Slashdot Mirror
Obama To Ask For $1 Billion Climate Change Fund
An anonymous reader writes "President Obama will ask Congress for a $1 billion 'Climate Resilience Fund' in his proposed budget next month. From the article: 'Obama is expected to release his proposed 2015 budget in early March. The prospects for the climate fund are uncertain in a Republican-controlled House. But Obama, who made preparation for climate change one of the major themes of the climate action plan he released in June, will continue to press for the need to adapt, according to the White House.'"
There are no comments
I mean, that Solyndra thing worked out great. Why not give Obama a $1B slush fund to play with?
Just say No to this.
The U.S. is doing fairly well on pollution, It's the third world up-and-comers with a massive increase in their oil budgets and no, or suppressed, or wholly state-owned, watchdogs who are polluting the world.
A pork fund by any other name is still a pork fund.
If Obama really wanted to 'press for the need', he'd propose a $1 trillion fund. Much less than the Iraq War's costs.
Congress has no constitutional authority to appropriate a "Climate Resilience Fund." The president is not fulfilling his oath or duty. We are seventeen trillion dollars in debt. Neither party has proposed a single constitutional solution in years.
They are all corrupt. All of them. Every last one. Congress, the president and the Supreme Court should be either voted out of office or impeached as appropriate and removed from their offices forthwith.
The federal government no longer functions. The states of this union must convene an Article V convention and propose amendments for ratification by the state legislatures. Only by that constitutionally mandated power can the states restrain the federal government and restore balance to national governance.
If Obama really wanted to help the country, he'd declare war on Congress.
captcha...corrupt.
For starters, just ask Solyndra for our $500 million back. Oh wait, they went bankrupt and most of it ended up in the executives' pockets and from their into your campaign fund.
Why does he want to change the climate? It was good enough for my father, it's good enough for me!
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
I'm still waiting for technocrat.net to come online. Fuck beta.
Don't be fooled.
Have gnu, will travel.
Obama to bail out mother nature.
- -= Napalm means serious BBQ =-
Won't pass because fuck nature. And Obama is for it, so half of congress with be against it.
If Obama really wanted to 'press for the need', he'd propose a $1 trillion fund.
Much less than the Iraq War's costs over 10 years.
FTFY.
Also... much less than we were borrowing from (mostly) China on an annual basis 2-4 years ago.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Nor should he.
The U.S. doing "fairly well" on pollution? What a crock!
Per capita carbon emissions from U.S. citizens is near the top of the list. You are a major evil in the world. Get your act together!
Obama's only problem is he needs a trillion, not a billion. A billion is less than you people spend on bullets for the military. Climate change is big! Don't be such a bunch of scrooges!
Don't be such a bunch of scrooges!
Pre or post ghosts?
Scrooge was a fine and upstanding citizen until those ghosts turned him into a Democrat!
The money is to help farmers, ranchers, and others who are being affected by the 3 year long drought out West. It's to help some folks cope with a devastating loss.
The drought is real.
What seems to bother people is that the drought is a symptom of AGW.
sorry.
I am doing fairly well on reducing my pollution levels by bicycling places and installing solar panels. Most Americans are not doing well, and certain companies are really bad.
I agree with this. Especially if it is a pipeline that runs from the Mississippi out to California. They want to build a pipeline, let it be a water pipeline that will take flood waters out West...
You either pay $1 billion now to protect what is already built, or insurance rates and companies, along with the Federal government will have to spend a lot more when the next bigger storm hits.
I voted for the idiot, but he has betrayed those who supported him and that deserves
nothing but contempt.
Obama should be given nothing.
We have all seen how "well" the "Obamacare" thing went, so the idea of Obama and his crew
of incompetents being worthy stewards of a billion dollars is comical at best.
Best to wait until someone who is actually a competent leader is in office before making such appropriations.
Of course, given what we have seen in the past 20 years, it could be a long wait.
captcha = echelon
You NSA fucks are real jokers, aren't you ...
Obama has to keep paying off his supporters. And it's not like it's *his* money, right?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
If they were serious about climate change and environmental sustainability, they'd do something more along the lines of enforcing existing regulations and laws, instead of pretending Republican President Nixon had never signed them into law. That's right, Obama is to the right of Nixon and less concerned with environmental protection, and economic resilience and sustainability.
If Obama really wanted to help the country, he'd roll back the Executive branch's usurpation of legislative and judicial powers. Except he's just a member of the New GOP (formerly known as the DNC) and thus, has no interest in rocking the gravy boat.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I appreciate that he is doing this, but as long as nations like China are growing their emissions as fast as they are, none of this will matter.
What is needed is to get ALL NATIONS to drop their CO2 emissions quicker, not to allow say all of the BRIC nations to go on a emissions spree.
So, who to do this? Simple. We need to put a tax on ALL GOODS CONSUMED based on where they and their parts come from.
The tax needs to start low and raise over a period of time.
Base it on REAL measurements of CO2 emissions, and not on guesses. Simply use the OCO2 that will be launched this year to record how much CO2 enters a border and how much exits. With this approach, we can see how much CO2 a region is responsible for.
And then to equalize it, do it based on GDP, not per capita. Per capita is the WORST idea going. The fact is, that 80-90 of emissions are based on sloppy manufacturing and energy. By focusing on emissions / $ of GDP, it makes it possible to get all nations to focus on clean energy. In addition, this rewards nations that have clean energy. They can scale up their manufacturing and be cheaper than others since they know that they will not have an expensive tax(way to go iceland).
America is the great importer. Worst of all, we import heavily from some of the worst emitting nations. So, this will force those nations to change their ways, while helping any nation that cleans up.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The problem is NOT people. It is politicians and CEOs. Politicians know that they want economic growth and to own all of the companies. Look at europe. Western europe is cutting their emissions by outsourcing the nasty work to eastern europe nations that are NOT under the same issues. As such, they keep the work fairly local, and the money there, while at the same time, pulling a fast one.
Now, you have Germany that is killing off their nuke program, BUT massively increasing coal and importing electricity from France (nuke) and Poland (coal). So, they outsource their energy, which is a joke.
If you really want to make a difference, then make it about economics, not people and politicians.
Do it with a tax on ALL GOOD CONSUMED. Most importantly, make it based on REAL numbers (not estimates which are grossly wrong), and on emissions / GDP. That forces politicians and CEOs to reconsider what is going on.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Oil and gas subsidies. Record profits and they are still getting subsidized?
priorities.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Rothschild bankers are the ones behind the whole scheme to make money on the scam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdqNds9pNuI
Love how the profitable companies are mixed in with the bankrupt ones to make the list look longer and scarier. Also the biggest loser in the list Solyndra was actually backed by a loan program created by the Bush Administration.
Can't really expect the whole truth from the Heritage Foundation can we?
If they are proffitable, then why do they need government money?
Or is that they are not bankrupt --yet?
Then we'd just have Congress and the Supreme Court doing the same things.
Yep. Solyndra's competitor from Oregon, named Solopower, just put their Silicon Valley manufacturing facility up for auction with 2 weeks notice... They participated in the same DOE loan program as Solyndra.... great work to that DOE idiot that resigned. OMG! So let's double down on the stupid.
From the summary: "The prospects for the climate fund are uncertain in a Republican-controlled House".
There's no uncertainty about it. Anyone with five or more brain cells to rub together can tell you that this will never pass in the House. In fact, I doubt it will even get out of committee to be debated on the floor, much less come up for a House vote.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
With the winter we've been having.I want more global warming!
If he REALLY wanted to help he would stop the NSA, remove the TSA, and repeal his law that made twice as many people lose health insurance as got it under his new plan.
"If you like your health plan you can keep it, period" He outright lied and the fact that ANYONE sticks up for him makes me sick. You all just encourage more of the bad behavior from politicians because the worse they get the more you shill for them.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
This makes sense, whether or not you agree with climate change models or the proposed mechanisms of climate change, because it provides funds to protect critical infrastructure during extreme weather events.
We already know that different regions are susceptible to different types of extreme weather. For example: some areas are prone to flooding while others are susceptible to drought. Prior generations have decided to deal with measures such as building levees or irrigation systems, simply because they understood that infrastructure has to be protected. They didn't worry about the politics of climate change simply because the controversy didn't exist. However, data about prior weather events did exist. (Alas, some of that data was due to contemporary floods or droughts which had a considerable cost in life and property.)
Now if Americans want to stick their heads in the sand and insist that years of flooding and drought won't exist because they don't agree with the AGW crowd, that's up to them. They should also realize that when the inevitable happens, they are the ones that will pay the price for their lack of preparedness. That is true regardless of whether the weather is caused by natural mechanisms or exacerbated by human factors.
They need government money to be profitable. Lots of companies like that in a lot of industries. Corporate welfare. Didn't President Obama promise to do something about corporate welfare? I guess I misunderstood what he meant to do.
Since you think the Federal government is doing such a great job at wasting money and I don't, I believe you need to pay my taxes for me. I think they are horrible and you think they are great at it so just think of it as an investment in your future.
Oh sorry, forgot you are a liberal. Taxes are for OTHER people not you to pay (See Geitner and Rangel)
Read it and weep, American taxpayer:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html
Why were companies like GM ($1.26B), Royal Dutch Shell ($1.65B), JP Morgan Chase ($157M) and many more left out of the above post? Political convienience. You won't find these facts on Fox News.
If they are proffitable, then why do they need government money?
Or is that they are not bankrupt --yet?
If a company is profitable, why do they go to a bank for a loan?
Are they all going to be bankrupt one day?
yep.
the republican party transformed itself from a reasonable center right party, to a doomed to fail and die white supremacist party. The southern strategy laid a trap for the Republican party - all of those racists they deliberately pandered to went totally nuts when Obama was elected and they flipped into power. If you're not a racist then you're a RINO and you're no longer welcome in the Republican party.
He has a pen and a phone.
You have more then enough of our kids & grandkids money going to this current war, so use that fucking money to pay for it.
I live on a fix income, maybe it's time for our Government to be as responsible as I'm forced to be.
Be seeing you...
With climate change we can adapt or mitigate. Mitigation is much cheaper but it also has to be paid for now rather than later. This proposal is to pay for some adaptation. We don't have much choice about that since we are already seeing dangerous climate change effects. But, it would be good to have this payed for in a way that helps with mitigation. China is the country that is pushing us into dangerous climate change with its growing emissions of greenhouse gases. Placing a tariff on imports of goods from China would help to move manufacturing to counties that are cutting emissions and thus reduce China's emissions. If we must spend on adaptation, getting the money should be helping with mitigation or we are being spendthrifts.
...or is it that you don't have any other problems that you know how to solve?
I'd say your country has internal problems that far outweight anything environmental. With a billion dollars, you'd figure some problems could get a nice boost. Maybe food-related problems. Maybe job-related problems. Maybe home-related problems. Maybe defficit-related problems. Maybe drug-related problems. Maybe school shooting-related problems. At least focus on the environmental problems that are killing you -- like landslides and earthquakes and volcanoes and hurricanes.
I think that you are, once again, trying to abandon existing problems in favour of new problems simply to make it look like you're progressing.
I'm all for this - if the President proposes something else to cut by $1Bn. The budget is currently way over what we're taking in, and taxes are high enough already. Find something to cut to pay for it - as well as any other new spending.
Ask, nobody comes.
Build, everybody comes.
Obama's "Ask" is fail.
On par for Obama these days.
A billion dollars? Thats almost enough money for Obama to build two web sites.
If obama really wanted to help the country he would resign
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I'm with the conservatives on this one: we can't use deficit spending for a major climate mitigation program like this, it has to be paid for.
With a 20% fossil fuel tax.
Oh wait, did I lose you guys there?
I'll think about mailing a check as soon as the snow around my mailbox melts.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The whole idea of the grants is to get things going. While Tesla got most of its startup funding from Musk, most high-tech companies need money from either a venture capitalist or, if seen as too risky, some sort of grant.
In general, the funded firms companies were long-shots with a very significant up-sides for the nation and the economy, and the environment if they succeeded. It was completely expected that many would fail. If the odds were not long, most of the companies would have gotten private capitalization.
And, yes, several more may yet fail, but even the failures are far from a complete write-off. Some produced some potentially useful tech that could not be monetized before the cash ran out or the value was clear enough to get private funding.
Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
Then you'd get Joe Biden.
"They need government money to be profitable." That is an oxymoron if by profitable you mean making profit from your own efforts.
Obama's $1B will fund [...]
If it really were Obama's billion dollars, who could object? But of course it's actually money borrowed by the government, to be paid back by future taxpayers. Well, supposedly paid back by future taxpayers, after they pay off the first $60-$100 trillion dollars in debt and unfunded public pension liabilities that they are already on the hook for. But I'm sure they'll be cool with it all.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
The paper you link to is crap. Well done crap, but still crap. Please, just because a majority of "scientists" answer with "no position" on any topic that doesn't mean there isn't a scientific consensus on something. I'd answer every climate questionnaire with "no position" because I haven't studied it, and haven't read any studies on it. Same goes for every biology topic, or religion, or pretty much any non-technical topic. What's the point of asking anyone outside the field anyways? You could as well ask your pet dog.
Because new green energy technologies are a risky investment that other investors would not go near. Now that the government has done its work and companies like Tesla have been shown to be profitable the private money is flowing in too. The government just needs to get it started.
That is normally how it works. The government funds research at universities that no investor would ever pay for, and some of it turns into viable profit generating products that keep the country competitive.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If I haven't completely misunderstood what the scientists are predicting you'll get more global warming. It's just that global warming does not mean you local weather will be warmer. If the "more extreme conditions" prediction is accureta you'll get colder winters, and warmer summers, a bit like siberia does now. You'll get used to it, don't worry. A bit more people will die, but that's ok, people living as old as they do now is a bit unnatural from historic perspective.
Mitigation is reducing the scale of the problem by cutting greenhouse gas emissions or painting roofs white. This is money for adaptation, a much more expensive approach to the problem. Since the US is already taking mitigation steps (new CAFE standards do the job of your proposed fuel tax) we need to look abroad for further mitigation. Growing Chinese greenhouse gas emissions, now the largest in the world, need to be our focus for more mitigation. An ounce of prevention (mitigation) is worth several tons of cure (adaptation) considering that adaptation eventually means evacuating large parts of Florida. Tariffs on the import of Chinese goods should pay for our climate change adaptation costs. It is they who are pushing us into dangerous climate change and reparations for the desiccating attacks on our native soil must be extracted from them.
n/t
"Outdated business models" is code for "I don't like paying for things, but want them anyway"
Is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.
The proposed fund is a terrible idea. Take a moment to read about the man who will be at the reigns of the proposed fund: John P Holdren, Obama's chief science advisor. He has been a thought leader for the eugenicists since the 1960's. Consider this snippet from wikipedia:
"Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."[28] In 1973, Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many."[29] In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of means to address overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including compulsory abortion, adding sterilants to drinking water or staple foods, forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and discussed "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion."
Add in the fact that the government doesn't have any money except what they take from its citizens. Do we really want to be borrowing from and paying interest to the banking cartel for this BS? For me the answer is a resounding NO.
Notice how the "global warming" meme has been changed to the "climate change" meme recently. They really do think you're that stupid; that you aren't going to see this for what it is: a get rich quick scheme for connected insiders.
This is nothing but a subterfuge to divert the massive, abject failures of this administration.
It's no coincidence that the 2014 elections are looming.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
Definitely NOT until he starts chipping away at the deficit. King Barry, idiot democrats politicians and ,to a slightly lesser degree the repubicans, have nobody but themselves to blame for pursuing personal financial independence above more important concerns of the country.
The CBO is not alone when they say we are headed for a cataclysmic financial melt down if congress and the president continue to ignore the bigger picture. They are infamous before they have even left office.
And you thought that I was going to say something vulgar and metaphorical about the president....
No, I'm reminded of the atomic-pile simulation that used to be taught to kids. You remember, the one where there is a big floor filled with set mousetraps. And each trap has two ping-pong balls ~gently~ placed on the spring. A single ball is tossed in, and ~zap!~ a trap goes off, more balls are released, more traps go off, a few here and there, and then the big crescendo... balls flying everywhere.
Climate change is like that. We are just seeing the beginning now. It's small enough that stupid people can convince themselves that it's not happening. But as the Siberian tundra melts, and the 100,000,000 year old methane stored there gets released, and the polar ice caps melt, and the changing salinity alters the north-south oceanic current flows, and the mean temperature of the tropic regions rises to 140 degrees F for an average day.... well, balls flying everywhere.
A billion dollars tossed at a global problem of this magnitude of problem is nothing. A billion dollars is about the size of the heavy-metal music industry, a heaping spoonful of the toilet paper industry, and most of the "Hello Kitty" trinket industry. More chickensh*t public posturing from a man who has spent most of his adult life publicly posturing about chickenshit.
National Geographic recently published a series of maps of what the Earth would look like in 100 or so years from now when the ice caps have melted. They missed out on the fact that most of the earth except for the polar regions will be bright yellow instead of green. Yellow as in areas where nothing will grow and nothing will live. You probable live in one of these regions now. Best to spend the next decade ignoring the bozospeak coming from corporate and governmental entities. Instead find a place on those maps that presently has temperate weather, internet access, indoor plumbing, and civilized people.
Move there; move your family there. And as the decades go by and all the billions of doomed people start to realize that they deserve to be in that place instead of you, well, prepare yourself to have to deal with them like they are all one big surplus giraffe.
Gnome Sane?
Maybe out of the 120 billion / year spent protecting the Arabian coast oil (U.S. Navy) budget? Or out of the 3 Trillion for the two oil wars (Iraq I & II) or the 8 billion dollar / year direct subsidy for nuclear power? Or the 12 billion / year nuclear waste disposal (Yucca Flats)? Or the 2 billion / year nuclear plant defense allocation to the national guard(s)? Or the 40 billion / year oil depletion allowance tax cut for oil companies? or... Get my drift? This pennies for solving the problem we are spending billions of tax dollars to maintain!
Here's a more complete picture of what was going on. The process for Solyndra started well before the Obama office came into power. It was fast tracked once he got there, but mostly as one of the many projects related to the stimulus. And as a side note, the main reason that Solyndra failed was due to China price-fixing the market for solar panels to the point US companies couldn't compete.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/nov/15/americans-prosperity/solyndra-ad-president-barack-obama-taxpayer-money/
After 5 years of Obama, I'm willing to give Joe Biden a chance.
"First off, from an ethical POV, per capita is the WORST measure. "
first of all, that's an asinine claim that you just doubled down on the stupid to make.
"The reason is that the pollution is NOT associated with an individual"
Nope, if a country has all the people killed and nobody moves in, then there will be no anthropogenic CO2 from that country. It's because each individual works and lives in the country that the CO2 is produced.
" For example, as a person, I have no control over if we have coal, nat gas, or nuke at my power company"
But if you want GDP then you have no control over whether your power company is raking in huge profits. Or that industries you have no interest in are inefficient. By your metric, your statistic is worthless. If all statistics are rendered worthless by a rhetorical assertion, then that assertion must be annulled as being useless.
"And it is the local economics that contribute to the GDP. "
With no people involved???
So do not believe it.
Well, seems like the political climate changed, and so some pocket money for paying the NSA for blackmail material might come in handy. The official results from that billion will be "uh, looks frightening, we should do more research on it. In unrelated news, let's continue to sabotage all international treaties that would limit us in our freedom to further research the drain we are flushing this planet down by braking the progress we are making."
As the situation will get worse, the consequences will be more and more research rather than any measures that would serve to slow where this is going. Any "taxation" measure purportedly done to effect any changes here will be accompanied by exceptions for industries that would otherwise actually have to change their mode of operation. The net result will that somewhat more taxes can be extracted without actually causing any "disruptive" change when the only hope lies with disruptive changes. And of course, the taxes will be used to stuff the deficits caused by letting half of the population spy on the other half and the whole world.
Then there will be more studies about how nothing changed in spite of all the previous studies.
Should be Trillions.
At this point, you can expect 100 year storms every 2-3 years in all coastal areas and record heat waves until at least 2050, even if you start changing your behavior (emissions) like we in the True West (AK/BC/WA/OR/ID/CA) are doing. Our energy sources are shifting fast to alternative energy and our carbon footprints are actually dropping fast, but the rest of the country is still stuck in denial.
Adapt.
Because you waited too long.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Stop dumping money into the rogue state Israel. Problem solved