Slashdot Mirror
Obama Reveals Climate Change Plan
Today President Obama gave a speech outlining the administration's plan to take on climate change. (Video of the speech available on YouTube, and the White House published an infographic as well.) Most significantly, Obama's plan would have the EPA set limits on carbon pollution from all U.S. power plants, a goal already meeting resistance from Republicans. The plan also sets the goal of funding enough solar- and wind-based energy projects on public lands to power over 6 million homes by 2020. By 2030, it aims to use efficiency standards to reduce carbon pollution by 3 billion metric tons. Obama called for new efforts to deal with extreme weather like Hurricane Sandy. He also pointed out the difficulty in getting emerging industrial economies to be environmentally conscious. To that end, the plan calls for the end of U.S. support for financing coal power plants in foreign countries, unless those plants use carbon capture and sequestration technologies. The speech addressed the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry up to 800,000 gallons of oil per day from Canada into the U.S. Obama indicated that approval for the pipeline would be tied to emissions goals.
I don't understand what this post has to do with Obama battling ManBearPig.
Not to mention that reducing our use of oil might be a good way to stop sending piles of our cash to places like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. I'd rather spend $2 on R&D to improve technology than $1 on importing oil: the latter is cheaper in the short-term, but not really in the long-term.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
>> Obama called for new efforts to deal with extreme weather like Hurricane Sandy.
Like move coastal populations so we aren't always on the hook for rebuilding people's beach houses?
>> the plan calls for the end of U.S. support for financing coal power plants in foreign countries
We're doing what? And they wonder why taxpayers hate the federal government...
Friends of the Earth's climate and energy program director Damon Moglen said the President's climate plan is "not enough" and needs to be more ambitious.
http://www.foe.org/news/archives/2013-06-statement-on-president-obamas-climate-plan
Well isn't doing something like this, which causes so much angst from the energy sector and Republicans, at least a step in the right direction? Using a US football analogy, we can't always make a touchdown with every effort isn't a heroic 9-yard run a good start? Being any more ambitious with the President's plan would risk all-out resistance from every billion-dollar lobby and politician.
Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC.
What power shortage would be cause by government regulation?
Sounds more like because people failed to meet a regulation.
I don't get a check from the IRS when I screw up my taxes. I don't understand how someone who supposedly supports capitalism is ok with externalities.
You'd think a FEW of them would, I dunno, work as scientists or something.
DP: So you feel that a lot of scientists have sold their souls?
It's that line specifically that makes me feel comfortable totally ignoring anything else he says. I feel a lot of radio talk show hosts never had any souls to begin with.
Not for nothing are the Republicans known as "the stupid party."
Well, I didn't think it was possible for the U.S. to fuck over third world countries any harder. But then!
To that end, the plan calls for the end of U.S. support for financing coal power plants in foreign countries ... And STAY down, Africa.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
US already has a climate change plan - destroy the climate! I don't see why he'd want to change horses midstream...
I too find this questionable. "Well see if it negatively impacts the environment before we approve it," is not at all reassuring given that he's already been told numerous times that it will.
But I suppose saying something is a little bit better than the usual ignoring the issue. And the NRDC certainly seems happy. I'm going to allow myself to hope it's just a more politic way to shut it down, but I'm not going to be surprised if it isn't.
I am not a climate scientist. So someone please help me to understand how and why the ice caps melting is a perfectly okay thing? I'm not asking whether or not the ice caps melting is man made. It's another discussion and certainly one which is harder to prove or observe. But we've got ice melting that has been frozen for many, many planetary cycles giving scientists access to a wealth of new data on earth's history.
How is it not climate change?
I have an extremely open mind. Just lay out some reasons why it's not climate change. Is the melting ice a lie? Bigger lies have been told after all. What's the deal? I *want* to believe climate change is a hoax. It just doesn't look like one to me.
So a radio talk show host, along with a single scientist well known in the community for his outspoken opinions on climate change, on one side of the argument, and then a vast, vast body of peer-reviewed work and many hundreds of disparate and inter-arguing (ie, non-colluding) scientists on the other. Oh, and facts.
Yeah, my mind is open. A talk radio host is not going to change it.
Tying the Keystone XL to emissions is clever. Sure the tar sands are amongst the filthiest forms of oil , but if emissions are limited, it really doesn't matter since emissions is the point of the sword that kills and everything else is, in the final analysis irrelevant.
If XL is not built, there is nothing stopping the oil from coming in on rail and it's not clear how punishing that would be to the industry.
Emissions are the business end of all policy. Going after emissions is exactly the right thing to do. It creates the environment where innovative technologies that cut emissions are differentially rewarded by the marketplace. Nothing like enlisting greed in your cause.
If big oil and coal want to develop a zero emission technology then they can light this shit on fire until there's none left and it wouldn't matter one bit.
Another great thing about this policy is it will force the retirement of some of the dirtiest fucking coal plants around the country and stop the creation of new dirty ones since investors aren't going to invest in them if they're never going to see the light of day.
This is exactly the right message to send. Make carbon emission expensive and prohibit the worst of it. Spend big on R and D.
Having to pay much more for electricity will mean having less money left over for food, which means less obesity! Now we just need to increase gasoline taxes so they will get more exercise as well. On top of that, high energy consumers, such as, you know, factories, will have to cut down production, perhaps even close down completely, further reducing the pollution! There is just no end to the benefits from artificially inflating the cost of energy.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
So, we're going to start trying to nix the primary way we generate electricity...and not go nuclear even though we can recycle buried waste into power...and instead we're going to cut down a bunch of trees on public land and toss up solar and wind farms? Yeah, that's logical.
This is purely political and not about the environment or climate change. The climate changes naturally, and adapts to the creatures (us and everything else on earth) and their affects on it. If anything we should be burning less coal from switching to nuclear plants.
I'll just leave this here. http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/MIT-Develops-Meltdown-Proof-Nuclear-Waste-Eating-Reactor.html
The hypothesis to base limiting carbon dioxide emissions on is that they cause damage to the commons.
Fine, if that's so then limiting them is a bad solution. I understand that it may be worth it for the benefits of the activity. That's fine too. Why is any harm allowed free of cost? Publicly fund research to put a dollar figure on the current marginal damage done by carbon dioxide emissions as well as on the cost to cleanup. Take the minimum of those two values and just tax the emissions at that rate, plus maybe a small percentage markup, right from the start. That way costs are borne by the people causing the harm. They are incentivized to minimize harm even at rates under what would have been the cap. Market forces will determine whether it's worth it and by how much and what amount should be prevented versus cleaned.
The two weaknesses here are monitoring, which is just as much a problem with capping, and determining the cost. The research wont come to a perfect solution, but we can improve it over time. It'll have to be reevaluated periodically anyway since the cost is probably non-linear. In any case I don't see how that's more questionable than coming up with the cap figure. Liberals should be happy with this solution since it more strictly limits than what we have today. Conservative should be happy because everyone pays his fair share and the market gets to work. In reality liberals would hate it because it murders the Earth, and conservatives would hate it because it murders jobs. Both hating it seems just as good as both loving it.
What, that the mean average temperature would continue to rise, the ocean level would increase, the ice sheets would recede and the [CO2] would increase?
Sure, some of the wildest "worst case" predictions might not have happened, but the overall thing that science has been pointing to for the past 30 years? It has happened as predicted. You can measure that, and we do.
The effects are also measurable, and again, we note those down.
It's only controversial because the answers are incompatible with big businesses making vast profits from coal, oil and other fossils, so they've paid a great deal of money to make sure people *know* it's controversial, because they say it is. Not because it actually is.
saying pipeline can't be completed unless it cuts greenhouse emissions, Obama has shown himself to be a moron of the highest caliber.
Energy use drives progress and has lengthened human life and quality of life. This fake "environmentalism" is just mask on religion of man-haters.
Real environmentalism and the best thing for the human race is to go to clean and powerful energy sources that are superior to the polluting fossil fuels, such as advanced nuclear reactor designs that can't melt down and have no long-term waste products.
Too many middle-income families already struggle paying for gas, raising those taxes wouldn't solve anything. Cycling infrastructure should be setup by local governments, not federal. High-speed rail should be setup by the private sector, not public. 0 for 3
It's just business sense.
1) Those technologies and data center locations save the company money through energy costs and government subsidies. 2) They get to spin it as good PR -- Hey Look at us all green and eco-friendly and carbon neutral!
I'm not disagreeing that they're doing potentially good things, but you're deluded if you think the motives are altruistic.
Someone wrote something about that a couple hundred years ago: "But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only... It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages."
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
Pie in the sky while American children in Appalachia go to bed hungry every night. Clean coal is as just possible as cost effective solar/wind and its made in America.
At $0.50-0.60 a watt for today's solar panels, we're almost at the point where people can power their own homes. Unless of course you live where it rains constantly, like the pacific NW, lol. Oh and cloudy days/night time? There are energy storage solutions available - flywheels for example.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Rather than picking winners and losers and setting arbitrary limits they should be using carbon and fuel taxes.
Under Obama's plan, operations that could pollute less will pollute exactly their limit, places where higher output and thus higher emissions would be actually more efficient in terms of greenhouse gases per MW will instead operate at lower efficiency, the government will spend billions of dollars subsidizing Solyndra wannabes, and actual gas use by consumers will change little no matter how they try to regulate the auto industry.
With carbon and fuel taxes, consumers and corporations would all have better incentives to improve their emissions, the market would decide the best way to allocate resources, energy innovation would be encouraged, there would be tremendously less deadweight loss, and the government could either reduce other taxes or reduce its absurdly large deficits.
People from all across the political spectrum who are informed and honest agree that this, not hard caps or cap-and-trade, is the way to go. But politicians like Obama would rather trash the nation's economy and not actually accomplish any climate progress than touch the third rail of fossil fuel taxes.
In a "town hall" conversation where I brought this up with my Congresscritter- a Tea Party diehard who I'm frequently frustrated with- I was shocked to hear him admit that raising gas taxes and using the revenue to either reduce deficits or reduce taxes on productive behavior is a very good idea. But, he said, it'll never fly, so I'm not going to try to push it. If everybody who knew it's the right thing to do got behind it and tried to educate the populace rather than hiding behind a smokescreen, pretty soon the idea would fly, with bipartisan support.
When the feds put a coal plant out of business because of more stringent emissions standards make it uneconomical to operate, then regulations put it out of business.
Plants that are economical now will not be soon solely due to actions of the Feds.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You can have all the opinions you want. If you want me to seriously consider them you might want to have some actual credentials or education, or even a functional understanding of the topic.
How did I imply it would be free? I said I was willing to pay $2 in R&D to save $1 in oil. Obviously that means I'm expecting and willing to pay a 2x premium.
That's a 1x premium.
A premium is on top of the standard price. It is the amount which is over. It is 2 - 1 = 1.
The same goes when saying shit is x times faster or x % bigger.
A 10 inch cock is twice as big as a 5 inch cock. It is 2 times as big. It is 200% the size.
A 10 inch cock is once bigger than a 5 inch cock. It is 1 time bigger. It is 100% bigger in size.
The Slasdogma of idolizing European and Japanese bicycle-based transit seems to be overlooking a couple significant factors.
1) The USA is big, big enough that you can't just bike from NYC to Chicago in an afternoon. While the full EU does start to resemble this sort of bigness, you can still bike from the middle of any language region to a place where you can't understand anyone in a couple hours at worst. (although that criteria can also be met just by taking a bike tour of NYC)
2) On a continent where bicycles are the most reasonable mode of transportation for most people, there will be a fairly well established bicycle etiquette, and other forms of transportation will be outliers. In the USA, most bikers are assholes. Seriously, take the road-rage of New Jersey, toss in the smug arrogance of Slashdot, and double it all.
3) Winter. Due to the nature of oceanic currents, and gulf currents, and mountain ranges, much of the USA has winters that would make Swedes think it was the Fimbulwinter and Loki was on the verge of domination. This is not a universal truth, but most of the locations that do not have a tendency for winters that can freeze human blood will be known for summers that can boil asphalt. A few lucky locations will experience both.
And when the IRS wants 10% more each year just because, and without respect to your income, they will soon run you into bankruptcy, not because you screwed up your taxes.
Same thing here. Emissions of X is legal now, but will soon be illegal. If they manage to reduce it to meet the new standards, they will ratchet it down again until it is not economically feasible to operate.
HE FUCKING SAID THIS IN 2008
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
This has nothing to do with saving the planet. It's a totally transparent (!) and cynical attempt to change the subject away from the web of scandals entangling Obama.
Then you should be the first fucker to sit in the dark.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
But if it did mean Africa getting generally warmer, remind me again what life saving air conditioning runs on?
You can't air-condition crop fields. Africa is likely to experience withering droughts which will worse starvation and wars over access to water. The explosive civil war in Darfur was between two ethnic / religious groups who were rivals for the same farmland and water access.
But if you insist that air-conditioning is the answer, and if we're footing the bill, then why not run your air-conditioning off of power sources that are renewable? For crying out loud, the only thing coal has going for it is price of fuel. Even gas generation would be better for Africa (especially if we export fracking technology), and something without logistics and resupply issues like wind or solar would reduce the impact of war in the region.
I mean, sheesh, think. It's not like "no coal = no electricity for you, you primitives!"
Yea, noone on NPR has EVER provided any insight. Radio sucks, rite?
(for the record, Im a republican, but the only right-wing radio I've heard is pretty obnoxious. NPR can be obnoxious and has its own issues, but at least they dont yell)
How about banning the auto dealer laws that some states use to block competition, which are preventing electric car manufacturers like Tesla from becoming more popular?
Moving to electric cars is not THE answer to climate change problems, but it's a part of it, and getting rid of such ridiculous restrictions is a pretty low-hanging-fruit thing to do.
True. But if you agree that emitting CO2 is a bad thing -- a bad thing that may be thought of as a cost -- and that the regulation more or less accurately captures that cost, (I appreciate that these are a lot of assumptions, but they're necessary to isolate the issue that we're talking about) then all the regulation does is to capture a previously external cost as an internal economic one. The plants that go out of business in this environment will be the ones that the regulations reveal to have been a net consumer, not a producer, of value all along. I wouldn't lose much sleep about that.
caritj.org
Since peaking in 2005, US carbon emissions have dropped a gigaton per year. This was mainly due to switching almost half of coal-powered to electricity to cheaper and cleaner natural gas. This is near the goal [unratified] Kyoto treaty of 5% below 1990 levels. Since this was acheived by market forces rather than government regulation, Obama and environmentalists almost completely ignore this achievement. Obamas new proposal will lower US CO2 output even more.
The stupidity of their stubborn resistance is that a project like this would be a huge boon for states that are solidly Republican.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
There is no simple one step answer to all of this (and iron fertilization is certainly not as simple or safe as it seems), regardless of any method we take, we still have to lower emissions before anything we do will even start to make a dent.
Wrong [dailymail.co.uk]
Yes, they are. On just about everything. What's your point?
... (aka www.wattsupwiththat.com) has some comments on the good parts of Obama plan, but has some comments about the bad and ugly parts too:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/25/the-presidents-climate-action-plan-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
OIL!
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Not to mention, the larger pieces of tech from the obsolete "dirty" power equipment all ends up in countries that don't give a fuck about their pollution index. *coughcough China cough*
I'm all for regulating that we try and reduce polluting emissions and develop renewable sources, but seriously? A plan to deal with storms like hurricane Sandy? Are you serious? Does the government have some classified tech to help target and redirect hurricanes or something? Of course not, they'll just mandate more "dirty" fuel restrictions...
It's interesting that he cares about the planet for generations to come, but only if we can put our children's children in un-needed debt. Let's discuss something a little more pressing, shall we Mr. President?
Ah, yes, credentialism. Because only people with Ph.Ds should be allowed to have opinions. That's such a great idea for a functioning representative government.
A stint working at a university cleared me from ever thinking that people with doctorates are any more qualified than anyone else. Shit, these people sent me viruses, email hoaxes, and malware worms all the time.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
This was an opportunity for O to really shine. He speaks of what he will stop, but does not speak of what will replace it. That is as stupid as 'drill, baby, drill' mantra chant of the neo-cons. I had hopes that he would have enough backbone to say that the US needs nukes and then push for thorium as well as IFR.
And as to Keystone, by allowing it to go through, he helps to lower the price of oil which helps the global economy, which makes it possible to build A.E. cheaper.
I think that he is allowing the neo-con's accusations to get to him.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
False, and also false.
That was a local phenomenon, not global.
And it takes just one straw to break the camel's back (or one wafer-thin mint to explode Mr. Creosote).
Unfortunately, we're melting the ice caps (which reflect radiation back into space), and water vapor creates a temperature feedback. That means as the earth warms, the warming will accelerate.
Changes in the orbit of the earth.
False.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
We already have an actual solution. Its called building a massive solar thermal complex in the southwestern desert
Solar thermal projects all over the world are being cancelled because they can no longer compete with solar PV. I don't think this is the "actual solution" we are looking for.
Invest a trillion dollars in it over the next 10 years ...
Maybe we should find something that actually makes economic sense before we add another trillion to our national debt.
Most people, I find, aren't really aware of the ramifications of Administrative Law and the evolution of the Executive Branch. Over the past couple of centuries, Congress had passed laws and created agencies under the purview of the President to administrate. Over time, this has resulted in a massive federal system of administrative agencies who have the power to issue regulations based on their interpretation of the law. This has been found Constitutional, since it's nothing but the natural outgrowth of "Congress makes laws, the President executes them," but sometimes it produces shocking results to the lay person. Kind of like the patent system and "limited time," perhaps the administrative apparatus has gone far beyond its original intent, but by the letter of the law, that's perfectly fine. It's a matter for the voters and Congress to fix it, not the courts.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The obvious lie in "Climate Change" is that the definition changes during any discussion. If by "Climate Change" you mean the same changing of the climate that has been going on since the Earth was formed, no one would argue with you. No one believes that we have ever been in some magical static time for the climate. That definition is only used to "prove" that "Climate Change" is real. It is also a definition of "Climate Change" that does not require or even suggest any change in human behavior.
The definition of "Climate Change" that requires any action by humans is the definition that says humans are significantly altering the climate in ways that are inconsistent with what would happen naturally.
One of the things that makes many people skeptical of Anthropomorphic Climate Change is that the "Climate Change" boosters shift back and forth between the two definitions. When someone starts out their argument with a lie, it throws everything they say afterwords into question. When they are questioned and their responses quickly degrade into ad hominem attacks, it confirms their deceptions. Even if they are correct, it becomes clear that being correct is just an accident. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to try to deceive you into believing them.
So, to answer your question, no one is claiming that there is not "Climate Change". They are arguing that there is not "Climate Change".
Why is it out of line to expect actual expertise from someone giving an expert opinion? I wouldn't trust a climatologist to fix my car; I wouldn't trust my mechanic to treat me if I were ill; and I don't expect a professional demagogue--like this radio host of yours--to be an expert at anything but demagoguery.
It used to be legal to dump industrial waste into streams. It no longer is. That likely put some folks out of business.
It also used to be legal to move dirt from one part of your yard to another to keep a low spot from having standing water for several days after a rain. It is no longer. And it has made some people's land entirely worthless. And it's the same law - they just call dirt "pollution" and standing storm water "navigable waters". And that is how good intentions are used to allow tyrants to rule.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
> And Congress does have the authority to say, "That's all very nice, we'll give your department a $5 budget to make it all work".
But then they wouldn't get paid because allies/friends of the President are in office with overriding concerns, who would block that. In practice, the authority is hollow. It's one big elite party up there. Congress has no power that isn't levied to them, in the form of public announcement+donations+perks. The intent of the law is the least of a politician's worries.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Let's discuss something a little more pressing, shall we Mr. President?
At risk of being modded into oblivion as a troll, this speech today happened exactly because of those "more pressing" matters.
The dude (and many of his acolytes, e.g. Nancy Pelosi) are being slammed with demands that the NSA knock off their rolling 4th Amendment violations program, that the IRS stop targeting political opponents, and a whole host of other scandals that the White House just can't seem to shake.
So, what do you do when you find yourself in trouble? Go talk about hot-button issues that your supporters love and care about - it makes your supporters love you again, and your opponents go talk about something else until that something else dies down or gets forgotten. Poll number drooping among your supporters due to missteps? Talk about gay marriage. IRS caught targeting groups who oppose you? Make abortion pills OTC for teenage girls. You lose an embassy due to incompetence and you get caught spinning the story badly? Seize a tragedy and bring up gun control. Your NSA and Justice Department get caught violating the crap out of everyone's rights and even the New York Times is hating on you for it? Talk about climate change.
To be perfectly fair, if Obama had an "(R)" after his name, he'd bring up anti-abortion initiatives, immigration controls, and similar... The point is that there's a whole lot of political moves that are equivalent to a "Look over there!" maneuver, and it's getting pretty blatant. So before you go shouting "flamebait", stop and think about this for a minute. These initiatives and changes comes pretty hot on the heels of any scandal that threatens to wake up (and more frighteningly, enrage) the public en masse...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I hope this is sarcasm, because the Montreal Protocol is widely hailed as one of the greatest successes in international cooperation and pollution control. As a result of the treaty, ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere (as measured in equivalent chlorine) have declined by 10%, and the ozone hole over Antarctica is poised to have resorted by 1 million square km (of a peak of 25 million square km) by 2015.
Really, the only failure of the Montreal Protocol was the promotion of HCFC-22 which does less ozone damage but is a major greenhouse gas. (It's being phased out for more ozone-safe refrigerants, but it'll be up there for centuries.)
Does anyone remember the introduction of catalytic converters for cars? What was it we were told? We were told the converters would convert the noxious emissions into harmless water...and carbon dioxide.
Well, when the alternative is carbon monoxide, unburned gasoline, and NOx, I think we'll take the CO2 and water. But just because it's non-toxic doesn't mean that it's not a pollutant.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Just for the record, the Arctic icecap melting isn't such a big deal if you are wondering about sea level rise (Arctic ice floats, melting it won't increase the sea level). However, Arctic tundra unfreezing means more carbon in the atmosphere, it's a feedback loop. Also, the Arctic unfreezing could change ocean currents. It might change the climate in Europe and other places.
If Greenland melts, that's a different story since that ice is on land. Melting all of it will raise the sea level between 11 and 22 feet. We'd have to say goodbye to NYC, Miami, etc. If Antarctica melts as well, say Hello to Waterworld.
So all the hand-wringing from the climate change deniers over what restrictions would be necessary to corral the problem and thereby tank the economy would be moot because the economy would be under water. So, basically, the question is, "Do ya feel lucky, punk?". The deniers claim they do feel lucky, even though they are placing a bet with the rest of our asses on the line.
Don't talk out your has with your mercantilism bullshit. China picked winners too. Their PV production is heavily subsidized. The difference is that they were able to keep pumping money into it until their competitors faltered. Something the US government could not do.
Then why in the fuck are we entrusting a bunch of corrupt politicians to draft and vote on healthcare reform whom know absolutely nothing about the industry, nor why it's jacked up to begin with?! They didn't even read it which makes it all that more insulting!!!
Hint: the government caused the problems to begin with.
BTW, your heroes in office aren't forced to eat this dog food like the rest of us. Two standards: one for them, the other for the rest of us.
Life is not for the lazy.
The timing *does* seem a bit questionable, but unless publishing schedules have changed markedly he must have been planning to make this speech 6 months ago....though I doubt exactly what he was going to say in it was determined until quite recently.
But the magazine article, in, I believe, the Scientific American, speculated that he was going to use this speech to render the KeystoneXL pipeline more acceptable to his supporters. That seems to have held up.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.