Renewable energy, climate change take stage in President's acceptance speech

By: Angela Fritz , 5:29 PM GMT on September 07, 2012

Share this Blog
10
+


President Barack Obama addresses the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., on Thursday, Sept. 6, 2012. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Climate change and renewable energy took stage on Thursday night when President Obama accepted the nomination during the final day of the Democratic National Convention. In his speech he highlighted solar energy and biofuels, although, while promising that oil companies will not "write this country's energy plan," the President still leaned heavily on fossil fuel energy sources like "clean coal," oil, and natural gas.

Here's what the President had to say (emphasis mine):

"You can choose the path where we control more of our own energy. After 30 years of inaction, we raised fuel standards so that by the middle of the next decade, cars and trucks will go twice as far on a gallon of gas. We've doubled our use of renewable energy, and thousands of Americans have jobs today building wind turbines and long-lasting batteries. In the last year alone, we cut oil imports by 1 million barrels a day—more than any administration in recent history. And today, the United States of America is less dependent on foreign oil than at any time in nearly two decades.

"Now you have a choice between a strategy that reverses this progress, or one that builds on it. We've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration in the last three years, and we'll open more. But unlike my opponent, I will not let oil companies write this country's energy plan, or endanger our coastlines, or collect another $4 billion in corporate welfare from our taxpayers.

"We're offering a better path; a future where we keep investing in wind and solar and clean coal; where farmers and scientists harness new biofuels to power our cars and trucks; where construction workers build homes and factories that waste less energy; where we develop a hundred year supply of natural gas that's right beneath our feet. If you choose this path, we can cut our oil imports in half by 2020 and support more than 600,000 new jobs in natural gas alone.

"And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet, because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They're a threat to our children's future. And in this election, you can do something about it."


President Obama, Mitt Romney answer questions on science

Earlier this week President Obama and MItt Romney answered 14 science-related questions, which were developed by thousands of scientists and engineers that ScienceDebate.org organized. ScienceDebate presents a side by side comparison of the answers to these questions. Here's what the candidates had to say about climate change.

Question:
The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change—and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?

President Obama
Climate change is the one of the biggest issues of this generation, and we have to meet this challenge by driving smart policies that lead to greater growth in clean energy generation and result in a range of economic and social benefits. Since taking office I have established historic standards limiting greenhouse gas emissions from our vehicles for the first time in history. My administration has made unprecedented investments in clean energy, proposed the first-ever carbon pollution limits for new fossil-fuel-fired power plants and reduced carbon emissions within the Federal Government. Since I took office, the U.S. is importing an average of 3 million fewer barrels of oil every day, and our dependence on foreign oil is at a 20-year low. We are also showing international leadership on climate change, reaching historic agreements to set emission limits in unison with all major developed and developing nations. There is still more to be done to address this global problem. I will continue efforts to reduce our dependence on oil and lower our greenhouse gas emissions while creating an economy built to last.

Mitt Romney
I am not a scientist myself, but my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences. However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue—on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk—and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community.

Ultimately, the science is an input to the public policy decision; it does not dictate a particular policy response. President Obama has taken the view that if global warming is occurring, the American response must be to slash carbon dioxide emissions by imposing enormous costs on the U.S. economy. First he tried a massive cap-and-trade bill that would have devastated U.S. industry. When that approach was rejected by Congress, he declared his intention to pursue the same course on his own and proceeded through his EPA to impose rules that will bankrupt the coal industry.

Nowhere along the way has the President indicated what actual results his approach would achieve—and with good reason. The reality is that the problem is called Global Warming, not America Warming. China long ago passed America as the leading emitter of greenhouse gases. Developed world emissions have leveled off while developing world emissions continue to grow rapidly, and developing nations have no interest in accepting economic constraints to change that dynamic. In this context, the primary effect of unilateral action by the U.S. to impose costs on its own emissions will be to shift industrial activity overseas to nations whose industrial processes are more emissions-intensive and less environmentally friendly. That result may make environmentalists feel better, but it will not better the environment.

So I oppose steps like a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system that would handicap the American economy and drive manufacturing jobs away, all without actually addressing the underlying problem. Economic growth and technological innovation, not economy-suppressing regulation, is the key to environmental protection in the long run. So I believe we should pursue what I call a “No Regrets” policy—steps that will lead to lower emissions, but that will benefit America regardless of whether the risks of global warming materialize and regardless of whether other nations take effective action.

For instance, I support robust government funding for research on efficient, low-emissions technologies that will maintain American leadership in emerging industries. And I believe the federal government must significantly streamline the regulatory framework for the deployment of new energy technologies, including a new wave of investment in nuclear power. These steps will strengthen American industry, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and produce the economically-attractive technologies that developing nations must have access to if they are to achieve the reductions in their own emissions that will be necessary to address what is a global issue.

In other news:

• The New York Times: The Weatherman Is Not a Moron
• Bloomberg: Politicians Who Deny Climate Change Cannot Be Pro-Business

Angela

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 42 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

42. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
8:16 PM GMT on October 10, 2012
angelafritz has created a new entry.
41. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:01 AM GMT on October 05, 2012
Quoting spathy:


Not to become combative just a.... You could be correct type of response.
But have you considered that your response to me is exactly what I am saying to you,with a different path towards the same goal?
Critical thinking works in every direction.
Unless its teachers have an agenda and thus the student follows a preplanned destination.


Spathy, I do agree that we both want the same thing.

Smaller government

More control of own life life

Personal freedoms

A balanced budget

Fewer taxes

I sincerely want these things as much as you do. I also agree that we choose different paths to accomplish these goals. I want a well mapped path that is least disruptive to all. You want a path where you barge into an unfamiliar control room and start turning dials and flipping switches. You have not taken the time to learn what the switches and dials control nor do you know what interlocks may be in place.

Let me give you a prime example as to how your choice of a path is fraught with many dangers. Congress could not agree on what needs should be cut in order to reduce the deficit and to balance the budget. Congress set up a "special committee" to come to an agreement on what needs to be cut and how much these cuts should be. The caveat was that if no agreement was reached, then the Republican party wanted to sequester 10% of all funding starting next January. President Obama agreed to this and even insisted that Congress follow through with this plan to reach a budget decision and to follow through with the sequestering of 10% of all funding, if no agreement could be reached. (Technically speaking, Obama was allowing the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves.) Do you remember this? Well, the "special committee" failed to reach a compromise and this invoked the sequestering of all federal funding, by 10%, beginning next January. Now the Republicans that pushed for this have realized their mistake in doing this. The "fiscal cliff" is rapidly approaching and Congress must act before then to prevent a complete collapse of our economy. What the Republicans accomplished doing is to place a great deal of doubt on the business community as to exactly what will happen come next January. Do the Republicans collapse in their demands for the sequestration, or do they follow their ideology and collapse our economy? When our economy falls, because of the Republican's haste to correct, then so does the world economy. Should this happen, rest assured, the current Republican leadership will take the blame for killing the world economy. Unless they undo their own deeds first. ... Learn the control room and all that it controls before making any adjustments. Else, you can blow up the plant.

We can talk some more tomorrow, Spathy. Old people, such as myself, still need our sleep.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
37. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:16 AM GMT on October 05, 2012
Quoting spathy:
It is not the government's job to sit around counting regulations, nor is it the government's job to base any new regulations based on how many regulations there are now. Government should, on occasion, review laws and remove or update them as needed.

On ocasion???
How about before every bill voted on ?
Really you said this?

"It is not the government's job to sit around counting regulations, nor is it the government's job to base any new regulations based on how many regulations there are now"
Yet under penalty of Law we the people are expected to conform to what the Gov cant even quantitate?
Get a grip!
But you have a point.
Its our Job to reign in Gov so We and the elected officials can know exactly how we are being governed.
If you relegate that task to Gov,you give up the responsibility of being "of the people by the people".

Why dont you use the actual premise of critical thinking,and not the desired outcome of its teaching?



Spathy, I given you very logical reasons why your ideology is not what you expect it would be. Yet, you cling to your ideology. Critical thinking is too often in the way of those that want to control by means of changing the laws and regulations they find unsuitable to their needs. Take the Texas State Legislators, for example. The Republican State platform actually bans critical thinking. ... Look it up!

Here is an excerpt from the Texas Republican political platform:

"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

So, should I suffer from a lack of critical thinking, as you state, then you have to blame the Texas Republican platform for banning the teaching of any critical thinking. Bummer, huh?!?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
34. Some1Has2BtheRookie
12:35 AM GMT on October 05, 2012
Quoting spathy:
I want us to continue to be clean,just like we are now.
I want only elected officials to write and pass law.

I want our Gov to stay fiscally sound.
And its distasteful to me because if the Gov cant list or even count all the regulations then how in Gods name can we follow them.How are those basic ideals so foreign to your thought process?


It is not the government's job to sit around counting regulations, nor is it the government's job to base any new regulations based on how many regulations there are now. Government should, on occasion, review laws and remove or update them as needed.

Your basic ideals want to put every regulation in the hands of politicians at all times. That is not their job. Congress's job is to recognize a need for an agency, create it and then get out the way and allow the people that ACTUALLY know how best to regulate for the the goals that Congress set forth for them accomplish! How much chaos and instability would be created if every new Congress changed existing regulations based solely on the leading party's agenda? What part of that is so difficult for you to understand? Businesses could not operate nor could businesses make plans for the future following your desires of continuously changing regulations. Ask any business manager how they would plan around constantly changing regulations on how they conduct their business. See if they agree with you and your planned chaos for them.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
32. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:08 AM GMT on October 04, 2012
29. Spathy

Yes! That is exactly how government should work. Should agents of an agency be required to best serve us, THE PEOPLE, then they should most certainly be free to perform their duties without the fear of reprisal from the political party in power. Once you force these agents to become politically motivated in their decisions, then we have lost the very reason why such an agency was needed in the first place. You would have turned the very people that are set up to serve us all into the political puppets of the dominant political party of the day.

"And you,I,our employers are expected to follow those rules.Or be fined/prosecuted." - Yes. We must all act within the bounds of the law. Why is that so distasteful to you?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
31. Some1Has2BtheRookie
1:57 AM GMT on October 04, 2012
28. Spathy

Our form of government was set up to serve the people of this nation and with considerations for other people of other nations. (Our Constitution states that our national debts are legal debts and must be paid.) A form of government that is of the people, by the people and for the people. Our elected officials make law and they had best consult with the experts in each applicable field of study before making law. What we have now is a big lot of politicians that accept campaign funds from professional lobbyists and then they cater to these special interests in the formation of laws that they pass. We, the people, are ignored while the monied lobbyists get their way, through pay to the politicians. We have laws made now that are based on political ideologies, emotions and self serving gains. We, the people, are ignored and chastised when we do not willingly accept our fate for allowing such actions to persist. You want politicians that can be bought and sold. I want politicians that respond to how best serve us, WE, THE PEOPLE!" Not some self serving, special interest group!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
30. Some1Has2BtheRookie
1:40 AM GMT on October 04, 2012
27. Spathy

The time to clean the environment is now. Our delaying the needed actions now will only force our future generations' jobs to be more difficult and expensive to do. What you suggest doing is kicking the can down the road for our future generations to deal with while we reap all of the profits now. Is that what you want? We are all in this together, with all the pleasures and pains. We need to carry our weight now and not force future generations to clean up after us. ... One of the reasons that our generation has prospered so well is because laws and regulations were put into place so that we clean as we go. Now you wish to just say you do not want to pay and make matters worse for our future generations? That does not sound like you, Spathy, but that is exactly what you are saying.

It is called the "Pay as you go" plan. Have you ever heard of it? Do you subscribe to it?

What do you think, Angela? Should we all pitch in now to do what needs to be done, or will you be satisfied with your generation cleaning up the mess my generation has left behind? You, and your generation, need to be quite vocal in what you and your generation decide concerning this. Time is running very short for your generation to have a say in all of this.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
26. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:06 PM GMT on October 03, 2012
Quoting TomballTXPride:
Is this issue expected to be brought up by either of both of the candidates in the Presidential Debates this week Angela?


I cannot speak for either candidate that is running for president this election. I may offer you some insight on the possibilities of what may be said by the Republican candidate for president:

"Global warming is the liberal hoax...."

Read this section - "Regulatory Reform: The Key to Economic Growth"

And then, there is this - "Science, subject to a vote

That Republicans are deeply dismayed by EPA and OSHA regulations put in place by the Obama administration is no secret. But now, their platform makes clearer how they would actually reign in those agencies. For one, they endorse legislation requiring Congressional approval for all new major regulations.

A critic of this proposal might say that regulations belong in the domain of experts—particularly the kind of scientifically complex regulations that come out of the EPA. But if that doesn’t convince you, remember: Rep. Todd Akin, who believes that the female body can naturally prevent pregnancy in cases of rape, sits on Congress’s science and technology committee."
- Source

Then, we have this - "Energy
The Republican Party is committed to domestic energy independence.

We will end the EPA’s war on coal and encourage the increased safe development in all regions of the nation’s coal resources, the jobs it produces, and the affordable, reliable energy that it provides for America. Further, we oppose any and all cap and trade legislation."
- "Excerpts from the 2012 Republican Platform"

You can read the 2012 REPUBLICAN PLATFORM
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
24. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:32 PM GMT on October 03, 2012
Quoting spathy:


And when the country is broke,what then?


I do not see the point to your asking this question. China should invest now, while it has the capital to do so, to clean up its environment now. This is the only way to more assure that they can do so and remain a viable economy in the future. Once the air, water or land have become too polluted to support a healthy life there, then productivity will shut down until the environment is cleaned up enough to become productive again. Delay in cleaning up their environment is counter productive to their being a long term economic power.

Certainly you must agree, with my example of China, that having a lot of national capital is not an assurance that you will also have a clean environment. China is a prime example that the opposite can be true. ... Any business or nation that does not invest in its future viability will almost certainly fail to remain viable in the future. Short term profits will not always equate to long term success. Ask any business owner that had failed to invest in the business for the long term.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
22. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:34 AM GMT on October 03, 2012
Quoting spathy:


Not difficult to understand.
Just impossible to prove.
Just take the evaporation and cloud formation effect.
There are lots of things about MMGW that are just lab input and lab output.
How about we focus on the cleaning of the planet in ways we can accomplish NOW!
How about we stop adding to economic depression schemes and grow the economy so Individuals can afford to be green?
Note of reality!
Bankrupt economies are the most polluting and destructive to our environment.
I beg of you to see that real
Please!


China is one of the most cash flush countries in the world, if not the most cash flush country in the world. Yet, China is one of the most polluted countries in the world. What few environmental regulations that China does have in place are sporadically enforced, if at all. Something else that you need to consider, when you think of this, is that China will probably have to spend trillions of dollars to clean up their environment or lose their ability to retain the health of their citizens and the viability of their land/water use. This, ultimately, will probably bring China back to being another third world country and too polluted for human habitat. What good does it do to have money when it is not spent in areas that help assure your long term viability in all other aspects? This would not be dissimilar to being the best looking corpse in the graveyard! ... That is the reality of it all.

You could have all the money that you think you will ever need, but when the crops fail in the fields, all your money will not buy a scrap of bread from a poor man that has a family to feed. Should you truly have such desire for money, then I strongly suggest that you convert it all to cash. When things really start to get tough, you can burn it for warmth during the winter months. Or, you could use it to send smoke signals that no one will be able to respond to.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
19. presslord
12:19 PM GMT on September 16, 2012
Member Since: August 13, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 10492
18. presslord
5:10 PM GMT on September 13, 2012
Quoting presslord:

Look....there's a ton of 'evidence' that AGW is a fraud....just like there's a ton of 'evidence' we never landed on the moon...or that Justin Beiber has talent....or that he's even human....


Or 'she'...as the case may be...
Member Since: August 13, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 10492
17. presslord
5:05 PM GMT on September 13, 2012
Look....there's a ton of 'evidence' that AGW is a fraud....just like there's a ton of 'evidence' we never landed on the moon...or that Justin Beiber has talent....or that he's even human....
Member Since: August 13, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 10492
16. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:26 PM GMT on September 13, 2012
Quoting presslord:


You are far more gracious than I....I'm not so sure how intelligent they are...


I have seen some very intelligent people try to over think the AGWT and come to the conclusion that they should follow their own ideology instead. The Sun, God's will, what if?, CO2 is a trace gas (obviously discounting its potency as a greenhouse gas), it's a communist plot or what have you. None of their "reasoning" will negate the facts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that man's activities greatly contribute to the ever increasing levels of CO2. Somehow, this becomes too simple for them to understand.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
15. presslord
4:16 PM GMT on September 13, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Our not being able to do anything about it is becoming truer with each passing year and with each rise in CO2 levels. They may, ultimately, prove themselves correct. The caveat of their "correctness" will be directly attributable to their unwillingness to act when actions would have made a difference. I am somewhat amazed at how intelligent people can discard their intelligence for their desire to cling to their ideology.


You are far more gracious than I....I'm not so sure how intelligent they are...
Member Since: August 13, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 10492
14. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:07 PM GMT on September 13, 2012
Quoting presslord:
I wonder if anyone else notices this...

The rhetoric from the flat Earth fringe is changing a bit.......the narrative is moving from "It just ain't so!" to "We can't do anything about it!"

There is, I think, a small victory in there somewhere...


Our not being able to do anything about it is becoming truer with each passing year and with each rise in CO2 levels. They may, ultimately, prove themselves correct. The caveat of their "correctness" will be directly attributable to their unwillingness to act when actions would have made a difference. I am somewhat amazed at how intelligent people can discard their intelligence for their desire to cling to their ideology.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
13. presslord
12:42 PM GMT on September 13, 2012
I wonder if anyone else notices this...

The rhetoric from the flat Earth fringe is changing a bit.......the narrative is moving from "It just ain't so!" to "We can't do anything about it!"

There is, I think, a small victory in there somewhere...
Member Since: August 13, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 10492
12. Neapolitan
3:53 PM GMT on September 10, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:
What does it take to replace what we need with renewable energy.
Well, for starters, it takes getting the real science out to the public, instead of the twisted, manipulated distortions publicized by those who've fattened themeselves for far too long at the fossil fuel trough.
Quoting Ossqss:
Additionally, do we have participation rates with other countries that make the numbers work on a global scale?
It will, indeed, require a global effort. But since a) we Americans have the highest per capita rate of CO emissions of any large nation, and b) we Americans have always thought of ourselves as leaders and not follewers, we should probably set an example by being the first to switch. Wouldn't you agree?
Quoting Ossqss:
Reality is exactly that. . . Reality....
And reality is precisely what climate scientists have been explaining for the last several decades. That it's fallen on intentionally deaf ears is a travesty.

As I've stated in other fora: humanity may not be doomed, but it is in serious trouble. And saving us from the even deeper trouble in our future is going to require a serious effort by serious people.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13805
11. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:39 PM GMT on September 08, 2012
Quoting robodave:
Romney understands the economy better than Obama, IMHO. He's more credible with respect to how we economically survive in a warming world. It may not be pretty how economics works. Corporations are trying to make money. And there're different nations and they can play by different rules. It's a tough situation. But I'd rather have a man who's thrived in the economic world determining economic policy in a warming world than a man who has to use advisors to understand it and who's far left politically.

If you actually examine Romney's past he shows more moderate choices than Obama. Obama has consistently either abstained (undecided) or voted far left. Obama has never been moderate. I think that ultimately Romney is much more receptive to combating AGW, but in the current political scene, he has to show the aura of defiance towards scientific authority that's common among right-wingers. He's doing this to win votes and every politician pulls this ploy. There's not one that hasn't pulled some strings.

Remember all those things Obama said he'd do before he won the election? His policy catch phrase was Change. He must have said it several thousand times during his campaign. He did that to ensure he'd grab as many votes as possible. But he already knew that his platform of change wouldn't go anywhere because he has the independents and the republicans to contend with.

Similarly, Romney knows he'll have to pull back on his campaign promises in response to the existing scientific consensus on AGW (that I'm sure he's aware of). He's not dumb. If he becomes president, he'll do what he can to meet his promises, but he knows already that he can't meet all of them.

It's then that his economic experience will be valuable to our country. Shaping future policy towards AGW needs people like him to reassure business people and to moderate far left policy makers.


Romney understands short term profits, but completely lacks any understanding of any long term gains. His proposed energy policy is a prime example of this. Face the facts. Unless Romney proposes to violate nearly every trade agreement that is already in place, then an energy independent North America, by use of fossil fuels, is a blatant lie. All the new fossil fuels we bring to the surface will be placed on the global markets and will not be kept in reserves for the U.S., let alone North American countries. Should he truly be seeking energy independence, then it would be through renewable energy sources and not a reliance on a finite resource that will become more scarce and more costly to use.

I am an Independent that places little faith in either major political party. Both are comprised of politicians first and citizens of this nation second. Not unlike our corporate leaders. With this being said, you may rest assured that I will never vote for another Republican for as long as they have an anti AGW stance as a part of their political platform! Democrats may struggle with critical thinking, at times, but Republicans have shown me that the party is incapable of any critical thinking at all! To the point that the Texas Republican legislators have banned critical thinking from being taught in Texas schools. They later stated that this became a part of the platform by accident. By accident? Really? Had they have shown any ability towards using critical thinking at all, then banning critical thinking would have never been considered as a part of their political platform!

"It seems more like a headline from the satirical newspaper The Onion, but the Republican Party of Texas recently published its party platform, a report that - among other things - calls for a ban on teaching critical thinking skills in Texas schools because of its "focus on behavior modification" that has "the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." Source Source 2 Source 3 Source 4

Now, you have every right to vote for Romney. You even have the right to vote a straight Republican ticket. Until the day that the Republican party takes away my right to use critical thinking, I will not vote Republican again until the party exhibits at least a modicum of critical thinking! .... Then again, I guess that in some ways, life becomes much simpler, if you do not have to actually use any critical thinking!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
10. robodave
5:34 PM GMT on September 08, 2012
Romney understands the economy better than Obama, IMHO. He's more credible with respect to how we economically survive in a warming world. It may not be pretty how economics works. Corporations are trying to make money. And there're different nations and they can play by different rules. It's a tough situation. But I'd rather have a man who's thrived in the economic world determining economic policy in a warming world than a man who has to use advisors to understand it and who's far left politically.

If you actually examine Romney's past he shows more moderate choices than Obama. Obama has consistently either abstained (undecided) or voted far left. Obama has never been moderate. I think that ultimately Romney is much more receptive to combating AGW, but in the current political scene, he has to show the aura of defiance towards scientific authority that's common among right-wingers. He's doing this to win votes and every politician pulls this ploy. There's not one that hasn't pulled some strings.

Remember all those things Obama said he'd do before he won the election? His policy catch phrase was Change. He must have said it several thousand times during his campaign. He did that to ensure he'd grab as many votes as possible. But he already knew that his platform of change wouldn't go anywhere because he has the independents and the republicans to contend with.

Similarly, Romney knows he'll have to pull back on his campaign promises in response to the existing scientific consensus on AGW (that I'm sure he's aware of). He's not dumb. If he becomes president, he'll do what he can to meet his promises, but he knows already that he can't meet all of them.

It's then that his economic experience will be valuable to our country. Shaping future policy towards AGW needs people like him to reassure business people and to moderate far left policy makers.
Member Since: August 9, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 147
9. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:19 AM GMT on September 08, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


I think you already know the answer to your questions as the science dictates, not the rhetoric, the science.

Keep that in mind when you make such statements.

It is about learning how to learn Rookie.

Can you, and others, do it is the question?

Gnight>


You have told me about your "science". You seem to have the idea that you are the son of Apollo and that "Father Knows Best".

Let us just say that it is the sun that is getting hotter and causing the additional warming on Earth. (Scientific evidence does not support this) How does your "science" then expunge the fact that rising CO2 levels will just trap more of that extra heat that Apollo is sending us? What does your "science" say about this? No matter how hard you try, you just cannot kick that "blanket" off. ..... and the nights just keep getting warmer and in the absence of Apollo's influences. Tell me, Ossqss. What laws of physics and of thermodynamics allows for an ever increasing atmospheric CO2 level and this not have a greenhouse effect? ... The science community would like to know. I am a bit curious myself. I know. Go ask Anthony!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
8. Ossqss
3:52 AM GMT on September 08, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Why do you seem to take such great joy in knowing that we cannot get off of fossil fuels tomorrow? Why do you seem to take such great joy in knowing that the CO2 levels will continue to rise? Is there truly a method to your madness, or is it just a madness without boundaries?

Just sayin,,,,,,,,,,,, you know of which I speak of in depth.


I think you already know the answer to your questions as the science dictates, not the rhetoric, the science.

Keep that in mind when you make such statements.

It is about learning how to learn Rookie.

Can you, and others, do it is the question?

Gnight>
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
7. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:42 AM GMT on September 08, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:
What does it take to replace what we need with renewable energy.

Show us some math on equivalent efficiency.

Additionally, do we have participation rates with other countries that make the numbers work on a global scale?

Think about it. Reality is exactly that. . . Reality....

Just sayin,,,,,,,,,,,, you know of which I speak of in depth.







Why do you seem to take such great joy in knowing that we cannot get off of fossil fuels tomorrow? Why do you seem to take such great joy in knowing that the CO2 levels will continue to rise? Is there truly a method to your madness, or is it just a madness without boundaries?

Just sayin,,,,,,,,,,,, you know of which I speak of in depth.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
6. Ossqss
3:33 AM GMT on September 08, 2012
What does it take to replace what we need with renewable energy.

Show us some math on equivalent efficiency.

Additionally, do we have participation rates with other countries that make the numbers work on a global scale?

Think about it. Reality is exactly that. . . Reality....

Just sayin,,,,,,,,,,,, you know of which I speak of in depth.





Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
5. LowerCal
2:06 AM GMT on September 08, 2012
Here's a comparison of the candidates policies on renewables, oil & gas, regulation and climate with the future implications of their policies.

Obama vs. Romney: Who has the best energy plan? | SmartPlanet
Member Since: July 26, 2006 Posts: 58 Comments: 9305
4. Angela Fritz , Atmospheric Scientist (Admin)
11:11 PM GMT on September 07, 2012
Shell got its permit to drill in the Arctic. Expect more news on this story over the next month, as they won't be able to drill to oil depth before the "season" is over. They will probably file for an extension on the open water season.
3. AySz88
8:03 PM GMT on September 07, 2012
There's a good metaphor between reducing carbon emissions and the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. It's not an exact match - some countries care more about certain outcomes than others - but it's certainly close enough to be useful.

(Short version: Two people play a game with one decision: pick "cooperate" or "betray". Cooperate and both of you win $90 each. If you both betray each other, each gets $10. If only one betrays the other, the traitor gets $100 but the other one gets nothing. You play this game over and over with the same person. The best "rational" selfish choice is to betray no matter what the other person does - you always gain an extra $10 - but that is the worst strategy in the long term since you remove all incentive for them to cooperate, dooming both of you to getting just $10 over and over. If you think other people reason the way you would in their shoes - a good presumption for international diplomacy - the correct (superrational) answer is to cooperate. Even without superrationality, you should first cooperate, then respond to what the other player does, or at least try to convince them to cooperate.)

So when all that's sunk in...

When faced with an Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma situation, it seems like Romney would just presume everyone is betraying (let's not even get into how that doesn't jive with stuff like Kyoto) and then openly play the "betray" card. Since hey - that seems to help you no matter what others do, right? Except you've removed all incentive to cooperate and now everyone's sent to the "stably bad" scenario for no good reason. No negotiations...no superrational reasoning...not even trickery! Nothing. Heck, he doesn't even seem sure that the "risk of negative consequences" will "materialize".

Good to know that he somehow considers the worst possible strategy to be "no regrets". Yeesh.
Member Since: August 25, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 8
2. auburn (Mod)
7:54 PM GMT on September 07, 2012
The Kit That Turns Any Car Into A Hybrid
Member Since: August 27, 2006 Posts: 547 Comments: 50882
1. auburn (Mod)
5:32 PM GMT on September 07, 2012
SCIENCE!!!!!Great Blog
Member Since: August 27, 2006 Posts: 547 Comments: 50882

Viewing: 42 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

Top of Page

About angelafritz

Atmospheric Scientist here at Weather Underground, with serious nerd love for tropical cyclones and climate change. Twitter: @WunderAngela

Local Weather

Partly Cloudy
50 °F
Partly Cloudy

angelafritz's Recent Photos

please archive
Flowers on Mount Tamalpais
TESTING
test