Obama says 'no greater threat to planet than climate change'

[ScienceRocks]

Obama says 'no greater threat to planet than climate change'
15 hours ago

"Today, there's no greater threat to our planet than climate change," Obama said in his weekly address, which had an environmental theme to mark Earth Day on April 22.

"Climate change can no longer be denied, or ignored," he added, noting that 2014 was the hottest year on record.

The United States is the second largest greenhouse gas emitter after China, and Obama has pledged to reduce US climate pollution by 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

"This is an issue that's bigger and longer-lasting than my presidency," Obama said.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-04-obama-greater-threat-planet-climate.html#jCp

I'd say Asteroids are very close! If he was serious he'd double fusion funding with a new manhatten project for fusion!

We need to mandate solar installions on all new homes also as we should be taking advantage of all this solar energy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...and Progressives can control the climate by doing the following:

1. Destroying the US economy
2. Confiscating all weapons from US citizens

 

[ScienceRocks]

...and Progressives can control the climate by doing the following:

1. Destroying the US economy
2. Confiscating all weapons from US citizens

How is going over to fusion, hydro, wind, solar, geo-thermal and wave = destroying the economy. These sources are far more stable economically.

Well, 2. is a different belief. Some people don't like guns. Nothing to do with this thread.

 

[gtopa1]

...and Progressives can control the climate by doing the following:

1. Destroying the US economy
2. Confiscating all weapons from US citizens

How is going over to fusion, hydro, wind, solar, geo-thermal and wave = destroying the economy. These sources are far more stable economically.

Well, 2. is a different belief. Some people don't like guns. Nothing to do with this thread.

Matt: the day it costs LESS to produce from renewables I'm all for it. Subsidising is just a scam; I mean REALLY CHEAPER!!!

Why they subsidise failed technology is beyond me.

Greg

ps: Fusion is NOT an option, but I agree that it should be a priority.

 

[Crick]

How much do you think it will cost to tend to the damage that fossil fuels will create? Relocating hundreds of millions of people? Crop losses? Flooding and droughts? Marine extinction events? Drinking water shortages? Zero?

We aren't going to renewables because they're the cheapest per kilowatt. We're going because they're cheap enough.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Renewables like wind are already cheaper and solar is very close to it. Also Europa, Titan and Ganymede has about 20 times as much water as earth combined! So we don't have to worry about drinking water.

 

[gtopa1]

How much do you think it will cost to tend to the damage that fossil fuels will create? Relocating hundreds of millions of people? Crop losses? Flooding and droughts? Marine extinction events? Drinking water shortages? Zero?

We aren't going to renewables because they're the cheapest per kilowatt. We're going because they're cheap enough.

It will cost enough.......but be manageable. Sorry; don't buy that alarmist idiocy!!

Greg

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Its laughable to read the ramblings of morons who believe we control climate on planet Earth

 

[westwall]

How much do you think it will cost to tend to the damage that fossil fuels will create? Relocating hundreds of millions of people? Crop losses? Flooding and droughts? Marine extinction events? Drinking water shortages? Zero?

We aren't going to renewables because they're the cheapest per kilowatt. We're going because they're cheap enough.

None. There is zero evidence that anything bad will happen to a warmer world. Zero. On the other hand, a major asteroid strike WILL do all the bad things that the progressive idiots claim for GW. And THAT we could actually do something about.

Politicians are all for yelling about GW. They get more money and more control over the people in their efforts to "control" the uncontrollable.

 

[Crick]

But you'd rather spend that money on hunting asteroids. Wow...

 

[Stephanie]

oooooo, no greater threat to THE PLANET

Coming from the man who won LIE of the year

freak and disgusting liar

 

[Crick]

Gosh, Stephanie, I had no idea you felt so strongly about our President. In what way do you find him freakish and what was the lie of the year?

 

[Stephanie]

Gosh, Stephanie, I had no idea you felt so strongly about our President. In what way do you find him freakish and what was the lie of the year?

Everything out of his mouth is lie. He reminds of Hitler. He used the environment for control over people too

 

[SSDD]

How is going over to fusion, hydro, wind, solar, geo-thermal and wave = destroying the economy. These sources are far more stable economically.

Ask the germans how stable they are. Clearly you just eat what you are told to eat and don't do much thinking on your own.

 

[SSDD]

But you'd rather spend that money on hunting asteroids. Wow...

At least asteroids are actual threats as opposed to the hysterical claim that a whisp of CO2 in the atmosphere controls the climate.

 

[SSDD]

Gosh, Stephanie, I had no idea you felt so strongly about our President. In what way do you find him freakish and what was the lie of the year?

You are kidding....right? I didn't think it was possible for any president to be more dishonest than clinton...obama makes clinton look as pure as the wind driven snow.

 

[Stephanie]

Read and wake the hell up

SNIP:
The Environmentalists’ Civil War
by Robert Bryce April 17, 2015 4:00 AM


It’s a manifesto smackdown, a fight among the members of the green Left for the intellectual and moral high ground. It’s also a fight that reflects the growing schism within American environmentalism.

On one side are the pro-energy, pro-density humanists. They call themselves ecomodernists and are led by the Breakthrough Institute, a centrist, Oakland-based environmental group.
On Wednesday, it released what it describes as an “ecomodernist manifesto,” a document that, at root, states the obvious:

Economic development is essential for environmental protection. On the opposite side are the anti-energy, pro-sprawl absolutists

. Their views are evident in the ongoing protests this week in Harvard Yard. A group called Divest Harvard is pushing the Harvard Corporation, the school’s governing body, to divest the school’s $36 billion endowment of any investments in companies that provide coal, oil, and natural gas to consumers.

This group’s manifesto, issued in February, demonizes energy use.


RELATED: The ‘Sustainability’ Craze Is Nothing But an Empty Pose

The absolutists like to use the squishy term “climate justice.” They believe that the threat of climate change trumps all other concerns, including the welfare of people living in energy poverty. For the absolutists, the only path to salvation is through the exclusive use of renewable energy.

And in that regard, Divest Harvard falls smack in the middle of mainstream liberal-left environmentalism in America.

The anti-energy, pro-sprawl absolutists — a designation that, in my view, fits the Sierra Club, 350.org, Greenpeace, and Natural Resources Defense Council — are anti-nuclear, anti-hydrocarbon, and anti–hydraulic fracturing. They routinely peddle slogans such as “fossil-free” and continually claim that we can rely solely on increased efficiency and renewable energy.

They push these claims despite overwhelming evidence from Germany and Japan that shuttering nuclear power plants and relying too much on renewables results in higher electricity prices and decreased reliability. (For more on that, see this April 13 Reuters piece about the potential shuttering of dozens of conventional power plants in Germany.)

RELATED: The ‘Sustainability’ Trend Costs Students Money

The absolutists are anti-energy. In a Divest Harvard video posted on YouTube, the group stated that its goal is to “stigmatize the fossil fuel industry.” The absolutists try to do that all the time.

Just last week, the Sierra Club announced the expansion of its “beyond coal” campaign. The group’s backers — who include former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg — have pledged some $60 million in funding for the effort, which aims to shutter half of U.S. coal plants by 2017. Celebrating the fundraising effort, the group’s executive director, Michael Brune, declared, “Dirty, outdated, deadly coal is a thing of the past.”

Never mind that coal remains the world’s fastest-growing source of energy and that it has been the fastest-growing source of energy since 1973.

Never mind that countries from Germany to Bangladesh are building hundreds of gigawatts of coal-fired power plants. Never mind that the United States has more coal reserves than any other country does. Coal must be stigmatized.

RELATED: No, Farmers Don’t Use 80% of California’s Water

Based on the logic that the Sierra Club and Divest Harvard put forward, companies such as Coal India Limited must be stigmatized. Coal India is deemed untouchable because it provides coal to generation stations in a poverty-stricken country that gets about 70 percent of its power from coal.

Coal India provides fuel to 82 of India’s 86 coal-fired generators. Therefore, it must be stigmatized. Never mind that more than 300 million Indians — a group approximately equal to the entire population of the United States — lack access to electricity.

To be clear, the absolutists at Divest Harvard don’t mention Coal India in their manifesto. But the open letter published in mid-February and signed by about three dozen Harvard graduates — including 350.org founder Bill McKibben, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., author Susan Faludi, former U.S. senator Tim Wirth, and actress Natalie Portman — condemns investment in what it calls the “dirtiest energy companies on the planet.”

all of it here:
Read more at: National Review

 

[westwall]

But you'd rather spend that money on hunting asteroids. Wow...

Yes, I would. We actually have empirical evidence of what happens when an asteroid hits. We also have empirical evidence of what DOESN'T happen when the globe gets warmer. Namely none of the terrible things you silly people claim "could", "might", or "possibly" happen in your continuing attempts to steal the poor peoples money...has ever happened. Ever.

 

[Stephanie]

The planet has been around longer than that idiot we have as President

so now we are to believe he is SO BRILLIANT he know's all about our planet. not taking one frikken course or has a DEGREE from any University in Science, climate or weather.

gawd people wake up to these snake oil salesmen politicians

 

[GWV5903]

Obama says 'no greater threat to planet than climate change'

Evidently his mirror is broken...