Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    06 Jul '13 21:52
    Obama’s global-warming folly

    By Charles Krauthammer, Published: July 4

    The economy stagnates. Syria burns . Scandals lap at his feet. China and Russia mock him , even as a “29-year-old hacker” revealed his nation’s spy secrets to the world. How does President Obama respond? With a grandiloquent speech on climate change .

    Climate change? It lies at the very bottom of a list of Americans’ concerns (last of 21 — Pew poll). Which means that Obama’s declaration of unilateral American war on global warming, whatever the cost — and it will be heavy — is either highly visionary or hopelessly solipsistic. You decide:

    Global temperatures have been flat for 16 years — a curious time to unveil a grand, hugely costly, socially disruptive anti-warming program.

    Now, this inconvenient finding is not dispositive. It doesn’t mean there is no global warming. But it is something that the very complex global warming models that Obama naively claims represent settled science have trouble explaining. It therefore highlights the president’s presumption in dismissing skeptics as flat-earth know-nothings.

    On the contrary. It’s flat-earthers like Obama who refuse to acknowledge the problematic nature of contradictory data. It’s flat-earthers like Obama who cite a recent Alaskan heat wave — a freak event in one place at one time — as presumptive evidence of planetary climate change. It’s flat-earthers like Obama who cite perennial phenomena such as droughts as cosmic retribution for environmental sinfulness.

    For the sake of argument, nonetheless, let’s concede that global warming is precisely what Obama thinks it is. Then answer this: What in God’s name is his massive new regulatory and spending program — which begins with a war on coal and ends with billions in more subsidies for new Solyndras — going to do about it?

    The United States has already radically cut carbon dioxide emissions — more than any country on earth since 2006, according to the International Energy Agency. Emissions today are back down to 1992 levels.

    And yet, at the same time, global emissions have gone up. That’s because — surprise! — we don’t control the energy use of the other 96 percent of humankind.

    At the heart of Obama’s program are EPA regulations that will make it impossible to open any new coal plant and will systematically shut down existing plants. “Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal,” explained one of Obama’s climate advisers. “On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.”

    Net effect: tens of thousands of jobs killed, entire states impoverished. This at a time of chronically and crushingly high unemployment, slow growth, jittery markets and deep economic uncertainty.

    But that’s not the worst of it. This massive self-sacrifice might be worthwhile if it did actually stop global warming and save the planet. What makes the whole idea nuts is that it won’t. This massive self-inflicted economic wound will have no effect on climate change.

    The have-nots are rapidly industrializing. As we speak, China and India together are opening one new coal plant every week. We can kill U.S. coal and devastate coal country all we want, but the industrializing Third World will more than make up for it. The net effect of the Obama plan will simply be dismantling the U.S. coal industry for shipping abroad.

    To think we will get these countries to cooperate is sheer fantasy. We’ve been negotiating climate treaties for 20 years and gotten exactly nowhere. China, India and the other rising and modernizing countries point out that the West had a 150-year industrial head start that made it rich. They are still poor. And now, just as they are beginning to get rich, we’re telling them to stop dead in their tracks?

    Fat chance. Obama imagines he’s going to cajole China into a greenhouse-gas emissions reduction that will slow its economy, increase energy costs, derail industrialization and risk enormous social unrest. This from a president who couldn’t even get China to turn over one Edward Snowden to U.S. custody.

    I’m not against a global pact to reduce CO2. Indeed, I favor it. But in the absence of one — and there is no chance of getting one in the foreseeable future — there is no point in America committing economic suicide to no effect on climate change, the reversing of which, after all, is the alleged point of the exercise.

    For a president to propose this with such aggressive certainty is incomprehensible. It is the starkest of examples of belief that is impervious to evidence. And the word for that is faith, not science.
  2. 07 Jul '13 00:45 / 1 edit
    I view selling things like cap and trade, not so much of an attempt to bring it to pass than it is just trying to get as many people to support them as possible. If need be, they will shove it down our throats like they did Obamacare. The vast majority need not approve, just like the majority did not approve of Obamacare.

    In the end, it is a never ending propaganda endeavor to make it appear that a "democracy" has the approval of the masses. Of course, with a Congress with only a 9% approval rating, do they really give a damn?
  3. 08 Jul '13 13:12
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Obama’s global-warming folly

    By Charles Krauthammer, Published: July 4

    The economy stagnates. Syria burns . Scandals lap at his feet. China and Russia mock him , even as a “29-year-old hacker” revealed his nation’s spy secrets to the world. How does President Obama respond? With a grandiloquent speech on climate change .

    Climate change? It ...[text shortened]... examples of belief that is impervious to evidence. And the word for that is faith, not science.
    "At the heart of Obama’s program are EPA regulations that will make it impossible to open any new coal plant and will systematically shut down existing plants. “Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal,” explained one of Obama’s climate advisers. “On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.”

    I'm sure the petroleum industry would love a war on coal. It would just make people more dependent on refined petroleum fuels. They don't build new refineries for a reason. They have a price fixing monopoly on them in the USA and cutting supply has to take place first to raise prices. They want to eliminate any competition they can and the USA has more coal than anybody.
  4. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    08 Jul '13 15:34
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    "At the heart of Obama’s program are EPA regulations that will make it impossible to open any new coal plant and will systematically shut down existing plants. “Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal,” explained one of Obama’s climate advisers. “On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.”

    I'm sure ...[text shortened]... ices. They want to eliminate any competition they can and the USA has more coal than anybody.
    This is a point. The problem with burning coal (relative to oil) is SO2 production, which causes acid rain, but the released aerosols block out the sun's light and tend to counteract the warming effect of CO2. It would make more sense to cut back on oil fired power stations.

    The simplest approach is to try reduce overall energy use by not wasting so much. This needn't harm growth. In the UK we have VAT normally at 17.5%, for fuel it is 7.5%. A better way of doing it would be to have 0% VAT for use up to a cut-off based on some reasonable per person usage, and then charge them the full whack for everything over that (no I don't know how to administer this, possibly through NI numbers) and you'd pretty quickly find people thinking hard about their energy use. A sensible system for businesses (an advertising agency's energy needs are clearly different from a forge's) could do a similar thing.

    They could also look at some other things we do such as whether street-lighting is really needed at 2 a.m. and power transmission losses.
  5. 08 Jul '13 18:13
    Hey now, let's not let facts get in the way of implementing a "good" leftists agenda. It doesn't matter if these regulations are going to help in the battle against global warming, it's the seriousness of the issue!
  6. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    08 Jul '13 18:49
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Hey now, let's not let facts get in the way of implementing a "good" leftists agenda. It doesn't matter if these regulations are going to help in the battle against global warming, it's the seriousness of the issue!
    I disagree with the bulk of the OP, but metal brains restricted point about coal vs oil is a reasonable one. I don't see why reducing energy use is a problem for anyone other than energy producers.