world

Obama lays out national plan to fight climate change

19 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2013 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

19 Comments
Login to comment

Obama argued that Americans across the country were already paying the “price of inaction” against climate change, describing 2012 as the warmest year in human history, which parched farmlands in the U.S. heartland.

At least one great American city -- Miami, Florida -- will be underwater within this century, if nothing changes.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

As much as I admire the President, I think this is all for naught. Our species will probably never be able to get its act together. Even an alien invasion from outer space would fail to unite us. As long as human greed, stupidity, and avarice are left to govern our actions, our home planet is doomed. "It seems that Homo sapiens have become a cancer to their living planet, a malignancy on a cosmic level." - John Mack

6 ( +7 / -1 )

After the failure of this, it will be time to consider splitting up the States. There are just too many differing views on things. Nothing is getting done either way you look at it. The house and senate have been log-jammed for at least the last 2 administrations, the President has been nothing more than a state symbol - useless, and religious nuts still influence matters of science.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

At least one great American city -- Miami, Florida -- will be underwater within this century, if nothing changes.

What proof do you have of this? Also, if we can somehow, "stop the effects of nature" as some seem to think, then if the wather levels are rising, wouldn't it be much better to start building de-salinization plants to take make the excess water drinkable, and start using the miles of pipelines that will no longer carry the bad "fossil fuels" to pump water to more inland areas that are affected by drought, or use the supertankers to ship water to places around the world who need it.

Not a believer in Global Warming, but do believe that we can do things to reduce the pollution on the earth and leave the campground a little cleaner for the next generation. But doing things that will only benefit a few companies are crony capitalist is not going to do anything.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/02/02/02greenwire-long-delayed-projects-get-exemption-from-epas-n-9813.html

The power industry has alot of independents. They want to force these independents out to consolidate and raise rates. =The insiders will get the waivers/exemptions and the outsiders get bought out or shutdown if they will not sell.

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059944643

Under the policy, which was put in place in 2008, refineries can burn more than 300,000 tons of sludge and other oily materials in gasifiers each year without being subject to the storage and reporting requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or the Clean Air Act rules that set limits on emissions from solid waste incinerators.

= oil refining (mostly consolidated now) has far less EPA restrictions than clean coal.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Obama ... pledged to push new generation clean energy sources and to lead a fresh global effort to stem global warming.

Heh, say hello to "shovel ready" jobs, 2.0.

RR

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Obama ... pledged to push new generation clean energy sources and to lead a fresh global effort to stem global warming.

Heh, say hello to "shovel ready" jobs, 2.0.

Oh, NO, not again!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The point I have to make with this Global Warming "scare" is that if they want to implement new strategies, then what are they other than some tax scheme to bilk one industry into another and put one group in advantage of another. With these so called advances in technology, we should be doing things to reclaim areas that are currently not habitable. Many areas of some desert nations can be reclaimed with moving water to them, since as the alarmist are saying the polar ice caps are melting.

And on that note, if the ice caps are melting, shouldn't there be an increase in percipitaion around the world? And if so, wouldn't those areas that normally get only a smaller amount of rain, also see their rain levels increase, and just that added amount would start making those areas more hospitable. Yet, all we get are these scare tactics, and a call for fining industries. Where does that money go to anyway?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Alphaape@climate change is not a political debating point, like teaching "intelligent design" along with evolution. It's a scientific fact. None of measures you suggested are even remotely practical. And the word is spelled "precipitation."

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Virtuoso

I wouldn't waste your breath. Some folk are going to be denying climate change as the sea laps around their throats. It's up to us rational, less self-interested people to deal with.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The great American dictator is at it again - running a "democracy" via executive order. Get over it Barry and stop denying the obvious truth - global warming scaremongering has been exposed as a farce and a lie. There hasn't been any warming in more than a decade and a time when carbon in the atmosphere has increased by roughly 25%. It's a fraud! The American public are not concerned with this issue in the slightest. They have bigger worries like the lack of jobs and a $17 trillion national debt. Not to mention a politicized IRS and big brother reading every citizens emails and listening to their phone calls.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Climate change is as old as....earth.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

So When is Mr. Obama going to DEMAND China Eastern Europe & India fall on his sword ? The Man is Impotent politically World-Wide. America's output of coal is already burned at efficiency levels unheard of in the past & is neccesary to the United States.The Energy policies of his administration have been one big Failure after another at the cost to the tune of billions of Taxpayer's Dollars. Recessing the Congress would reduce a hell of a lot of Hot Air,that's for sure!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I am not sure what kind of a democracy it is when a president can bypass congress using "executive powers." Isn't that what they do in dictatorships?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

I wouldn't waste your breath. Some folk are going to be denying climate change as the sea laps around their throats. It's up to us rational, less self-interested people to deal with.

@ lucabrasi: I am not denying climate change, I am denying man-made Global Warming. If you, who seem to be so enlightened, would remember, the earth's climate is in constant change. Even in recorded history, one can only take a look at places like the Sahara desert, where at one time portions of it used to be "green" and due to normal climate change, it turned into a desert. Since the last Ice Age (natural climate change) people have lived on the edges of the Sahara. The region has been this way (current dry state) since about 1600 BC, after shifts in the Earth's axis increased temperatures and decreased precipitation. Then, due to a climate change, the savannah changed into the sandy desert as we know it now.

So either the ancient Egyptians were burning too much fossil fuels and didn't have any cap & trade with the Phonecians, and the end result is the Sahara as we know it (sarcasim intended). Also, I do believe that polar bears were around at that time when the climate changed and they are still here. But I would think that you would know that since in your enlightend mind you don't take the Genesis creation as truth so how do you explain them still being around after climate change.

Now I do understand, as I have pointed out, that the climate does change, and there is evidenece of animals that used to live in the Sahara dying out, but that was not caused by man. Do we as humans have a responsibility to take better care of the earth's resources, yes I believe we do. But this whole smoke and mirrors of taking money from one group and giving it to another in an attempt to stop the natural course of nature is ridiculous.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

If you belive this then

If the US stopped getting the greatest polluter (china) of all time to manufacture its products they could slow this global warming real fast. China the great polluter.

Move production back to the US and only use green factories after all wasnt it the US who was the greatest contributor of green gases back in its heyday?

And never ever saw the reasoning in carbon credits idea, just moving deck chairs around on the titanics deck really isnt it.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Considering that the US and other countries that are either green or trying to become green should be sending more aid on green tech to the countries (like China) so that everyone can get on the same page.

Personally I've seen a drastic difference in the air quality in my city since I've lived here from 1983-2013. Back in the early 80s pollution was heavy and the air smelled at least 1-2 times a week. Now because of the emissions standards on factories, cars, etc the air might smell bad once a month at the most.

I'm an environmentalist myself. I'm all for recycling, finding clean renewable energy, increasing air and water quality for the entire planet. I'd prefer to see a combination man working with nature in architecture, agriculture etc in a future where the world population is growing. I'd prefer to see people who live longer healthier lives (which helps reduce the amount of children people have due to survival instincts) which also decreases the amount of stress in everyday life.

Right now this planet is the only place we've got to live. Why are we so hell-bent on committing suicide for our species?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I am not sure what kind of a democracy it is when a president can bypass congress using "executive powers." Isn't that what they do in dictatorships?

The Left has always been fond of dictating their values to the masses, whether they like it or not.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

So either the ancient Egyptians were burning too much fossil fuels and didn't have any cap & trade with the Phonecians, and the end result is the Sahara as we know it (sarcasim intended).

Decisions on how to deal with man's impact on the earth's environment are probably best left to intelligent people.

One basic fact that has to be considered is this: The deposits of coal in various places around the world represent millions of years of the sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere by plants. The carbon that is in the coal was once in the earth's atmosphere -- and the earth was a much warmer place due to that.

And now what the global climate change deniers are essentially saying is this -- and it's an insane claim: "Man can take what require nature millions of years to sequester and spew it back into the atmosphere over the course of a few centuries and there will be no impact at all on the earth's atmosphere or climate."

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites