The words "climate" and "global warming" do not appear in the State of the Union Address
Anthony Watts / January 25, 2011
It appears that "global warming" aka "climate change" aka "climate disruption" are off the President's radar. I'm sure this will appear as a snub to many in the climate business. He does talk about clean energy though:
We'll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.
With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.
We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's.
Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all – and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.
Clean Coal? Holy anthracite Batman! I like the hat tip to nuclear too.
So it appears BHO is avoiding the volatile climate issue, and focusing on clean energy technology. That 80% in 24 years will be a tough nut to crack unless we add nuclear power plants.
Last year in 2010's SOTUA, BHO mentioned the word "climate" three times in his speech available here at the White House.
In the 2009 SOTUA, BHO mentioned "climate" once. Read it here
So by not mentioning it at all this year, it seems that it may very well be slipping from the radar. I'll bet Jim Hansen is having a conniption fit right about now.
Full Text of Obama's State of the Union Address
Following is the full text of President Obama's 2011 State of the Union address, as prepared for delivery and released by the White House press office.
Transcript source: PBS
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:
Tonight I want to begin by congratulating the men and women of the 112th Congress, as well as your new Speaker, John Boehner. And as we mark this occasion, we are also mindful of the empty chair in this Chamber, and pray for the health of our colleague – and our friend – Gabby Giffords.
It's no secret that those of us here tonight have had our differences over the last two years. The debates have been contentious; we have fought fiercely for our beliefs. And that's a good thing. That's what a robust democracy demands. That's what helps set us apart as a nation.
But there's a reason the tragedy in Tucson gave us pause. Amid all the noise and passions and rancor of our public debate, Tucson reminded us that no matter who we are or where we come from, each of us is a part of something greater – something more consequential than party or political preference.
We are part of the American family. We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled.
That, too, is what sets us apart as a nation.
Now, by itself, this simple recognition won't usher in a new era of cooperation. What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow.
I believe we can. I believe we must. That's what the people who sent us here expect of us. With their votes, they've determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all – for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.
At stake right now is not who wins the next election – after all, we just had an election. At stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else. It's whether the hard work and industry of our people is rewarded. It's whether we sustain the leadership that has made America not just a place on a map, but a light to the world.
We are poised for progress. Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again.
But we have never measured progress by these yardsticks alone. We measure progress by the success of our people. By the jobs they can find and the quality of life those jobs offer. By the prospects of a small business owner who dreams of turning a good idea into a thriving enterprise. By the opportunities for a better life that we pass on to our children.
That's the project the American people want us to work on. Together.
We did that in December. Thanks to the tax cuts we passed, Americans' paychecks are a little bigger today. Every business can write off the full cost of the new investments they make this year. These steps, taken by Democrats and Republicans, will grow the economy and add to the more than one million private sector jobs created last year.
But we have more work to do. The steps we've taken over the last two years may have broken the back of this recession – but to win the future, we'll need to take on challenges that have been decades in the making.
Many people watching tonight can probably remember a time when finding a good job meant showing up at a nearby factory or a business downtown. You didn't always need a degree, and your competition was pretty much limited to your neighbors. If you worked hard, chances are you'd have a job for life, with a decent paycheck, good benefits, and the occasional promotion. Maybe you'd even have the pride of seeing your kids work at the same company.
That world has changed. And for many, the change has been painful. I've seen it in the shuttered windows of once booming factories, and the vacant storefronts of once busy Main Streets. I've heard it in the frustrations of Americans who've seen their paychecks dwindle or their jobs disappear – proud men and women who feel like the rules have been changed in the middle of the game.
They're right. The rules have changed. In a single generation, revolutions in technology have transformed the way we live, work and do business. Steel mills that once needed 1,000 workers can now do the same work with 100. Today, just about any company can set up shop, hire workers, and sell their products wherever there's an internet connection.
Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They're investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became home to the world's largest private solar research facility, and the world's fastest computer.
So yes, the world has changed. The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn't discourage us. It should challenge us. Remember – for all the hits we've taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world. No workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We are home to the world's best colleges and universities, where more students come to study than any other place on Earth.
What's more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea – the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That is why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It's why our students don't just memorize equations, but answer questions like "What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?"
The future is ours to win. But to get there, we can't just stand still. As Robert Kennedy told us, "The future is not a gift. It is an achievement." Sustaining the American Dream has never been about standing pat. It has required each generation to sacrifice, and struggle, and meet the demands of a new age.
Now it's our turn. We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time. We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. We need to take responsibility for our deficit, and reform our government. That's how our people will prosper. That's how we'll win the future. And tonight, I'd like to talk about how we get there.
The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation.
None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be, or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn't know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution. What we can do – what America does better than anyone – is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook. In America, innovation doesn't just change our lives. It's how we make a living.
Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout history our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That's what planted the seeds for the Internet. That's what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS.
Just think of all the good jobs – from manufacturing to retail – that have come from those breakthroughs.
Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik¸ we had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.
This is our generation's Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven't seen since the height of the Space Race. In a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We'll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.
Already, we are seeing the promise of renewable energy. Robert and Gary Allen are brothers who run a small Michigan roofing company. After September 11th, they volunteered their best roofers to help repair the Pentagon. But half of their factory went unused, and the recession hit them hard.
Today, with the help of a government loan, that empty space is being used to manufacture solar shingles that are being sold all across the country. In Robert's words, "We reinvented ourselves."
That's what Americans have done for over two hundred years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we've begun to reinvent our energy policy. We're not just handing out money. We're issuing a challenge. We're telling America's scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo Projects of our time.
At the California Institute of Technology, they're developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they're using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities. With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.
Maintaining our leadership in research and technology is crucial to America's success. But if we want to win the future – if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas – then we also have to win the race to educate our kids.
Think about it. Over the next ten years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high school degree. And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren't even finishing high school. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations. America has fallen to 9th in the proportion of young people with a college degree. And so the question is whether all of us – as citizens, and as parents – are willing to do what's necessary to give every child a chance to succeed.
That responsibility begins not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities. It's family that first instills the love of learning in a child. Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done. We need to teach our kids that it's not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair; that success is not a function of fame or PR, but of hard work and discipline.
Our schools share this responsibility. When a child walks into a classroom, it should be a place of high expectations and high performance. But too many schools don't meet this test. That's why instead of just pouring money into a system that's not working, we launched a competition called Race to the Top. To all fifty states, we said, "If you show us the most innovative plans to improve teacher quality and student achievement, we'll show you the money."
Race to the Top is the most meaningful reform of our public schools in a generation. For less than one percent of what we spend on education each year, it has led over 40 states to raise their standards for teaching and learning. These standards were developed, not by Washington, but by Republican and Democratic governors throughout the country. And Race to the Top should be the approach we follow this year as we replace No Child Left Behind with a law that is more flexible and focused on what's best for our kids.
You see, we know what's possible for our children when reform isn't just a top-down mandate, but the work of local teachers and principals; school boards and communities.
Take a school like Bruce Randolph in Denver. Three years ago, it was rated one of the worst schools in Colorado; located on turf between two rival gangs. But last May, 97% of the seniors received their diploma. Most will be the first in their family to go to college. And after the first year of the school's transformation, the principal who made it possible wiped away tears when a student said "Thank you, Mrs. Waters, for showing… that we are smart and we can make it."
Let's also remember that after parents, the biggest impact on a child's success comes from the man or woman at the front of the classroom. In South Korea, teachers are known as "nation builders." Here in America, it's time we treated the people who educate our children with the same level of respect. We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones. And over the next ten years, with so many Baby Boomers retiring from our classrooms, we want to prepare 100,000 new teachers in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math.
In fact, to every young person listening tonight who's contemplating their career choice: If you want to make a difference in the life of our nation; if you want to make a difference in the life of a child – become a teacher. Your country needs you.
Of course, the education race doesn't end with a high school diploma. To compete, higher education must be within reach of every American. That's why we've ended the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that went to banks, and used the savings to make college affordable for millions of students. And this year, I ask Congress to go further, and make permanent our tuition tax credit – worth $10,000 for four years of college.
Because people need to be able to train for new jobs and careers in today's fast-changing economy, we are also revitalizing America's community colleges. Last month, I saw the promise of these schools at Forsyth Tech in North Carolina. Many of the students there used to work in the surrounding factories that have since left town. One mother of two, a woman named Kathy Proctor, had worked in the furniture industry since she was 18 years old. And she told me she's earning her degree in biotechnology now, at 55 years old, not just because the furniture jobs are gone, but because she wants to inspire her children to pursue their dreams too. As Kathy said, "I hope it tells them to never give up."
If we take these steps – if we raise expectations for every child, and give them the best possible chance at an education, from the day they're born until the last job they take – we will reach the goal I set two years ago: by the end of the decade, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.
One last point about education. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of students excelling in our schools who are not American citizens. Some are the children of undocumented workers, who had nothing to do with the actions of their parents. They grew up as Americans and pledge allegiance to our flag, and yet live every day with the threat of deportation. Others come here from abroad to study in our colleges and universities. But as soon as they obtain advanced degrees, we send them back home to compete against us. It makes no sense.
Now, I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows. I know that debate will be difficult and take time. But tonight, let's agree to make that effort. And let's stop expelling talented, responsible young people who can staff our research labs, start new businesses, and further enrich this nation.
The third step in winning the future is rebuilding America. To attract new businesses to our shores, we need the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information – from high-speed rail to high-speed internet.
Our infrastructure used to be the best – but our lead has slipped. South Korean homes now have greater internet access than we do. Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do. China is building faster trains and newer airports. Meanwhile, when our own engineers graded our nation's infrastructure, they gave us a "D."
We have to do better. America is the nation that built the transcontinental railroad, brought electricity to rural communities, and constructed the interstate highway system. The jobs created by these projects didn't just come from laying down tracks or pavement. They came from businesses that opened near a town's new train station or the new off-ramp.
Over the last two years, we have begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. Tonight, I'm proposing that we redouble these efforts.
We will put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. We will make sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects based on what's best for the economy, not politicians.
Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying – without the pat-down. As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway.
Within the next five years, we will make it possible for business to deploy the next generation of high-speed wireless coverage to 98% of all Americans. This isn't just about a faster internet and fewer dropped calls. It's about connecting every part of America to the digital age. It's about a rural community in Iowa or Alabama where farmers and small business owners will be able to sell their products all over the world. It's about a firefighter who can download the design of a burning building onto a handheld device; a student who can take classes with a digital textbook; or a patient who can have face-to-face video chats with her doctor.
All these investments – in innovation, education, and infrastructure – will make America a better place to do business and create jobs. But to help our companies compete, we also have to knock down barriers that stand in the way of their success.
Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change.
So tonight, I'm asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years – without adding to our deficit.
To help businesses sell more products abroad, we set a goal of doubling our exports by 2014 – because the more we export, the more jobs we create at home. Already, our exports are up. Recently, we signed agreements with India and China that will support more than 250,000 jobs in the United States. And last month, we finalized a trade agreement with South Korea that will support at least 70,000 American jobs. This agreement has unprecedented support from business and labor; Democrats and Republicans, and I ask this Congress to pass it as soon as possible.
Before I took office, I made it clear that we would enforce our trade agreements, and that I would only sign deals that keep faith with American workers, and promote American jobs. That's what we did with Korea, and that's what I intend to do as we pursue agreements with Panama and Colombia, and continue our Asia Pacific and global trade talks.
To reduce barriers to growth and investment, I've ordered a review of government regulations. When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them. But I will not hesitate to create or enforce commonsense safeguards to protect the American people. That's what we've done in this country for more than a century. It's why our food is safe to eat, our water is safe to drink, and our air is safe to breathe. It's why we have speed limits and child labor laws. It's why last year, we put in place consumer protections against hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies, and new rules to prevent another financial crisis. And it's why we passed reform that finally prevents the health insurance industry from exploiting patients.
Now, I've heard rumors that a few of you have some concerns about the new health care law. So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved. If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses.
What I'm not willing to do is go back to the days when insurance companies could deny someone coverage because of a pre-existing condition. I'm not willing to tell James Howard, a brain cancer patient from Texas, that his treatment might not be covered. I'm not willing to tell Jim Houser, a small business owner from Oregon, that he has to go back to paying $5,000 more to cover his employees. As we speak, this law is making prescription drugs cheaper for seniors and giving uninsured students a chance to stay on their parents' coverage. So instead of re-fighting the battles of the last two years, let's fix what needs fixing and move forward.
Now, the final step – a critical step – in winning the future is to make sure we aren't buried under a mountain of debt.
We are living with a legacy of deficit-spending that began almost a decade ago. And in the wake of the financial crisis, some of that was necessary to keep credit flowing, save jobs, and put money in people's pockets.
But now that the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same.
So tonight, I am proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years. This would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and will bring discretionary spending to the lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was president.
This freeze will require painful cuts. Already, we have frozen the salaries of hardworking federal employees for the next two years. I've proposed cuts to things I care deeply about, like community action programs. The Secretary of Defense has also agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending that he and his generals believe our military can do without.
I recognize that some in this Chamber have already proposed deeper cuts, and I'm willing to eliminate whatever we can honestly afford to do without. But let's make sure that we're not doing it on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens. And let's make sure what we're cutting is really excess weight. Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may feel like you're flying high at first, but it won't take long before you'll feel the impact.
Now, most of the cuts and savings I've proposed only address annual domestic spending, which represents a little more than 12% of our budget. To make further progress, we have to stop pretending that cutting this kind of spending alone will be enough. It won't.
The bipartisan Fiscal Commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don't agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it – in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.
This means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit. Still, I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.
To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. And we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.
And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply cannot afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Before we take money away from our schools, or scholarships away from our students, we should ask millionaires to give up their tax break.
It's not a matter of punishing their success. It's about promoting America's success.
In fact, the best thing we could do on taxes for all Americans is to simplify the individual tax code. This will be a tough job, but members of both parties have expressed interest in doing this, and I am prepared to join them.
So now is the time to act. Now is the time for both sides and both houses of Congress – Democrats and Republicans – to forge a principled compromise that gets the job done. If we make the hard choices now to rein in our deficits, we can make the investments we need to win the future.
Let me take this one step further. We shouldn't just give our people a government that's more affordable. We should give them a government that's more competent and efficient. We cannot win the future with a government of the past.
We live and do business in the information age, but the last major reorganization of the government happened in the age of black and white TV. There are twelve different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different entities that deal with housing policy. Then there's my favorite example: the Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they're in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them in when they're in saltwater. And I hear it gets even more complicated once they're smoked.
Now, we have made great strides over the last two years in using technology and getting rid of waste. Veterans can now download their electronic medical records with a click of the mouse. We're selling acres of federal office space that hasn't been used in years, and we will cut through red tape to get rid of more. But we need to think bigger. In the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America. I will submit that proposal to Congress for a vote – and we will push to get it passed.
In the coming year, we will also work to rebuild people's faith in the institution of government. Because you deserve to know exactly how and where your tax dollars are being spent, you will be able to go to a website and get that information for the very first time in history. Because you deserve to know when your elected officials are meeting with lobbyists, I ask Congress to do what the White House has already done: put that information online. And because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren't larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this: if a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.
A 21st century government that's open and competent. A government that lives within its means. An economy that's driven by new skills and ideas. Our success in this new and changing world will require reform, responsibility, and innovation. It will also require us to approach that world with a new level of engagement in our foreign affairs.
Just as jobs and businesses can now race across borders, so can new threats and new challenges. No single wall separates East and West; no one rival superpower is aligned against us.
And so we must defeat determined enemies wherever they are, and build coalitions that cut across lines of region and race and religion. America's moral example must always shine for all who yearn for freedom, justice, and dignity. And because we have begun this work, tonight we can say that American leadership has been renewed and America's standing has been restored.
Look to Iraq, where nearly 100,000 of our brave men and women have left with their heads held high; where American combat patrols have ended; violence has come down; and a new government has been formed. This year, our civilians will forge a lasting partnership with the Iraqi people, while we finish the job of bringing our troops out of Iraq. America's commitment has been kept; the Iraq War is coming to an end.
Of course, as we speak, al Qaeda and their affiliates continue to plan attacks against us. Thanks to our intelligence and law enforcement professionals, we are disrupting plots and securing our cities and skies. And as extremists try to inspire acts of violence within our borders, we are responding with the strength of our communities, with respect for the rule of law, and with the conviction that American Muslims are a part of our American family.
We have also taken the fight to al Qaeda and their allies abroad. In Afghanistan, our troops have taken Taliban strongholds and trained Afghan Security Forces. Our purpose is clear – by preventing the Taliban from reestablishing a stranglehold over the Afghan people, we will deny al Qaeda the safe-haven that served as a launching pad for 9/11.
Thanks to our heroic troops and civilians, fewer Afghans are under the control of the insurgency. There will be tough fighting ahead, and the Afghan government will need to deliver better governance. But we are strengthening the capacity of the Afghan people and building an enduring partnership with them. This year, we will work with nearly 50 countries to begin a transition to an Afghan lead. And this July, we will begin to bring our troops home.
In Pakistan, al Qaeda's leadership is under more pressure than at any point since 2001. Their leaders and operatives are being removed from the battlefield. Their safe-havens are shrinking. And we have sent a message from the Afghan border to the Arabian Peninsula to all parts of the globe: we will not relent, we will not waver, and we will defeat you.
American leadership can also be seen in the effort to secure the worst weapons of war. Because Republicans and Democrats approved the New START Treaty, far fewer nuclear weapons and launchers will be deployed. Because we rallied the world, nuclear materials are being locked down on every continent so they never fall into the hands of terrorists.
Because of a diplomatic effort to insist that Iran meet its obligations, the Iranian government now faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before. And on the Korean peninsula, we stand with our ally South Korea, and insist that North Korea keeps its commitment to abandon nuclear weapons.
This is just a part of how we are shaping a world that favors peace and prosperity. With our European allies, we revitalized NATO, and increased our cooperation on everything from counter-terrorism to missile defense. We have reset our relationship with Russia, strengthened Asian alliances, and built new partnerships with nations like India. This March, I will travel to Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador to forge new alliances for progress in the Americas. Around the globe, we are standing with those who take responsibility – helping farmers grow more food; supporting doctors who care for the sick; and combating the corruption that can rot a society and rob people of opportunity.
Recent events have shown us that what sets us apart must not just be our power – it must be the purpose behind it. In South Sudan – with our assistance – the people were finally able to vote for independence after years of war. Thousands lined up before dawn. People danced in the streets. One man who lost four of his brothers at war summed up the scene around him: "This was a battlefield for most of my life. Now we want to be free."
We saw that same desire to be free in Tunisia, where the will of the people proved more powerful than the writ of a dictator. And tonight, let us be clear: the United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people.
We must never forget that the things we've struggled for, and fought for, live in the hearts of people everywhere. And we must always remember that the Americans who have borne the greatest burden in this struggle are the men and women who serve our country.
Tonight, let us speak with one voice in reaffirming that our nation is united in support of our troops and their families. Let us serve them as well as they have served us – by giving them the equipment they need; by providing them with the care and benefits they have earned; and by enlisting our veterans in the great task of building our own nation.
Our troops come from every corner of this country – they are black, white, Latino, Asian and Native American. They are Christian and Hindu, Jewish and Muslim. And, yes, we know that some of them are gay. Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love. And with that change, I call on all of our college campuses to open their doors to our military recruiters and the ROTC. It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past. It is time to move forward as one nation.
We should have no illusions about the work ahead of us. Reforming our schools; changing the way we use energy; reducing our deficit – none of this is easy. All of it will take time. And it will be harder because we will argue about everything. The cost. The details. The letter of every law.
Of course, some countries don't have this problem. If the central government wants a railroad, they get a railroad – no matter how many homes are bulldozed. If they don't want a bad story in the newspaper, it doesn't get written.
And yet, as contentious and frustrating and messy as our democracy can sometimes be, I know there isn't a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth.
We may have differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution. We may have different opinions, but we believe in the same promise that says this is a place where you can make it if you try. We may have different backgrounds, but we believe in the same dream that says this is a country where anything's possible. No matter who you are. No matter where you come from.
That dream is why I can stand here before you tonight. That dream is why a working class kid from Scranton can stand behind me. That dream is why someone who began by sweeping the floors of his father's Cincinnati bar can preside as Speaker of the House in the greatest nation on Earth.
That dream – that American Dream – is what drove the Allen Brothers to reinvent their roofing company for a new era. It's what drove those students at Forsyth Tech to learn a new skill and work towards the future. And that dream is the story of a small business owner named Brandon Fisher.
Brandon started a company in Berlin, Pennsylvania that specializes in a new kind of drilling technology. One day last summer, he saw the news that halfway across the world, 33 men were trapped in a Chilean mine, and no one knew how to save them.
But Brandon thought his company could help. And so he designed a rescue that would come to be known as Plan B. His employees worked around the clock to manufacture the necessary drilling equipment. And Brandon left for Chile.
Along with others, he began drilling a 2,000 foot hole into the ground, working three or four days at a time with no sleep. Thirty-seven days later, Plan B succeeded, and the miners were rescued. But because he didn't want all of the attention, Brandon wasn't there when the miners emerged. He had already gone home, back to work on his next project.
Later, one of his employees said of the rescue, "We proved that Center Rock is a little company, but we do big things."
We do big things.
From the earliest days of our founding, America has been the story of ordinary people who dare to dream. That's how we win the future.
We are a nation that says, "I might not have a lot of money, but I have this great idea for a new company. I might not come from a family of college graduates, but I will be the first to get my degree. I might not know those people in trouble, but I think I can help them, and I need to try. I'm not sure how we'll reach that better place beyond the horizon, but I know we'll get there. I know we will."
The idea of America endures. Our destiny remains our choice. And tonight, more than two centuries later, it is because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong.
Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.
January 25, 2011 in Politics. Tags: Barack Obama, State of the Union address, White House
More evidence that a cold climate kills – while trying to sell "stop Brexit"
Et Tu, Bloomberg?
The Greenland Purchase
← New UW peer reviewed paper on the 2010 Pakistan floods – nothing to do with "climate change "
Using weather models to predict pirates, really →
131 thoughts on "The words "climate" and "global warming" do not appear in the State of the Union Address"
Scroll-by. Can't bear to listen to or read the man.
But the "80%" number is ludicrous, as are all the renewables initiatives. Putting every coal mine in the country out of business, and "skyrocketing" the cost of energy is where he's at.
The world's most dangerous human. Bar none.
So he just declared war on oil and coal, while continuing to dump (taxpayer ) money in the "renewables" bank accounts. Seems like he intends to fulfill that campaign promise he made about the price of electricity (and everything else ) skyrocketing. There is no way in hell that diffuse energy sources such as solar, wind, or bio can fill the need – ever. Nuke, maybe in 30 or 40 years, but try getting that past the anti nuke lobby.
2012 can't get here soon enough.
While there maybe no direct mention of the phrases in the thread title, if you read between the lines, the climate change alarmism rhetoric is still there.
Mark Miller says:
I concur that getting to "by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources" will be impossible without carbon capture for the coal fired plants that we have. This goal means carbon capture for CA's natural gas plants as well.
tokyoboy says:
As a foreigner I'd like to know this:
How weighty is the State of the Union Address for you Americans?
Of course you won't find those words. You have to keep up.
Did you notice the phrase "irritable weather syndrome"?
Me neither, but, still, he has to replace Carol Browner – or not. That choice will tell more than his word choice.
This was fence sitting with the barbed wire right up in the hoo haa!
TWE says:
It doesn't mean a lot that Obama didn't mention AGW, he knows no one wants to hear about it anymore and he can't risk people laughing at him again. It won't stop him pressing on with all the AGW legislation anyway. They might be toning down the rhetoric publically, but behind the scenes the agenda brazenly rolls on. They are still pretending they've won the debate and the vast majority of the public doesn't really seem to care. The government knows best, right?
80% by 2035? I'll lay money down that that ain't going to happen.
Patrick-"While there maybe no direct mention of the phrases in the thread title, if you read between the lines, the climate change alarmism rhetoric is still there."
I concur- my read of clean electrical generation means carbon free. If we are lucky out here in CA maybe we will be able to count our large hydro plants towards our 33%RES by 2020 now.
pedex says:
@tokyoboy
not very weighty really
American leadership doesn't even recognize or discuss reality, not in public anyway.
Listening to what they say is pretty useless, look at what they actually do instead.
@tokyoboy says:
Not very. It's mostly kabuki theatre, and BS. In this particular instance, it's Obama trying to set the agenda for the upcoming presidential campaign.
John M says:
It gets wide play for 1/365th of the year. A little less every 4th year.
R. de Haan says:
Obama's Second Term
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Mpd1ozuoa64/TT7GflIvEqI/AAAAAAAAC-A/sR-J_JtO9J8/s1600/Cartoon+-+Obama+Second+Term.jpg
From Warning Signs
What he wants is a copy of Europe.
Don't do it.
He mumbled something just after the speech. My friend who reads lips says it was:
"Now if I can just stop looking like a rabid socialist for two years…"
thegoodlocust says:
The big bad wolf is trying to get back into his sheep costume for the election.
He is simply spouting the time and focus-group tested, feel-good impractical ideas that every president has said for the past 50 years. Vote this viper out of office.
richcar 1225 says:
The gains in renewable energy consumption from 1973-2009 were primarily from biomass (ethanol etc.). Wind and solar account for less than 1%. Hydroelectric, the clean choice has declined.
http://www.eia.gov/mer/pdf/pages/sec10.pdf
If the economy ever improves or if winters continue to be like this one, fossil fuels will
explode.
old construction worker says:
Well let's wait and see what all those crazy regulating czars will do. Will they make easier to build nuclear power plants? Will they stop using food as fuel? Will they turn the water back on in the central valley? What will they do? What will they do?
LarryOldtimer says:
I see no reason to pay any attention to what any politician has to say about anything in a speech.
When I was young and naive, I would feel put off when a politician didn't keep political promises. I have long since learned to be frightened out of my skin for fear a politician will actually keep political promises.
Baa Humbug says:
If the man gets his wish, I'm afraid our American cousins are screwed.
Whilst you change to "clean green" energy by reducing the reliance on coal and oil, the price of coal and oil will reduce allowing China Russia India and Brazil to power ahead on the back of cheap energy.
And when, at some stage in the not too distant future, we have ePods (little enrgy pods no bigger than iPods) to power our houses and cars, the BRIC nations will not only be rich enough to convert seamlessly, they'll have the buying power to get this new energy much cheaper than the rest of the world. They can't lose (when the west is lead by a clueless man).
Rob Huber says:
The 80% goal is easy once CO2 is dropped as a pollutant!
paulhan says:
Another word I don't recall hearing was Carbon. That SOTUA definitely sounded more centrist and pragmatic to me. With Browner out as well, maybe, just maybe, he's copped on a bit
As an outsider looking in, the SOTUA is unique to America, and shouldn't be summarily dismissed. It allows a one shot chance to see where you are and where the POTUS wants to concentrate his efforts. Britain does have the Queen's Speech, but that isn't as powerful or as galvanising.
If Obama really has had a Pauline conversion a la Bill Clinton 1994, it could augur very well for America in the years to come. I certainly hope it does.
P.S. Noticed that the gay issue in the military went down like a lead balloon.
Girma says:
New Oxford American Dictionary
conniption: a fit of rage or hysterics
johnboy says:
don't worry EPA will pass all what the left wants?
ChrisH says:
Deeds not words.
I wonder why anybody puts any stock in Mr. Obama's "State of the Union Address". I listened to him during the presidential campaign and I must say it was one fabrication after another–his only intent was to get elected without any substance. I listened to him (albeit with incredulous flacitude) during his push on the health care issue, and found it to be full of lies and distortions. So tonight I did not bother to waste my time listening to the biggest fabricator of all time tell us what we wanted to hear but has no intention of delivering. The man is an abject furciferous scoundrel.
PS. "Flacitude" is an imaginary word–I thought it fitting in describing the most imaginary man in the world.
Mark T says:
Obama is going to do whatever it takes to get reelected at which point he will be able to inflict real damage… unless Congress goes even deeper into red territory and the Senate flips as well, which seems likely at this point. Bad news for the rabid socialist if they can muster veto overrides. I seriously doubt he'll get reelected and though the Senate will likely flip, it won't be by much so the dems will still have the filibuster to prevent another red rout like Bush had (one party control is devastating to the US.)
Newt Love says:
Please don't tell me that you actually believe Obama or any Democrat will stand behind any promise made in the SOTU speech! It's political rhetoric! It's barely above the lies promised by a male teen to a female teen in the back seat of a borrowed automobile parked in a remote place.
I'm glad you received pleasure watching and analyzing this piece of political theater, but you should hold off on asserting that anything will come of it. It is merely a very large focus-group survey, where the POTUS spouts a laundry list of ideas and then waits for the "overnights" to come in. What polls well will get attention. What doesn't will be ignored. If the focus group is upset that something wasn't in the SOTU speech, it will be mentioned in the POTUS' next press release (this one doesn't hold press conferences).
The only question requiring analysis is which focus group has his attention. Since he lost the Indies and Dem-Moderates to the GOP's November 2010 route, we can only hope that the POTUS won't focus on the Daily Kosites and the MSNBC-ers, who want him to whole-hog support a complete lock-down of the US economy for Cap-n-Trade.
80% by 2035 – we're gonna do it. you can doubt it all you want, there were lots of doubters preceding all great ventures. but we're going to do it and it will be a beautiful turning point in history.
Frank K. says:
I'm all for clean energy – we can help pay for it by chopping the climate research budgets in half! Climate Ca$h for Clean Energy!
A good old typo?
"by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources. "
might be…….
"by 2350, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources."
johnb says:
Chris Horner has an interesting take on it at the Daily Caller. He claims that Obama's path calls for the U.S. to follow Germany to rolling blackouts.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/25/obama-calls-for-u-s-to-follow-germanys-path-to-blackouts/
Don Shaw says:
Apparently the president is still totally unaware of the lack of progress on the efforts/expenditures to advance biofuels. It is alarming that he still thinks our economy can survive on "green" energy especially for liquid fuels. His administration has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into cellulosic ethanol. They even planned their mandated ethanol supply based on production from the new ethanol plants going on stream in 2009.
These plants have been a total failure and have failed to meet the government production goals by several orders of magnitude and has required the EPA to significantly reduced the cellulosic ethanol production targets several times.
Now after spendiing huge taxpayer dollars another plant is virtually shut down and blaming the lack of interest by investors for its failure.
It is time to stop wasting money on attempts to commercialize tecnology that will never achive the promise of energy independence. So far the administration policy has been to double down on spending.
See below for latest typical failure.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS154341571120110114
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_17060301
Scott R says:
I note that with poverty and starvation in the third world, Mr. O still wants to take corn and convert it into "biofuels". I thought it was decided back in 2008 that that was a bad idea.
Who can oppose 'world peace' or 'green energy' or 'money for nothing and chicks for free' . There are problems when reality meets ideals.
Meanwhile Germany keeps building more coal plants.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE70O1TB20110125
P.F. says:
If anyone watched ABC, did you notice the climate story on ABC National News that preceded the Address? They used a summer 2007 Arctic sea ice extent image as the condition of diminished ice for winter 2011 that was causing the severe cold in the mid-west and east.
Zorro says:
Good luck with that 80%
"Green power" means generating electricity by burning dollars."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.html
"Wind machines, even massively tall and wide contemporary turbines, are wholly inimical to modern power quality. They are rarely reliable, by nature randomly intermittent, and, since their power is a function of the cube of the wind speed along a very narrow speed range, they are always variable. No one can know what they will yield at any future interval. They almost never produce their full capacity. In fact, they average over the course of a year about 25% of their full capacity. More than 60% of the time, they produce less than that. About 10-15% of the time, they produce nothing, often at peak demand times. They typically generate most at times of least demand. Whatever they do produce is changing one minute to the next—in the process destabilizing the necessary match between supply and demand, for blackouts occur when there is too little supply while appliances and transmission systems can be damaged if the supply is excessive. Unlike machines that produce modern power, wind is neither dispatchable nor controllable, except when shut down completely."
Much more at the links below
The unvarnished truth from an energy expert
part 1 http://www.masterresource.org/2011/01/wind-howlers-part-i/
Part 2 http://www.masterresource.org/2011/01/windspeak-part-ii/
How about cutting some EPA red tape? A new biodiesel company (well, it's over two years old), was thought to have gone under when their web site and phones quit working. They claim to be very much alive, though, and note in http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/906606-196/biodiesel-firm-alive-set-to-open.html#
Langille attributed the continued delay in starting up Batchelder Biodiesel Refineries to the difficulty of a small company in meeting Environmental Protection Agency regulations, particularly the need for professional engineers to compile a report on emissions, which costs around $10,000.
"We tried submitting it on our own, without the P.E. (professional engineers), but they did not accept it. We saved up the 10 grand, hired the PEs in last week. They promised me a report in seven days. We'll review it, submit it hopefully within 30 days. When we get the EPA final certificate, we can start," he said.
I responded to an email from Alan Grayson the night before asking me to watch it;
"Barack Obama will say nothing of value and his state of the union speech will be completely and totally devoid of any substance as usual.
The pep rally cheerleader puppet in chief is completely worthless. I will not be wasting my time watching his speech.
I'll check out the highlights on the Internet of the mind game."
At least it didn't turn into a pep rally as with the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy/memorial. A couple of good points though. End subsidies to the oil companies, simplify the tax code, cut over regulation of smoked salmon. The best sentenced out of his mouth was when speaking about high speed rails and not having TSA pat downs getting on them. The part about pat downs that is.
Cassandra King says:
The truth is that coal is already clean, there is no more efficient method of delivering reliable cheap energy to a 1st world nation, coal and nuclear and hydro and Bobs yer uncle. CO2 is a harmless trace gas and the newest coal plants have flue designs which extract nearly all the real genuine pollutants. The fantasy of green jobs is dangerous because it is actually known NOT to work, this isnt just 'deniers' rambling on it is a cold hard fact.
Common sense has fled and in its place there is a childish wishful thinking Disneyland(TM) type mental illness where wishes are believed to come true, a reversion to childhood fantasies where reality is blotted out. There is no renewable green pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and yet that is what the idiots in government are attempting and its going to end in tears no ifs and no buts.
All the time and more importantly money wasted is crippling America right at the exact time of its greatest peril and its a tragedy that could still be avoided, if common sense does not prevail soon the results are going to be disastrous, we need the USA to thrive.
The reality of natural cyclic climate change is upon us, we have enough evidence and we now know tat CO2 is simply a harmless trace gas essential for life on earth, the insane preoccupation with this trace gas is the biggest blunder ever made in human history and even now the politicians cannot or will not face reality, are they are intent on taking us all down before lessons are learned, will they stand among the rubble and then proclaim lesson will be learned and urge we all move on?
We have one slim chance of survival and that is that we ditch and scrap any notion of CO2 being anything other than a harmless trace gas and then stop and claw back as much of the money wasted while closing off the parasite industries cash spigot and slashing taxes to the bone and closing down large sections of government.
Only ultra low taxes and ultra cheap reliable energy will save us now. There is no other way and its so very simple to do, stand back and let enterprise do its thing. The ecolunatics have had their day in the sun and they have had their chance and it has nearly destroyed the USA, time to put them in their place and place those who built America back in the driving seat. The USA was not built by tree hugging shakedown merchants and green shirted Marxists and pseudo new socialists but they sure do mean to pull it down if they have the chance.
Julian in Wales says:
OFF TOPIC – SORRY BUT IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED URGENTLY
There is a squalid attack on the integrity of Anthony Watts in the Guardian here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/25/case-study-climate-science-integrity?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
The commenters are all piling in behind the distorted attack on the integrity of WUWT, it needs informed counter comments.
Keith Battye says:
I have just read the article and the comments and I would say that there is nothing unusual there. The Guardian has it's bias as do the commentators there. They don't like the Lindzen paper and feel it is as faulty as their discredited South American article which is simply not the case. Attacks on Anthony aren't new from that quarter and frankly if some of their readers find their curiosity piqued leading them to read here and even comment then that is all to the good.
But thanks for the heads up.
I have finally cut the umbilical cord on Google. Every search on STOU is a LA times. Washington post, Huffington post, New York Times etc. lauding the speech. Yahoo is much less biased.
The words climate and climate change likely were spitted out by the Master Teleprompter, but this dolt thought they were HVAC commands.
"by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources"
Yes, the "clean energy source" will be "Cap and Trade".
You will only be able to afford 20% of what you used to,
still from the same old fossil fuels.
So you see, out of your prior 100% usage, 80% will be clean!
What cleaver people… (that is cleaver as in "ax")
Isn't that wonderful ?
Godspeed 2012.
D. King says:
"…1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.
What, still no flying cars? I'm starting to get a little impatient.
Which could have been achieved a lot sooner with the EV1 from as early as 1996. Did "big oil" use federal subsidies to crush the EV1?
"The attack on WUMT by the Guadian."
I have been impressed by the Guardians recent openness to debate. I am certain you will not hear abot WUMT on NPR or BBC. However, they are listening. The BBC first reported Himalyangate and NPR reported the lack of heat in the oceans being reported by ARGO. A few days ago Michael Mann was on NPR talking about the warmth of the Roman period and its obvious solar cause. So the ship slowly turns.
I personally believe that the El Nino highs of 1998 and 2010 will not be reproduced for a long time. I think many climate scientists believe the same and are preparing for compromise.
Cassandra King says: Wrote
I always enjoy reading Casandra. Sometime I even cut and save you to spread you around.
The Weather Channel is still pushing global warming precautionary principal as I just saw on TV. What loons!
The Precautionary Principle Who Benefits?
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GIkWuuq45I ]
It's incredible.
You can srew uo an entire Nation, promise shit in the State f the Union and get rewarded with a high approval rating going from 55 to over 70%.
As it looks now he will take his second term and wreck the US for good.
And the GOP? They promised they will role back the ObamaCare and a good cooperation with Obama.
GOP also prepares for a bill to record all the internet activity.
This is going to look like Europe where the right now behaves like the left and they're all have jumped out the closet as Eurofiles.
The Tea Party is the only real opposition but they won't make it on their own so Obama is going to win the next elections only because people forget quickly and don't listen to what to what is telling them.
But maybe I was watching the wrong station and the approval ratings were hyped.
On Australia Day, his speach is being reported in the Australian MSM tonight and what seems to be covered more than any other topic in his speach is renewable/clean energy. Yes, the AGW alarmism still strong in Australia.
Ed Mertin says:
Well, nobody threw their shoes at him. You can tell he sought Bill Clinton's advice, and former Bush strategist Matthew Dowd.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/obama-met-with-former-bush-strategist-matthew-dowd.php?ref=fpb
BigWaveDave says:
More than 80% of U.S, energy comes from clean sources now.
Mike Haseler says:
Patrick Davis says: "While there maybe no direct mention of the phrases in the thread title, if you read between the lines, the climate change alarmism rhetoric is still there."
Isn't it great being privy to the information we know and being able to look at people like Obama and know they are going to change their tune in the next few years!
The SOTUA is not very important to most Americans. It's like Alan Greenspans little blurbs back in the day, they were basically just a small bit of random data arranged in the most appropriate way for the intended recipient. Talking heads love to make feel-good BS arguments about what was promised and what wasn't mentioned and who reacted to what, and what human mannerisms stood out in the crowd. It's all hogwash.
If you live in this country, you know what the real problems are. Americas problems are these, and in this order:
1) Total catastrophic decline of manufacturing sector for 50+ years now.
2) Rise of entitlement programs to absurd levels. Fully two-thirds of the Federal budget is now non-discretionary spending, meaning direct gov't bureaucracies whose budgets are fixed and are not subject to yearly congressional review. Ironically, the one part of the budget that most people complain about being too high (defense spending) is the ONLY part of the federal dollars spent that has to stand in front of congress and justify itself each year. All those federal entitlements? No review, they do not have to justify their existence/performance for more budget next year. So the next time you complain about defense spending, realize that you are at least getting representation on the issue and those officers have to justify their programs. Whereas those friendly IRS agents, or EPA agents, or ATF, FBI, Dept of Commerce, education, interior, exterior, homeland security, on and on and ON…. they never ever need to worry about a budget decrease in their department. Those people patting down your privates at the airport will never have to justify their invasion of your privacy to congress to protect their budgetary amounts…. But those American soldiers who are under fire in a foreign country, they have to justify their new communications widget that might save their life to congress… Yes, it's all backwards.
3) Education (k-12) has been a joke for years, and our Universities are following quickly behind turning into diploma-mills-for-profit with massive grade inflation.
4) Our economy is primarily consumer/commerce-oriented that is becoming more and more sensitive to monetary bubbles (when people fear, they stop spending. When no one is buying, salesmen have nothing to do).
5) Regulations on business in general prevent most new manufacturing from going anywhere, and the Chinese and other developing nations just eat it all up.
Just about the only thing you can glean from the SOTUA (and you have to listen hard, which is quite boring) is whether or not anyone has any idea how to fix these problems. What I watched tonight from Obama demonstrated that he has no clue how to fix any of these problems, he was just playing the part of the pied-piper for the Democrats, trying to soothe the voters into liking him as best he could.
Nigel Brereton says:
Investing in clean energy means reducing the demand for coal, gas and oil.
Here in the UK it costs me $126 to fill up my Jeep and this is set to rise further in order to curb my appetite, this is what you are going to face in the near future. Joining the global community means that more of your wages will be going overseas. I'd welcome you to the party but you won't realise that you're apart of it until you wake up one morning in a couple of years and ask yourselves the question. Just why is it that I am working 60 hours a week and can't afford a vacation.
UK Sceptic says:
An exercise in damage limitation as 2012 looms? Who does Obama think he's kidding?
I might be the only one here, but regardless of your stance on AGW, I think Obama could make good priorities by focusing on a shift from fossil fuel subsidies to research and development on alternative sources of energy. I know biofuels and "clean coal" are not the most popular areas for AGW-skeptics, but I do think further research on nuclear and other more powerful sources of CO2 neutral energy would be good for the economy and good for international politics as whole.
Bless him, he's done a pretty good job really when you bear in mind he basically inherited a collapsed economic system.
About time fossil fuel subsidies were stopped, and indeed fossil fuel companies paid the true costs for the precious resources. If the US is not careful, China is going to run away with the clean tech revolution.
Could you repeat all that please – I fell asleep.
Kev-in-UK says:
Obviously, I don't know about you guys in the US – but over here, it is noticeable how the AGW agenda has been toned down by politicians, due (I think) to the reduction in public support, in turn perhaps due to the fact that the so called concensus has been largely debunked.
Nevertheless, I suspect that given the current economic austerity measures, etc – AGW will be kept on life support for as long as possible as it is the easiest excuse for a 'cash cow' ever created!
I'm waiting for Dr. James Hansen's reaction to the speech. Will he get arrested again? Will he throw a hissy fit at the metion of coal?
My wife and I agree with you. After the first two years of having an open mind and watching his constant nonsense we can't bear to hear anything he has to say. Worst president in my lifetime.
Bless him, he's done a pretty good job really when you bear in mind he basically inherited a collapsed economic system…"
That's a cop- out. Reagan inherited a mess and did a far better job. Obama's first two years are a failure and setback. He's finally pretending to clue-in because his polls were dropping, more people are voting for republicans, and 2012 is right around the corner. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
AusieDan says:
Has anybody seen any dirty energy lately, or even know what it means?
Does anybody believe that CO2 emissions from power stations, cement manufacture, vehicles, planes etc can be permenantly stored underground?
I'm not talking about one year's output. I'm talking of cumulative production, decade after decade into the distant future?
Anybody answering "yes" to either question should lay off the coolaide.
It's habit forming, I believe.
sHx says:
@richcar 1225
"A few days ago Michael Mann was on NPR talking about the warmth of the Roman period and its obvious solar cause. So the ship slowly turns."
I just dug that out. It's definitely worth a post on WUWT.
"Presumably it was some combination of these external natural factors like solar variability and volcanic eruptions, and just the pure sort of chaotic variability of the climate system," Mann speculates.
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/22/133143758/could-climate-change-have-led-to-the-fall-of-rome
What? He speculates?
DirkH says:
Nobody here seems to have mentioned it; but Jeff Immelt , CEO of GE, is an economic adviser to Obama now.
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/jan2011/ca20110125_463509.htm
Will this have an impact on the number of wind turbines in the US? 😉
Buddenbrook says:
I'm very strongly a CAGW skeptic, and I can fully understand your concerns on the energy reform, but from my Scandinavian perspective I struggle to understand the rationale and emotions of broader US politics, despite having followed US politics closely for years.
In my country the marginal tax rate is one of the highest in the world. And it is universally agreed to be a good thing across the political spectrum. The universal health care system and other social benefits here are on a level that by the sound of it would ignite a revolution in America. All university(college) education here is state financed and free to individual students. On top of that students are paid a monthly wage and get free housing.
Our highschool educational standards and level of performance have been in the top 5 in the world (most often 1st) time after time in the international PISA tests (USA around 20th or so). It wouldn't be possible without vast education budgets. And you can't have these budgets without high taxes, and this is a social contract that 90% of the population want to upkeep.
You might think this must result in a stagnant economy, but generally the markets work well, attract foreign investors and reward those who work hard and create jobs. Nokia is a testimony to this. And the larger companies are also in support of the system, and benefit e.g. from co-operation with the state universities.
And in an egalitarian society you don't have to fear to walk the streets at night or be afraid to let your children play freely outside and travel to school/hobbies/friends on their own.
Strong public sector can also help to mitigate the hits the economy takes during a financial crisis. Unemployment didn't raise must during the past years because the state had the strenght to help the vulnerable sectors.
Of course a small, homogenous country is a different animal, but still it's difficult to fully comprehend why all this is seen as such a heinous thing from the US perspective.
Mark Twang says:
Leaving aside the details, that identical promise was made in every such address since Richard Nixon. I'm sure the Saudis are trembling in their tents.
What useless things these speeches are.
Michael says,
Your very kind words have made my day, its been a bitch of a day and you have just brightened it for me.
Ta muchly!
Cassie K.
Kev said: "Nevertheless, I suspect that given the current economic austerity measures, etc – AGW will be kept on life support for as long as possible as it is the easiest excuse for a 'cash cow' ever created!"
I think you're confusing climate change with the banking crash there Kev.
@Buddenbrook says: (January 26, 2011 at 4:42 am)
You make some great points and I've considered this idea in the context of the US as well. My feeling is that the history of the US is one of individualism…people took major risks to get over here and carve out a life for themselves. They don't want to be told "what to do". In respect to taxes, people want to earn money and keep it for themselves to do as the please, not give it to a government and trust that they spend it the right way. People want the freedom to succeed. However, with that comes the freedom to fail. We are attempting a balance of letting people have freedoms to do as they please, but also have safety nets so people don't fail. I suspect a culture like Scandinavia is more tolerant of a socialistic mentality, not in the negative image of socialism but one of less individualistic philosophy and more social consciousness (doing for the common good). There are pro's and con's to both models. One benefit to the US model I believe is a much more innovative culture than other models. Sadly I think that's been changing in the past few decades.
Also, you raise a very important difference: a small homogeneous population versus a larger, diverse population. I believe it's easier to rally a small group of like-minded people behind an idea than a large group of people with radically different ideas.
What is your country?
@Buddenbrook – some us don't want socialism, we want freedom…and there's no reason, with the technology we have today(aside the crooked teachers' unions) for "vast education budgets"(we already have those btw)….
and i laughed at this: "Strong public sector can also help to mitigate the hits the economy takes during a financial crisis."
idk what your "public sector" is like over there but having a bunch of clowns in cubicles surfing the internet all day does nothing to help your economy…
LKMiller says:
A few observations:
*here in OR, the legislature in their infinite wisdom [sarcasm] refuses to count hydroelectric as clean – BTW, we have LOTS of hydro
*wind turbines have been sprouting like asparagus, NONE of which would have been erected without govt. subsidies – uh, that would be, OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY
*again in OR, a new wind project on the east side is being built with subsidies extracted from OR ratepayers, yet 100% of the energy to be produced is already contracted to a utility that serves California customers
*President Obama is very likely even more dangerous now that he has significantly toned down his socialist rhetoric, substituting Newspeak for the truth. Investments indeed! How can he call for a spending freeze, then call for significantly increased "investment" in this and that blue sky project. Again, other people's money
*Finally, recall that candidate Obama infamously intoned that under his administration, electricity produced from coal fired plants would be heavily taxed, causing rates to "skyrocket."
No one should be fooled that he has made any move to the center. No, he learned the hard way that Americans will not swallow his socialist policies when outlined in plain language. Thus, he shifts to Newspeak.
Orwell would be pleased.
Ed_B says:
I was watching "Morning Joe" this AM to hear what T Boone Pickins had to say. What amazed me was that he might as well have spoken to a concrete wall, as no one understood what he said.. he said:
With regard to renewables, such as wind power, the returns you get are priced at th price of marginal power. At $6 natural gas, it can work. but at $4 natural gas, you lose money.
No one picked up on that.
Then he said, we have to stop importing oil from our enemies, who by the way, use the money to finance the Taliban. And he added, we need to get out of Afganistan NOW.
So.. here it is.. solar, wind, all those pie in the sky plans are useless in face of $4 gas.(which might go to $3) We need to convert trucks and autos to compressed or liquified NG NOW.
The Federal government needs to fund a build out of NG fuelling stations along the Interstate highways NOW.
Thats it.. as Pickens said, we suffer for a lack of WH leadership.
Fred H. Haynie says:
Mark. CO2 is not dirty and calling it a pollutant doesn't make it so. Trying to capture it takes a lot of energy that reduces the efficiency in producing it. It is a very bad idea. My idea for making dirty eastern coal clean is in-the-ground gas conversion and removal of real pollutants before piping it to gas fired power plants or home generators. Until this technology is developed, we should be extracting and using more clean natural gas that produces clean water and clean CO2 when burned.
'1million electric cars on the road by 2015'…
Er – its 2011 now – and electric cars are apparently selling at the breakneck speed of about ten a week worldwide…
In the UK, our beloved BBC (now known as the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, since its deep love of the expression 'climate change') – carried out an exercise a couple of weeks ago to see if it was 'possible' to drive an electric car from London to Edinburgh. (To do that in a petrol or diesel car, you fill it with fuel and point it north – but I digress..) By VERY careful route management, to get to charging points before the thing died – and with the driver wrapped in warm clothing because he dare not put the heater on – he managed it in FOUR DAYS..!! As pointed out by Christopher Booker, a stalwart sceptical reporter in The Daily Telegraph, it was quicker by stage coach in the 1800's…
Mac says: "Bless him, he's done a pretty good job really when you bear in mind he basically inherited a collapsed economic system. About time fossil fuel subsidies were stopped, and indeed fossil fuel companies paid the true costs for the precious resources. If the US is not careful, China is going to run away with the clean tech revolution."
Wow. I kept reading, thinking I would get to a /sarc off, but it looks like you are serious. Wow. As Bugs Bunny used to say, "What a maroon."
Did anyone else notice that the speech came across as if Mr. Barack had written it himself?
Bruce Cobb says:
I fell asleep during the address, but see he's still pushing the "green" energy scam, idiotic biofuels, and desire to punish coal, and big bad super-addicting oil.
Let's hope the Republicans can hold the line on all that nonsense.
>> and become the first country to have 1 million electric
>>vehicles on the road by 2015
So where will the energy for these lovely electric vehicles come from?
Knowing the US energy mix, I would say that 90% will come from fossil fuels. So how is the manufacture of very expensive electric vehicles, with their ooodles of toxic heavy metals, help reduce the emissions and save the planet?
Remember that the average electric vehicle, after generation, transmission, storage and motor losses, is no more efficient that a standard direct-drive diesel. So why do we wnat electric vehicles? How do they help??
beng says:
Anything spewed from the Obamanation is useless other than to realize he will do the opposite. If he says "clean coal", he means no coal.
Well, you can't say that he's hypocritical about being green, at least. He recycled his whole "hope and change" speech after all:
"…and I'll veto all bills with earmarks, this time."
"…and we'll put people to work on shovel-ready jobs that really do exist, this time, I mean there's this whole high-speed train thing that's practically ready to go."
"…and we'll have new green technologies. I mean, I thought they were all set last time, but apparently they still had a few bugs, but you can all buy electric cars, now. And at some point you'll have places to recharge them, and you can probably google a charging station on your hand-held device that will be able to use my new wireless feed."
Janice said (about my post): "Wow. I kept reading, thinking I would get to a /sarc off, but it looks like you are serious. Wow. As Bugs Bunny used to say, "What a maroon."
Brilliant, well done Janice. Do you have anything meaningful to add, or are you just wanting to engage in some petty name calling?
I think you would indeed be better suited to the Cartoon Network forums.
He didn't bring it up this year because everyone laughed including BHO when he brought it up last year.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRzs17rYuZg&w=425&h=349]
Buddenbrook
The US ranks third in per student spending, so it isn't the size of our education budget that is the problem. And no Scandanavian country outspends us, according to this site (2001 data) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student
mrfunn says:
Anyone know why one of the Allen brothers was shaking his head and looking unhappy when Obama was talking about their solar shingle business? The other brother looked at the glum one and patted him on the leg a couple times. What's up? Is this another green energy non-success story?
Kevin_S says:
You really want to start an argument, just state that EV's are coal burning cars.
To Buddenbrook:
The US didn't get to where it is, even in with the steady decline, as fast as it did by waiting for some government lackey to come by and wipe our noses and another end. What many must understand is this: We are not Europe. Nor anything like it. We are unique, so much so it really angers certain types both here and abroad. This nation was built by people who took risks, often failing before ultimate success, and were able to benefit entirely from their own hardwork. That is the base upon which this nation is built upon. Any level of government social "safety nets" thoroughly disrupts that base. This nation is capable of recovery, the question is, are the politicians willing to make the necessary changes to allow Americans to once again succeed and, more importantly, fail?
Ralph said:
"So why do we wnat electric vehicles? How do they help??"
There are several advantages of electric cars.
1) No imported energy
2) No pollution in cities
3) Longer life vehicle except battery
4) In sunny parts of US you could get 50 miles a day from PV cells on roof.
By mixing EV's into the domestic fleet and expanding offshore drilling we may achieve energy independence, an issue of national security.
Ralf said:
The energy mix. As more and more renewables enter the mix, the cleaner the transport becomes.
" So how is the manufacture of very expensive electric vehicles, with their ooodles of toxic heavy metals, help reduce the emissions and save the planet?"
As above, although indeed e-cars need to pay more attention to recycling as currently many of them can only boast similar recycling parts as traditional cars.
"Remember that the average electric vehicle, after generation, transmission, storage and motor losses, is no more efficient that a standard direct-drive diesel."
I'm very interested in this – could you link to a couple of sources. Thanks How do they help??
"So why do we wnat electric vehicles?"
As renewables expand, we can charge the cars cleanly. It also means less C02 in the atmosphere, and less particulates in our cities. Better health all round. It also lessens dependence on foreign fuel sources, and makes the economy less dependent on the spikes in oil price.
Mac the Knife says:
"We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones. "
True. As Our Dear Leader is want to say 'This is a teaching moment'. It's time to stop making excuses for Mr. Obama and his Progressive cadres….. If you watched his speech last night (as I did..), you surely saw the amazing socialist chameleon change colors repeatedly, right before your very eyes!
He's for energy independence but he shut down offshore oil drilling!
He's for nuclear power but he's working hard to shut down the secure Yucca Mountain waste repository and heap more regulatory obstructions on new nuke power plant construction!
He's for 'clean coal' but his EPA refuses to issue new coal mine and coal power plant permits!
He's for 'fiscal discipline' and 'spending cuts' after a 2 year spending spree on socialist programs that increased our national debt more than any other US president in history and has our Nation on the verge of bankruptcy!
He spoke of a '5 year spending freeze', after outlining another Trillion dollars in new programs he 'wants'! WUWT????
He's for 'private sector job creation' but is trying desperately to raise taxes on small business owners because they are 'rich' and he 'believes in wealth redistribution' to those that have not earned it!
He's for 'comity' and 'civil discourse' after declaring half of America to be his 'enemies' and exhorting "If they bring a knife, we bring a gun!" as his Chicago mob form of political discourse!
What I saw, as I watched his State Of The Union polemic, is that Our Dear Chameleon Leader pretends to be Green because he is too Yellow to admit that he is Red. As a nation, we must stop making excuses for him and his enablers.
TomRude says:
The actors have decided to work it out behind curtains… watch out, Big Green is preparing their next offensive!
The President said "Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas." "To meet this goal, we will need them all " Key word is ALL.
Energy is one of those things that the more there is, the cheaper it is, the more it's used . . . the more it is in demand.
Energy makes life easier, it should be something that we can share to make life better all over the world for all people . . . Inexpensive heat for the Cold climate, Inexpensive cooling for the Hot climates. The cleaner, the cheaper, the better! The more there is to share . . . the more that can be done with it.
I can not disagree with this dream . . . signed "Pollyanna"
Jim G says:
What this man says is of no consequence to anyone with a brain. He contadicts himself regularly. Just watch what he does, very closely.
Half Baked says:
It's getting tough to visit this web site. Mr. Watts does an excellent job of keeping CAGW fraud front and center, but far too many posters are now using this site to sling insults at those they are philosophically opposed to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this site is dedicated to rooting out bad climate science. Posters who want to label others as socialists, communists, and do other inappropriate name-calling can find many other sites with which to do so. I hope this site can come back from its spiral into the fringe. (I could just avoid reading posts, but a few of them actually contribute thoughtful remarks and even additional research options which are worthwhile. Scanning through the more venomous posts is painful. Some active moderation of the posts would go along way to helping this site remain a referenceable science site.)
Coach Springer says:
Well, he said we will need coal. It's all about how you define clean coal. We're actually there already with the "clean" and the 80%. Not clean enough, tack on another regulation about mercury or ground water underneath a coal plaint and call it clean then. However, I tend to think he'll hold this need for clean coal statement up as an excuse to kill it by raising its cost which at the same time makes wind energy relatively more economical.
"Clean energy" is not a synonym for "climate change" which is not a synonym for "global warming" which is not a synonym for "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming," but it's close.
Sorry if I missed it in prior comments, but did any one note that there is every indication here that he plans to up spending (Sorry, I meant investment) dramatically in this area while implying (not promising) from the other side of his pretty little mouth that spending everywhere has to be cut dramatically.
Riight, a vehicle with a guaranteed $10,000 repair bill right about the time the payment book runs out.
If you want a vehicle that substantially decreases emissions make it out of carbon fiber and toss a 1,000cc natural gas motor in it. A 1,000 CC motor in a car with a curb weight of 1,000 lbs would be more then peppy enough.
Most of the energy expended in electric cars is expended hauling around the batteries.
At 3300 lbs the Nissan Leaf weighs almost as much as my SUV.
You don't think that all governments had and are planning to continue to use AGW as an easy revenue producing 'cash cow'?
Much like the recent VAT increase here, from 17.5 to 20%, this is being used by everyone to 'add on' some extra profit. Several taxes have been applied here for several years at least in the guise of the protecting the environment, but in reality the various environment taxes are just a scam to fleece the public of more of their hard earned cash.
Jon Stewart on Foreign Oil, and getting off it. From June, 2010. http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/tpmtv-latest-videos-jon-stewart-8-presidents-said-well-get-off-foreign-oil—-fool-me-8-times-am-i-a.php
As more and more renewables enter the mix, the cleaner the transport becomes.
Still stuck in "Green"fairy land, I see. Renewable, aka "green" energy is far more expensive, and less reliable than conventional energies, even nuclear. The answer to our energy woes currently is to a) ramp up construction of nuclear plants and b) shale gas. Don't look for our reliance on coal (somewhere around 50%) to decline any time soon, but as more nuclear and nat. gas plants come on line, reliance on coal may decline somewhat. Perhaps by 2030 it may be down to only 40%.
Currently, only about 3.6 percent of our electricity is supplied by expensive, unreliable non-hydro renewables (i.e. wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass). Generally speaking, people don't want to pay more for their electricity. They're strange that way.
PhilJourdan says:
Tokyoboy (not having read if anyone else answered you):
For the politicians, it is basically the center point to start the debate of what is going to happen in DC for the next year. For most Americans, it is just a warning on what wil be the topics of the news briefs coming out of Washington.
In terms of daily life of the average citizen, it has little or no significance.
Dan in California says:
Jeremy says: January 26, 2011 at 12:44 am
"The SOTUA is not very important to most Americans. It's like Alan Greenspans little blurbs back in the day, they were basically just a small bit of random data arranged in the most appropriate way for the intended recipient.
1) Total catastrophic decline of manufacturing sector for 50+ years now….. "
Excellent list, Jeremy, but you left out one of the biggest problems in the US. That is the extreme bias of the news industry, journalists, etc. If you are a Republican or a business owner creating jobs, you are guilty until proven innocent. If you are a Democrat or environmentalist, or Socialist, you are innocent until proven guilty. If you are a journalist and do not follow the left-leaning consensus, you are marginalized.
How did this happen? I blame Journalism schools indoctrinating students to "do the right thing" which is invariably socialist if you think shallow. Robin Hood is a character easy to like when you are young and impressionable, but in the US today, the rich are not synonymous with "to the manor born." Here, the ethic has been "Work hard and get ahead", which is something our President has been destroying with higher tax rates for earned income. Notice he's not raising taxes on his book royalty income.
Jim G – You talk like the President is "in charge" he is not . . . . unless of course it's war.
We just had an election . . .
richardM says:
Except basic economic means those costs are passed on to the consumer.
I typically never watch these as I want to red the text without the distractions of the "event". While Obama may not have mentioned "climate", the body of the Executive Branch has no issue with using it – points towards Clintons explanation of what happened to Pakistan and Russia last year as an example. No new spots here.
A betting man would look at food futures with the EPA "allowing" ethanol to go up to 15%.
The fantasies I read – 15 million electric cars by 2015 (will only happen with federal subsidies), as will the most unlikely electricity generating target he announced. How do we pay for that btw?
Pull My Finger says:
By 2035 80% of America's energy will come from clean sources*
*If in 2035 America uses 20% of the energy it had in 2011.
Ah the Precautionary Principal, the same crap they scare little kids into religion with. God may or may not be real, but you want to believe in him anyway just in case hell is real! You don't want to burn in hell for eternity do you Timmy?
Case #28 that AGW is just a New Age Religion.
Electric vehicle issues.
a. No imported energy
Electric vehicles will not reduce energy imports. To power the US vehicle fleet, you would need to tripple the number of power stations. That is a lot of energy, and if you think a couple of windelecs will do that, you have another think comming.
b. No pollution in cities.
True, the pollution is relocated to the countryside instead (around the power stations). So you eat the pollution, instead of breathing it. Some benefit.
c. Less CO2
No, because renewables will never power the vehicle fleet. Only nuclear power could do that. In the UK, electricity represents 9% of energy use, while transport is 27%. Our government is calling for 30% of the 9% to be renewable, and that seems almost impossible. But if you include transport in that, you need to tripple the renewables over and above the already impossible task. And that is for only 30% of transport being renewables! I don't think you realise how much energy we use, in total (not just electrical supply).
d. Longer life.
Why would an electric vehicle last longer? An engine will run for longer than a battery will last.
e. Toxic heavy metals
Have you seen the pollution caused by mining for these toxic heavy metals. And you want to increase production by 500%? And have heavy metal reclamation facilities in every major city?
f. Solar power
I want to charge my car at night, not during the day. Solar power is a non-starter for vehicles. (I either drive all day, or park in a multi-story car park.)
g. Electric vehicle efficiency
Do the math yourself.
Power station 50% efficient
Transmission 98%
Battery 92%
Motor 92%
Overall efficiency 41 %
Less 20% for internal heater
Winter efficiency 32%
Average diesel car 45% efficient, summer or winter.
"Posters who want to label others as socialists, communists, and do other inappropriate name-calling can find many other sites with which to do so.."
Uhhmmm – you do realize this is a post of a political speech (SOTU) and the comment thread that you posted to is a discussion of the related politics, don't you??????
When politicians state emphatically "I believe in wealth redistribution…" and aggressively pursue massive social welfare spending programs, there is nothing 'inappropriate' in accurately identifying them as socialists. Identifying them as anything else would be 'inappropriate', regardless of where the discussion takes place.
If they self identify as Progressives, it certainly isn't inappropriate to refer to them as such. Simple accuracy is not 'inappropriate'….
oops, an "inconvenient truth"?
@ Ralph says:
Good roundup. But here's a simpler way to evaluate the value of electric vehicles. How many get boosted by car thieves ( for reasons other than scrapping them out ) as a percentage of the fleet, as compared to standard ICE vehicles?
R.S.Brown says:
President Obama's verbal support for "clean coal"
processes since the 2008 primaries must have
Jim Hansen chewing nails !
Harry Doyle says:
As long as his cadre of envirometal nuts tell him that "Clean Coal" can only be achieved through carbon sequestration this is a non-starter. They will continue to chip away and waste money on technologies that are economically STUPID.
i didn't hear the speech but apparently all the media got the same memo(perhaps it originates from the White House itself) – the word of the day is "Reaganesque", lol…
JimB says:
To be honest, I'm having a lot of trouble imagining ANYTHING he said in ANY speech as having some sort of impact on what will happen.
Working Dog says:
Seems like centralized planning pervades his every thought.
Here is an article about the new ice loss estimates which are evidently 1/3 of previous estimates. Scientists suggest more gps data is needed. I suspect once they get more data in the center of the basin maybe they willl find they are actually gaining ice.
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/sept2010/greenland-icemelt.html
Fred (6:08 am):
I should of clarified my position (vs my interpretation of the presidents') on CO2. I don't think it's dirty, but the president, the Federal EPA and closer to home the California Air Resources Board (CARB) do- actually as you noted the EPA is calling CO2 a "pollutant." Calling CO2 a pollutant seems to be the only way the federal administration (as the legislature- Senate- didn't agree with the hypothesis) could come up with a way to address what they feel is a risk to mankind of having to much of it in the atmosphere. My personal feeling is that the data provided to date, that I have been able to review, on elevated CO2 (from whatever source- but particularly from man made sources) being A MAJOR threat to mankind appears to be lacking as the models used to estimate the magnitude of the effect of the CO2 seem a bit to noisy to predict cause and effect- within a reasonable (say the last 35 years) time frame that will allow the hypothesis to be proven out (especially for man made CO2). My thoughts on CO2 are more aligned to Freeman's, then the presidents, which were depicted in a less then stellar way recently in an Atlantic article entitled "The Danger of Cosmic Genius" – http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/the-danger-of-cosmic-genius/8306/
Having lived in CA for over 30 years I fully concur with Dr.Tenberth's thoughts (recently posted by Anthony- THANK YOU- http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/13/trenberths-upcoming-ams-meeting-talk-climategate-thoughts/post) on the subject of formal legislation and/or the informal administrative power of interpretation of the EPA/CARB- "You will be affected by climate change, and you already are, whether you believe it or not. But more then that, you will be affected by the outcomes of legislation and international treaties even more!" As Dr. Tenberth also noted "On the other hand there is a lot of scope for debate about what exactly to do about the findings." (the finding are that mankind's generation of CO2 IS a major threat). It appears that the president's speech (no specifics in the speech so this is a supposition on my part) is laying down what he feels the scope of our national "to do" should be- go after the electrical generation market and make it clean by 2035- my assumption is that by clean he means the electrical generation will be carbon neutral (i.e. no/minimal CO2 after all mitigation processes taken into account).
The speech alluded to the goal being a driving force in improving the competitiveness of the US. So what to I tell my congressman and senators about this goal. From my experience living here in CA I already know that we have close to the highest electrical utility costs in the country. Our state legislature was not capable of agreeing on the specifics of a plan last year to require our electrical generation to be 33% renewables (not counting our large hydro or our nuclear electrical generation output) by 2020. Dr. Danner, a former chief of staff to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) expressed a concern that the approach CA is taking to get to the 33%RES is a rather expensive way to reduce CO2 loads from electrical generation- http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/13/2955810/state-should-look-before-it-leaps.html#none As noted, the CA state legislature couldn't agree on the details of the plan for 33%RES- instead CARB used their power under AB 32 to put their plan in place for our 33%RES. My personal thoughts are aligned with Dr. Danner- the 33%RES as written is not a very cost effective way to address CO2 loads. So I really need the details of the presidents plan before I can provide much input to my legislatures about the presidents goal.
One last point that that I will be sharing with my legislators happens to be that I agree with Dr. Tenberth on another item- "Instead , we must recognize that while there is considerable merit in slowing the pace of climate change, and we should work to reduce emissions, it is also essential that much stronger steps be taken to plan for and adapt to the change that is surely coming. How we cope with the challenges ahead and build more resiliency in our system, are major questions that should be higher on the agenda." Living in CA with a well I am more then aware that water is an issue that most folks out here can agree on as being a good thing to have enough of. Additionally, the floods in Australia recently (and the recent projections on what a really long term pineapple express could do out here in CA) provided an impetus to think about flood control as well……………..
Sorry for the length of my response and not having been more articulate in my thoughts on the subject earlier. In regards to your comment on carbon capture and storage I concur that it is a very expensive way to go and may not even been doable in many locations. If I had DOE money to spent I would support your suggestion of trying to convert coal to a gas in ground as sounds like an approach that should be prototyped to prove out the concept. By the way a scientist at California Energy Commission meeting I went to last year on Advanced Generation agreed with your thoughts on natural gas.
Cassandra King;
True, though you might like to take these on board:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/1108/opinions-steve-forbes-fact-comment-energy-crisis-over.html
http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/focus_fusion_solstice_seminar_now_available_online/
The latter is a real wild wild card; if it works, the entire "renewables" greenscamalooza is economic roadkill. It would provide power at about 1/20 BEST N.A. costs, almost anywhere. Timeline for beginning implementation is about 5 yrs., maybe less.
David Falkner says:
Why BHO? I dislike that because no one said GWB. And BHO is no JFK, so the reason is DOA even if someone gets it back from being MIA because of this APB, OK? God rest Leslie Nielsen.
Actually, GWB was used frequently. Especially to distinguish him from GHB, the older one.
Do you prefer BO?
Ms Gillard, the Australian PM, will introduce a "floody levy" which everyone in Australia earning more than AU$50k p/a will pay via an increased medi-care (Similar to Obamacare) levy, for 12 only (Yeah right. Since when has a tax been introduced on a temporary basis?). So many Australians will pay an increased tax for poor planning desicions. Ms Gillard has now commited Australia to a "price on carbon".
And on TV tonight, we have this rubbish…
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/aftermath-population-zero-3225
Climate alarmisum and a seeming desire to "de-populate" the world seems high on the Australian political agenda.
otter17 says:
What a load of speculation.
The point is that there is an indication that the White House is serious about encouraging near-term solutions for diversifying America's energy portfolio, not just long term goals like hydrogen energy storage, but the full range of clean solutions on the table. This focus can help America's economy, allow the country to move away from foreign oil, and avoid health risks from coal/oil/natural gas extraction and burning. Oh yeah, there are also benefits for the environment and climate change crowd.
So, everybody can be happy. Why must this blog post provoke the notion that Jim Hansen (one of the bad guys?), is blowing a fuse based off an encouraging message from the president? Even if done as a jest, it is in bad taste following a State of the Union Address.
RRO
[snip] ~jove, Mod. (this comment did not add to the discussion in any way – note tightening of blog policy)
Richard M says:
I wonder … how much of the Scandanavian countries budget goes to defense? Could it be they have been riding the coattails of the USA? Would they all be addressing each other as comrade now if the USA hadn't spent massive amounts of money to defend the free world? Just wondering …
juanslayton says:
Obama: …the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies.
Michael: End subsidies to the oil companies…
Mac: About time fossil fuel subsidies were stopped…
Could we be a bit more specific here? Serious question, what, exactly, are we talking about?
How many get boosted by car thieves
Curiousgeorge – have you ever seen Year One? There is scene in it where they are trying to escape in an ox cart. That picture is what comes to mind when a thief tries to boost an electric car! LOL
PhilJourdan;
OReily?
http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster
Under 4 seconds to 60 mph, top (electronically limited) speed of 125 mph.
Brian H – how does that compare to a Ferari? We can always compare a mercedes to a VW and then crow how much better the Mercedes is – but at what price?
Heh. Out drags most Ferraris at about half to a third the price. You have to spend north of $¼ million to get a quicker sportscar. And its driving characteristics are superb.
Gee… all the things he want's to do are made by GE … even the nukes… wonder where he gets his advice. You don't think it would be that head guy from GE that is on his staff do you?… Oh, wait, he's not on the staff, he's a major contributor… or maybe both…