlash from environmentalists should his administration approve the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada. But the address is unlikely to blunt criticism of Mr. Obama's approach from the left or the right.'"
If he approves Keystone it will be war.
Why did someone mod this as a "Troll" post?
It's a valid damn question, especially in light with all the revelations that Anthropocentric Global Warming isn't as advertised (Which is to say that many are now saying we're cooling...much like the big to-do was about Global Cooling some 30 or so years ago and the reports of at least the models and the samples being dead wrong...)
Well it seems like a troll to the warmists, especially seeing as the claim of "cooling" is bogus - the warming trends have been well below what the models predicted, but there hasn't really been global cooling, just a leveling off of the warming. Plus, I think the party line is that the trends indicate that some explanation is needed for what is happening (ocean sinks, larger seasonal trends than average, using decadal averaging instead of annual, etc.), but that climate change is still indisputable scientific fact, and the evidence is mid-western tornadoes and SuperStorm Sandy.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The Average American (of which I am not one), tends to have higher productivity on the planet than most other people.
Uh, what? By what measurement? Most Americans don't produce anything.
It's hard for a peasant in a rice field to produce much waste or pollution or CO2. Yet. What you have to watch is emerging economies where pollution and waste controls are absent.
In theory, that's true. In practice, people in those countries can't afford anything anyway. They're having to turn to efficiency just to exist. They're using rocket stoves which reduce emissions because they can only get a few sticks to cook their food with, or they're shoveling their pigshit into a pile and running a gas hose in from there, and so on.
America as a whole has been on a pretty reasonable post industrialization trajectory
Reasonable according to who? Those who live a life of privilege due to the pollution involved?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Five minutes of reading about volcanic gas emisions and sun spots should convince you that your claims are false....
Except I wasn't talking about gas emissions from volcanoes.
I was talking about the basic frequency of volcanic and geologic activity. Let's just say "Earthquakes" so we can stay clear of preconceptions.
Earthquake frequency is steadily rising, and this, among the other non-emission related items indicated, are tightly linked to the climate change events we are experiencing today.
People are clinging to the belief that climate change MUST be our fault, and therefore is also within our power to fix.
It isn't.
As for reading about sun spots. . , I suggest you do some.
That is what environmentalist want.
This is why people calling themselves environmentalists have opposed:
1) all hydrocarbon development of any kind, including natural gas and fracking (which oddly enough plays well with the coal lobby...)
2) wind power because of the non-existent "negative health impacts of infrasound"
3) solar power under the false auspices of "concerns about toxins"
4) long-range power transmission (building new transmission lines or upgrading/expanding old ones) because of concerns about the non-existent "electro-sensitivity" of some psychologically disturbed individuals
5) nuclear power development because "environmentalists" have prevented anything being done to improve waste disposal or development of newer and safer reactors over the past 30 years
And so on.
Every self-proclaimed "environmentalist" will tell you they are all for "new technology" but turn out to be absolutely against any particular project you specifically mention.
Given that someone calling themself an "environmentalist" is opposed to every single option other than returning to the stone age, it is a little difficult to reclaim the term at this point.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.