Republicans vow EPA fight as Obama touts China climate deal

But even with China vowing to curb its carbon, Republicans were quick to question the validity of China’s headline-grabbing pledge and used the announcement to rally the party as it prepares to lead Congress by promising to do what it can to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency, whose rules will achieve the bulk of promised emissions cuts.

Lucky us -- we have the party of burying our heads in the sand/always say no to anything positive in charge of both houses of Congress.

For the GOP congress, America's leadership in the world apparently does not extend to environmental policy.

these carbon emission regulations are creating havoc in my state

Because people like the good senator from Kentucky have been burying their heads in the sand for decades. Inaction is not a sustainable policy.

Rigging a corrupt system of artificial "carbon emission regulation" is not sustainable policy. Even if you believe the simplistic story that one single chemical, which is part of a the natural carbon cycle and necessary for life, is solely responsible for any climate change, that would be an idiotic policy.

"Combat carbon emissions"

Can someone please provide any real proof that man-made carbon emissions have any significant impact on the Earth's climate?

@Serrano

Absolutely! It's all a massive scam on the part of scientists. Just like that "smoking causes cancer", nonsense or the "arsenic is poisonous" idiocy.

What do scientists know, eh?

@luca

Heh heh I see you nor anyone else has any real proof that man-made carbon emissions have any significant impact on the Earth's climate. Because there isn't any?

Can someone please provide any real proof that man-made carbon emissions have any significant impact on the Earth's climate?

Can you provide proof of a single time when this massive a percentage of the scientific community has been wrong about something like this before? After all, it comes down to believing really smart scientists or really stupid people. (In this case, I define "stupid" as "willingly oblivious to warning signs."

People can prove that scientists exist. I think it can be proven that really stupid people exist. What are the scientists saying? And what are the really stupid people saying? That should help those who are still confused come to a decision.

With the stakes and consequences so high, wouldn't the intelligent thing to do be to proceed with due caution? Wouldn't the moronic thing to do be to move ahead blindly, business as usual, pretending there's no problem -- that all of these intelligent scientists who've studied the issue are all wrong?

Has Obama ever struck a deal with any foreign dignitaries that we didn't get the short end of the stick? Now, he agrees to reduce air pollution (greenhouse gases) between 26% and 28% over the next 11 years as part of a climate change agreement with China.

Meanwhile, China did not agree to any deduction but rather set a target for China's emissions to peak by 2030 or earlier if possible.

Heh, what a negotiator Obama is; always on the losing end of a deal. He thinks any kind of agreement is a winner. After all, it's only We The People of the United States who're giving up something for nothing.

We can anticipate how the community of moronic twits will react, viewing this as a "deal" that the United States has somehow come out giving up something for nothing.

But how do the intelligent people in the scientific community think about it? Let's see: "Scientists confirmed that the announcement, which has China agreeing to cap its emissions by 2030 and the U.S. committing to a 26 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2025, represented a huge first step toward building the kind of political cooperation needed to effectively combat a global problem."

For the intelligent people, it's a huge first step. For the dummies, no deal -- (ie, continuing the problem) -- would be better.

While the deal might not be that bad Obama ought to try arm twisting rather than executive actions. If the Republicans are dumb enough to not give compromise a try then there you are.

As far as the science is concerned there is a lot of data that shows that the temperature really started to rise as the additional CO2 from the industrial revolution took off. So there is some correlation. It is also understood that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so the mechanism is known. Correlation with causation is pretty much scientific proof.

Now we can argue if any of these agreements are going to really accomplish the stated goals, but there is reason to try. I am not sure it will be enough. Nor am I convinced that there are any good alternatives other than nuclear. But that's another topic.

Rigging a corrupt system of artificial "carbon emission regulation" is not sustainable policy. Even if you believe the simplistic story that one single chemical, which is part of a the natural carbon cycle and necessary for life, is solely responsible for any climate change, that would be an idiotic policy.

In the past the planet had a process for regulating the amount of carbon dioxide being created by the planet's animal life forms. The huge rain forests and other flora would take in the carbon dioxide as a part of photosynthesis and retain the carbon while returning the oxygen to the atmosphere. With man's destruction of huge tracts of the rain forest, the planet's ability to regulate carbon dioxide has been gravely damaged. Couple this with the incessant increase in the carbon dioxide-spewing human population and the massive increase in particulate and gaseous carbon pumped into the air since the start of the industrial revolution, and you have the perfect recipe for a carbon overload in the atmosphere. Take a look at the accompanying picture with this article and explain to me how that is an example of "the natural carbon cycle and necessary for life".

yabits: "People can prove that scientists exist. I think it can be proven that really stupid people exist."

Ya don't say! I'm still waiting for someone to provide some proof that man-made carbon emissions are significantly impacting the Earth's climate.

I don't understand how anyone could really be sceptical of climate change. Having someone like that as a lawmaker is really quite astonishing.

"I don't understand how anyone could really be sceptical of climate change."

Oh, climate change is happening, no doubt about that, but some of us doubt that man-made carbon emissions are a significant cause of it. I suspect Mother Nature causes around 99.98% of it.

yabits

With the stakes and consequences so high, wouldn't the intelligent thing to do be to proceed with due caution? Wouldn't the moronic thing to do be to move ahead blindly, business as usual, pretending there's no problem -- that all of these intelligent scientists who've studied the issue are all wrong?

I agree with the statement here. There may indeed be global warming happening. And mankind may indeed be the cause of it. There really isn't enough evidence to prove it conclusively one way or another. Prceeding with due caution makes a lot of sense. The idea of spending trillions of dollars to prevent it, when we are not even sure we are the cause of it or not, or whether or not we can even have a significant impact on it, if we are, seems ludicrous. Doing more research, having scientists build a climate model, that is actually correct, (something they have been unable to do thus far.) All seem like a good choices. Keep researching the subject. Taking away the religious aspects of climate science, and returning it to scientific principles. All seem like a good plan for this issue. Running around like chicken little, screaming about how the sky is falling, does not.

but some of us doubt that man-made carbon emissions are a significant cause of it. I suspect Mother Nature causes around 99.98% of it.

Your problem is that you have absolutely no knowledge behind what you suspect. Worse than that, you don't even know what kind of proof you would accept. You state your case like an adolescent. Kindly step aside and let the adults handle this one.

There may indeed be global warming happening. And mankind may indeed be the cause of it. There really isn't enough evidence to prove it conclusively one way or another. Prceeding with due caution makes a lot of sense. The idea of spending trillions of dollars to prevent it, when we are not even sure we are the cause of it or not, or whether or not we can even have a significant impact on it, if we are, seems ludicrous.

Witness where Molenir's thinking goes completely off the rails. (Let's use the term "global climate change.") Now, if we accept that it may indeed be happening, then we have to gauge what kind of impact it will have. Erring on the side of caution means anticipating that large cities on the U.S. coast -- like New York -- are going to sustain tremendous and periodic damage due to increased severity of storms -- combined with even modest rises in sea level. And that's just for starters, and we're already seeing signs of it. (What would be the impact of a Katrina type flooding on Manhattan? Are we, and is our economy, prepared for that? How much will that cost?)

If one of the main culprits is greenhouse gases, then "caution" means human beings should be doing all they can to first cap, and then reduce the amount of those gases caused by their activity. It could mean capturing and sequestering those gases underground, via investments in ever-improving technology.

Blithe disregard and excuses for doing nothing because the deniers have influenced the wishy-washy to sit on the fence -- demanding more research -- isn't going to cut it. That is not caution, but sheer recklessness. There's a clock that's ticking and plenty of research that has been completed already and has signaled warning alarms.

This is not about Chicken Little -- this is about influential and powerful people who are like ostriches with their heads stuck fully in the sand. People like this utter lunatic, Senator James Inhofe -- whom the lunatics in the Republican Party just selected to head the Senate's environment committee. He won't even accept the possibility that global climate change is happening. He calls it all a giant hoax. He's another in the "trees-are-the-number-one-cause-of-pollution" school of GOP dimwits.

But this latest agreement President Obama has struck as proven them wrong about one thing: Prior to this agreement, the climate-change deniers insisted China would never agree to anything forcing them to cap or reduce their carbon emissions. It was one of their main talking balloons and President Obama (and Chinese leader Xi) just stuck a big needle in it. The Chinese have every bit as much at stake in this issue as the rest of the planet.

“As we enter a new Congress, I will do everything in my power to rein in and shed light on the EPA’s unchecked regulations,” said Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, a climate change skeptic and critic of U.N. climate talks who will become the chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in January.

OK, come on James and shine the light on us and make it so it is no longer unchecked.

Blithe disregard and excuses for doing nothing because the deniers have influenced the wishy-washy to sit on the fence -- demanding more research -- isn't going to cut it. That is not caution, but sheer recklessness. There's a clock that's ticking and plenty of research that has been completed already and has signaled warning alarms.

This is where Yabits goes a little crazy, and where even open minded people often do a double take. You want to spend trillions of dollars, and do masssive damage to our economy, putting millions of people out of work, in the hopes that it might prevent, something which may or may not happen, and which we may, or may not have any control over, regardless of our expenses. The cure, is worse then the disease!

I'm all for more study. I am not for massive disruption to the economy, in the name of preventing something over which we may or may not have any control. I don't see the point, particularly when none of the models showing doom, and gloom are accurate, and when despite all the hysteria, there hasn't been any uptick in disastrous storms. And finally, when the very proponents of climate change, cannot yet account for why the earth is cooling, and yet they refuse to admit that the Sun, which accounts for 99% of all the warming, could potentially have more impact then people. Due caution says do more research. It also says don't waste money and disrupt the economy when there simply isn't enough proof one way or another.

You want to spend trillions of dollars, and do masssive damage to our economy, putting millions of people out of work

First of all, I view any allegation that a technical directive to control the level of greenhouse gas emission is guaranteed to do "massive damage to our economy" or put "millions of people out of work" to be the sure sign of a real Chicken Little. I never underestimate the ingenuity and creativity of a person when reasonable limits are imposed. The Europeans feel they are reasonable; the Chinese and Japanese feel they are reasonable. Generally, it is the Chicken Littles in the U.S. who are sounding this alarm.

Secondly, global climate change is a moral issue. If the vast majority of the scientific community is correct, this is going to represent a very serious issue for our children and grandchildren. The message by the Chicken Littles is: our current economy -- our current level of comforts and waste -- is more important than your future.

I'm all for more study.

Of course you are. Especially if it means not having to take any action while the clock ticks. But now China is onboard. Their scientists agree with the assessments and the potential dangers involved.

Third and last: the very same people who sell us on the idea that launching a preemptive war that destroys thousands of lives and costs trillions of dollars is acceptable if there's even a one-percent chance that an enemy represents a mortal risk. Of course, wars enrich most of these "one-percenters." That's the main reason why they'd undertake them. But there's simply not enough money in it for them to protect the planet for their own grandchildren.

That's how they roll. They have to project that it's decent people who are the real danger -- the ones who are trying to massively damage the one-percenters' ability to make more money on planetary degradation.

First of all, I view any allegation that a technical directive to control the level of greenhouse gas emission is guaranteed to do "massive damage to our economy" or put "millions of people out of work" to be the sure sign of a real Chicken Little. I never underestimate the ingenuity and creativity of a person when reasonable limits are imposed.

Its already happened. Tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs in the US because of Obamas war on coal. This is both directly, coal miners, and indirectly, businesses forced to shutter because coal mines are no longer producing. There is a reason why West Virginia flipped to Republican, why Kentucky wasn't close, and why the Dems almost lost Virginia. These are states that are directly effected, and they made their voices heard.

Secondly, global climate change is a moral issue. If the vast majority of the scientific community is correct, this is going to represent a very serious issue for our children and grandchildren. The message by the Chicken Littles is: our current economy -- our current level of comforts and waste -- is more important than your future.

I agree, it is a moral issue. But from a different vantage point. Is it moral to cost so many people their jobs, hurting them, and their families, in order to protect them from a nebulous threat? Not if you ask them. Previously, the American dream was that if you worked hard, you had a chance to make good, for you and your family. The explosion of the middle class, explemplified this. Obamas policies however, are preventing this upward mobility, shrinking the middle class, and making it difficult to succeed in todays economy. Moral? I don't think so. Thats the real consequences of what Obama has done, without any congressional support.

Since you seem to be in favor of throwing trillions into preventing unproven, disaster scenarios, how about a different one. Right now, there is absolutely nothing we could do, if an comet was on a collision course with the Earth. We know they have hit in the past, and thus, will hit again in the future. So naturally, you would support spending trillions of dollars to put weapons into orbit to protect the earth, right? After all, just cause we don't know when it will happen, or if the weapons we put into place will work, or if they might do some harm to people on the ground, that doesn't matter right? Based on your previous comments, I would argue that this is merely an extension of that line of reasoning.

For the record, I don't support this either. Though I do think we should have people look into this. And considering the billions being spent on climate change, a couple million to fund the SETI skywatch program seems pretty reasonable.

Its already happened. Tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs in the US because of Obamas war on coal. This is both directly, coal miners, and indirectly, businesses forced to shutter because coal mines are no longer producing.

Such utter and complete nonsense. First of all, coal has been subject to ups and downs for many decades. (Obama took some heat from the environmentalists for endorsing "clean coal." And you claim he has a war on it? LOL!)

Coal always suffers with a decline in the price of oil and natural gas, and many plant owners -- being human beings who often do care about their children and grandchildren -- will likely choose to burn a cleaner fuel, all things being equal. Coal is also a commodity dealt on futures exchanges like many others. When a nation like China announces they are going to burn less of it, that will have an impact on futures prices. It has nothing to do with some brain-dead talking point like "Obama's war." (Frankly, I'm glad every U.S. whaler was put out of the whale oil business.)

Secondly, it's very funny when conservatives cynically use job losses as a brain-dead jab at a political opponent, but remain mum or even supportive when job loss accompanies. something they are in favor of. Or, when they oppose their political opponent's attempts to save many thousands of jobs -- as President Obama surely did with the auto industry. Seriously, I wonder how some of them are able to look at themselves in the mirror with a straight face.

I agree, it is a moral issue. But from a different vantage point. Is it moral to cost so many people their jobs, hurting them, and their families, in order to protect them from a nebulous threat? Not if you ask them. Previously, the American dream was that if you worked hard, you had a chance to make good, for you and your family. The explosion of the middle class, explemplified this.

You really need to learn some history. Americans worked extremely hard from the birth of the industrial age all the way up to the Great Depression and WWII. That's nearly a century of Americans increasingly working in factories -- 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, no vacations, no welfare, no pension -- with the vast majority ending their relatively short lives in an industrial accident or in squalor. The single most critical variable in causing the "explosion of the middle class" was not "hard work." Your ignorance of that critical variable was is very telling. And your ignorance has caused you to oppose it all along.

Sorry, you conservatives have been wrong about every major decision that has counted throughout our history. I'll stick with the vast majority of the scientific community on this one. To me, it is just plain stupid to believe that putting limitations on greenhouse gas emissions won't lead to increased opportunities via new technology and alternative, less wasteful ways of doing things. That's the real moral issue here, for our children and our grandchildren.

Conservatives don't really care about workers in the coal industry. They're just numbers to be used to try to score political points. As for a coal miner, I don't know of any who want their children and grandchildren to work in the mines. Like the whalers of former times, let's provide them with newer and better livelihoods.