×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama's Climate Plans Face Long Fight

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the long-road dept.

United States 229

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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

229 comments

"may head off backlash" (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44090995)

lol, because what environmentalists want, after 4 years, is a speech... while his actions are the opposite of what he says he wants to do.

I'm voting 3rd party from now. Least of all evils isn't enough.

Voting? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091161)

lol, because what environmentalists want, after 4 years, is a speech... while his actions are the opposite of what he says he wants to do.

I'm voting 3rd party from now. Least of all evils isn't enough.

What you need to do is either become super wealthy (ie. mullti billionaire) or somehow start some grassroots movement that gets all those old people that hang out for the Tea Party to jump on board. Voting is a waste of time. I live in Georgia and the Devil himself would win as long as he has an 'R' next to his name. No other party has a chance these days. The days of a 'D' having a chance are loooooong gone - Thanks Fox News! - and an independent candidate will forever be in the single digit percentages of electorate votes.

I'm lost as to how. See, most people consider the as environment some sort of luxury and it should be exploited for the economy. If it's the economy vs. the environment, the economy will usually win. There are cases when a very good economic - a short term economic - justification for preservation works - example: the lobster fisheries in New England.

But for long-term things like Global Climate change? It might as well be as far out as the Sun dieing.

When New York starts getting flooded, then we'll see action.

Re:Voting? (0)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 10 months ago | (#44091309)

The days of a 'D' having a chance are loooooong gone - Thanks Fox News!

Not sure why you're blaming Fox News - they're run by the Democrats.

Re:Voting? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44092501)

Fox News is the single GOP channel, they both boast about it. Anyone having seen their news will tell you it's nothing more than a party political broadcast on behalf of the Republican party.

Ice Age (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091317)

When New York starts getting flooded, then we'll see action.

New York DID get flooded.

The problem is that there isn't any action which can be taken. Right now, all this talk is simply to soothe the masses so they don't stampede before shit gets real.

Climate Change has little direct relationship to carbon emissions from human industry. It's not within our control.

The planet is changing. The sharp increase in volcanic and geologic activity, the weirdness with Sun spots and all these comet incursions are not the result of our automotive fuel of choice. Things are getting weird for entirely different reasons, and part of that is our unstoppable slide into the next ice age.

China isn't building empty cities in Africa for no reason.

Re:Ice Age (2)

Mashdar (876825) | about 10 months ago | (#44092009)

Five minutes of reading about volcanic gas emisions and sun spots should convince you that your claims are false....

Re:"may head off backlash" (2, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 10 months ago | (#44091203)

"I'm voting 3rd party from now. Least of all evils isn't enough."

Not to nitpick, but I think you mean "lesser of 2 evils ("Big 2 parties").

Your third-party candidate would be the "least" evil.

But having said that, we have had some GOOD 3rd-party candidates. Far better than the BS the 2 big parties have thrown at us. And I include Obama as some of that "BS".

Re:"may head off backlash" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44092131)

Some? He seems to have a lot more than the last 4 maybe even last 6 of the past presidents combined together.

Re:"may head off backlash" (4, Insightful)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about 10 months ago | (#44091223)

"Obama's actions are often quite different than his rhetoric" [guardian.co.uk]... like any politician. That is why websites like the Political Memory [politicalmemory.eu] by La Quadrature du Net are so interesting and give real hope for change: Believe what they have done, not what they say they did (or will do).

Now, if only the population at large would flock to use such tools on election day... but as it is, the village keeps voting time and again for one of the two village liars who both just happen to be backed by the biggest landowner(s) in town - to everyone's long term detriment. Oh and the town message billboard happens to be controlled by the said landowners. We have not progressed very far politically, it would seem...

Re:"may head off backlash" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091267)

Human nature and its ability to be manipulated is a constant. Time and progress have nothing to do with it. Worse, the tools to manipulate public opinion [slashdot.org] and sway votes is more advanced than ever. Tools for increasing transparency, help people elect decent leaders that have their long term interests at heart has not keep pace... Political Memory is a step in the right direction, but only a handful of people use it, so it is useless... for now.

Re:"may head off backlash" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091329)

Not everyone values as highly what Political Memory values highly. So how are people going to flock to use such tools when they don't even know which sites can be relied on and give them the information that will help them vote according to their priorities?

Re:"may head off backlash" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091999)

I only vote for black people.

Re:"may head off backlash" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44092529)

I only vote for niggers.

Re:"may head off backlash" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091425)

What? The extreme left and right disagree? Must be a sensible proposal.

Re:"may head off backlash" (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 10 months ago | (#44092033)

How about people just not just vote, but take the time to pay for the election fee and throw your hat in the ring? Why elect yet another clown when you can have your shot at a ringmaster, or at least a ringside seat?

Sounds stupid, but it would send a message at the minimum, and you might just win.

Re:"may head off backlash" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44092181)

Voted Green last election... will vote Green next election as well.

Re:"may head off backlash" (1)

akb (39826) | about 10 months ago | (#44092521)

I would like Obama to have done more on climate change, though I'm not sure what more he could have done.

Obama has gotten slaughtered politically for the environmental moves he has made. The green jobs that were part of the stimulus have cost him dearly, as have the much tightened auto emissions standards and the C02 limits for existing coal plants. All 3 of these are very substantial actions.

You may recall earlier in his first term a climate deal was near-ish happening. Subsequent to that the Tea Party happened, Obama list the House and the few Republican Senators that were working on that deal ran for cover.

Re:"may head off backlash" (2)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about 10 months ago | (#44092683)

This is what doesn't make sense to me logically, but makes sense to me emotionally. The President doesn't really have any power to affect the climate. The real legislative power lies with the House and Congress (you know the legislative branch). But he always gets blamed when shit hits the fan. Bush, Clinton, Obama. The only power they have over laws is veto. They can suggest actions that Congress can take, but let's face it, Congress usually tells the Pres to take a flying leap.

If you want to address climate change, you need to contact your reps on a regular basis, and get everybody else you know to do the same thing.

Re:"may head off backlash" (4, Informative)

Creepy (93888) | about 10 months ago | (#44092841)

Congress may have legislative power, but Obama has some sway over the Department of Energy. If he tells them coal must use CCS (Carbon Capture and Sequestration), for instance, it is up to the DoE to develop a plan to implement it, because let's face it, coal plant owners will never do it voluntarily because it makes no sense from a business standpoint. 30% less efficient and therefore 30% less profitable to... save the environment? Why would you do that if you can spend 1% (or less) supporting global warming doubters that say it isn't an issue?

Re:"may head off backlash" (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44092583)

For this class of problems, people are going to have to do more than vote; some people are going to have to run. Pollution is primarily a problem for Congress, not presidents, and while every 4 years we have plenty of presidential choices (and we always reject the good ones) our Congress ballot choices tend to be more meager. For presidents, you can spend 4years-1day ignoring the issues and still cast a good vote on election day. Try that for Congress, though, and you're either going to end up abstaining or voting for a Republicrat.

BTW, pollution is a really hard problem, and even if presidents had significant enough power to address it, they wouldn't be able to.

The reason people choose to externalize costs, is that it's so (apparently) cheap, to a degree that it really makes a significant difference. You can't "take it away" without making a lot people extremely angry and nobody wants all that anger. We shouldn't expect pollution subsidies to end, until Congress (not a president) widely supports it. And that certainly isn't the case right now, with the Religious Left (Republicans) (*) having about half of the popular support, combined with each major parties being so corrupted and actually apolitical. So the anti-pollution-subsidy block is, if anything, a minority, where to really end the subsidies we'd need near-unanimity on the part of the public.

(*) Republicans, when not corrupted and therefore apolitical, are religious left because of their "you can get something for nothing" stance. Religious because that belief is based on dogma (e.g. global warming isn't happening), rather than observation.

Re:"may head off backlash" (-1, Flamebait)

jellomizer (103300) | about 10 months ago | (#44092829)

"Environmentalists" Will not be happy until we live like we did back in the 1700's. We shouldn't care about these people, but what we should be doing, is lowering our damage, and finding new technology that can keep or improve our quality of life and use less Carbon while doing this. By doing this we will have to make some Environmental trade offs. It may mean cutting down trees, or dealing with radioactive waste, Genetically Modified Plants, or unsightly buildings in residential areas. If you want to lower carbon, what will be the tradeoff.

here's a good start: (4, Insightful)

lxs (131946) | about 10 months ago | (#44090999)

Shutting down all PRISM related datacenters will seriously reduce the US carbon footprint.

Re:here's a good start: (4, Funny)

msauve (701917) | about 10 months ago | (#44091149)

It's a zero sum game. Obama gives the cold-shoulder to civil rights by blowing hot air.

Re:here's a good start: (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 10 months ago | (#44091221)

"It's a zero sum game. Obama gives the cold-shoulder to civil rights by blowing hot air."

Though "hot air" is what he says he's trying to fight. :o)

Re:here's a good start: (1)

jez9999 (618189) | about 10 months ago | (#44092433)

And start building nuclear PRISM reactors to replace other forms of power generation. :-)

Politics on a Tech Board (3, Insightful)

usacoder (816957) | about 10 months ago | (#44091009)

And that's what all of this is about... politics.

Re:Politics on a Tech Board (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#44091071)

And that's what all of this is about... politics.

Any time two or more people with differing ideas (let alone ideals) get involved with something, there will be politics. Thus, everything interesting has political ramifications.

Climate is related to technology, and also, we all live here. I for one welcome our politics-discussing overlords. As always, you have the option to simply spin on rather than crying about it.

Re:Politics on a Tech Board (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 10 months ago | (#44091455)

I have no love of overlords. That the reason for their overlordhood shifts throuh the decades and centuries doesn't change anything. So they have to jump thru an election hoop, but otherwise presumptively have all power options open to them buys a small improvememt, or does it just buy delay in accumulated interference until the economy is, dollar for dollar, little different from a governmemt with massive corruption and you have to pay officials to get out of the way?

Throw money at fines and fees and lawyers and politicians, or throw it to them in a closed room, the result is the same.

Re:Politics on a Tech Board (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#44091521)

I have no love of overlords.

Or of popular culture, it appears. Otherwise you'd have known I was referring to the editors, even under the influence of DICE. The slashvertisements have become a bit more transparent of late, otherwise it's business as usual. And really, that's a feature, isn't it? We've been saying we'd like to see them clearly marked for some time now. Well, they are; clearly marked by being lame.

Re:Politics on a Tech Board (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091073)

And that's what all of this is about... politics.

Yep, energy sources and national stability have absolutely nothing at all to do with tech.

Please stop reading Slashdot. Please. Go pick up a copy of ACM or PLOS if you want to remove yourself entirely from humanity.

A long flight (0)

Chrisq (894406) | about 10 months ago | (#44091019)

A long flight ... but that's so environmentally unfriendly. We should insist that his plans are subject to a long train ride, or even better a long trek instead.

Re:A long flight (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#44091061)

A long flight ... but that's so environmentally unfriendly. We should insist that his plans are subject to a long train ride, or even better a long trek instead.

No, no, a long fight. That's also ecologically unfriendly, when you can just send in a couple drones and be done.

No backlash will be headed off (0, Troll)

fredrated (639554) | about 10 months ago | (#44091033)

If he approves Keystone it will be war.

Re:No backlash will be headed off (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091239)

Start growing your beard back and stop taking showers. Then you'll be ready for another OWS event.

Re:No backlash will be headed off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091849)

Apparently Slashdot is overrun by corporate sycophants... just like the rest of the world.

Re:No backlash will be headed off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091947)

Excuse me, Mr. Romney, but don't you have a company to take over hostilly and workers to fire today? Or are you taking the day off to lounge around on your yaght playing with your iPad?

Fuck off and die, asshole. OWS has a noble purpose, Bain capital does not.

Re:No backlash will be headed off (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44092053)

Noble my a$$... OWS was a bunch of lemmings without a clue. Everyone wants to vilify the rich instead of dealing with the people who sit on their asses collecting from the government dole and draining us all.

Re:No backlash will be headed off (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#44092419)

Because there are so few of those. Most people on assistance collect it only for a very short time. The rich using tax loopholes cost us far more each year.

Re:No backlash will be headed off (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44092807)

Thank you for proving the point about "not having a clue".

4.1% of the U.S. [statisticbrain.com] population is not "so few". And I know some of these people first-hand (they're in my freaking family). They'd rather sit in their trailer and collect money from the government than work. They think I'm stupid because I bust my ass working when they can sit in their trailer and watch TV all day for the rest of their lives. And they've been doing it for the largest part of their lives (much more than "a very short time")!

Heck, we have nearly 20% of Americans [zerohedge.com] on food stamps! And OWS answer? Let's stomp on those that are actually providing jobs and giving these people the opportunity to find meaningful employment and self-reliance! Oddly enough, I've only ever been hired to work by some "evil rich person" or "evil rich corporation". If it wasn't for these "evil rich", there'd be no jobs!

BTW... Want to get rid of the tax loopholes? Simplify the tax code! Something like the FairTax [fairtax.org] would be a great start. We don't need the monstrosity [blogspot.com] of a tax code that is full of loopholes!

I know it feels good to chant the rhetoric of OWS, but it is time to stop trying to drag down those that are actually creating jobs and employing people and start trying to pull everyone else up so that they can have those same successes. We shouldn't try to make the rich become poor, we should try to make the poor become rich! Penalizing the successful doesn't do anything more than stifle opportunities that the poor can use to crawl out of the assistance trap and create their own success stories.

Re:No backlash will be headed off (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 10 months ago | (#44092653)

one, no one said anything about romney but you, therefore that is irrelevant.

second, OWS is a joke, nothing more nothing less.

Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (4, Insightful)

some old guy (674482) | about 10 months ago | (#44091039)

Without comprehensive, cooperative, enforceable international standards and practices, it's all just political showmanship. Given the interwoven economic, i.e. selfish capitalist, constituencies of all the nations, unilateral grand-standing and token half-measures are futile.

When global issues are at stake, global cooperation is required. It might start with a less-corrupt, more efficient United Nations with unselfish participation by the member states to give it a sense of legitimacy. That would be the ideal.

My gut feeling is that nothing, if anything, substantial will be done until the international capital oligarchs sense a real financial threat. Good intentions create politics; money creates policy.

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091103)

Without comprehensive, cooperative, enforceable international standards and practices, it's all just political showmanship. Given the interwoven economic, i.e. selfish capitalist, constituencies of all the nations, unilateral grand-standing and token half-measures are futile.

Wellity wellity well, Mr. Sunshine, by this logic we should stop enforcing the use of scrubbers in our coal plants since China doesn't enforce their requirements of them either. I mean, gosh, we can't stay competitive against the Chinese who allow their factories to choke out their population! So why not let our country go to shit in the name of good old fashion Capitalism?! I mean, we should be embarrassed into polluting, right?

The fact of the matter is that you draw a line somewhere. Every now and then people argue to push the line one way or another. You're not on top of your reading if you think that this is "just talk" and grandstanding. He won't be arguing for a silver bullet or to end pollution period, he will be arguing for a few measurable concessions.

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091179)

Climate change isn't about pollution. Climate change is about the fact that nothing happened in the last 15 years of careful measurements and that the earth temperate is still lower than it was during the height of the Roman Empire.

As Old Bill of the Wobbly Spear said: "Much ado about nothing".

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091549)

Climate change isn't about pollution. Climate change is about the fact that nothing happened in the last 15 years of careful measurements and that the earth temperate is still lower than it was during the height of the Roman Empire.

As Old Bill of the Wobbly Spear said: "Much ado about nothing".

Mr. Cheney, this is the fifth and final time we've found you posting anonymously on Slashdot. You have used up all your warnings -- if you continue to do this, we're going to tell Mr. Rove on you.

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (2, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about 10 months ago | (#44091551)

No, it's about making industrial production so expensive in the West that we ship it all to China, where they just laugh at speeches about 'Climate Change'.

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091183)

Less corrupt, more efficient United Nations? You're just as much a loon as the climate change deniers.

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (4, Insightful)

olau (314197) | about 10 months ago | (#44091231)

Without comprehensive, cooperative, enforceable international standards and practices, it's all just political showmanship.

No, it's not. Changing the world often starts with yourself.

If you don't get this - fair enough. But don't ridicule people who do.

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091265)

Politics, local and international, is the carney's song luring in the marks. Globalist corporation executives are the carnival's owner.

Getting the feeling, considering how things are going, that the executive and branch has become a pro-active public relations group for big business, with the legislature working for the same as their corporate lawyers.

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (2)

Kuruk (631552) | about 10 months ago | (#44091381)

<quote><p>My gut feeling is that nothing, if anything, substantial will be done until the international capital oligarchs sense a real financial threat. Good intentions create politics; money creates policy.</p></quote>

I agree wholeheartedly. Business will drive the planet down until it is profitable to change and then charge us for that as well. While future generations get the raw end of the deal. We won't feel it in our lifetimes.

We will be remembered badly I think.
 

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (5, Informative)

taiwanjohn (103839) | about 10 months ago | (#44091489)

Not just futile, most "useful" measures would require legislative action, which is practically impossible these days.

That said, if I could choose one single bill to have signed into law, it would be the "Open Fuel Standards Act" which was brought up a few years ago, but didn't get a vote. This would require all new cars sold in the USA to be fully flex-fuel capable. (There are already a lot of "flex-fuel" cars on the market, but many are only able to use ethanol. The OFSA would mandate compatibility with methanol and butanol as well.) This would add about $100 to the price of each car, which is much less than an after-market retrofit would cost.

The point of all this is to break the effective monopoly on transportation fuel held by petroleum and bring true competition to the market. Methanol may be only 80% as energy dense as gasoline, but last I checked it was only about $1.50/gal. And unlike ethanol, methanol can easily be made from any kind of biomass, so this would also decouple the alternative fuel supply from food crops like corn. Best of all, it would stem the tide of cash that currently flows out from the USA's collective pocket, which is around $400 billion annually. That kind of economic "stimulus" would be a nice bonus too.

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (0)

Richy_T (111409) | about 10 months ago | (#44091699)

And I would outlaw ethanol (for fuel). It's production in the US is net energy loss and it damages vehicles and degrades nastily. That alone would improve the energy situation.

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (4, Interesting)

taiwanjohn (103839) | about 10 months ago | (#44092173)

I agree in spirit but not in practice. (Prohibition laws tend to do more harm than good.) But forcing ethanol to compete with methanol would have the same effect, since ethanol could never compete without government subsidies. Just remove the subsidies and mandate fully flex-fuel cars, and let the market take care of the ethanol problem.

In fact, I would go further and eliminate all subsidies from all industries. Let petroleum compete against the alternatives on a level playing field. I'm confident the market would take care of our oil problem too. (This is also advocated by Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. His talks are well worth a look.) [youtube.com]

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44092699)

If there is one thing in this whole world that has already been proven, it's that the market is highly irrational, panicky, capricious, and fickle. The market already sets government policy. This is why we are in this situation.

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 10 months ago | (#44092355)

Why that one? That seems like a bandaid solution to the climate change problem. A single bill putting the costs of carbon emissions onto the emitters, no matter what form, would do much more to prevent climate change. Or rather, reduce climate change.

Wouldn't solve the problem completely, and there would be loopholes of course, but no problem as big as climate change has one simple trick to solve it.

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#44091495)

Without comprehensive, cooperative, enforceable international standards and practices, it's all just political showmanship.

The average American pollutes more (partly by proxy, through their economic decisions) than almost any other kind of human on the planet. We cannot ask others to do what we are not willing to do: that's a special kind of bullshit. Leading from the rear is how we got into this mess. Put civilian lawmakers who decide we're going to war on the front lines (have them carry a radio or something) and see what happens, some things will shift very quickly.

When global issues are at stake, global cooperation is required. It might start with a less-corrupt, more efficient United Nations with unselfish participation by the member states to give it a sense of legitimacy. That would be the ideal.

The UN will never have legitimacy as long as it retains its structure, ruled by the UNSC. Guess who the most puissant nation on the UNSC is?

My gut feeling is that nothing, if anything, substantial will be done until the international capital oligarchs sense a real financial threat.

As long as they stay on top of the order, they don't seem to care much what it looks like...

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (3, Insightful)

Richy_T (111409) | about 10 months ago | (#44091681)

The Average American (of which I am not one), tends to have higher productivity on the planet than most other people. 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.

With that said, there could be much done in America to improve on waste and some on pollution (though I am not a fan of harsh or even most regulations). America as a whole has been on a pretty reasonable post industrialization trajectory and it would be a tragedy to damage its economy in an attempt to force things which will likely occur in time anyway.

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (4, Interesting)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 10 months ago | (#44091911)

The Average American (of which I am one) might be more productive, but all that productive work is putting money into the pockets of corporate masters. So not only are polluting, we're not even seeing the economic benefit of the pollution. So we aren't only killing ourselves, we've not even seeing the economic benefits we constant whine that we'll lose if simply do common sense measures.

It's high time the US population wake up and realizing everything being done is going to feed the corporate pig and that 99.999999% of us aren't millionaires in waiting. Our thinking is so screwed up that it's hard to pay attention to ANY political news and not get a headache from the cogitative dissonance we're forced to put up with day in and day out.

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about 10 months ago | (#44092681)

so all that productive work doesnt do anything for you? you dont get paid for your work? Why is everyone always talking about the "big bad corporations" while at the same time ignoring that these people do in fact keep people like you working?

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (1, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#44091931)

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?

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (1)

operagost (62405) | about 10 months ago | (#44092511)

Uh, what? By what measurement? Most Americans don't produce anything.

You have to admit: this is an utter nonsense statement. Unless you're referring to all the people who voluntarily don't work, or work little, and collect checks FROM the IRS every year. Those folks are net consumers.

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 10 months ago | (#44092547)

Uh, what? By what measurement? Most Americans don't produce anything.

You have to admit: this is an utter nonsense statement.

No, no I don't. [yahoo.com] Most Americans are engaged purely in the rearrangement of deck chairs into temporarily pleasing patterns.

Re:Dogs and Ponies, Center Stage (1)

Grey Geezer (2699315) | about 10 months ago | (#44091859)

"it's all just political showmanship." There is not much else a President of a Republican Democracy can do. It's called leadership. Granted,back room arm twisting is also part of it, but only a dictator could unilaterally order environmental compliance. Suggesting that it's a global problem, and so will be difficult to solve, should not be an excuse to do nothing, to say nothing. A speech may influence domestic and international public opinion.

What does he plan to do... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091041)

... about the Global Cooling that has been going on for the past 15 or so years?

Re:What does he plan to do... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091171)

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...)

Re:What does he plan to do... (1, Troll)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 10 months ago | (#44091419)

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.

Re:What does he plan to do... (1, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about 10 months ago | (#44091459)

No no, you see it has been rebraned "global climate change" - so even if the temp drops, it is because of humans and thus is bad. So, now they own both sides of the argument.

Re:What does he plan to do... (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | about 10 months ago | (#44091953)

Apparently some AGW skeptics also have mod points today. The current score stands at "+1 Insightful."

As for the substance of the issue, I've found this YouTube playlist [youtube.com] to be one of the more balanced and informative. It may not be your cup of tea, but it's worth a look.

Re:What does he plan to do... (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 10 months ago | (#44092313)

YouTube playlist... balanced and informative.

If that's not a sign of an impending and unstoppable apocalypse, I don't know what is.

Re:What does he plan to do... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44092551)

Why did someone mod this as a "Troll" post?

Because there's no "-1, fucking retarded." It should have simply been moderated overrated. Look at the damned numbers and you can see that "there's global cooling" is bullshit. There will be global cooling, but it will be millinea; we're about at the warm end of the Milankovich cycle, in about eight thousand years or so they might want to start firing up those coal plants again.

When your doctor says you don't need an antibiotic because antibiotics don't work against the flu, do you argue with him? The people who study this shit say that the Earth is warming. The only ones that don't say so work for the oil companies. If solar and wind and other methods of energy generation were cheaper than fossil fuels, the oil companies would be dead. They're fighting for their own survival.

OTOH nobody profits monetarily from using LESS oil.

Re:What does he plan to do... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091351)

The AGW crowd is disingenuous at best.

Their claim that AGW causes just about everything is an intellectual farce and is no different from what they routinely trash, Religion. They simply replace God as the prime mover with Man and his carbon emissions.

Now, when the holy grail of their predictions (rising temps) is on the verge of complete failure, they refuse to acknowledge that reality has declined to comply with their predictions. While at least some in the AGW crowd are starting to scratch their heads and think to themselves ,"hmmm...what could be happening?", the Kool Aid drinkers still blindly advocate for solutions to a problem no can prove exists. The rest just resort to a series of "Yeah, but" and "it could be this", etc.

To paraphrase the great Johny Cochran, If the models don't fit, they must be ditched!

Spy on them (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091067)

Is he just going use the NSA to spy on the weather until it behaves?

This is not Slashdot material... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091125)

This post does not belong on Slashdot and is only newsworthy to the Left who think isn't a political issue. Slashdot moderators have become too tolerant to liberal ideology.

Re:This is not Slashdot material... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091225)

If you're still grumbling over Obama being a "Liberal", you're missing the point.

Might I recommend getting out of the old century illusions and face up to the reality of fascism.

We've been under the thumb of the same masters since JFK.

Re:This is not Slashdot material... (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 10 months ago | (#44091945)

Obama is a bigger corporatist than Clinton was, and Clinton was more than Bush Sr.

Only Bush Jr. was a bigger corporatist.

We need to leave the left/right bullshit behind for a while while we make our country safe for democracy (democracy within a republic that is) again. The word of corporate entities mean a million times that of a constituent and that indicates a broken system.

Re:This is not Slashdot material... (3, Interesting)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 10 months ago | (#44092755)

The system is fraudulent and corrupt by design. It is not 'broken' by any means. It proves the old adage of nature itself: Might makes right.

Re:This is not Slashdot material... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091349)

Considering that the bulk of the lot of /. readers appear to be Liberalofascists...it's actually /. material. Just look at the snarky remark about "Global Cooling"- it's moderated Troll. Says it all, really. I'm pretty sure our posts will ALSO be moderated "Troll" by someone because neither of us are towing the Politically Correct mark with The Narrative.

Dearest Public (5, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | about 10 months ago | (#44091159)

Since everything else seems to have gone in the shitter, I come back to you with a message that seemed to sell well in both campaigns: the environment.

I look forward to again gaining your broad support with a campaign of platitudes, anthemic one-word slogans, and statements that make me appear sympathetic to your issues, while actually resulting in policies that either ossify the current corporation-based lobbyist-driven structure, or expand the pervasive control of the Federal government ostensibly for good reasons but which will in fact be used to incrementally decrease your rights vis a vis that "Constitution" thingy, which I will continue to re-interpret as really not relevant to today's realities anyway.

Signed,
Your President.

Re:Dearest Public (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44092097)

Sad but true. :(

Re:Dearest Public (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44092343)

Ha ha ha, call it flamebait bitches, you know he/she's RIGHT ON.

Paywall (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 10 months ago | (#44091527)

Do all of you guys commenting have a subscription to get past the WSJ paywall, or are you reading the article from some other method?

Oh... wait. "Reading the article". LOL.

Re:Paywall (4, Interesting)

akb (39826) | about 10 months ago | (#44092811)

To get around the WSJ paywall, search for the article title in Google. Open the link that comes up in Incognito and you should be fine.

Standard-issue Washington bickering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091597)

He hasn't even given his Tuesday speech yet but Obama's plans to tackle climate change are already raising objections in Washington.

Yeah, so long as anyone with any differing opinion exists in Washington, anything any president ever does will raise objections in the modern political climate. If there's a Republican whose strings are pulled by the poultry industry, there'd be objections to an order by Obama for a roast beef sandwich on rye. Wake me when there's something interesting going on.

lets just update this for brevity. (0)

nimbius (983462) | about 10 months ago | (#44091619)

Obama's current->plan() || current->legislation() Face(s) Long Fight

Everything from gun legislation after massive shooting sprees to just keeping the government fucking running has been next to impossible for this guy. Instead, you can thank the party of no [time.com] for making sure we reaffirm 'in god we trust' and try to repeal healthcare reform 33 times. [go.com] because thats way more important.

Unfortunately (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44091877)

There are 3 major obstacles to getting anything done with the climate change issues.

1 - USA: large portion of population, especially in the red states espousing a world view that is anti-science to the bone. This is being shamelessly exploitetd and nurtured by a powerful energy lobby and "conservative" (conservativism used to include environemental conservation in Teddy Roosevelt's era) politicians. In addition, US economy is facing competitive pressure from other countries and is worried that cleaning up environment means increased cost and loss of jobs. My view on this is that nothing will happen on the US end until after the final collapse of the republican party as we know it today. That is a few years out, but it will surely happen. US voters are by nature centrists, and the red state/blue state division won't last forever. Gerrymandering and politicized supreme court will extend the suffering though.

2-China. When China sets their mind to do something, it will get done,but their environmental policies are at the same level of their human rights policies, pretty low. They are smart enough, and tend to take the longer view, though, so I am sure they realizes that they can not fuel their economy USA-style for very long without ending up in a Mad Max-scenario. By the time the US republican party collapses, China might have turned around and become a climate change believer.

3-The developing countries. Energy is essential to increase the living standard, and it would be hypocritical by western nations to continue our high energy consumption, while these countries have a desperate need too increase their energy use. A country like Norway, who is a major oil producer, while being a poster boy for environment and climate change policies, spending a large portion of their GDP on rain forest projects, foreign aid and other environmental projects, needs to realize that until their privileged population does something about their massive energy usage, they will remain hypocrites. We need to budget for a dramatic increase in energy use by developing countries, which means we need to dramatically reduce our energy consumption in the west. I see soem good signs in that there are more and more small cars on US roads, but the SUVS,compact SUVS, and trucks, as well as assholes riding heavy BMWs, Audis, etc. are still dominating the landscape.

I think all rational persons have a pretty good idea what needs to be done. Obama needs to try, to make sure it gets put out there in the public, so that we know what direction to turn when the rest of the world is ready to advance from the middle ages. And by those, I include the republicans that espouse a pre-Copernicus world view.

Re:Unfortunately (1, Informative)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 10 months ago | (#44092339)

No, actually, the rational people do not agree on what needs to be done or even whether anything needs to be done. It is only the irrational people that agree that extreme and possibly quite useless things need to be done.

Rational people look at the facts that the earth is still cooler than before the medieval cold spell and that the temperature increase halted for the last 15 years, while irrational people do not want to be confused by these facts.

Gong Show (0)

UZIMANIAK (1692158) | about 10 months ago | (#44092037)

Obama's climate change speech will blow in tomorrow night. It'll be a classic gong show moment as soon as he says" Super Moon". Too bad I won't hear it, I'm on mute when his lips begin to move......

Bogus Plans From Bogus President (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44092475)

Obama's numbers are going south like a goose in Fall. Good thing. The goose will return and Obama will not.

Climatology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44092631)

The only science with no outliers, so every catastrophe is direct consequence of CO2. Hello, CO2 has been rising for 10,000 years!

no comprende (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44092791)

how long is a face-long fight, and why does Obama's climate plan one?

While we dither with meaningless goals (2)

sasparillascott (1267058) | about 10 months ago | (#44092805)

Great article in Rolling Stone the other day - laying out how our decades of not doing anything (fossil fuel companies love it) has already cost us Miami and southern Florida, its just a matter of time at this point:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-city-of-miami-is-doomed-to-drown-20130620#ixzz2X0NGzxLY [rollingstone.com]

The President will be talking about 17% CO2 emissions reductions from 2003 levels (if memory serves, but it should be 1990 levels) by 2020 which is a joke - and totally inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. He'll probably be doing this talk while approving the XL expansion (he approved the 1st two tar sands pipelines, Keystone 1 and Alberta Clipper in 2009).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...