Obama signals new focus on climate change


mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#1
Obama signals new focus on climate change

WASHINGTON — After President Obama finished his inaugural speech Monday, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) thanked him for mentioning climate change, a topic environmentalists said Obama had avoided during much of his first term.

"I did more than mention climate change," the president told Waxman.

In discussing the urgency of climate change before a national audience, the president elevated the issue into the top tier of second-term priorities that include fiscal reform, gun control and immigration reform.

"We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations," he said Monday. "Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms."

Many environmentalists have come to believe that Obama's more frequent, detailed mentions of climate change since the election could signal a greater willingness to step up reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

The president isn't ruling out the idea of a legislative package to combat climate change during his second term, senior officials say. But the political landscape is even less favorable to passage of legislative initiatives than during his first term.

In the near term, Obama will probably rely on his executive authority and Environmental Protection Agency rules to avoid fights with Congress as he works to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.

"I think the president isn't just about talk," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). The administration, she added, has "no choice but to act."

Despite Obama's public reticence on climate change during his first term, his administration moved aggressively on several fronts to cut emissions of carbon dioxide. The administration contends that its first-term rules to boost gas mileage and curtail greenhouse gases from new power plants will have a demonstrable effect on carbon emissions.

The auto standards alone "did more to reduce carbon pollution than any other action that has been taken, in our view," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday. "We need to continue to build on that, and the president intends to continue to build on that progress in the second term."

Supporters and opponents alike are looking for clues about Obama's posture in upcoming decisions. The final rules for greenhouse gas limits from new power plants are due by April. It remains unclear whether the EPA will then roll out new rules for existing power plants, most of which run on fossil fuels. The emissions from existing plants account for almost 40% of the greenhouse gases the country produces.

The administration has also said that it could make a decision by March about approving the controversial Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast. Environmentalists contend that extracting and processing the oil from Alberta's tar sands use so much energy, far more carbon would be pumped into the atmosphere if oil fields were developed to feed the pipeline.

If the Obama administration decides not to give the pipeline a permit, it would be in for a tough fight with those in Congress who would try to legislate approval for the project, said Trip Van Noppen, president of Earthjustice, an environmental law group.

Obama signals new focus on climate change - Los Angeles Times
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#2
How conweenient!!... Just a few weeks after he announces that the US will be close to energy independence due to the big increase in drilling/production licenses to the US oil industry.
Last edited by captain morgan; Jan 24th, 2013 at 10:11 AM..
 
DaSleeper
#3
Gotta give more money to the muddled east non?
 
EagleSmack
+2
#4
Lip service to the greenies. I do love how excited they get though.

I wonder how much more money he'll squander on failed solar companies though?
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Lip service to the greenies. I do love how excited they get though.

Let's hope it isn't more than lip service or the economy will tank real quick.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Lip service to the greenies. I do love how excited they get though.

They're just like little kids at Christmas, aren't they?

Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

I wonder how much more money he'll squander on failed solar companies though?


Depends on how much money he's invested in the individual companies.
 
petros
#7
Energy = Economy
Republicans = Oil & Coal
Democrats = Natural Gas/ Uranium

Did Obama halt any NG projects or pipelines or any hoop dee doo over new uranium projects?
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#8
I called this btw.

Obama delayed his response on Keystone because he wanted to secure his second term before making the decision. He wasted no time in going back to the pivotal issue once he was voted back in. We'll see in March if he's got the balls to back up his position on reducing carbon emissions.
 
DaSleeper
#9
So.....oil from the middle east produce less emissions than oil from Canada.....hmmmm...does anyone get this????
 
petros
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I called this btw.

Obama delayed his response on Keystone because he wanted to secure his second term before making the decision. He wasted no time in going back to the pivotal issue once he was voted back in. We'll see in March if he's got the balls to back up his position on reducing carbon emissions.

The nat gas is greener on the other side of the fence. Watch the market pushed to NG over the next 4 years.

Wouldn't you like an NG turbine powered hyrbrid. Oodles of balls, super super effcient, fill at home overnight and available at your local gas station?

XL will only be carrying 1 barrel in 7 of US oil fromt he Bakken. They need their own line ASAP.

It will be interesting. All the oil is in the red states and Democrat blue states in the northwest has sh*tloads of NG.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

The nat gas is greener on the other side of the fence. Watch the market pushed to NG over the next 4 years.

Wouldn't you like an NG turbine powered hyrbrid. Oodles of balls, super super effcient, fill at home overnight and available at your local gas station?


Infrastructure needs to be more thoroughly in place... Won't take much, but the question is; are people willing to pay for it?
 
EagleSmack
+4
#12  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I called this btw.

Obama delayed his response on Keystone because he wanted to secure his second term before making the decision. He wasted no time in going back to the pivotal issue once he was voted back in. We'll see in March if he's got the balls to back up his position on reducing carbon emissions.

Heck no! That means job loss. He's not that dumb. Sure he can squander millions in solar companies and GW research... thats all he needs to do.

Look how excited you are and he's done nothing but thumb his nose at the Climate Conferences.
 
petros
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Infrastructure needs to be more thoroughly in place... Won't take much, but the question is; are people willing to pay for it?

A $100K add on for for gas stations. They are already on lines the just need the compressors.

I can't see a home unit being more than $2K???

http://www.cngva.org/media/28373/alb...-_dec_2012.pdf
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

A $100K add on for for gas stations. They are already on lines the just need the compressors.

I can't see a home unit being more than $2K???

I'm thinking more in Eastern Canada and US(? - maybe EagleSmack will enlighten) where nat gas hasn't the infrastructure to individual consumers like on the Prairies and there is still a reliance on heating oil.
 
petros
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I'm thinking more in Eastern Canada and US(? - maybe EagleSmack will enlighten) where nat gas hasn't the infrastructure to individual consumers like on the Prairies and there is still a reliance on heating oil.

Here is a map of stations across nor am. CNG stations and Prices for the US, Canada and Europe

It said "too many stations to list." for E US

There will be a NG hybrid "miracle car" coming, no question about it.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#16
I stand corrected
 
petros
#17
$1.02 a gallon in Indianapolis. Maybe Enbridge should sponsor a "green" car at Indy?
 
EagleSmack
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I'm thinking more in Eastern Canada and US(? - maybe EagleSmack will enlighten) where nat gas hasn't the infrastructure to individual consumers like on the Prairies and there is still a reliance on heating oil.

Sorry Captain... I am not as knowledgeable on the Oil and Natural Gas Industry as you. Although I was once accused of being an Oil Tycoon in here... alas I am not.
 
petros
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Sorry Captain... I am not as knowledgeable on the Oil and Natural Gas Industry as you. Although I was once accused of being an Oil Tycoon in here... alas I am not.

You're just oily?
 
EagleSmack
+2
#20
Slick
 
petros
#21
Hmmm apparently NG is $2.39 gallon in Baaaaawston. Complain to the Kennedys!

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I called this btw. March if he's got the balls to back up his position on reducing carbon emissions.


March is when the frost is done with and pipelines start. Now that the "energy corridor" is finalized, a few more will be announced. If it's safe for one, it's even safer for 10.
 
EagleSmack
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Hmmm apparently NG is $2.39 gallon in Baaaaawston. Complain to the Kennedys!

.

The Kennedy's don't have a complaint department.
 
petros
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

The Kennedy's don't have a complaint department.

Not even any thugs down at the Knights of Columbus Tuesday bingo?
 
EagleSmack
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Not even any thugs down at the Knights of Columbus Tuesday bingo?

Not usually a good idea to complain to their thugs... and there are a lot.
 
petros
#25
Crime families always do.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I called this btw.

Obama delayed his response on Keystone because he wanted to secure his second term before making the decision. He wasted no time in going back to the pivotal issue once he was voted back in. We'll see in March if he's got the balls to back up his position on reducing carbon emissions.

He's commitment to carbon reductions is proved beyond doubt by the steady growth and development of drone attacks on carbon emitting targets.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

So.....oil from the middle east produce less emissions than oil from Canada.....hmmmm...does anyone get this????

Is it easier to avoid a new project than to cancel existing ones?

Yes.

Which is why we would be saddled with both sources of emissions.

And it's also why your Ezra argument is poop.
--

Also..

Wuh oh spaghettios..

Kerry dodges Keystone pipeline question - The Globe and Mail
 
EagleSmack
#28
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) not giving a straight answer! Say it isn't so!
 
petros
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Is it easier to avoid a new project than to cancel existing ones?

Yes.

Which is why we would be saddled with both sources of emissions.

Dude! They are tapping into their heavy oil now too. Google a little and see what is going on there right now and why OPEC pegged oil at $100ish a barrel for the past 3 years to pay for the biggest oil project the world has ever seen.

Anybody who isn't working in a call center in India is working in the Middle East ramping up output in Saudia Arabia,other Arabs, Africa and rebuilding southern Iraq.

I know you weren't around last time OPEC played games on our economy. It's what kicked off the oil sands to begin with. This time we had the leap and forced them to invest their whole nut on deep heavy crude.

Don't worry, you'll get your green electric urban buggy and $15 a year to operate gas fireplace and piss poor frequency wind power that ruins electronics before their time. It will happen when our oil flows to EU and Asia we'll be able to afford all the green goodies.

Gasoline and heating oil use is going to plummet. NG will skyrocket

There are far better and more valuable products from oil than gasoline for cars. Equipment and Global logistics needs diesel and bunker. It's pointless wasting Saudi sweet on it. .

The more products that can be made from bbl of oil the more valuable it is.

I'll let you in on something.

There is a mineral far more valuable than oil, uranium, copper, silver, gold or platinum that decides a Nations worth than all of the latter combined.

Sulphur.
 
coldstream
+1
#30
I've heard some pundits describe this as Dead On Arrival.. the whole AGW movement is so dicredited by its own lies... and underlying philosophy deeply antithetical to the human cause.. especially in presenting solutions that will make it impossible for the world to sustain even its present population.. that is has lost its audience .. with the exception of radical environmentalists, a few hollywood movie stars.. AND the mainstream press.

But these fanatics are rabid in support of their cause. Since the world clearly is NOT warming.. they've switched the message to Climate Change... that way they can take credit for any weather.. cold, hot or status quo.. storms, heat or cold waves. If the world was really warming we should be seeing a reduction in the severity of storms, and a levelling of the temperature variances that cause them. Some have even proffered that tsunamis and eathquakes are carbon related.

The fact that it is all UTTER NONSENSE.. without any scientific credibility whatsoever doesn't phase them.. these are, after all, ideological zealots.. in the thrall of a pagan Earth Goddess.. and NOT scientists.

Whenever you hear the 'protect our children' rationale.. whether its for AGW or the imposition of vicious economic austerity... or the so called 'debt' crisis.. BEWARE.. you are in the cross hairs of FRAUDSTERS who have an undisclosed agenda.. and have NO interest what so ever in 'future generations'.. only their own ideology. ONLY those in league with that agenda.. and political mediocrities and simpletons like Obama will support them.
Last edited by coldstream; Jan 25th, 2013 at 02:50 PM..
 

Similar Threads

0
Climate change at home.
by cyberclark | Jan 25th, 2006
29
Climate Change
by Gonzo | Oct 24th, 2005
no new posts