Above, the passage in President Obama’s State of the Union address devoted to climate change. The White House broadcast included a split screen with graphics illustrating the President’s points.
The section, which came towards the end of the address:
And no challenge — no challenge — poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.
2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record. Now, one year doesn’t make a trend, but this does — 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century.
I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act. Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what — I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe. The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it.
That’s why, over the past six years, we’ve done more than ever before to combat climate change, from the way we produce energy, to the way we use it. That’s why we’ve set aside more public lands and waters than any administration in history. And that’s why I will not let this Congress endanger the health of our children by turning back the clock on our efforts. I am determined to make sure American leadership drives international action. In Beijing, we made an historic announcement — the United States will double the pace at which we cut carbon pollution, and China committed, for the first time, to limiting their emissions. And because the world’s two largest economies came together, other nations are now stepping up, and offering hope that, this year, the world will finally reach an agreement to protect the one planet we’ve got.
UPDATE Analysis from Joe Romm at Climate Progress:
With a climate scientist watching in his wife’s box, Obama eviscerated those who ignore the warnings from scientists and the Pentagon. He responded directly to the absurd “I’m not a scientist” dodge used by many conservatives (including Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, who delivered the GOP response):
I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act. Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what — I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe. The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it.
The President touted his record on climate change — a record that was made immeasurably stronger last fall with the game-changing climate deal the White House negotiated with China.
That’s why, over the past six years, we’ve done more than ever before to combat climate change, from the way we produce energy, to the way we use it. That’s why we’ve set aside more public lands and waters than any administration in history. And that’s why I will not let this Congress endanger the health of our children by turning back the clock on our efforts. I am determined to make sure American leadership drives international action. In Beijing, we made an historic announcement — the United States will double the pace at which we cut carbon pollution, and China committed, for the first time, to limiting their emissions. And because the world’s two largest economies came together, other nations are now stepping up, and offering hope that, this year, the world will finally reach an agreement to protect the one planet we’ve got.
As has become standard for the President, even while touting his record on climate change and clean energy, he couldn’t avoid boasting about our record production of oil and gas — fossil fuels that, of course, are major causes of climate change:
We believed we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect our planet. And today, America is number one in oil and gas. America is number one in wind power. Every three weeks, we bring online as much solar power as we did in all of 2008. And thanks to lower gas prices and higher fuel standards, the typical family this year should save $750 at the pump.
The GOP response by Sen. Ernst made no mention of climate change, instead devoting a whole paragraph to the absurdly named “Keystone jobs bill” — despite the fact that the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would only create a few dozen permanent jobs.
Obama didn’t mention Keystone by name, but he dismissed those who have kept touting it as some sort of major job creator, saying, “let’s set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline. Let’s pass a bipartisan infrastructure plan that could create more than thirty times as many jobs per year, and make this country stronger for decades to come.”
The GOP response makes clear that Obama will have to go it alone on climate action and clean energy. His address shows he is prepared to do just that.
We’ve had six or seven Obama SOTU’s already. Has anyone analyzed what’s changed, and what’s remained the same, wrt climate change?
And I wonder what party has kept Obama from acting?
We have had six State of the Union Addresses from President Barack Obama – the first was delivered on January 27, 2010.
President Obama makes a very good statement there. Still the global emissions are going skyrocketing. We all know that we need the change in policy very, very soon!
Obama as the president of US must probably continue to fly and travel by car.
But maybe we other could try something else, for at least our shorter distances?
I myself live on the countryside in northern Sweden, at the Arctic Circle. Since some years back I have no car any more and last year, in 2014, I bought a VELOMOBILE.
That is a fast bicycle – no emissions and use only muscle power.
http://norrbotten.snf.se/velomobil/Urpo_Taskinen_i_Nilsia.jpg (summer)
http://norrbotten.snf.se/velomobil/24_oktober_2014_forsta_snon.jpg (winter)
Some facts:
– Since 1th of May 2014 I´ve travelled 6.900 km – work trips, vacation trip, “walking” the dog and just fun (It´s really fun!)
– Top speed 96,7 km/h, that is almost 60 mph
– Average speed on plain road road around 35-45 km/h – 22-28 mph.
– Weight 35 kg (77 lbs)
There is lot of videos with velomobiles on Youtube. This one is one of the most best introductions.
http://youtu.be/cAcy7EVRpXc
My main argument is that is fun!
Yes, I see that the video shows here at once, so here is a video with the velomobile at the Arctic Circle in wintertime.
http://youtu.be/5YT-jsva81A
Velomobile – like it but not one for those with disabilities such as I, otherwise I would consider.
‘Secure like a car’ maybe, until it meets a Jeep Grand Cherokee or you try to drive through Paris or Rome.
No insurance – how long will that be the case? I cannot see that being the case for long, after all third party insurance would be a requirement. It follows that registration and a road license will be required to ensure the user has the necessary road sense to avoid causing an accident where other parties collide as the result of the actions of a Velomobile peddler.
For short journeys it is a cinch, makes so much sense.
How much fuel is wasted in traffic jams or slow crawls and what is the pollution effect on travellers who meet these every day on their commute?
Velomobile makes sense but it needs proper integration into any traffic scheme.
You are right that this model as I have (Strada) and the model in the film above (Mango) are not for persons that have problems with their limbs.
But there are other ones that are easier to climb into.
IF one gets down in a velomobile it is very comfortable and much better to sit in than an ordinary bicycle.
The security question is important and I myself considered it very much before and now when owning a velomobile.
The most common question people make is “How do you get along with the big trucks and lorrys on the big roads?” and the answer is very simple – very well! Those are not the big security problems.
The most important thing is that you as a driver/biker of a velomobile have to be aware of what other people might do in the traffic.
What is a good thing (maybe not easy to understand if you have not sat in a velomobile) is that you have very good, better than a ordinary bicycle, visibility. You see things in front of you and you see things in the back.
And what, at least here in Sweden is good, you use the cycle paths for driving – then you are away from the cars.
Have been in big towns in Finland and of course they can not be compared to Paris or Rome, but it is no problem to drive there. The velomobile is much quicker than cars in a town and usually the cars are usually in way of the velomobile – cars hinder accessibility.
Actually have an idea of going to Paris for next COP. It is very close from here, only about 3.000 km (1864 miles) one way. 🙂
I have an insurance for both myself and for the velomobile. It is too expensive bike for driving around without insurance.
And when there will be binding insurances for bicycles, then there will be one for velomobiles also.
It is a bike and when travelling on Finnish railroads you can take it along and go from north of Finland to the south for the cost of a bike – that is 5 Euro – very cheap! Swedish railroads don´t take bikes…
I might on some cases have some different opinions and experiences than the video from Faircompany, but I thought that gives a first view on what a velomobile is.
One of my favourite videos is this one, from Netherlands. Scroll to 4:30 if it does not start immediately there.
http://youtu.be/0rK0GgTs1pI?t=4m30s
Keyword search the transcript, and ‘econom’ pops up 29 times and ‘environm’ pops up zero times (‘climat’ is 4 times, all in the segment mentioned here):
http://www.npr.org/2015/01/20/378680818/transcript-president-obamas-state-of-the-union-address
That’s our basic problem. We view everything in terms of the economy. It’s what we’re really passionate about, and everything takes second place to it.
President Obama, in the last third of his term, has certainly been the best U.S. President in talking about climate change. And yet, carbon emissions in the U.S. rose in 2013, and they’ll almost certainly be shown to have risen further in 2014, when that data comes out. Global emissions, driven by economic growth, are only skyrocketing. We work hard at new trade agreements and securing oil rights in the Arctic while we make promises about future, instead of present, emissions:
http://fortune.com/2014/11/07/americas-man-in-the-arctic-supports-environmentally-sound-drilling/
We’re fooling ourselves and don’t realize it.
On a parallel note, President Obama pays GREAT lip service to economic disparity, and yet his administration bailed out the banks, has failed to enforce regulations on Wall Street, and has overseen the continued acceleration in economic disparity amongst the classes.
We can choose to accept the message that the State of the Union is strong, or we can look at the actual data. Anyway, I often feel it’s pointless to talk about this sort of thing here, as it’s viewed simply as crankery. So, fine. It’s certainly true that the Republicans are a worse option. If Mitt Romney had been the one speaking yesterday, we’d very likely have no better a result than now, and he certainly wouldn’t have enacted the EPA regulations or made the promise with China. We’re relegated to accepting the notion that a few crumbs of bread is better than starving, and to be happy about it. But I refuse to accept that “The shadow of crisis has passed, and the State of the Union is strong”, when it hasn’t, and it’s not.
Cost drives consumption. In this economic system, ultimately, only high fuel costs can limit CO2. Scarcity increases fuel costs. In this system, you cannot keep carbon in the ground. You can only slow its consumption. The economic system does not respond to ethics.
Why does nobody think that government programs are part of the economic system? Cost does NOT always drive consumption.
Europe has much lower health care costs per capita than the U.S. and they don’t pay for it with their (free market) economy. They basically have a health care system, not health care insurance.
High gasoline prices are NOT the only way to reduce consumption. Replacing the fossil fuel system with a renewables-based electricity system could not just reduce fossil fuel consumption, it could eliminate it.
Heck, the cars replaced horses because the government subsidized fossil fuels. They didn’t tax hay and oats – they built new infrastructure.
I feel certain that Obama doesn’t have that consensus from the public, given just how weakly the public rates climate change among other national interest issues, “US Public Worried about ISIL, Putin– But Climate Change is Real Challenge | Informed Comment”, http://bit.ly/1xjWTVA . Mr. Pres., I think it is important for you to recognize that this article says that even among Democrats, only slightly more than a majority think Global Warming is a threat. Quoting from this article’s second paragraph referring to global warming., “In short, the US public is again being misled by its media and politicians as to the true shape of the world, and is likely to suffer pretty badly for this ignorance.”
All part of my MORE AGNOSTICISM ON CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (CAGW), http://bit.ly/1sVPyv5