Beta

×

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 To Ask For $1 Billion Climate Change Fund

samzenpus posted about 5 months ago | from the won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-cost? dept.

Earth 410

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.'"

cancel ×

410 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

There are no comments (1)

mexsudo (2905137) | about 5 months ago | (#46261903)

There are no comments

Re:There are no comments (1, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 5 months ago | (#46262061)

That's because it makes perfect sense... In my wee opinion, this is prima facie evidence that there is money in shouting the AGW 'gospel' and pushing the panic button.

Now, you can mod this post down into oblivion and prove me right, or you can prove me wrong by replying with facts, evidence, and reason... your call.

Re:There are no comments (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262129)

One BILLION! Why, that's almost as much as the 2007 estimate for the F35 plane!

Re:There are no comments (3, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | about 5 months ago | (#46262825)

Kind of like spitting in the ocean. Add about 7 or 8 trillion if you want to do anything about it otherwise you're just pissing money away. Think of the trillions of dollars worth of carbon fuel burned every year. What are you going to replace it with that costs a billion dollars? Fucking silly.

Re:There are no comments (1)

magsol (1406749) | about 5 months ago | (#46262171)

Facts, evidence, and reason. On Slashdot. Oh, you funny person, you.

Re:There are no comments (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262411)

Well, maybe not. But at least I have pictures. [hinterlandgazette.com]

Re:There are no comments (4, Insightful)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | about 5 months ago | (#46262209)

Facts, evidence, and reason are readily available anywhere you want to look for them. At this point, about the only reason you left not to be familiar with them is willful ignorance. That's the reason you'll (hopefully) get modded into oblivion, not because there's a gospel or anyone's out to get you. Try reading a book once in a while that isn't written by someone working for an oil company.

Re:There are no comments (4, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 months ago | (#46262265)

In my wee opinion, this is prima facie evidence that there is money in shouting the AGW 'gospel' and pushing the panic button.

Using your logic:

There's been massive flooding in the UK in recent weeks. So if the government allocate a significant budget to deal with the problem, that means that there wasn't really any flooding, it's just that there's money available for people to shout "Flood!"

Re:There are no comments (1, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 5 months ago | (#46262539)

Using your logic:

There's been massive flooding in the UK in recent weeks. So if the government allocate a significant budget to deal with the problem, that means that there wasn't really any flooding, it's just that there's money available for people to shout "Flood!"

1) Nobody is claiming that climate doesn't change - the debate is over the source(s) of that change.
2) Flooding is a present problem that causes damage, and is quite demonstrable as to its immediacy and even its sources. AGW theory on the other hand promises problems later down the road... maybe, well, if their models are proven to be correct.

Try again?

Re:There are no comments (2, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 months ago | (#46262619)

1) Nobody is claiming that climate doesn't change - the debate is over the source(s) of that change.

Change? There are still a handful of idiots trying to make the case that there is a global cooling trend.

There is no serious debate left. The only people that don't accept AGW are the same type of lunatics that still deny smoking causes cancer. They have been left behind by the rational people who tend to believe the scientists rather than the cranks.

Re:There are no comments (0, Troll)

funwithBSD (245349) | about 5 months ago | (#46262757)

Yeah, except that 97% is a made up statistic in the category of "repeat a lie often enough and people will think it is the truth.
97% of IPCC climate scientist agree with the IPCC findings.

One would hope so, since they helped craft the findings. Self selection at it's finest.

Broaden that out, and that number starts to fall dramatically: 66% of all climate scientists.

Broaden that out again, to match the phrasing often used: "Scientists" with no qualifier, it drops below 5%

http://www.friendsofscience.or... [friendsofscience.org]

Oh, and Bill Nye's (everyones favorite "Scientist" example these days) does not get a vote: He is an engineer.

Re:There are no comments (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262865)

How can there be debate at all? Even if you you are undecided you are compared to the "Flat Earth Society." For me-- as a scientist and engineer who creates dynamic models and simulations for a living, politicians like Kerry and his followers are extremely anti-science. They want 100% commitment-- faith even, that the science is settled. And it is not.

Re:There are no comments (4, Informative)

quantaman (517394) | about 5 months ago | (#46262807)

Using your logic:

There's been massive flooding in the UK in recent weeks. So if the government allocate a significant budget to deal with the problem, that means that there wasn't really any flooding, it's just that there's money available for people to shout "Flood!"

1) Nobody is claiming that climate doesn't change - the debate is over the source(s) of that change.

I still see lots of people claiming that it's mostly due to the urban heat island.

2) Flooding is a present problem that causes damage, and is quite demonstrable as to its immediacy and even its sources. AGW theory on the other hand promises problems later down the road... maybe, well, if their models are proven to be correct.

Try again?

Well AGW theory promises problems like flooding, and preparing for AGW can help us mitigate or even reduce those problems.

As for your skepticism over the theories, the only way to truly prove the models correct is to wait for the consequences to happen, and at that point it might be too late to act.

For a country the size of the US $1 billion is minuscule, even if the skeptics were right and the science was shoddy group think and the models were wildly inaccurate, the potential size of the problem is so big that this would still be a good investment.

Re:There are no comments (2, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | about 5 months ago | (#46262841)

I remember climate experts shouting back in the last millennium that if we didn't do radical change by 2000 it'd be too late to make a difference. Why does that target date keep moving?

Re:There are no comments (4, Informative)

quantaman (517394) | about 5 months ago | (#46262871)

Cite? I've generally heard 2020s or 2030s but that might be true and they might have been right. For all we know we're already past the tipping point and are going to get hit no matter what.

Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262351)

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.

Re: Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262673)

Yup we've never had terrible droughts before! Dustbowl, ancient egypt, your wife's mergers...

Re:There are no comments (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 5 months ago | (#46262771)

You haven't really said anything. Doing things cost money? Well, okay, but that's not exactly a contribution to the conversation.

It sounds like you're inviting someone to reel out, again, the arguments and facts that have convinced the majority of climate scientists that climate change is happening, it is significantly affected by human activities, and that we can and should do something about it. Well, we've done that. It's time to stop it.

Anyway, I don't think you bothered to read enough about what climate resilience is - it's preparation to recover more quickly from the catastrophic effects of climate change that are already occurring, and will get worse.

For god's sake, are you deniers even going to say we shouldn't even prepare to recover from these disasters?

Sure, why not? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46261935)

I mean, that Solyndra thing worked out great. Why not give Obama a $1B slush fund to play with?

Re:Sure, why not? (-1, Flamebait)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | about 5 months ago | (#46262231)

Like the free market never makes a bad investment. Is your argument truly that businesses fail sometimes, and therefore we should not bother trying to stop climate change?

Re:Sure, why not? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262299)

Like the free market never makes a bad investment. Is your argument truly that businesses fail sometimes, and therefore we should not bother trying to stop climate change?

The free market fails with their money, the government fails with ours.

Not to mention the fact that Solyndra is only one of many recent government funded green energy company failures.

 

Re:Sure, why not? (0, Redundant)

fnj (64210) | about 5 months ago | (#46262395)

The free market fails with their money, the government fails with ours.

Almost.

It's all "our money". Who do you think performs the actual work that creates wealth?

The free market fails with the money they convince us to give them, either directly with investments. or through a bought and paid for government. The government fails with the money they confiscate from us by force.

Re:Sure, why not? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262547)

When the Blacks do something, it's cool. And those Blacks are "straight-up," meaning that they can rob your riches and you'll simply shrug your shoulders and say, " 'das' coo'," because it is politically incorrect for a White to confront a Black about stealing riches. The president is black, America is predominantly White, so you honkies best bow down -- you can't, after all, insult the king. The Jews have you fuckers enslaved down cold.

Wake up, you dumb sons of bitches!

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Sure, why not? (3, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | about 5 months ago | (#46262719)

No, the free market in America falls with OUR money. It becomes tax writeoffs and bail outs. All in all, the neo-cons have rigged the system to socialize the losses, but privatize the profits.

Re:Sure, why not? (0, Flamebait)

mean pun (717227) | about 5 months ago | (#46262273)

You are absolutely right. Given that Solyndra is the only failure that the Obama critics can ever come up with, and given that a subsidy program for renewable energy obviously has high risks (but also high gains), Obama has a very impressive track record in this area. Better that he spends that public money on something that benefits not only the USA but the entire world, rather than, say, the NSA. (Or a Slashdot BETA.)

Re: Sure, why not? (2, Informative)

Orne (144925) | about 5 months ago | (#46262335)

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/... [heritage.org]

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDelâ(TM)s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsenâ(TM)s Crop Service and Olsenâ(TM)s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chemâ(TM)s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

Re: Sure, why not? (5, Interesting)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 5 months ago | (#46262451)

(long list here)

That's some terrible formatting - mixing billions and millions and straight dollar amounts.

After some simple parsing: 33 companies total, 19 filed for bankruptcy, 14 did not.

Of the 19 that filed for bankruptcy, Solyndra was easily the largest with $535M.

Of the 14 that did not, Brightsource is easily the largest with $1600M.

Brightsource alone constitutes more money involved than the total for those that filed for bankruptcy; $1598M.

The total money involved for those that did not: $5837M

Ultimately these numbers don't mean a whole lot without looking at the complete effects, but I thought I'd at least make that list a little easier to work with; numbers in millions.

1600,Brightsource
1460,First Solar
1200,SunPower
529,Fisker Automotive
299,Johnson Controls
178,Babcock and Brown
151,LG ChemÃTM
126.2,ECOtality
100,Mascoma Corp.
98.5,Nevada Geothermal
50,Vestas
39,Navistar
5.9,Amonix
0.5,GreenVolts

535,* Solyndra
400,* Abound Solar
279,* A123 Systems
118.5,* EnerDelÃ(TM
80,* Range Fuels
43,* Beacon Power
33,* Raser Technologies
25,* Evergreen Solar
20,* Konarka Technologies Inc.
16,* Nordic Windpower
13.3,* Energy Conversion Devices
10,* OlsenÃ(TM
7,* Stirling Energy Systems
6.5,* Thompson River Power
5.4,* Azure Dynamics
3,* Satcon
2,* Mountain Plaza
0.700981,* Willard and Kelsey Solar Group
0.5,* SpectraWatt

Re: Sure, why not? (5, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | about 5 months ago | (#46262823)

Good work on the list, but even then, that list is not complete. For example, it does not include Tesla, of which .5B was lent to them and since repaid. And how much of a difference has it made? Huge. They have forced all of other car makers (save nissan) to build electric cars, even though they do not want to.

Re: Sure, why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262857)

Fisker Automotive didn't file for bankruptcy??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-22/fisker-to-sell-assets-in-bankruptcy-at-139-million-loss.html

I would argue that your formatting is ultimately more deceptive...

Re: Sure, why not? (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 5 months ago | (#46262877)

I didn't check sources - that's on the parent poster to take responsibility for (or rather the site they sourced it from) :)

At least it's a lot easier to point out discrepancies with the list reformatted, right? :D

I call bullshit on the numbers (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262873)

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.

What's wrong with that list = Heritage Foundation (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262531)

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?

Re:What's wrong with that list = Heritage Foundati (4, Insightful)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 5 months ago | (#46262557)

If they are proffitable, then why do they need government money?
Or is that they are not bankrupt --yet?

Re:What's wrong with that list = Heritage Foundati (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 5 months ago | (#46262859)

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.

Re: Sure, why not? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 5 months ago | (#46262733)

LOL.
I notice that it includes fiskar, but does not include tesla which came out of the same funds and was paid off.
Can you say TOTAL BS?

Pay my taxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262863)

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)

Re:Sure, why not? (5, Informative)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 5 months ago | (#46262455)

Given that Solyndra is the only failure that the Obama critics can ever come up with, and given that a subsidy program for renewable energy obviously has high risks (but also high gains), Obama has a very impressive track record in this area.)

I'm all for solar and renewal energy development. But let's not kid ourselves over President Obama's track record. Here's a list of the ten largest loans to solar panel companies that went bankrupt:

  • Abound Solar: $790 million in tax payer funding
  • A123 Systems: $377 million
  • Ener1: $182 million
  • Range Fuels: $162 million
  • Azure Dynamics: $119 million
  • Energy Conversion Devices: $110 million
  • Evergreen Solar, Inc.: $85 million
  • Beacon Power: $77 million
  • Raser Technologies: $33 million

If we add in Solyndra at $570 million he's managed to piss away about $2.5 billion on those ten companies. If that's what you consider an impressive track record, I'd hate to see what you consider mediocre, or poor.

Re:Sure, why not? (2)

WindBourne (631190) | about 5 months ago | (#46262839)

abound solar was in my back yard. The fact that you claim 790 million means that you do not have a single CLUE about this. They were passed for 400 million, of which they spent less than 200 million.

Re:Sure, why not? (3, Interesting)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 5 months ago | (#46262433)

I mean, that Solyndra thing worked out great. Why not give Obama a $1B slush fund to play with?

you forgot the other 24 companies that succeeded. a 96% success rate isnt good enough?

Re:Sure, why not? (2)

marcgvky (949079) | about 5 months ago | (#46262591)

Yep. Solyndra's competitor from Oregon 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.

Re:Sure, why not? (2)

WindBourne (631190) | about 5 months ago | (#46262709)

Actually, that fund has been shown to be better than what wall street has done.

Just say "No" (5, Insightful)

Banichi (1255242) | about 5 months ago | (#46261969)

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.

Ha ha ha ha ha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262233)

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!

Before or after... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262295)

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!

Re:Ha ha ha ha ha (1, Troll)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 5 months ago | (#46262297)

You are way off base.

This is not a fund to do anything about climate change. This is a tiny fund to help mitigate the effects after they happen.

The USA's policy on climate change is to do nothing about it and then try to do better than others in dealing with the inevitable effects.

Remember that the wealthy will be mostly ok regardless and that is all policy makers in the US care about nowadays.

I imagine this fund is really just to make sure that the (wage) slaves can be prevented from dying or becoming too sick to work until they can be replaced with worker robots.

Re:Ha ha ha ha ha (4, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | about 5 months ago | (#46262585)

First, emissions per capita is a worthless measure. The fact is,that emissions are tied to GDP, not ppl. The only one that makes sense is CO2 per $GDP. And on that one, we are in the middle.
Secondly, America's emissions are dropping in EVERY arena. In fact, for the last 5 years, we have dropped more than any other single nation OR ENTITY.
Third, I always have to laugh when I see nutjobs like you screaming (anonomously) that America is the great evil on this, based on calculations of 50,75 years, while ignoring the fact that Europe, China have been emitting large amounts for millenniums. Heck, there is not virgin forest in either China OR Europe. And even now, Europe far outdid America in total emissions throughout most of the 1900s, until 1995. Then when Europe focused on taxing their fuel to stop future shock, did they lower their emissions. Regardless, America continues to drop our emissions.

Re:Just say "No" (3, Interesting)

thesupraman (179040) | about 5 months ago | (#46262249)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Be careful with that link, you may just learn something....
Especially if you remove the oil producing countries (they burn a lot as a side effect of providing oil to the other countries, and have low populations..).

The third world (and in fact second world) produce small amounts per capita, or are you going to argue against per capita, so we can all laugh at you?

Re:Just say "No" (0)

fnj (64210) | about 5 months ago | (#46262497)

Wake up. CO2 is not "pollution" by any rational reckoning. CO2 is plant food.

Abolish the unaccountable EPA[*] as it is presently constituted. If you want to set policy about how much of the people's money to throw away on various pie in the sky feel-good fantasies, do it through the people's representatives, as the constitution sets forth. If you want to guard against acts of selfish defiance in the form of real pollution as duly legislated by the people's representatives, keep a small part of the EPA, the activities that are legitimate, in the form of pollution police.

[*] Get rid of ALL governmental unelected and unaccountable authorities. I do not recognize any apparatchik as having arbitrary authority over the people.

Re:Just say "No" (3, Interesting)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 5 months ago | (#46262851)

Wake up. CO2 is not "pollution" by any rational reckoning. CO2 is plant food.

This. Is. Awesome! Okay, I'll play - oxygen is human food! So, let's all consume pure oxygen! What could go wrong? And water? H2O is a vital element of all complex life on Earth! Go stick your head in a bucket of water for 10 or 20 minutes. We'll wait.

(Some weird rant against the EPA)

Yep, the evil EPA, created by that Earth-hugging pot-smoking hippy, our elected representative Richard M. Nixon in 1970. With that uid, I would have guessed you lived through the 70's in the U.S. I was alive then - pollution by UNACCOUNTABLE INDUSTRY was out of control. Remember Love Canal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org] Remember the Cuyahoga River that CAUGHT FIRE in the late 60's? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org] Remember smog in LA in the 70's? It's down 85% since then. Do you know why? http://thegoodhuman.com/2012/0... [thegoodhuman.com]

Nope, don't need that evil EPA, no siree.

Re:Just say "No" (1)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 5 months ago | (#46262543)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Be careful with that link, you may just learn something.... Especially if you remove the oil producing countries (they burn a lot as a side effect of providing oil to the other countries, and have low populations..).

The third world (and in fact second world) produce small amounts per capita, or are you going to argue against per capita, so we can all laugh at you?

'cause that's the important thing, who we can laugh at.

In the meantime, how is one billion more that we don't have anyway going to help?

Re:Just say "No" (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 5 months ago | (#46262699)

And that is the WORST metric going. The reason is that emissions is NOT based on ppl, but GDP. [oilprice.com]
Only idiots try to push the concept of per capita.

And claiming that 3rd and 2rd world produce small amounts per capita indicates total foolishness on your part. Many of their are massive. Worse, China doubles every 10 years, and they are NOT SLOWING DOWN.

here is based on 2005 emissions which is worthless, but there it is [wikipedia.org]
This is based on PPP GDP (which is also a bad idea, but still better than per capita) [worldbank.org] However, as you look at it, you realize that most of the bad polluters, are oil producing, high GDP growth nations, AND CHINA.

Even with GDP based, you can see that the majority of 3rd world nations that do not have economy, have no real emissions.

Re:Just say "No" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262387)

So the economy is tanking and there's no plausible method to recovery and yet they decide to add another billion in there? Sorry but the moment that the US goes third world, people won't give a crap about climate change or regulating heir mufflers. It's all going to be about the black market and then some. If Obama served a third term, the US would effectively become a third world country. But I guess what do you expect from someone raised as a chicago thug?

Re:Just say "Yes" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262389)

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.

Re:Just say "No" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262831)

The notion that the US should do nothing to avoid the problem because other will continue to do harm is simply foolish. What is wrong with having the most powerful and wealthy country in the world lead by example? Isn't that what we're supposed to do?

Pretty much *all* new technologies start out relatively expensive. (Remember when Cell phones were a sign of extreme wealth? Now children have them and play games...). As the tech matures and gains higher adoption rates, the price goes down. It's not a huge leap to say that if the US makes a relatively small investment in cleaner technologies (the yearly budget is in the *trillions*, single digit billions won't put a dent in that plus or minus), then we will help drive down the price for everyone... Making it increasingly more practical for poorer nations to adopt it too. This isn't rocket science.

I mean, it's not like anyone really *wants* pollution. For example, let's pretend that I could give you a car that was equal to an ICE in all categories: safety, mileage, fuel efficiency, fuel availability, etc. but happened to operate using a new fuel source that had zero emissions... why would someone NOT want that?

Make a technology cheap and effective and people will adopt it, green or not.

Re:Just say "No" (2)

quantaman (517394) | about 5 months ago | (#46262855)

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.

Yeah, you're only the 2nd highest gross emitter [wikipedia.org] responsible for ~18% of the worldwide emissions (and probably a lot more of the cumulative emissions already there). You're practically a nation of vegan hippies!

$1 Billion? Chump change. (1)

ThaumaTechnician (2701261) | about 5 months ago | (#46261985)

If Obama really wanted to 'press for the need', he'd propose a $1 trillion fund. Much less than the Iraq War's costs.

Re:$1 Billion? Chump change. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262023)

If Obama really wanted to help the country, he'd declare war on Congress.

captcha...corrupt.

Re:$1 Billion? Chump change. (1)

anagama (611277) | about 5 months ago | (#46262449)

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.

Re:$1 Billion? Chump change. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262615)

Then we'd just have Congress and the Supreme Court doing the same things.

Re:$1 Billion? Chump change. (1)

Etcetera (14711) | about 5 months ago | (#46262197)

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.

If he really wanted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262749)

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.

Unconstitutional (1, Insightful)

The Cat (19816) | about 5 months ago | (#46262011)

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.

Re:Unconstitutional (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262053)

While I certainly don't like most of the people in the District or what they do, the point of this bill is lost on me.

From what I gathered, the purpose is to support farmers when hit by a drought or other natural phenomena. Wouldn't this all fall under the same fund that is used when hurricanes hit states, so that they can rebuild? It seems to be the same role. Natural damage on developed property in both cases. One is just buildings and the other is farm land.

Re:Unconstitutional (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262063)

Maybe we should blame the board of directors who put all those corrupt politicians in office?

Re:Unconstitutional (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262115)

I hate to break it to you, but all governments either start corrupt or quickly head there. Those who seek power over others usually aren't fit to have it, and those who are fit, generally don't want it because they feel the people will stand up and fix it soon enough, or simply don't have the traits needed to get it. the states would do just as poorly, with the added benefit of showing the entire world proof that our government is ****ed. we've simply let politics be to important for too long for it to work the way you're hoping... or maybe i'm just far to cynical?

Re:Unconstitutional (5, Informative)

The Cat (19816) | about 5 months ago | (#46262175)

The difference between our government and others is that we have a Constitution which restrains corruption. The further we drift from the law, the more lawless we become.

We are fortunate that Madison was prescient in this thinking and chose to include a mechanism for recovering control in the face of a thoroughly corrupt federal government.

The states will do their duty, and it will be a signal to the world that the American People are both resilient and well equipped to handle any challenge.

Re:Unconstitutional (1)

bondsbw (888959) | about 5 months ago | (#46262287)

The point is checks and balances. When just one person/group has all the power, they get everything they want.

Just as the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the federal government help to reduce the amount of power given to any one group, the states exist to reduce the amount of power contained within the borders of Washington.

Re:Unconstitutional (1)

houghi (78078) | about 5 months ago | (#46262237)

It is nice if people keep saying things about what is written in the constitution. The constitution is a nice thing for discussion, but it is meaningless, unless people decide to act on it.

Ever heard that guns do not kill people, but people do? Well:
The Constitution does not give you any rights, people do.
Those people could even give you those rights without the constitution or they can take it away with it, or do whatever they please.

Re:Unconstitutional (1)

fnj (64210) | about 5 months ago | (#46262533)

Comments that actually make you THINK. Thank you.

Re:Unconstitutional (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#46262401)

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

There's a 97% chance this will end up with something worse than we have now.

Remember, last time the constitution was written, it was done by people who had already made a few. Not only had they experience with making constitutions, they were also much more familiar with history. These were the guys who wrote the Federalist Papers. Now you'll be lucky to find congresspeople who've even read the Federalist Papers. I would bet a lot of them don't even know what they are.

Secondly, if you want to know why the government is disfunctional, look around at the American people. How many Americans are in debt? Even if elections worked perfectly finding a person who represents their district, a person who proposed to do what's necessary to cut the debt would not be elected. Government disfunction right now is a reflection of America, sadly.

Re:Unconstitutional (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 5 months ago | (#46262545)

Really? Where in the constitution does it say that the president and congress can NOT prepare for a coming disaster?

Personally, I think that you neo-cons/tea* are in dire need of the lithium that Tesla is chewing up.

No Problem (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262027)

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.

Re:No Problem (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#46262409)

and from their into your campaign fund.

Really? Did that happen?

Re:No Problem (4, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | about 5 months ago | (#46262701)

Yep looks like it did.
http://www.almanacnews.com/squ... [almanacnews.com]
http://dailycaller.com/2011/09... [dailycaller.com]

Take it as you want.

Re:No Problem (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#46262723)

That's depressing.

Re:No Problem (0)

WindBourne (631190) | about 5 months ago | (#46262537)

Considering that most of those executives were republicans, I doubt it.

Huh (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | about 5 months ago | (#46262033)

Why does he want to change the climate? It was good enough for my father, it's good enough for me!

Re:Huh (1)

lord_rob the only on (859100) | about 5 months ago | (#46262139)

Sure why does he want to change the climate ? The climate doesn't need Obama to change :)

Meanwhile... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262069)

I'm still waiting for technocrat.net to come online. Fuck beta.

It's a 1 billion dollar slush fund. (5, Insightful)

SensitiveMale (155605) | about 5 months ago | (#46262089)

Don't be fooled.

Re:It's a 1 billion dollar slush fund. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262151)

Its a billion dollar fund to continue clouding up the sky with aluminum and barium and GOD KNOWS WHAT ELSE.

Re:It's a 1 billion dollar slush fund. (4, Insightful)

tomhath (637240) | about 5 months ago | (#46262479)

A billion dollar slush fund in time for the 2016 elections. He's not fooling anyone.

But it has no chance of getting through Congress, just something he will point fingers at the Ebil Tea Party Owned Republicans for blocking.

What we need ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 5 months ago | (#46262097)

... is a good PR campaign [bsalert.com] to convince people that the problem is imminent.

Re:What we need ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262179)

Yea, and how many years has this been imminent? Like 8 years now. We are already seeing less and less people believe in man-made climate change. Obama is trying to milk it as much as he can before people stop believing it.

Not only that, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262505)

Rothschild bankers are the ones behind the whole scheme to make money on the scam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdqNds9pNuI

No, it will not work (1)

WindBourne (631190) | about 5 months ago | (#46262501)

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.

heh (2)

zerodl (817292) | about 5 months ago | (#46262117)

Obama to bail out mother nature.

Won't pass (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262137)

Won't pass because fuck nature. And Obama is for it, so half of congress with be against it.

He won't get a dime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262207)

Nor should he.

cannot applaud a murderder (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 5 months ago | (#46262377)

sorry.

Obama is incapable of responsible action. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262399)

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 ...

Perfectly Understandable (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 5 months ago | (#46262405)

Obama has to keep paying off his supporters. And it's not like it's *his* money, right?

If they were serious about climate change... (2)

matbury (3458347) | about 5 months ago | (#46262427)

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.

Such foolish actions (2)

WindBourne (631190) | about 5 months ago | (#46262469)

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 know where the cash can come from... (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 5 months ago | (#46262503)

Oil and gas subsidies. [wikipedia.org] Record profits and they are still getting subsidized?

priorities.

Solyndra's Legacy: Let's dbl down on stupid (1)

marcgvky (949079) | about 5 months ago | (#46262625)

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.

What uncertainty (1)

davmoo (63521) | about 5 months ago | (#46262687)

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.

Stop global warming. (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 5 months ago | (#46262703)

With the winter we've been having.I want more global warming!

Re:Stop global warming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46262759)

You liberaratarians just don't GET IT! It's only so cold and snowy because of hot it's been. It's been proven by every important scientist on the planet.

Have you ever had a pop tart? It's like that, DUH!

Makes sense, regardless on position on AGW ... (3, Insightful)

MacTO (1161105) | about 5 months ago | (#46262767)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>