Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013  (Read 15319 times)

CraigsIsland

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« on: June 25, 2013, 06:46:11 PM »
link to live broadcast: http://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change

hopefully some positive implementations occur during speech

Juan C. García

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 550
  • Likes Given: 518
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2013, 07:57:03 PM »
Which is the best answer to Sep-2012 ASI lost (compared to 1979-2000)?
50% [NSIDC Extent] or
73% [PIOMAS Volume]

Volume is harder to measure than extent, but 3-dimensional space is real, 2D's hide ~50% thickness gone.
-> IPCC/NSIDC trends [based on extent] underestimate the real speed of ASI lost.

deep octopus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 551
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2013, 08:12:08 PM »
This is maybe his most dedicated focus on the topic since his Presidency, or any American president. This is an amazing backdrop, since James Hansen testified to Congress 25 years ago this week, back when 1988 was on pace to be the warmest year on record. He's laying out executive orders for the EPA to cap carbon emissions from power plants, upgrade of infrastructure to mitigate against sea level rise and extreme weather, and encourage renewable energy transition.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/25/read-the-white-houses-big-new-climate-change-plan/

On Keystone XL, in today's speech:
”Our national interest will be served only if this pipeline does not significantly exacerbate the climate problem.”

This reads like very positive news, given skepticism that Obama would oppose the pipeline.

UPDATE:
Federal government to obtain 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 08:19:24 PM by Deep Octopus »

CraigsIsland

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2013, 08:23:02 PM »
Natural Gas and Nuclear more favorable. Challenging GOP to buy in and world on adopting clean energy.

Will post transcript later along with any official docs from WH.

RaenorShine

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 244
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2013, 08:25:41 PM »
The Guardian has published the full plan here :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2013/jun/25/barack-obama-climate-action-plan

3 main sections :

- Reduce carbon pollution
- Increase resiliency to climate change (floods, droughts, wildfires etc)
- International Co-operation.

It's just a huge pity he's fighting with at least one hand tied behind his back.

Artful Dodger

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 453
  • The traps have got him, and that's all about it!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2013, 12:43:44 AM »
EDIT: Here is the complete speech:





A very telling tale from the media control centres in NYC.

U.S. Network news coverage of President Obama's speech was a joke. All the major networks cut away from the speech before he delivered his plan. None of the Networks even mentioned the speech in the opening to their nightly news broadcast.

CBS News presented a 15 second burb about the speech, during which they showed canned video of a cooling tower at a nuclear power plant while Dianne Sawyer narrated "For the first time, the President is calling for regulations on carbon dioxide from power plants". <smh>

There IS no C02 in the steam from a nuclear power plant cooling tower. But to paraphrase PT Barnum, 'No Network News division ever went broke by flat-out lying to their audience'.

The U.S. Media deliberately misinforms the U.S. public on basic climate facts. The U.S. Media is criminally complicit in the ongoing climate disaster. They will face a reckoning from the public as society continues to break down.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 08:07:34 AM by Artful Dodger »
Cheers!
Lodger

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2013, 01:22:06 AM »
U.S. Network news coverage of President Obama's speech was a joke. All the major networks cut away from the speech before he delivered his plan. None of the Networks even mentioned the speech in the opening to their nightly news broadcast.

I am extremely cynical of Obama. While all politicians tend to say one thing and do another, he has managed to take it to a new level. I don't believe for one minute he has a serious interest in addressing climate change, rather in throwing a sop to the gradually more noisy public for the sake of politics (and at the moment anything that can distract from the debacle that is UK/US espionage against their own citizens is no doubt a good thing for him).

On the other hand, I couldn't help but reflect that it was progress of a sort that a key political figure (especially an American one) could actually openly stand up and at least say the things he did. Given where we were with Bush before, it's still progress - even if arguably insufficient to resolve the problem. Sufficient or not, progress is progress and some is better than none.

[EDIT] Altered selected quote for reply.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 01:32:58 AM by ccgwebmaster »

Artful Dodger

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 453
  • The traps have got him, and that's all about it!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2013, 01:25:42 AM »
I am extremely cynical...

How does this relate to my discussion of the role of US Media? Why bother to quote my remark when you ignore it?
Cheers!
Lodger

CraigsIsland

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2013, 01:36:07 AM »
A very telling tale from the media control centres in NYC.

U.S. Network news coverage of President Obama's speech was a joke. All the major networks cut away from the speech before he delivered his plan. None of the Networks even mentioned the speech in the opening to their nightly news broadcast.



sure, voting rights are important but it was amazing that something live from the president would be put on the back-burner, even from MSNBC. I kept my TV on it but I just stuck to the live broadcast from the white house feed. Sad.

Hopefully, the sticking points are echoed. Sure, most coal producing are going to object. however, if those citizens object to limiting their entire producing options to just coal, ....they lose. I'm not sure how difficult it is to start a new business or adopt a different energy source. I'll tip my hat towards Obama for at least stating the obvious. Enforcing measures is another game, and that remains to be seen if government units adapt.

If anything, I think the cities that have developed plans and protections against climate change are the model and far ahead of any national plan against climate change. State of CA, NYC , etc. North Carolina and projected sea rise levels, not so much.  I just want to see substance and cooperation between private and public on measures.

CraigsIsland

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2013, 01:39:33 AM »

It's just a huge pity he's fighting with at least one hand tied behind his back.

no doubt :-\

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2013, 01:45:15 AM »
I am extremely cynical...

How does this relate to my discussion of the role of US Media? Why bother to quote my remark when you ignore it?

You're right, that really wasn't the right quote to leave in (I try not to quote everything all the time as it takes up more screen space), sorry - altered it.

Where I'm pitching with that is - while I watched the part of Obama's speech I tuned in to - I was thinking to myself - he's going to come in for a lot of fire from the right-wing front, especially the conspiracy theorists - the big government poisoning people with vaccines crowd (except with the spying thing now proven, I'm inclined to be a whole lot more considerate of some of that stuff - not the vaccines I hasten to add).

In a sense - the media not covering it properly and limiting Obama's exposure with what he said might helps him politically. It helps keep what he said out of the firing line of a significant chunk of the US population? (though by the same token, it fails to distract from the spying scandal)

Anyway, I just wonder if the media isn't playing a more complex role in some respects - than just trying to bury what he said. In my experience climate change denial is so deeply entrenched in some areas of US society (not just conspiracy theorists) - airing that on the media could just as easily be used to rally opposition to Obama as support him.

CraigsIsland

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2013, 01:56:38 AM »

Where I'm pitching with that is - while I watched the part of Obama's speech I tuned in to - I was thinking to myself - he's going to come in for a lot of fire from the right-wing front, especially the conspiracy theorists - the big government poisoning people with vaccines crowd (except with the spying thing now proven, I'm inclined to be a whole lot more considerate of some of that stuff - not the vaccines I hasten to add).

In a sense - the media not covering it properly and limiting Obama's exposure with what he said might helps him politically. It helps keep what he said out of the firing line of a significant chunk of the US population? (though by the same token, it fails to distract from the spying scandal)

Anyway, I just wonder if the media isn't playing a more complex role in some respects - than just trying to bury what he said. In my experience climate change denial is so deeply entrenched in some areas of US society (not just conspiracy theorists) - airing that on the media could just as easily be used to rally opposition to Obama as support him.

he may come under fire - but under the "wrong" people. the bigger the audience, the better. Honestly, that speech should've been one of those primetime addresses on every aired channel. The rhetoric that he struck - "war"- would've fit the bill and necessity of urgency to relay to the people.

media not covering it "properly" won't help Obama's cause, nor anything he said. I'm not dismissing the speech at all, I'm trying to say that media was against any airtime used up for other purposes just to "FU" with his priorities. In a way, yes the "complexity" of media coverage on Obama hurt him as his image of being a bit harsh is not in favor of most media outlets.

to me, this speech is where the President gets it and the media couldn't give two seconds worth of time on it. at all. I got way more coverage from the Weather Channel after the fact than any other channel!!! wth.

deep octopus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 551
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2013, 02:07:31 AM »
North Carolina and projected sea rise levels, not so much.

It's ironic, because North Carolina has actually been fairly aggressive with solar energy from the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standards (a relict of the Perdue administration, and mercifully kept alive under McCrory), yet its General Assembly is symbolic of everything wrong with the climate change-denying patterns of American politics. The state did a total whiplash in the short years it went from being an all Democrat-controlled government to all Republican.

CraigsIsland

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2013, 02:23:18 AM »
North Carolina and projected sea rise levels, not so much.

It's ironic, because North Carolina has actually been fairly aggressive with solar energy from the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standards (a relict of the Perdue administration, and mercifully kept alive under McCrory), yet its General Assembly is symbolic of everything wrong with the climate change-denying patterns of American politics. The state did a total whiplash in the short years it went from being an all Democrat-controlled government to all Republican.

which surprises me, considering the risk of hurricanes and storm surge \o/. I mean, I was considering NC as a place to buy a house and everything. I dunno, I just like to have the conscious of the state behind a reasonable lifespan of living.

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #14 on: June 26, 2013, 02:32:02 AM »
The Guardian published a Nafeez Ahmed article (it's well worth exploring the rest of them - he writes some well written, well researched and referenced and insightful stuff) relating to this speech:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/25/obama-speech-climate-action-plan-disaster1?commentpage=1

Without repeating the article one thing that caught my attention was:

Quote
Central to the plan is Obama's reiteration of his commitment to cutting US greenhouse gas emissions 17% from 2005 levels by 2020. But this target is too little, too late - amounting to only a 4% cut in emissions compared with 1990 levels.

If I correctly remember the Kyoto protocol being dated from 1990, that's not exactly ambitious.

deep octopus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 551
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #15 on: June 26, 2013, 02:35:19 AM »
North Carolina and projected sea rise levels, not so much.

It's ironic, because North Carolina has actually been fairly aggressive with solar energy from the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standards (a relict of the Perdue administration, and mercifully kept alive under McCrory), yet its General Assembly is symbolic of everything wrong with the climate change-denying patterns of American politics. The state did a total whiplash in the short years it went from being an all Democrat-controlled government to all Republican.

which surprises me, considering the risk of hurricanes and storm surge \o/. I mean, I was considering NC as a place to buy a house and everything. I dunno, I just like to have the conscious of the state behind a reasonable lifespan of living.

I hear you. As my mother and much of her side were born and still live in NC (and other areas of the South), I do have something of a softer opinion for the area and am rooting like hell to see things turnaround. It feels like a losing battle sometimes, but I try to cheer on the small victories, such as they are.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 02:41:49 AM by Deep Octopus »

Artful Dodger

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 453
  • The traps have got him, and that's all about it!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #16 on: June 26, 2013, 02:35:42 AM »
How sad is it that Mitt Rmoney/Bain Capital's Weather Channel is the only US Network that delivered the President's speech to the US public?

Surprise! The Weather Channel is the only major network that covered Obama's speech.

Quote
The Weather Channel has earned its fair share of criticism over the last few years. The cable television mainstay began a slow pivot away from its trademark 24/7 weather coverage in the mid-2000s by airing ratings-grabbing reality shows in place of repetitive but useful weather coverage. The station's decline in quality accelerated rapidly after its purchase by NBC Universal/Bain Capital in 2008.

PBS Newshour reported several hours ago to have posted the complete speech on their YouTube channel. When they eventually do so, I will embed a copy here.
Cheers!
Lodger

ivica

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 981
  • Kelele
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 0
« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 03:19:19 AM by ivica »

anonymous

  • Guest
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #18 on: June 26, 2013, 12:15:57 PM »
Is my impression right all the action he promised are presidential orders and might get revoked on short notice if the next president doesn't like them?

OldLeatherneck

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 554
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #19 on: June 26, 2013, 12:25:07 PM »
Is my impression right all the action he promised are presidential orders and might get revoked on short notice if the next president doesn't like them?

You are correct on that!

However, what concerns me more in the near-term is that the GOP controlled House of Representatives will do everything in their power to reduce funding for any agency involved in implementing President Obama's initiative.  Secondly, The GOP members of the Senate will delay the confirmation of appointees to head the various agencies.

Gridlock reigns supreme!
"Share Your Knowledge.  It's a Way to Achieve Immortality."  ......the Dalai Lama

anonymous

  • Guest
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #20 on: June 26, 2013, 01:02:34 PM »
... the GOP controlled House of Representatives will do everything in their power to reduce funding for any agency involved in implementing President Obama's initiative.  Secondly, The GOP members of the Senate will delay the confirmation of appointees to head the various agencies.

Well, I suppose the former will unfortunately slow down processing applications and put the industry on hold waiting for approvals. Regarding the latter, can that go on forever? The agencies are not useless with acting heads, or not?

Lynn Shwadchuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #21 on: June 26, 2013, 04:02:39 PM »
I'm fuming as I watch Obama give his speech, because although he said lots of things we've been waiting to hear him say, two repeated bits stand out in contradiction of the entire initiative.

1) Natural gas has a smaller carbon footprint

2) the US has a smaller carbon footprint than 20 years ago.

Shale gas production is proving to have a big footprint. And the West (I'm Canadian and I know we're at least as guilty as the US) has shipped all its manufacturing to developing nations where they've taken on our carbon pollution.

And a poorly hidden agenda he covered was exporting shale gas to manufacturing countries when they're ordered to stop burning coal.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-21/u-s-lng-export-potential-gaining-momentum-goldman-sachs-says.html

And what's this silliness about farmers growing new kinds of fuel?

And the highlight (low point) was the idea that the Keystone XL pipeline would only be approved if it has a neutral footprint. I'm sure this doesn't include how its contents were acquired. Although he refers to Tar Sands, which implies more disapproval than Oil Sands, I expect he means the actual transport method.

Oh, and he'll 'ask Congress' (translation: that will never happen) to stop using billions of tax dollars to subsidize oil companies.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 04:56:18 PM by Lynn Shwadchuck »
Still living in the bush in eastern Ontario. Gave up on growing annual veggies. Too much drought.

ritter

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 541
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2013, 05:57:40 PM »
How sad is it that Mitt Rmoney/Bain Capital's Weather Channel is the only US Network that delivered the President's speech to the US public?

Disgusting, isn't it?

I didn't watch/hear the speach but I did skim through the "plan". It's too little, too late and what little survives the political quagmire of the US government will be neutered to impotency.

What I find interesting is the amount devoted to adaptation. It's nice to see the feds acknowledge that we've got some work to do if we have a hope of preserving what we've got. Now, whether or not that should be preserved is another discussion!

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2013, 06:12:02 PM »
How sad is it that Mitt Rmoney/Bain Capital's Weather Channel is the only US Network that delivered the President's speech to the US public?

Disgusting, isn't it?

If the lack of coverage is that extreme, I think it raises a few questions. Obviously one can only speculate - but why would there be such a complete failure to cover it?

Aren't some of the media outlets favourable to Obama and somewhat to climate change? (ie could they have been told not to cover it?)

Is it that Obama is falling into insignificance, or climate change? (as I said, I figured this would at least be significant to right wing conservative arenas that would use it to attack Obama in various ways - as well as to left leaning moderates who want to tackle climate change)

If the latter, is that more to do with Obama and the media outlets or the wider population of the US? Ie to what extent does the media shape demand versus demand shaping the media?

Environmental coverage, I think it's fair to say - is usually relegated to the back corner of most media outlets. We're undermining our life support system with a very high probability to collapse our civilisation (and far worse) - and it's virtually never front page news - often it isn't news at all.

Maybe it's just more of the same - the general failure of the media to inform the public about climate change, and how important it is.

ritter

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 541
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2013, 07:35:30 PM »
Maybe it's just more of the same - the general failure of the media to inform the public about climate change, and how important it is.

Maybe. But is sure seems that NPR usually airs the President when he speaks, especially about some new policy. Maybe Stewart and Colbert covered it. They're about the best news outlet around in the US!

ggelsrinc

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 437
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2013, 07:42:38 PM »
The starving appreciate crumbs.

I'm a Democrat and I wouldn't be offended if Neven moved this threat to The Rest from it's present location in Policy and Solutions. It's a sad state of affairs that all the leaders and nations are not going to change things much.

It's my opinion that anything short of reducing the present CO2 levels in the atmosphere isn't a policy that will produce a solution.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2013, 10:43:16 PM »
I find the media coverage telling.  I have made the claim for many years now that there are no longer any major news organizations in the US which are even moderately liberal.  Of the main broadcast news I think that CBS is solidly mainstream Independent, that NBC is to their right and ABC is moderately Republican (after all Dianne Sawyer was a staffer in the Nixon Whitehouse).  Fox, of course, is just a propaganda machine for the extreme right and not a news organization by any normal definition.

Obama so clearly cannot execute the actions detailed in this speech that I think it will be awhile before we can see and understand what type of strategy he is trying to execute.  His proposals will inflame the opposition (as may well be intended) and there will be a firestorm of complaints and resistance.  It is not at all likely that he is in position to accomplish anything yet as he does not have enough support or power.  Where this leads is not certain at all.  He could be preparing the ground for the next election or maneuvering his opponents into making errors in judgment that can be exploited.  What I try to keep in mind when analyzing Obama's actions is that he is politically a moderate Republican (a RINO in Democratic clothing if you will) and fully committed to BAU.  To date his environmental and AGW record has been almost entirely show and could be interpreted to be the bones thrown to his base on the left to keep them from causing him too much trouble.  It will be interesting to see where we are in 12 months. 
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

retiredbill

  • New ice
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #27 on: June 27, 2013, 12:26:45 AM »
Suppose Obama had given the speech most of us would have written? He would only have raised
the ire of Congress and naysayers. Same result. Too little, too late. I'm more interested in whether
Obama DOES anything. Too often in the past, about too many topics, he gives a great speech
and never follows up with action.
I'm waiting for him to run the White House on 100% alternative energy...

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2536
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2013, 10:48:49 AM »
The USA is a very strange place, North Carolina edit a law to ban the latest scientific predictions of Sea-Level Rise.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782#.Uc1L3MXodeR

A big part of the tax would go to finance infrastructure to slow the sea level rise (That would ultimetely fail) but would it go toward reducing (or stopping) C02 emissions...I have some doubts.
Anyway there is some initiatives :
http://www.resilientamerica.org

ggelsrinc

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 437
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2013, 12:18:18 PM »
The USA is a very strange place, North Carolina edit a law to ban the latest scientific predictions of Sea-Level Rise.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782#.Uc1L3MXodeR

A big part of the tax would go to finance infrastructure to slow the sea level rise (That would ultimetely fail) but would it go toward reducing (or stopping) C02 emissions...I have some doubts.
Anyway there is some initiatives :
http://www.resilientamerica.org

I don't think that NC law passed.

CraigsIsland

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2013, 08:47:58 PM »
huffpost.com/us/entry/2095100 great article about the NC situation

ggelsrinc

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 437
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2013, 09:09:36 PM »
Quote
Following international opprobrium, the state's House of Representatives rejected the bill on 19 June. However, a compromise between the house and the senate forbids state agencies from basing any laws or plans on exponential extrapolations for the next three to four years, while the state conducts a new sea-level study.

Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=north-carolina-sea-level-rises-desipte-senators

Those articles about NC were last year.


Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2536
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #32 on: June 29, 2013, 10:59:23 AM »
Thanks ggelsrinc for the video, very interested by the small part of the topex/poseidon animation, I found it for the whole earth here:

ggelsrinc

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 437
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: President Obama speech at 1:55 ET 25 June 2013
« Reply #33 on: July 01, 2013, 05:42:19 PM »
Thanks ggelsrinc for the video, very interested by the small part of the topex/poseidon animation, I found it for the whole earth here:


It's one of my favorite videos on global warming and Peter Sinclair has many good ones. If you are interested in altimetry and don't know about it, I recommend Aviso.

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/

The video contradicts itself about whether more than half of the sea level rise in Norfolk is from ground subsidence or actual sea level rise. The explanation that Norfolk was built on wetlands is lacking, in fact most of our older cities are at least partially built that way. Norfolk is located on the edge of a 35 million year old bolide impact crater, the largest in the US, so it is unique in those regards. A smaller impact located off New Jersey has been dated to the same period and is thought to be part of the same event. The bottom line is Norfolk has the largest Naval Base in the world built in an area that is very sensitive to sea level rise for a number of reasons. That area is also very important for ship building.

My take on the North Carolina thing is it was just a politician doing a job for special interests and not a statement against global warming. North Carolina is not typical of the US and the fact that the real estate money interests were defeated shows that view is not typical of North Carolina. I was stationed in North Carolina at Camp Lejeune for 90 days less than two years, in fact my first son was born there. The residents of North Carolina are sensible people, but I must admit some of their politicians have been lacking and that's too often the situation in many places on Earth. I can find and post the politician's name who sponsored that NC legislation, but it doesn't even deserve the dignity of a search. The politician worked in the real estate industry and they were the major financial supporters. My view is corruption is endemic to human civilization and as long as an area of Earth has people, there will be corruption. It's a human disease of undetermined pathology (joking), probably because it's internal. Fortunately, there are areas on Earth where corruption doesn't seem so endemic, but it's there and requires eternal vigilance to suppress.

When I discovered that video, the thing that impress me was the reinsurer. I stopped the video and located the sources for the documentation, because I was involved with deniers in political forums. Since the discussions (more often arguments) involved the costs of going green, it's only sensible to present evidence of costs going back to 1973. It is amazing that risk managers were years ahead of scientists in their concern. I remember concern about CO2 emissions being briefly mentioned in a Physical Geography course in '75, but scientists weren't concerned with global warming back then. People in the insurance business have their specific interests which are very different than the interests producing energy. By people, I'm not talking about the workers, but that industry is often owned by old money accumulated through centuries, meaning long before the industrial revolution. If you want to picture insurance, picture casino, because they both have to be set up so the house never loses! I have found evidence of climate change in actuary data that the people in the business knew long ago and when I say I've found it, it only means I can confirm what others saw is obviously there.

Now if you think the US is so bad, let's try to put it in perspective! The US cut carbon emissions at 4 times the rate as Europe did last year and China increased it's emissions by one and a half times as much as the US cut. Europe needs to set up infrastructure to eliminate coal and I don't know exactly how they will get the natural gas to do it. Since Japan also has major problems with increases in fossil fuels, the logical thing would be for North America to start exporting natural gas. A perspective should include that anything short of atmospheric CO2 reductions isn't a solution and you can't reduce atmospheric CO2 with natural gas. You can only add less. I'm not aware of any nation on Earth doing what needs to be done.