President Obama Pledges to Get Strong on Climate Change

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/u...nent-in-obamas-inaugural-address.html?hp&_r=0

I'm pretty excited at this news. Of course only time will tell how it'll turn out, but I'm glad to see, at least nominally, the "won't take no for an answer" side of the second term president. Enough of this compromise nonsense, because in this case at least, that's not gonna work.

 

On the face, this is good. I still don't have the confidence that he will deliver considering how much things he not-did after promising "Change" the last campaign.

Then again, 2nd term.

 

Half of me wants to be cynical given the poor track record of this president not only on delivering on promises, but when he does he seems to not go far enough.

The other half thinks, second term, he's got nothing to lose now. We'll see.

 

Yeah, I'm gonna play cynic on this one. Until I see significant change these are just empty promises.

 

The only thing he consistently delivers on is killing people with drone strikes. The other horrible things he only semi-consistently delivers on.

And lol at this

...while we push more and more debt onto future generations. That is more real than any threat climate change has on us. We'll spend ourselves into oblivion way before anything else.


In the end it's just empty words used to appeal to the masses and justify extending government's power even more. That, and to appease his clean energy and climate change buddies/lobbyists.

 

Hey, if the feds don't do it, I'll push for it on the state level. Although the state governments have proven themselves equally useless. And too bad the economics argument falls apart in countries that have implemented clean energy policies; the jobs are growing there, and they're climbing out of debt.

 

NOT US

Count how many he failed, yes he tried last term...

still will be cynical...

 

There is not one issue bigger than Global Warming. The sooner the public figures this out, the better. But so far we're doing a pretty shitty job of addressing it. And although Obama has definitely been a disappointment on this issue, I think the general public is more to blame than he is. History tells us that no big change can happen in a democracy unless if there's enough public support. It's comparable to what's happening with the gun debate in this country now. If Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened their wouldn't be one word about gun control in the national conversation right now.

So then the question is what will be the spark for real change. Are we going to wait for Manhattan to be underwater?

 

Meh, don't need it anyways.

 

Since only about 10% of the public is aware and interested in these issues, "major change" is going to take a while. Plus, if it doesn't directly affect people in a very noticeable way, they won't care.

 

eg, acting only when it's too late to do something about it.

 

My point exactly.

 

I realize that was probably an exaggeration, but it's definitely more than 10%. Heck, even the OP article says 52% of Republicans acknowledge climate change and the need to address it.

That said, I don't disagree with anything you guys have been saying. In a kind of an unfortunate way, the devastation the recent hurricane was kind of a good thing in that sense.

 

I'm not saying only 10% of the population believe and are, at the very least, moderately concerned with global warming, but rather that only 10% is politically and socially informed on topics such as these.

 

inb4 American Carbon Tax

 

I don't think all the missiles he's firing off into civilian homes is doing much for global warming imo

 

That works.

 

Does anyone really believe he won't allow Keystone?

Basically this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJfnAxsGzBI

 

I've never watched a full TYT video before this one, and although factually I can't disagree with him, it's such an echo chamber. Yeah, if Obama goes back on both Keystone XL and coal-fired power plants, sure I'll be right pissed. But then there goes a large section of the Democratic power base in 2016, another hundred thousand or so votes for the Greens (as efficacious as that is, but still).

Anyway, I'm actually not so bothered by the potential of elected officials failing us in this cycle. I'm more encouraged by the stats counted in the article I posted in the OP; having an electorate that is deeply invested in climate and energy policy is a very important first step.

 

No it's not. An important first step would be society caring about global warming, and that just isn't the case. No matter what politicians do, it won't change what people care about. People will continue to use oil and buy regular cars. If there was any sort of demand for a green alternative, private entrepreneurs would be investing in it and making bank off that demand. Instead electric cars are losing tons of money and ethanol is a complete joke. This is because nobody cares about being green. Being green costs more and is less efficient. Until demand severely shifts it will remain that way because there's no incentive for businesses to innovate and improve any part of the green sector. So far it's been mostly government subsidies that have dabbled in that stuff and it's been a laughable failure. The government has no idea nor care about where demand is. They simply throw money at 'good' ideas and hope people buy it. If it was a good idea there would be countless private entrepreneurs spending their own money on it.