Forum Post: obama and climate change
Posted 12 years ago on July 18, 2012, 8:22 a.m. EST by flip
(7101)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
AMY GOODMAN: —I also spoke to Marc Morano, who is publisher of Climate Depot, a website run by the climate-denier group, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. I asked him about President Obama’s record on climate change.
MARC MORANO: His nickname is "George W. Obama." Obama’s negotiator, Todd Stern, will be here today. They have kept the exact same principles and negotiating stance as President George Bush did for eight years. Obama has carried on Bush’s legacy. So, as skeptics, we tip our hat to President Obama in helping crush and continue to defeat the United Nations process. Obama has been a great friend of global warming skeptics at these conferences. Obama has problems, you know, for us, because he’s going through the EPA regulatory process, which is a grave threat. But in terms of this, President Obama could not have turned out better when it came to his lack of interest in the congressional climate bill and his lack of interest in the United Nations Kyoto Protocol. So, a job well done for President Obama.
I see no reason to discuss our choices along parties that don't support us
He has done more any other Pres. has. more than any republican would do. Would do more if repubs weren't obstructing his every effort.
Support the environment. vote out anti greentech politicians.
[Removed]
"Obama used the terms “energy” and “clean energy” nearly two dozen times"....
Guess that is still all it takes to get an idiot nation to believe, just words with no follow through.
Glad to see you are still an media manipulated idiot.
chuchill said "words are easy and many - deeds are hard and few"
[Removed]
Save your keystrokes. This guy is insane, as in certified:
http://zendogblog.net/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuctdBycnSo
[Removed]
Well, if you look at the list of problems that the president has to address how big do you think AGW really is?
If he did push for the US to adopt all of the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol how long would that delay the expected global temp rise in the next 100 years? Six months? So what's the point?
Reduction - and elimination - of pollution - you know that toxic shit?
CO2 is not toxic, in fact without it we would all die quite rapidly.
If we have little more than necessary half a box car worth of metal filings can fix that problem. This irrational rush to spend $ trillions in CO2 reduction, building 16 th century tech windmills, and halting human progress is just folly.
http://www.npr.org/2012/07/18/156976147/can-adding-iron-to-oceans-slow-global-warming
Carbon soot is not healthy - mercury is not healthy - arsenic is not healthy.
BTW - Try breathing pure co2 - gonna be able to do that and live?
There is a great effort among folks that try to be green to buy locally grown food.
Green or not; what do you reckon?
How about frankenfoods (Genetically Modified Organisms) ? Green or not?
Trying to change the subject?
Sorry not gonna play that game.
The point is that we are being tricked into adopting behaviors that we think are helping, when in fact only help line the pockets of the Prius builders, Gov subsidized solar panel corporations, and the corps that charge you two times for a head of organic lettuce that actually produces more waste products than the cheap stuff two shelves over at the grocery store.
Sorry you have lost touch with reality. Or are shilling for fossil fuel.
Not a big fan of fossil fuel. There is a lot of stored energy there but the conversion is inefficient. (Pretty much the only way to power aircraft right now though).
An all electric car would be a much better solution. The maintenance is about 25% of an internal combustion vehicle, the brakes virtually never wear out, charging can be accomplished using zero emission source (like nukes or hydro); the current problem is range (70 miles on a charge). There is no reason why you should not be able to get 500,000 miles out of an electric car which makes it a pretty good value.
The reality is that trusting the media (or a Prius maker) on what is green or not is risky. I prefer to dig a little and do what makes sense.
What creates more pollution, the production and use of a Ford Fiesta or a Toyota Prius?
how about a bicycle?
I am of two minds about Bicycles. Speed is definitely an issue. If you make $30/ hour and you add two hours to your commute using a bike you could have taken that savings, planted a few bushes, and offset your carbon production.
Carbon is not the only consideration, there are many pollutants emitted from cars, plus the difference in production costs, real costs not just monetary.
Bikes are cheap, clean, easy to use, the rider benefits from exercise, and the experience of the air and world around them, unlike the closed-in isolation of the car experience. Carbon offsets address only one issue, this reduction of the destruction of our living environment to this one issue, of global warming, is a tactic to limit the debate. Global warming is a huge issue however it is not the only consideration.
Not sure AGW is really such a big issue. If the goal was really to stop AGW simple solutions like salting the sea with iron or injecting sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere could easily fix the problem. No, I suspect that the real motive is to curb development and shift more power to Gov bureaucracies cause "they know better" than the rest of us.
Don't get me wrong, bikes are a good idea for a lot of reasons, but economically the time suck is a big issue. Plus people don't want to wait 30 seconds longer than they think it should take getting fast food; do you really think they those folks are going to spend extra hours commuting to work on a bike, in the rain, heat, snow, and cold?
Not sure AGW is really such a big issue. If the goal was really to stop AGW simple solutions like salting the sea with iron or injecting sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere could easily fix the problem.
Pie in the sky geoengineering solutions that have never been tested on any type of scale that would be meaningful in any statistical way.
SO2 and water creates sulphuric acid...what do you think the side effects of pumping vast quantities of sulpher dioxide into the atmosphere is going to be?
Yes exactly, the techno-fix crowd are just clinging to the ways of mindless destruction, seemingly due to fear of any real change and pathetic personal greed. The oceans are already acidifying due to climate change as it is,. any of these mega project terra-forming schemes will be disaster,. .
It only takes a tiny amount of SO2 in the upper atmosphere to fix the problem ( a fraction of what is released via vulcanism each year, see link below).
Instead of building windmills (which really do nothing to lower temps (one study in TX actually shows crop damage from increasing surface temps due to windmills)), why not put the best minds to work on solving the problem instead of saying that we all have to go back to cowering in caves warming our hands over a CFL lamp? (BTW, some already have and for a lot less $ http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4290084 )
We used to have the courage to take on and solve what others considered pie-in-the-sky engineering problems. I fear that we are turning into a nation of spineless, lazy, whiners constantly asking for more goodies from the Gov. What ever happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you.....".
They are talking about minute amounts of sulfur dioxide (much less than the amount typically produced each year by vulcanism) that would be injected high into the atmosphere in specific areas where the effect of geo-cooling can be the greatest.
Based on what exactly? Climate models? Aren't they supposed to be utter trash and the variables too complex to accurately portray our chaotic atmospheric system? Now they are good enough to be relied on?
Irrespective of the models the effects of seeding can be determined empirically. That's what experiments that Bill Gates is funding are designed to demonstrate.
So they are going to guess on what amount is correct, throw some in to the atmosphere and measure after the fact? And that is ok with you? Sounds irresponsible. Very much in the vein of atmospheric nuke testing, only with acids... and we are once again the guinea pigs.
Ya gotta break a few eggs........
Good one caught Him/Her (?) playing both sides of the coin.
We used to have the courage to take on and solve what others considered pie-in-the-sky engineering problems. I fear that we are turning into a nation of spineless, lazy, whiners constantly asking for more goodies from the Gov....
We have learned through many screwups that before we go on a large scale engineering project to 'fix' something, all consequences should be considered and weighed before proceeding. Thats not spineless but smart.
A great example is the Army Corp of Engineers beach sand erosion mitigation project where stone jetties were constructed in an attempt to capture eroding beach sand on the coasts. After hundreds if not thousands of jetties were constructed, the USGS did a study that indicated that the jetties actually sped up the rate of erosion on the beaches.
Reading nonsense in a pop science magazine and buying it hook line and sinker as a done deal fix and cure is ignorant. Every action we take has consequences..... every one, including no action at all.
Nonsense? The folks that came up with the nonsense might give you a good argument (and there are some deep pockets that are working to make it a reality):
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034009/pdf/1748-9326_5_3_034009.pdf
http://www.prisonplanet.com/gates-funded-experiment-to-spray-atmosphere-with-sulphur-particles.html
Deep pockets.... or just because you have the money to do something does not mean it's the right thing to do.
In the late 1960's and into the 1970's sulphates from heavy industry in central Canada, along the US border traveled the prevailing winds and created acid rains that poisoned the lakes in the Adirondack Mountains of NY. I was living in the Adirondacks at the time. All the fish died. Some of the lakes had pH's as low as lemon juice. The lakes became sterile.
How are they going to prove that acid rain won't be a by product of atmospheric seeding with sulphates? Mathematical models? LOL.
Check into the details. They are talking about minute amounts of sulfur dioxide (much less than the amount typically produced each year by vulcanism) that would be injected high into the atmosphere in specific areas where the effect of geo-cooling can be the greatest.
The effect is also quite temporary and can be stopped rapidly in the event of unforeseen ill-effects; and the costs to do initial experiments are modest.
Did you even bother to read the article you posted?
Miniscule amounts needed? As compared to what?
From your article:
A volcanic eruption can bellow many million tons of sulfur-dioxide gas into the atmosphere, creating a cloud that blocks some of the sun's radiation. By injecting the atmosphere with sulfur, some scientists believe they could likewise block solar radiation and potentially cool the planet.
Sulfur dioxide reacts with water in the atmosphere to create droplets of sulfuric acid, says Rutgers University environmental scientist Alan Robock. Those droplets are particularly good at scattering the sun's light back out into space. And because sulfur doesn't heat the stratosphere as much as other aerosols, it wouldn't work against the cooling effect. Hydrogen sulfide is an even better candidate for atmospheric seeding than sulfur dioxide, but scientists would need an awful lot of it: 5 megatons, every year, to offset humanity's contribution to global warming. That's like experiencing the eruption of a volcano a quarter of the size of the cataclysmic Mt. Pinatubo, annually.
Read more: How Geoengineering Works: 5 Big Plans to Stop Global Warming - Popular Mechanics
Some additional detail below.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034009/pdf/1748-9326_5_3_034009.pdf
http://www.prisonplanet.com/gates-funded-experiment-to-spray-atmosphere-with-sulphur-particles.html
Prison Planet????
Really?
Do you have anything from FLAKESnews?
Limbaugh maybe?
Wisdom can be found in the most unlikely places.
So did you even read your article?
You are really funny - the lengths that you will go to to support fossil fuel.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4290084
To begin with - for realities sake - fossil fuel sources are dwindling - fossil fuel is finite. So a replacement for fossil fuel is needed anyway.
The sooner the replacement is implemented the better as we already have a herculean task ahead cleaning up toxic ash dumps.
LNG you say? No Finite source again but also the extraction method pollutes/poisons our ground water.
Get over it already pollution fuel pollution tech has got to go.
Also instead of the BS ideas that even the article you posted says are BS. Why would you not be supporting a real answer green technology?
From your comment:
We used to have the courage to take on and solve what others considered pie-in-the-sky engineering problems. I fear that we are turning into a nation of spineless, lazy, whiners constantly asking for more goodies from the Gov. What ever happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you.....".
So I say again fossil fuel is finite fossil fuel pollutes - Why can you not support getting rid of Fossil Fuel?
Also and again : Fossil fuel kills. The extraction process kills people and the environment, Smog kills the elderly and the sick. The toxins released poison the environment air water land - food chain.
So again why would you not support the development and implementation of clean energy and fuel.
From your comment:
We used to have the courage to take on and solve what others considered pie-in-the-sky engineering problems. I fear that we are turning into a nation of spineless, lazy, whiners constantly asking for more goodies from the Gov. What ever happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you.....".
Take your own advice or chastisement and make the change to green.
Have you considered he consequences of rapidly ending the use of fossil fuels? I mean really try to compile a list of the effects from such a change? Fossil fuels have saved, and continue to save billions of lives world wide. Billions of lives.
I have written many times that I am no fan of fossil fuels. They may contain a lot of energy and they are cheap, but the conversion process is dirty and inefficient. (although methane is a pretty good variant and it is renewable (see below)).
Most solutions to problems are a series of trade-offs made by looking at the pros and cons of the final decision. We seldom enjoy win-win answers to complicated problems like energy use and distribution. On the other hand, energy is the most abundant thing in the universe and the idea that there is some kind of shortage is a little ridiculous.
We just need to find the best ways to convert the energy into uses that help us while minimizing the cost, risk, and environmental effects. And minimizing does not mean that there will be no effect.
For example, who knew that wind mills actually increase surface temps (funny cause they are touted as reducing AGW) and damage crops, while photovoltaic production is environmentally hazardous (and a human health risk) and the panels cover green space and reflective surfaces (like deserts) that actually increases surface temps (they are also an eyesore) .
http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Earth-Science--Resource-Engineering/Enhanced-Methane-Production.aspx
I'm curious - are you related to Mitten's? You know as he is a compulsive liar.
OR
Did you even bother to read the article you posted?
Miniscule amounts needed? As compared to what?
From your article:
A volcanic eruption can bellow many million tons of sulfur-dioxide gas into the atmosphere, creating a cloud that blocks some of the sun's radiation. By injecting the atmosphere with sulfur, some scientists believe they could likewise block solar radiation and potentially cool the planet.
Sulfur dioxide reacts with water in the atmosphere to create droplets of sulfuric acid, says Rutgers University environmental scientist Alan Robock. Those droplets are particularly good at scattering the sun's light back out into space. And because sulfur doesn't heat the stratosphere as much as other aerosols, it wouldn't work against the cooling effect. Hydrogen sulfide is an even better candidate for atmospheric seeding than sulfur dioxide, but scientists would need an awful lot of it: 5 megatons, every year, to offset humanity's contribution to global warming. That's like experiencing the eruption of a volcano a quarter of the size of the cataclysmic Mt. Pinatubo, annually.
Read more: How Geoengineering Works: 5 Big Plans to Stop Global Warming - Popular Mechanics
They will when gas is $29.00 a gallon,. or if they can get it at all.
Change comes quickly,. be on the right side of it.
Funny thing about change, people are rarely able to predict it.
it is easier with ones eyes open; gas is made from oil, oil is a finite resource, ergo,. as we use it up there is less and less remaining. (see; cake & eat it too) we are currently scraping the bottom of the barrel processing dirty sources like the tar sands of Alberta,. the energy derived form that invested is many times less than what we could get at just a few years ago, and the environment where it is harvested/processed is left utterly devastated.
https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=tar+snds&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1546&bih=829&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=ao4KUJ6sH_KJ2AWUo7X1Dw
Have you considered the cost/benefit of using fossil fuels over the years?
Using today's pollution tech they are about equal in the production process.
In the use the Prius creates less pollution for the miles traveled.
How many gallons in a Fiesta tank how many miles between refills.
I am not personally familiar with the Prius - I did used to own a fiesta ( not the new release ) I did however own a 2002 Honda Insight I could get upwards of 800 miles on a tank of gas - approx = 10 gallons. Though that was not during rush hour driving when I would average about 45 miles per gallon creeping along at 5 to 20 mph with constant stopNgo.
The Prius is an example of the great fraud that is at the root of much of what is advertised today as the green life style in America.
The production and use of the Prius produces 2 to 3 times the amount of pollution as the Fiesta, at almost two times the sticker price.
An all electric car would be a much better solution, but people buy the Prius and proudly trundle about showing off their imagined green superiority to their neighbors; thereby absolving themselves of the rest of their incredibly polluting life style (one vacation involving air travel produces more pollution than 300 people in most of Africa for a year). The whole thing is a boondoggle.
I suppose you have proofs of your statements? Some sort of study? Done by some sort of independent group?
Like I said I have had personal experience with the Honda Insight Hybrid. I know the value and savings I received with that car.
I still find it funny that you say co2 is healthy. You still have not gotten to why you will die if you breath a heavy concentration of the stuff.
What pollutants are produced in the manufacture, transportation, operation, maintenance, and disposal of the two vehicles? How much do each cost and how long do they last? Consider all of these factors and the answer is 2 - 3 times.
When you take a breath how much oxygen do you inhale?
Never mind the BS about what you breathe. CO2 and CO can both be deadly. FUN FACT what is created by industry and by car's = CO
Info on co2 taken from :
Carbon dioxide - Lenntech www.lenntech.com/carbon-dioxide.htm Joseph Black, a Scottish chemist and physician, first identified carbon dioxide in the 1750s. At room temperatures (20-25 oC), carbon dioxide is an odourless, ...
The primary health dangers of carbon dioxide are:
Resources:
Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/carbon-dioxide.htm#ixzz2129fYYNN
Info on co taken from:
Carbon monoxide poisoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning Carbon monoxide poisoning occurs after enough inhalation of carbon monoxide (CO). Carbon monoxide is a toxic gas, but, being colorless, odorless, tasteless, ...
Carbon monoxide poisoning occurs after enough inhalation of carbon monoxide (CO). Carbon monoxide is a toxic gas, but, being colorless, odorless, tasteless, and initially non-irritating, it is very difficult for people to detect. Carbon monoxide is a product of incomplete combustion of organic matter due to insufficient oxygen supply to enable complete oxidation to carbon dioxide (CO2). It is often produced in domestic or industrial settings by older motor vehicles and other gasoline-powered tools, heaters, and cooking equipment. Exposures at 100 ppm or greater can be dangerous to human health.[
As I wrote we would all die without a good deal of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is also a super fertilizer which aids in food production, promotes plant growth which absorbs more CO2, releases oxygen, and cools the planet.
And as I said try breathing it in a large quantity. Not even pure co2. Just drive into your garage leave the engine running and close the door remain inside the garage with the car engine running - see how long you can do that.
It is not the CO2 that kills you in your garage experiment.
What creates more pollution, the production and use of a Ford Fiesta or a Toyota Prius?
LOL - really. What is it then?
OH and how about people who die from a faulty furnace - reported as co2 poisoning. Is that a fairy tale?
You confuse carbon monoxide (the faulty furnace gas) with carbon dioxide. The former does the killing, while the latter is essential for life. We would all die without it.
Hook your self up to a bottle of co2 and lets see what happens shall we?
Air is a mixture of about 21% O, 78% Ni, and a small mount of other gasses including ~ 0.04 % CO2 ,but that CO2 is critical for feeding plants and keeping the planet from freezing. You could double the % of CO2 in the air and it would not be hazardous to breath.
BTW water vapor in the air is a much more powerful green-house gas than CO2.
Water vapor is not a health hazard until the air is really saturated then it can be harmful/deadly to people of elderly years and people with lung problems - usually most debilitating to those mentioned in hot environments.
An over abundance of co2 can make you ill and can kill you.
Just to be fair an overabundance of oxygen can also kill you.
But there is no over abundance of CO2 to kill you. If you increase the concentration by an order of magnitude it will still only be 0.4% of the air that you breath.
Go back to bed.
It's early yet; there's still work to be done.