Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html en-gb 30 Thu 27 Nov 2014 10:09:01 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html fluffytale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=98#comment91 "Climate Change is a totally new word used to attempt describe Global Warming in a way that sounds less Threatening."Not true. Climate change became the favoured term because too many thick heads thought Global warming would make their garden grow better and give them a better tan. Thu 01 Oct 2009 14:10:55 GMT+1 squirrelist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=97#comment90 Oh for heaven's sake. This debate is only politicised like this in the USA and nowhere else in the world."Global warming' is the probable increase in overall global temperature by potentially a catastrophic (for fifty per cent of plant and animal species) of 4 degrees Centigrade."Climate change' is the alterationsin the world climate that may result. They are not the same: while all continents potentially will be warmer in some seasons, some may become colder in some, some drier, some wetter.The debate in the USA has become more as to whether (or how much) the effects are a result of human actions over the last 300 years. The scientific concensus is that that is playing a significant part, and we'd better damn well hope it is, because that is the only thing we can influence.Hoping the problem might cure itself or God will miraculously step in and fix it at the last moment is not exactly going to console your children or grandchildren who you have told it all means no more than getting as deep a tan in Nova Scotia in 2050 as you might in California now. Thu 01 Oct 2009 09:35:52 GMT+1 turningblueandgrey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=96#comment89 Climate Change was coined as a euphemism for Global Warming by right/conservative think tanks at least 3 years ago, well before the election. I think that Obama is only using the term to garner a few more votes in Congress. He did not coin it. Opponents of the idea of 'anthropogenic global warming' brought 'climate change' into use in an effort to separate the issue from man-made effects. Thu 01 Oct 2009 06:28:02 GMT+1 ranter22 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=95#comment88 Climate Change is a totally new word used to attempt describe Global Warming in a way that sounds less Threatening. So I will say that the issue was dead before it started. Climate Change Could not have been defended before it was invented. Therefore the lie that Obama has ever defended something that was just invented speaks for itself. If he would have said 'Defended' the world against 'Global Warming' and its damaging effects, that, could, lend credibility to his claim. The fact is, that there, is no prior record mentioning Climate Change Change before this administration. Neither is there one of referring it to Global Warming as it being one and the same. This new Usage of substitution of a word for a less concerning one, dismissing the threat by embracing subtle terminology, minimizes the importance. So if it sounds nice, it isn't too bad! This is just one of the 'pillars' In Obama's five pillar plan. Wed 30 Sep 2009 20:21:22 GMT+1 fluffytale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=94#comment87 fate found. that's right. this is too much for the selfish americans. (which is most). They wish us all to talk to them politely. Wed 30 Sep 2009 14:54:57 GMT+1 FateFound http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=93#comment86 I think the biggest global hurdle in getting appropriate action to prevent climate change now will be the American public. We saw how difficult it is for Obama to convince them on giving health-care to their own people, whats it going to be like when they have to give aid to other countries? Wed 30 Sep 2009 14:15:45 GMT+1 squirrelist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=92#comment85 KSC:This piece I've just found, by Arundhati Roy, the Indian writer, gets into some of the connections better than I can. Tue 29 Sep 2009 04:30:10 GMT+1 squirrelist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=91#comment84 82. fluffytale . . .is right. We are having to bury nuclear waste far underground because it will not be safe to go near it for 10,000 years or more. Longer than any human civilisation has ever lasted.This isn't slag from smelting iron ore, or clinker or coal dust that can be dumped in a valley, or washed away out to sea by a stream or a river, and if it makes a mess be tidied up later with the equivalent of a few hundred guys with shovels.We do not even know how to adequately warn whatever kind of human we may evolve into in that timescale what it is or why it's there. Tue 29 Sep 2009 04:14:44 GMT+1 squirrelist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=90#comment83 71. KScurmudgeon There seems to be an idea that climate change means that micro-climates will change here and there, not much harm done. But it doesn't. Paddies will not form in Pennsylvania for rice-growing; Siberian tundra and forest will not miraculously turn into wheat growing plains; no-one will be growing vines and olives on the mountain slopes of Norway, or going fishing in the Sahara.If the Hadley Centre's model isn't right, even then I don't see how we can take the risk. We might not be on an evolutionary time-scale of hundreds of thousands of years, not even centuries, any more. Humans are not at all adaptable on that scale. If they were, they would not die so easily and in such numbers just through little irritating accidents like lack of water, grain, or oxygen.I won't be alive, even if the direst Hadley model comes true in 2050. But I know people who will. It's not me that is huddled in a corner of a bunker mumbling "All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds."As to my own family, my mother's moved about 30 miles or so between the 17th century and the 20th. But that was to do with changes in agriculture and the Industrial Revolution. (Though their Viking ancestors, obviously, made it across the North Sea some time before that, but then the wanderlust looks as though it wore off and they didn't budge more than about a hundred miles after that as far as I can tell.) My father came from a bit further afield, admittedly, but in a roundabput way that was one of the accidents consequent on the upheavals of war. Tue 29 Sep 2009 01:17:06 GMT+1 ranter22 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=89#comment82 Big brother will help you whether you want to or not. Everyone needs to continue to have rights. From what the elections showed us, we did not vote for tyranny. The defense bill having so many billions of dollars just for something other than defense. How much brain does it take to figure that out. Sure Acorn should be looked at, but lets first look at much bigger crooks. I don't know if it is because that is the old way America did its business, and if it is what are we doing about that. Are we going to just let it slide? What gives anyone the right to milk its citizens, particularly in the supposed economic crisis, Ah, but it probably means our jerking around. How is this justified? How many other pork programs are there. It is so bad that now we are asking other countries to give us money.Instead of killing the cow for its meat and instant gratification, it is better to continue milking it. It is not a tea party it is a federal slaughter of present law abiding people. The cost of health care and the raiding of its funds is better served by leaving it alone. Why cripple it. Mon 28 Sep 2009 21:14:26 GMT+1 fluffytale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=88#comment81 "Nuclear power btw has proven in the long term to costs less to operate and creates jobs to replace those lost as the coal plants go off line."This is where you loose it. By all means try and argue the short term benefits but long term. Where are you gong to stick this waste. I hope it is in your back yard. I'd agree that there are other dangers that are probably greater than a nuke explosion. look at Bhopal where a pipe was dead ended and killed a town. chemical contamination from industrial mistakes can be as catestrophic as nuke waste. but to say there are other poisons doesn't make the nukes safe. Agreed IF they worked perfectly and they w did not have people running them and were self contained to the point of no one needing to be near them and the waste was not waste they would be great in the long term. but as it is they are not. all of that is assuming a terrorist doesn't get a job there as a care taker. Mon 28 Sep 2009 17:03:10 GMT+1 fluffytale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=86#comment80 79Drink driving and drugs and tobacco do not cause obesity.But obesity is found to be quite compelling when present in creating a more obese society. these are still in early study stages but the evidence so far suggests it is "mentally contagious" because it raises the acceptability of over weight . much like the TV campaigns of the Big girls in the 90 tried to say "it's OK" be yourself and several others.I say birther because so far I have seen few non birthers so against anything he does. In real life that is. here on the blog we only have polite people that are not in anyway racist. Pot smoking has less problems than eating large amounts of high fructose corn syrup. But it is banned. even the discussion of it is banned as "promoting the use of an illegal substance" on many air waves.Tobacco is a killer . No doubt. but there is no doubt that sodas are killers as well.Drink Tea put 3 sugars in. you will still get less sugar than a soda.Those "diet" sodas have some interesting medical links being found as well. So maybe it is not just the syrup, but their findings are not obesity so you're safe if it is only weight you worry about.As for htis second hand smoke rubbish. If I buy a packet of smokes and go to my cabin to have a nice ciggie and there is no one around .. can I get my tax back?????I smoke and I voted for tax increases on tobacco.It is possible to do things like that. I also vote for extra taxes to pay to keep the kids in school (not my kids ) more than 4 days a week. Shame others don't. Why should diet be excluded from tax. food is needed , but sugar pops are not.If the tobacco industry hadn't fought so hard maybe I would have stayed off the evil tobacco weed.This is just what the soda industry is doing. Soda is not in anyway healthy. get over them taxing it79 micky lol HUMBLE opinion.Did you read the post that says" he apologises for being an American (which I frankly question he is), " because in the most basic way this is better evidence that this blogger is a birther than any arguments over sugar. But then I suppose you didn't read that comment so I can excuse you assuming I am saying all this now based on the one post you read. Or you did read this comment but are trying to hide the birthers by arguing for them.Which is it. Mon 28 Sep 2009 16:46:13 GMT+1 USMichael-IMHO http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=85#comment79 74. At 04:11am on 28 Sep 2009, elsbetheNM wrote: GreenHouse-SmeenHouse! What a bunch of malarkey! The Environmentalists have done more to destroy this Country of ours than any weapon. While I do not agree with the overall basis of a broad statement “The Environmentalists have done more to destroy this Country of ours than any weapon.” It is true that some environmentalist movements have done as much harm as good. I agree that we should all applaud and even breathe a bit easier from those actions that have cleaned up toxic rivers, reduced acid rain and the exposure of lead. I do not however agree with the current direction the PotUS is headed, particularly in regards to the Carbon Cap and Trade Bill.This bill is going to force by 2020, that emissions must be reduced 17% over 2005 levels. While in essence the reduction of emission isn’t a bad thing, it’s how he wants to go about it. However, this administration does not want to replace coal producing plants with nuclear power. Wind, solar and other alternative fuels technology or infrastructures are not currently able to replace the amount of electricity produced by coal, nor will it be available within this time frame. Not mention that wind and solar cost more to operate.Those electric producers who can afford to make the changes to meet these demands will have no choice but to pass the cost on to American families by raising their bills as much as $3,000 a year. Those electric companies that cannot afford to make the changes, nor afford to pay the penalties will be forced to shut down at the cost of thousands of job, and leaving 100’s of thousands without adequate power. Instead we as a nation need to find ways to reduce electrical consumption and embrace proven clean and effective alternatives to coal production such a nuclear power. Nuclear power btw has proven in the long term to costs less to operate and creates jobs to replace those lost as the coal plants go off line. Mon 28 Sep 2009 16:40:31 GMT+1 USMichael-IMHO http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=84#comment78 75. At 06:51am on 28 Sep 2009, fluffytale wrote: "...the I suspect from your writings that you are what they would call a birther."A bither? Really? Because someone disagrees with the taxation of sugar drinks the most intelligent rebuttal you have is to pull out the racist card? -Shame on you- #74. At 04:11am on 28 Sep 2009, elsbetheNM did not make one statement to appear that they disliked the taxation of sugar drinks simply because if the color of PotUS skin.Serious consideration is being given to tax these drinks as a way to fund the fight against obesity and the increase of diabetes among youth. While I agree this is a huge national if not an international health concern, I do not agree that taxation is the answer. The issue I have with the taxation of sugar drinks such as soda is where does it stop? Do we then target all comfort foods as well? Arguably sedentary activity contributes as much to obesity and diabetes and heart issues as much as a sugary drink, if not more so. What then of those activities which lead to sedentary behavior; such as watching T.V., or console based games like Xbox and PS/3, or Internet usage, or PC games, etc..? Do we start taxing these games to discourage their usage as well in hope more people become physically active? Where does the taxation stop? ElsbetheNM brought up another interesting point, they wrote: “...I mean, let's go after smokers = secondary smoke kills surrounding folk; let's go after alcohol = Driving Under the Influence can cause horrific accidents (a close friend's wife and child were killed by a drunk driver... is that reason enough to jack taxes up on alcohol or smokes?” The difference between taxing these ‘luxury items’ and other such luxuries as comfort foods is that smoking and drinking and driving lead to actions that cause physical harm to others. Whereas the consumption of a soda only physically harms the consumer. Mon 28 Sep 2009 15:24:39 GMT+1 turningblueandgrey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=83#comment77 74 - I guess you prefer the good old days when an industrial river might even catch fire, when soot damaged lungs and acid rain damaged forests, when gas contained lead so that all our kids inhaled and ingested more, and so on, back before those meddling environmentalists. Now we need to reckon with a nationwide epidemic of obesity and diabetes among other new facts that have cropped up since those good old days. There is precious little actual sugar (in the sense that our parents knew) to be taxed in our national diet now, but there is plenty of high-fructose corn syrup and corn products from powerful, lobbying agricultural interests. Maybe you can point out where the Constitution protects the rights to profliglacy or to self-destruction at great expense to others. Our short-sighted tax policy in general is exemplified by the about 20-year plateau in Federal gasoline taxes, the lowest among industrial nations, held at 18 cents per gallon over all that time while inflation has roughly tripled. That's why we don't have federal road and transportation funds to keep up with new infrastructure needs and repairs, because most Americans can be "spun" into opposing taxes even for essential services and capital projects in the nation's best interest. Mon 28 Sep 2009 06:26:42 GMT+1 fluffytale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=82#comment76 67. At 6:34pm on 23 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:As someone who designs buildings and building systems where various options for energy conservation are possible, I've thrown the books away. Most of what they say is junk. Many schemes simply don't work. Through oversimplification, they are technically flawed. Others which do work don't have nearly the payback claimed for them. That is because the methods used to compute savings aren't in accord with the methods accountants actually use to compute them. How do I know? The first time I got such a project I sat down with my corporation's accountants and they showed me how Net Present Value, cashflow, and payback are really computed. Very different from the naive methods engineers, architects, and contractors intuitively use. Most of the utility company incentive programs are also frauds. ----------------------------LOL this is from a guy who argued the economy in the states was fine the rest of the world was in trouble though. Last august;)"when first asked" so this was in the stone age (because you already have shown you never made it to the Iron age). when silicone was the rage. but chips hadn't been invented yet. Mon 28 Sep 2009 06:05:27 GMT+1 fluffytale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=81#comment75 "I am sick of people pretending the US has nothing and again this is State by State environmental issues.Some states don't care."try telling them states to do it or else!!!! sorry but more than states don't care but I will accept that the environmental revolution was and has been prominant in the states. but I would also point out that they got arrested and imprisoned for years. tree sitters are shot at. greenpeace activists shot ast. America spends loads and still people more often say "greenie" as if mentioning nasal phlem. they still use tree hugger as an insult. When I don't hear tree huggers being accused of terrorism(not all are asonists) I'll believe america is on the path.There are Inian tribes in Alaska suing Exon because the global warming will most likely have finished their island off by next year. the erosion caused by the lack of Ice has been horrific.Their airport is being washedd away and the town canot afford to relocate so they are suing for the cost of relocation. Good on them. because America HAS ALREADY CAUSED THE MOST. they are WAY ahead of the competition for total output. during that wasted energy years did they even make a house that will out last the builder. Not often. They wasted all that energy building disposable crap.---------- Mon 28 Sep 2009 06:01:56 GMT+1 fluffytale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=80#comment74 As someone who designs buildings and building systems where various options for energy conservation are possible, I've thrown the books away. Most of what they say is junk.---------------like most of your posts.you're an architect now eh? so lets see you are a doctor of medicine(failed) a lightbulb changer at Bethlehem steel, a nuke scientist and now an architect. were you so bad at each you had to move on?but onto other raving nut jobs." I mean, now the PotUS wants to bring on a tax for sugar an sodas? Is that nuts or what"WHAT. because it is not nuts in a country that has drunk more soda and put more sugar in them. the can go bigger and the fatties drinking it got bigger as well. Yet you wish us to ignore that and it's most likely call. Well excuse me but seeing as there is evidence that kids in fat areas grow up to be fat and it can be seen as contagious(BBC mods BBC has printed these findings)I would say they have to try. after all you wouldn't want me smoking a pot filled joint in front of your kids would you?They ban a lot of things in the world and sodas that are killing the nation can be included.Corn syrup should be outlawed;)the I suspect from your writings that you are what they would call a birther. Mon 28 Sep 2009 05:51:04 GMT+1 elsbetheNM http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=79#comment73 GreenHouse-SmeenHouse! What a bunch of malarkey! The Environmentalists have done more to destroy this Country of ours than any weapon. I mean, now the PotUS wants to bring on a tax for sugar an sodas? Is that nuts or what? I think, or what. I mean, this hails back to the time when tea was taxed (respectfully brought up to the British who taxed our infant Colony when she was jest bein' borne. This taxation is an invasion to our right to eat/consume what we will. I mean, let's go after smokers = secondary smoke kills surrounding folk; let's go after alcohol = Driving Under the Influence can cause horrific accidents (a close friend's wife and child were killed by a drunk driver... is that reason enough to jack taxes up on alcohol or smokes?What you have spoken about, sir, is an excellent point about our PotUS. He has spent 9 months whining about the Previous Administration and then makes grandoise speeches before once again appointing one more of his Czars! Oh, Mr. Mardell, there is so much to discuss. I look forward to your unique prespective, and while we will not always agree, at least we will discuss with calmness,... and without teleprompters ;) . Mon 28 Sep 2009 03:11:35 GMT+1 ranter22 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=78#comment72 Climate change like right now, We are going from summer to fall. Many at the political level will appreciate this change, although it is not he change that gets me wired.It is that they are charging to taxpayers an enormous amount of money they will be spending playing golf.Some spending over 250,000 for a game.There is no limit on how much they spend and the taxpayer will foot the bill.I thought we were in economic crisis.Not for them we are not, only for the little people. The climate change thing sounds like , oh, we will go to Florida it has good climate, when it really means Global warming.It means we are going to feel the rays of the sun much more each summer. It means sun block with 1000 spf for both uvb,avb,cvs and all. Yes, easier connotations when they say Climate Change. If the climate is bad now around the world, we made it that way.We should lead in helping make it return to normal, that is our responsibility, just do it. Then work on mutual cooperation in arms proliferation and war and all the issues. Economic crisis is well and the proof is that if it was that bad we would be in masses protesting the billions of dollars spent by politicians enjoying the lavish lifestyle they now have and we don't. It would be obvious and the climate would be a mere third rate concern. WE are getting Globally Climatically exchanged. Sat 26 Sep 2009 20:02:20 GMT+1 Eastvillage http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=77#comment71 Cap and Trade is a massive fraud that will allow the criminals on Wall Street to rob every US citizen blind, and as the Mortgage meltdown has proven, they will take the rest of the world down with us.Limiting carbon is an unproven theory that will have no impact on climate.Where was "Climate Change" when the dinosaurs walked the Earth and the Poles were tropical?The world's environment will in fact soon be devastated by out of control population growth. Sat 26 Sep 2009 14:07:25 GMT+1 KScurmudgeon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=76#comment70 40. At 08:30am on 23 Sep 2009, squirrellist wrote:""People can move," someone wrote, if places become uninhabitable." My apologies, Squirrel - I wrote that, and I am used to taking a longer perspective than do most. 10,000 years, for a minimum, 100,000 if we are talking about the relevant human context.How many times have your people - your family and ancestors, moved in the last 100 years, and why did they move? How many times have they moved in the last 1000 years - do you have any idea? and if you do, was it not predominately to avoid some threat and to find someplace better? You may have some awareness of the migrations of human kind since the last ice age, or of the tracings of each tribe/family/race's movements since we left our common home in Africa. In that event, my point is proven.None of the projections of melting ice caps and rising sea levels that I have heard propose that the land will be inundated by massive tsunami-like waves. Remember, this is climate change, not earthquakes we are considering. We will have years, decades at least, to plan and make our moves.Nor will there be less temperate, arable land in the future. More warmth means more water evaporation, and unless we return to an antedeluvian climate where the earth is continuously covered with dense clouds, there must be more rain. Agriculture will move closer to the poles - Siberia and the North Shield of Canada are likely places for enormous development. The beaches of Nova Scotia and Alaska and Kamchatka will be the grand resorts, I suppose.'Let me try to explain: it doesn't matter whether you want to believe in the scientific projections or not. If we act as though global warming os going to happen, and reduce carbon emissions and pollution generally, then the world will be a better and safer place for all its species anyway.' - here we are in complete agreement. Less pollution is better in every way, and worth pursuing.'... the planet will not be a safe place for a great many species, including homo (so-called) sapiens.'Like many well meaning liberals, you forget your fundamentals. I presume you accept Darwin's theory of evolution. How is it possible then that you feel it essential that every presently living species be preserved in situ eternally? How can you folks be so resolutely opposed to change? Homo sapiens is at the least the most adaptable creature now living, and the least likely to be wiped away under most any conditions, excepting only our microbial cousins. 'Why on earth is it, that some of the very same people who keep telling the rest of us how wonderful, progressive and innovative American science is, are so willing to disregard it if it's about anything more fundamental than a faster computer chip, a Botox injection or Viagra?'This is well said. Sometimes I am battered into feeling that computer chips, Botox, and Viagra are the primary achievements of American enterprise. 'They've been using one of the fastest supercomputers outiside the Pentagon.'Here I see you have missed my argument about the climate computer models. The fastest supercomputers are outdated by the time they are installed. You know this, if you write here. Look for a nonosecond into the implications for the accuracy of last year's projections of a theoretical system for which there is no precedent to gauge accuracy. We can project business models across ten years with what accuracy? So what will the weather be in fifty or one hundred years?Come on. This is no time for bunker mentality.Yours,KScurmudgeon Thu 24 Sep 2009 02:35:00 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=75#comment69 67. At 6:34pm on 23 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:As someone who designs buildings and building systems where various options for energy conservation are possible, I've thrown the books away. Most of what they say is junk. m"One presumes you do not get much work in that case. "Many schemes simply don't work. Through oversimplification, they are technically flawed. Others which do work don't have nearly the payback claimed for them. That is because the methods used to compute savings aren't in accord with the methods accountants actually use to compute them. How do I know? The first time I got such a project I sat down with my corporation's accountants and they showed me how Net Present Value, cashflow, and payback are really computed. Very different from the naive methods engineers, architects, and contractors intuitively use. Most of the utility company incentive programs are also frauds." Problem is if yu set your face against innovation and free thinking you will eliminate many crackpot schemes admittedly, but you will also miss out on those ideas which do work and do make/save money.In the town I grew up solar panels were seen as a trendy fad. They cost a fortune to install and were fragile and unreliable. The only people who put them in were "city doctors".Now you won't sell a property without them. Or at least the cost of installing them will be taken from the asking price. Wed 23 Sep 2009 22:19:10 GMT+1 GH1618 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=73#comment68 It's always amusing to me to read posts from people who claim to be able to peer into the minds of the "founding fathers" (post #65) and predict what they would think of America today. I expect that they would be astounded at all the changes, and pleased that Constitutional government was still operating, but beyond that, I have no idea. Wed 23 Sep 2009 17:59:13 GMT+1 faeyth http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=72#comment67 The fact is the US has been and is trying to fix the environment.Lakes are beginning to be cleaner,whole forests have been replanted,fish and animal species growing and being replenished.manufacturing has declined and become more efficient and less wasteful.To say the US has done nothing over the years is very wrong.We have saved the most expensive for last which is energy production.Say what you want but the technology wasn't there until recently.It not just having electric batteries but producing them as well,ever notice what's in them.Same goes for mercury light bulbs.Nuclear energy has a bad reputation.Many don't want nuclear energy yes less Carbon,but what about the nuclear waste and warming of a water source?You can't just pick one thing over the other.I am sick of people pretending the US has nothing and again this is State by State environmental issues.Some states don't care. Wed 23 Sep 2009 17:39:33 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=71#comment66 As someone who designs buildings and building systems where various options for energy conservation are possible, I've thrown the books away. Most of what they say is junk. Many schemes simply don't work. Through oversimplification, they are technically flawed. Others which do work don't have nearly the payback claimed for them. That is because the methods used to compute savings aren't in accord with the methods accountants actually use to compute them. How do I know? The first time I got such a project I sat down with my corporation's accountants and they showed me how Net Present Value, cashflow, and payback are really computed. Very different from the naive methods engineers, architects, and contractors intuitively use. Most of the utility company incentive programs are also frauds. Wed 23 Sep 2009 17:34:25 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=70#comment65 60. At 3:47pm on 23 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:Let's face it: global warming on Mercury and Venus is a irrefutable scientifically-proven fact."First, let's ban all airlies and start sailing from Dover to Auckland, rowing from New York to Hong Kong and, of course, cycle from Lisbon to Vladivostok.Second, let's close all nuclear power plants as Greens have been demanding and replace them with windmills.I think Don Quixote would love the latter."Better yet let's ignore science and pretend all the naughty scientists have suddenly joined in a massive conspiracy to er er destroy our way of life.And they are doing this because er er they don't beleive in God!Lets pretend nothing they say or discover is of any use!Unless we end up on the operating table when we can scream all is forgiven and suddenly discover we like science again.Isn't that the way they do things on your planet? Wed 23 Sep 2009 17:09:49 GMT+1 PursuitOfLove http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=69#comment64 SaintDominick #48. . ."What worries me is that as soon as the GOP regains control of the White House or Congress all the laws that are being put in place will be dismantled or ignored the way President Bush did immediately inauguration."Good point. But if what essentially happens every time the opposition gets into power again is the previous administration's laws are overturned and/or ignored, then what good would your suggestions for better alternative climate change legislation be? Its just going to be overturned by the next Republican administration or Congress. So essentially, it is down to the people to act on their own. Isn't it? Unless we keep a watchful eye on Congress as if they are a bunch of 2-year-olds, they will just serve themselves and not the people who put them there. All the while, of course, acting in true Congressional hypocrisy.The European public has absolutely no idea how lucky they are to have legislative bodies that respect, however much they may despise, the previous government's legislation and actions, especially regarding their defense and the environment's salvation!!!If our founding fathers could somehow maraculously come back to life and see what has become of the constitution and nation they designed, they would weep.Shame! Wed 23 Sep 2009 17:00:41 GMT+1 GH1618 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=68#comment63 Interestedforeigner (#58) "It seems to me that colour televisions came first, then cable, ... "Colo(u)r television was invented in the early 1940's, but the NTSC standard system which came into general use was introduced in the mid-1950's. Cable TV was introduced in my home county in 1948 by Ed Parsons. My family had cable in the mid-1950's long before we had color TV. Wed 23 Sep 2009 16:54:53 GMT+1 fluffytale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=67#comment62 "Mr. Crichton's thesis "lol that is a joke right?Oh america and the land where fantasy tries to convince reality it doesn't exist. Wed 23 Sep 2009 16:22:54 GMT+1 fluffytale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=66#comment61 This post has been Removed Wed 23 Sep 2009 15:21:42 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=65#comment60 Posting:43. At 09:56am on 23 Sep 2009, MagicKirin wrote:ref #40What is interesting is that many pf the proponents of climate change andalternative energy oppose one source that we have the technology now on Nuclearenergy.They also point to Euope as an example we follow but not in this case"One does not become a proponent of climate change anymore than a Doctor becomes a proponent of cancer because he identifies it.It is fact.This implies lack of a basic knowledge of English.Severe climate change is happening whether people want it to or not. Wed 23 Sep 2009 14:57:08 GMT+1 powermeerkat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=64#comment59 Let's face it: global warming on Mercury and Venus is a irrefutable scientifically-proven fact.Therefore mandkind should reduce its footprint on those to planets ASAP.First, let's ban all airlies and start sailing from Dover to Auckland, rowing from New York to Hong Kong and, of course, cycle from Lisbon to Vladivostok.Second, let's close all nuclear power plants as Greens have been demanding and replace them with windmills.I think Don Quixote would love the latter. Wed 23 Sep 2009 14:47:26 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=63#comment58 URL of content (now removed):http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/blog392/F14825529?thread=6946160&post=86131173#p86131173Subject:Obama defends climate change recordPosting:28. At 02:20am on 23 Sep 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:Until there is serious talk about population reduction around the world on adrastic scale, I will not take any of the talk seriously and I will fight allmoves at energy conservation both in my personal and professional life. By thelogic of China, India and the rest of the "developing world", I mustlive worse so that they can live better. That stinks. I won't agree to it.Neither will most other Americans. Burn baby burn."Speaking for Americans again? COnsidering how many times you get their views wrong one would have thought you would have learned by now. Wed 23 Sep 2009 14:35:10 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=61#comment57 36. DCThe comment about air conditioning originated with me.Air conditioning was invented well over a century ago, but it did not become relatively widespread in residential use in North America until after the war. Noisy window mounted units came first, followed by central air. It was relatively uncommon in homes even into the late 1970's, and cars into the end of the 1980's. When I was a child growing up there were only two families that I remember who had air conditioning. On hot days people used to hang out in the refrigerator section of the grocery store, or go to a movie theatre, or go to a public pool. It seems to me that colour televisions came first, then cable, then air-conditioning as a standard feature in new houses in the suburbs, then, slowly, air conditioning became a common feature in cars, about the same time radial tires displaced bias-ply. Forty years is not all that long a time. Wed 23 Sep 2009 13:58:08 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=60#comment56 50. At 1:29pm on 23 Sep 2009, MagicKirin wrote:ref #48Does it also worry you the partisian investigation by the Eric Holder on the CIA. The CIA wintergoation were investigated by the justice dept during the Bush administration.You can't have it both ways"But someone who sees Mother Theresa as a danger while preferring Ariel Sharonis not going to be open to that sort of common sense.Well you can if you have the sort of mind that does not see everything in partisan and conspiracy terms Wed 23 Sep 2009 13:32:31 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=59#comment55 24. At 00:42am on 23 Sep 2009, MagicKirin wrote:ref #18At the end of State of Fear, Chricton lists several book and papers by people of the evironmental movement including the former Soviet scientist who during Stalin's rule, had crackpot theories that led to starvation and other frauds like Rachel carson.Maybe Mr Crichton can be added to that list. he should have stuck to Science, not weird conspiracy theories. Wed 23 Sep 2009 13:05:24 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=58#comment54 This post has been Removed Wed 23 Sep 2009 13:02:38 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=57#comment53 25. At 01:50am on 23 Sep 2009, GH1618 wrote:Simon21 (#23) "Does this mean they are somehow wrong?"Evidently, Mr. Crichton's thesis went over your head. I can't make his point any clearer than he did, so I will leave it at that."Sadly it seems to have got into yours. Wed 23 Sep 2009 13:01:25 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=56#comment52 42. At 09:52am on 23 Sep 2009, MagicKirin wrote:ref #27Here are the flase premises on Rachel Carso's bookhttp://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.htmlSo you think DDT is safe is that the idea?You might like to read:[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]Which shows up Edwards as an extremist.Here's another tip on judging sources. When someone compares someone to Hitler in a scientific paper it is geenrally not worth reading further. Dr Esdwards does not identify this leading British scientist.Hardly scientfic this man clearly had an agenda Wed 23 Sep 2009 13:00:32 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=55#comment51 This post has been Removed Wed 23 Sep 2009 12:49:58 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=54#comment50 47. At 12:28pm on 23 Sep 2009, fragility wrote:With all due respect to the courageous polititians, and equally courageous public participating in the climate debate, I find it necessary to point out some relevant facts and their consequences as they look from the viewpoint of thermodynamics. Because knowledge of the basic principles makes the details redundant.1. The climate of this planet is constant if looked at in sufficientöly long interval of time.2. This implies that the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, and the climate variations observed within that period are equilibrium fluctuations which occur within a deep minimum of free energy. Any attempt to move the system out of that equilibrium results in the action of a restoring force."Interesting but with due respect how do you know this? What is the sufficient length of time and what has this contrived measurement got to do with anything.We might all die out while waiting for that fluctuating force.5. Therefore, the popular scenario of runaway heating the planet is completely impossible. Sooner or later the restoring force will act and the planet returns to the equilibrium.Which won't be a great deal of help to us if we have dissapeared in the meantime.You need to look at how human beings live in this world.Billions live in very environmentally frail environments. It won't take much fluctuation to annihlate them. Wed 23 Sep 2009 12:47:15 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=53#comment49 ref #48Does it also worry you the partisian investigation by the Eric Holder on the CIA. The CIA wintergoation were investigated by the justice dept during the Bush administration.You can't have it both ways Wed 23 Sep 2009 12:29:50 GMT+1 Seraphim http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=52#comment48 "Until there is serious talk about population reduction around the world on a drastic scale, I will not take any of the talk seriously and I will fight all moves at energy conservation both in my personal and professional life. By the logic of China, India and the rest of the "developing world", I must live worse so that they can live better. That stinks. I won't agree to it. Neither will most other Americans. Burn baby burn."So by that you justify that the US produces nearly 24% of the total CO2 while less than 5% of the world population live there?I was about to call the egoism and selfishness which it both obviously is but it is also completly stupid. While some parts of the population in the US insists that climate change doesn't happen and the major parts of it at least refuses to fight against it as it would harm the economy or would mean that you have to trade in your loved V8 engine for a more fuel efficient one, while in Europe there have been many jobs created in green industries at the same time.If one would say that it is fair to produce [insert random figure] of emissions per capita that just means that the US will have to reduce theirs drastically while China and India even more so could still produce more CO2.It gets even more bizarre when there seems to be now a petition signed by 500 international corporate organizations (major players like energy suppliers within them) to request from the politicians to make more commitments to fight climate change as even those who usually pay far more attention on short term effects are now worried about the long run ones."Having studied meteorology I agree the Earth has been warmer in the past century. But recently, it has been cooler. The earth's climate has been much warmer in the past (think dinosaur days) than even today--all without human intervention. To assume humans have grown so powerful to override our planet's climate cycles or the sun's cycles is arrogant."Of course there were warmer periods but then:1. Large parts of earth were so hot that hardly anything lived there2. the climate changes that happened took usually some thousands of years to make a difference of one or two degrees. Since industrialisation started we now see the same in little more than 100 yearsThough I did like reading your comment "As we love Europe for its assets despite its liabilities, so too should they view the United States."Excuse me but whatever you decide of doing with your health care is not really our business and many other issues are part of this category as well where one side shouldn't care too much about what the other is doing and respect it but we are all breathing the SAME athmosphere and it doesn't matter much where carbon emissions are produced they are shared among all humans and so are possible long term effects. It is not much different to the Russian nuclear power plant that blew up 1986 and spread its fallout around the globe, just that this fall out was easier to trace than CO2 is. Wed 23 Sep 2009 11:51:30 GMT+1 saintDominick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=51#comment47 Ref 32, Pursuit"My fear, though, is that with the unintended slanging match that has been unexpectedly going on over health care reform over much of this year, that the senate won't be able to pass any meaningful cap and trade law in time for the Denmark summit at the end of the year."What worries me is that as soon as the GOP regains control of the White House or Congress all the laws that are being put in place will be dismantled or ignored the way President Bush did immediately inauguration. Protecting our country does not encompass protecting the environment we live in, except when it involves keeping people don't don't like off our streets.IMO our efforts should be much greater than reducing CO2 emissions and should include limits on deforestation, strip mining, dumping chemicals and other pollutants in rivers and lakes, and finding ways to dispose of our nuclear waste and garbage more efficiently. Wed 23 Sep 2009 11:46:41 GMT+1 fragility http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=50#comment46 With all due respect to the courageous polititians, and equally courageous public participating in the climate debate, I find it necessary to point out some relevant facts and their consequences as they look from the viewpoint of thermodynamics. Because knowledge of the basic principles makes the details redundant.1. The climate of this planet is constant if looked at in sufficientöly long interval of time.2. This implies that the system is in thermodynamic equilibrium, and the climate variations observed within that period are equilibrium fluctuations which occur within a deep minimum of free energy. Any attempt to move the system out of that equilibrium results in the action of a restoring force.3. The scale of these restoring forces, or, in other words, the depth of the minimum where we are sitting can be estimated from the amplitude of the climatic fluctuations that occur within, say, several hundred years.4. It is absoluteli obvious fo everyone vaguely familiar with the history of this planet that the climatic variations were huge as compared with what we can conceivably produce with all our technical means.5. Therefore, the popular scenario of runaway heating the planet is completely impossible. Sooner or later the restoring force will act and the planet returns to the equilibrium.6. The relevant point to discuss is therefore not the mithological catastrophic warming, but the restoring mechanism of cooling that will eventually arise.7. There may be two scenarios of restoring cooling: continuous (linear) and discontinuous (nonlinear). By triggering the latter, we can, indeed produce some unpleasant changes in the climate, but these would be cooling, and not warming. Wed 23 Sep 2009 11:28:34 GMT+1 D R Murrell http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=48#comment45 I have never understood the anti-Climate Change brigade, the whole idea that humanity can radically change the environment, without those changes effecting how that environment works seems completely illogical. We cut down woodland, we build and concrete over the land (especially flood plains), we divert and dam rivers, we throw pollutants into the air and water supply and we really think that this does not affect the weather patterns!?!World War I cooled the planet because of the amount of dust and smoke produced a few years had a noticeable effect yet some would have us believe that decades of exploitation of the planets natural resources has no real effect what-so-ever. Yeah right!Even if they didn’t cleaning up our act can only be seen as a good thing, air pollution in the 19th and early 20th Century caused poisonous smog clouds in London, something still seen in some cities around the world. The Clean Air Act changed that making living in London better. The oceans have islands of rubbish bigger than countries floating around, does the idea of trash sitting in the seas make anyone really happy and proud. By making hard changes we can improve the lot of humanity, whether they are in the Third World or the US and EU. Like it or not it should be down to the most powerful nations to lead the way, the ones built up on the technologies potentially poisoning our planet.In the end if man-made Climate Change is a con, it a con with obvious benefits. If it is not a con, which all the evidence I can see (scientific and otherwise) suggests its not, then we ignore this threat at our peril. In many ways denial is like appeasement and we all know how the right hates appeasement! Wed 23 Sep 2009 10:50:02 GMT+1 ManfedMachine http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=47#comment44 Obama is at least not afraid to speak honsestly about the issue, which is a start. The EU speaks, but cannot marshall the courage to address this pressing issue with real solutions. I note the UK ambassador to Canada's latest speech on climate change was given on the same day the Canadian Parliament resumed, thus guaranteeing absolutely no coverage. Brilliant communications strategy to speak only when no one is listening. Wed 23 Sep 2009 10:44:34 GMT+1 fragility http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=46#comment43 ref #43That implies that the nuclear energy production industry is not the source of those billions spend on the carbon dioxide campain. Another source of funding is easy to figure out. Who else is commercially interested in changing the energy production profile? Wed 23 Sep 2009 10:01:08 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=45#comment42 ref #40What is interesting is that many pf the proponents of climate change and alternative energy oppose one source that we have the technology now on Nuclear energy.They also point to Euope as an example we follow but not in this case. Wed 23 Sep 2009 08:56:12 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=44#comment41 ref #27Here are the flase premises on Rachel Carso's bookhttp://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html Wed 23 Sep 2009 08:52:27 GMT+1 fragility http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=43#comment40 "the US special envoy on climate change"This is remarkable. Shall we also expect a US special envoy on solar activity? Or on planetary orbits in the solar system? A response of the Obama administration on growing unemployment? Wed 23 Sep 2009 08:17:21 GMT+1 squirrelist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=42#comment39 The degree of denial and ignorance displayed here is just astounding. So the 'Europeans' have 'bought' a fake theory? As has China?Let me try to explain: it doesn't matter whether you want to believe in the scientific projections or not. If we act as though global warming os going to happen, and reduce carbon emissions and pollution generally, then the world will be a better and safer place for all its species anyway.If it doesn't happen, the planet will still be better off than it is now.If it does happen, and we have done nothing because "it's an unproven theory, so we can ignore it' the planet will not be a safe place for a great many species, including homo (so-called) sapiens.Can't some people grasp that?Why on earth is it, that some of the very same people who keep telling the rest of us how wonderful, progressive and innovative American science is, are so willing to disregard it if it's about anything more fundamental than a faster computer chip, a Botox injection or Viagra?What do they think the British Met Office's Hadley Research Centre has been using to model changes in climate? A blunt pencil and a couple of abacuses? They've been using one of the fastest supercomputers outiside the Pentagon.Yes, I'm angry. "People can move," someone wrote, if places become uninhabitable. So the US will take in thousands of Pacific islanders whose homes are likely to be submerged, some in the next decade, even? Or closer to home, hundreds of thousands of Floridians who may lose theirs for the same reason? I', supposed to credit that is either likely or even possible after Katrina?Come on. Wed 23 Sep 2009 07:30:41 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=41#comment38 This post has been Removed Wed 23 Sep 2009 07:25:49 GMT+1 rcornforth2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=40#comment37 At 6:04pm on 22 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:Oh! So it's no longer 'global warming' but a 'climate change' now?Could it be 'cause Earth has been actually getting cooler in the last cople of years, when a typical 11-year long Sun flare-up cycle ended?Yes, they have to change the words. This whole climate change/global warming is a THEORY. It is unproven! This crap is being pushed on us and it appears most of Europe has bought it.Having studied meteorology I agree the Earth has been warmer in the past century. But recently, it has been cooler. The earth's climate has been much warmer in the past (think dinosaur days) than even today--all without human intervention. To assume humans have grown so powerful to override our planet's climate cycles or the sun's cycles is arrogant. There is no evidence to prove or disprove we are going through natural cycles or something man made.Also global warming proponents lament about sea level rising due to Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melting. Have they considered the Arctic sea melting into their equation? Water contracts when it melts, which would provide some counter reaction to the land based ice sheets. All of this is very complex. I'm not saying we shouldn't reduce pollution. But we don't need to scare people based on hasty conclusions. Wed 23 Sep 2009 06:04:34 GMT+1 jojoascho http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=39#comment36 i think the president have to give out some laws to the car-industries to reduce climate problems. we as consumer can only buy cars which will be offered and if the industrie offers only climate friendly cars our problems will shrink a little bit. Wed 23 Sep 2009 05:28:27 GMT+1 David Cunard http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=38#comment35 #20. Simon21: "Strange how our parents and grandparents never had A/C and now we can't bear to live without it."Not in Britain, but quite wrong about the USA, where air conditioning was invented. In some (formerly) very dry areas, such as the San Fernando Valley adjacent to Los Angeles, "swamp" (evaporative) coolers would suffice, but as the number of trees and plants grew, there was a local climate change and they no longer worked efficiently. New Yorkers will know that air conditioning has been with them for a long time; on my first visit to the Big Apple, over forty years ago, summers were hot and humid and "everyone" had air conditioning. It was particularly noticeable because when a unit clicked on, the lights dimmed momentarily. In Palm Springs, evaporative coolers still work nicely because it is a desert climate, but even so, most (if not all) people have a/c as well. It's all very well to comment on America when you have not been exposed to it for any length of time - if ever. Wed 23 Sep 2009 05:18:23 GMT+1 KScurmudgeon http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=36#comment34 Several good posts here, and more than a few folks who appear to know what they are talking about. I make my living as an industrial environmental manager, and have worked within the American environmental regulatory system for over 20 years. Here are a few suggestions concerning global warming: - we don't know nearly as much about how our environment works as you have been led to believe. - most if not all of the projections of future effects are speculation based on mathematical modeling. The models get adjusted, corrected, and thrown out all the time. - global warming is not, by itself, a frightening prospect. At worst, some people will need to move, and real estate values will change in some places. We have done this before.And a few suggestions concerning pollution: - most of the cost of an environmentally responsible system is in the cost of changing the culture, not in the cost of operation. - pollution itself is a serious, if not every where an acute, problem. - historically, human populations eventually turn green places into deserts. - high concentrations of people cause greater pollution, but sophisticated societies have almost always found ways to ameliorate the problem - Rome had a population of a million or so. When London approached that number, they reinvented 'modern' clean water supplies, sewers, and eventually even cleaned up their air. The Chinese have lived with high population densities in urban and rural settings for millenia. - diversity and variety of choices always improve your chances of success, and produce better outcomes. It's how the natural world works. - again, humans are adaptable. They adapt better when allowed to make their own choices. - Europe has higher population densities, for the most part, and has lost more of their natural system, than we in America. They have been working at the urban life style longer. America still thinks of itself as having lots of room and lots of natural environment. - Europe is way ahead of us in adjusting to the loss of their openspace. All the same I personally would not like, by force, to follow exactly in their path.I believe we have to start considering how we would like to live - what personal choices we can and should provide for, what other considerations are just as important (like health) in choosing our preferred outcomes as cost or the ability to pay. (Same model for health care).As a model, I think it is much more useful to measure fuel efficiency in miles per dollar rather than miles per gallon. And the solution that will actually be useable will be more efficient and cost less (more miles per dollar), resulting in greater personal freedom for every individual who chooses to use it, and greater productivity for the society at large. We need to see our choices in terms of their total cost, including the whole cost of production including pollution, and the whole cost of distribution and use including pollution.Electricity was cheaper, better, cleaner light than oil lamps. Gasoline was cheaper and less trouble per mile than maintaining a horse, although horses do smell better. And we can do better than that. We used to use wood for fuel - until it was too expensive to haul it to town. Now we use it to make things, generally for its beauty. We used to use coal, which is still cheap enough but not when you consider the health effects. We need to reserve petroleum for making things, instead of getting only one shot of energy from each irreplaceable barrel. Off my box now - good nightKScurmudgeon Wed 23 Sep 2009 05:09:56 GMT+1 David http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=35#comment33 Why do I think ...republicans are ...not as smart as others ..at this moment?A new idea among republicans is that "heterosexual pornography makes you gay." This is their new idea on trying to keep young maies from becoming "homosexuals" and away from pornography--it will make you gay. I'm a-scared. It was on the news, and I'm still laughing..... hehehehehehehehhahahaha lolololollol. Wed 23 Sep 2009 03:31:15 GMT+1 David http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=34#comment32 Obama has soo much on his plate, but he is younger than most other presidents and has so much energy. But, I do think, people are overwhelmed by all the initiatives... conservatives probably have shorter attention spans (oops...no offense) and should they be overwhelmed ....maybe more vitamins might make them (smart drinks?) feel less insecure.But on global warming, they (via the Christian right (?)) are concerned about global warming now..."God believes that the extinction of mankind is an" EVIL thing. Whewww, how lucky for all of us. Wed 23 Sep 2009 03:23:45 GMT+1 PursuitOfLove http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=33#comment31 I personally think it rather remarkable that Obama has been able to move this nation from a point of utter denial of climate change as even a miner irritant, to a position of not only acknowledging its hugely threatening existance and that it is primarily man made, but additionally that he has been able to take swift, decisive action on the matter despite the fact that the Republicans have been doing everything within their power to stop it. My fear, though, is that with the unintended slanging match that has been unexpectedly going on over health care reform over much of this year, that the senate won't be able to pass any meaningful cap and trade law in time for the Denmark summit at the end of the year. And I fear that if this happens, that the United States will yet again be seen as a hypocrite or untrue to its word by some of our closest allies; the same light in which we have been seen for much of our existance. Now. Am I saying that if the world views us this way that it will be justifyed? Not necessarily. What I found most striking about this post and what I find rather surprising of Mark not to mention, is the amount of total honesty displayed in Tod Stern's (perceptionally angry) response to European criticism that we're not doing enough to combat climate change. As you all know, politicions are payd to be diplomatic. So when one goes off script and expresses their true feelings on an issue, its rare and most often at least brief, if not big news. So when Tod Stern responded so boldly, claiming that we're seaking a law and not just "European-style" aspirations when it comes to greenhouse gas emitions reductions, when he declared publickly his observation that Europe was "obsessing" over combating climate change via one specific method while making the case that the US was seaking ways in which to combat it from many different angles, I believe it showed that he too holds the widely shared view among Americans that Europe tends to look at the US through the lense of selective amnesia. In other words, that Europe picks and chooses what to observe that the US is and/or isn't doing in the world, depending on whether it compliments or clashes with their intended goals. (E.) The United States is factually combating climate change in unprecedented ways, but because it is not vowing to cut greenhouse gas emitions by 20% to 1990 levels by the year 2020, in European eyes its not doing nearly enough to combat this scourge.Personally I think that this method of viewing a close ally is immature and frankly offensive. As we love Europe for its assets despite its liabilities, so too should they view the United States. That's not to say that we certainly shouldn't constructively criticise each other when constructive criticism is in order, but for one to allow another's flaws to define how they view them is simply childish. Wed 23 Sep 2009 03:14:46 GMT+1 squirrelist http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=32#comment30 Ignorance, if not bliss, is certainly rife. The UN is offsetting the carbon generated by the climate conference by funding a biomass electricity plant in India; the Chinese have announced a lot of plans on 'greening' the country; the world's airlines have also announced plans to halve carbon emissions. That's today.And some people in the US can sit back and argue that because nothing like this is happening, the US can sit back and carry on doing damn all compared to the rest of the world? From half the comments here, you'd think It was a country of sand populated by ostriches. Wed 23 Sep 2009 02:58:59 GMT+1 SamTyler1969 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=31#comment29 This post has been Removed Wed 23 Sep 2009 02:57:09 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=30#comment28 In reply to 28.Well, actually most of us figure that we should leave our children a world that is no worse than how our parents left it to us.I don't see how a refusal by China or India or anybody else to agree to this, or to agree to that, is in any way a reason why we should leave our children a wasteland.Stop thinking only about youself. Try to rise above your petty selfishness and think about your children and grandchildren.Maybe you don't have children or grandchildren to care about. Wed 23 Sep 2009 02:11:24 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=29#comment27 Until there is serious talk about population reduction around the world on a drastic scale, I will not take any of the talk seriously and I will fight all moves at energy conservation both in my personal and professional life. By the logic of China, India and the rest of the "developing world", I must live worse so that they can live better. That stinks. I won't agree to it. Neither will most other Americans. Burn baby burn. Wed 23 Sep 2009 01:20:52 GMT+1 turningblueandgrey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=28#comment26 24 - Not all the best examples; Lysenko did not lead a consensus of his peers, the fortunate of whom had emigrated and the unfortunate of whom were in the Gulag. He was the favorite of an autocrat, and his example does not reflect on consensus in science.Global warming has a lot of evidence and I wish that skeptics would consider the enormity of that whole body before seizing on some small factor and saying "Aha! See -- global warming is a hoax just like the Moon Landing!" We are seeing a preponderence of evidence from sea ice, wildlife, glaciers, etc. as much as a consensus of scientists. The growing evidence of change that is profound in its rapdity does remind me of Darwin marshalling his myriad arguments and examples for natural selection.This is another struggle between responsibility and greed, with some greedy interests disseminating unsound contrarian science. Many who fight every environmental regulation ignore the benefits to public health, to quality of life and to the value of our private and public land. There is a cost to not adapting (for example, the Japanese steel industry re-equipped and soon surpassed the US industry that resisted factory changes; that type of example should be in the mind of all who resist new energy technology or refits).Making the debate more inclusive of broader pollution and environmental issues would remove the "newness" of carbon regulation and bring Obama back into the bipartisan company of TR and the long American tradition of conservation that grew into environmentalism with the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act under Nixon, a consciousness shared by most Americans . Carbon-focused talk lets detractors confuse the issue of pollution and the environment by moving the debate away from its roots and nit-picking at global warming.Rachel Carson a fraud?? selective DDT use against tropical malaria is very far removed from the all-purpose nationwide use across the USA about which she rightly sounded the alarm. Wed 23 Sep 2009 01:11:00 GMT+1 Reuben http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=27#comment25 Green energy is a very good idea which is much needed, but not for the reasons that global-warmers espouse.The idea that man-made causes are the controlling factor in climate change is exceedingly arrogant.There are massive forces affecting climate over which we have no control and are difficult to quantify becuase they are much larger than our ability to accurately measure. The math used in man-made climate change argument is flawed in that it is lacking variables for these forces. This lack of information in the current climate change models is what makes them scientifically flawed.just because few prominent figures in acedemic circles have abandoned the scientific method to speak in favor of a popular, but as yet un-proven, theory does not in-fact prove that theory. To assume that global warming is eminent, when we don't actually know the direction of the change is not logical. We could just as easily easily be on the cusp of another ice age.If the United States, Europe and all the rest of the western world acheived their targets acording to the Kyoto agreement, man-made CO2 emissions would still grow: population and industrial growth in China and India will increase C02 emissions far beyond our capity to enact reductions.A revolution in green technologies in America will cause environmetal improvement and economic prosperity. Eventually American demand for petrolium will fall far below domestic production and we will cease to import oil, when that happens, OPEC will raise prices in an attempt to compensate for falling revenues, which in-turn will promt India and China to want our technologies and we will gladly sell to them.The time frame for these changes is measured in decades not years and Obama will be ancient history before the effects of CO2 emmision reductions take affect, assuming of course that they are the cause of climate change. If Obama wants to be remembered for his part in changing the world for the better, he should encourage the development and distribution of these technologies. Wed 23 Sep 2009 00:55:40 GMT+1 GH1618 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=26#comment24 Simon21 (#23) "Does this mean they are somehow wrong?"Evidently, Mr. Crichton's thesis went over your head. I can't make his point any clearer than he did, so I will leave it at that. Wed 23 Sep 2009 00:50:14 GMT+1 MagicKirin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=25#comment23 ref #18At the end of State of Fear, Chricton lists several book and papers by people of the evironmental movement including the former Soviet scientist who during Stalin's rule, had crackpot theories that led to starvation and other frauds like Rachel carson. Tue 22 Sep 2009 23:42:44 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=23#comment22 14. At 8:49pm on 22 Sep 2009, GH1618 wrote:Here's a link to an essay by Michael Crichton on the subject of "consensus science" which I found interesting:http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.htmlHe does get to global warming towards the end of the piece."Unfortunately the erudite Mr Crichton's essay is dated and full of holes.Much of what he says is either ill conceived or just wrong.The idea that scientific consensus is somehow an evil is frankly bizzare. The fact people agree on something mean it is somehow doubtfull? Practically all scientists now think anti-sepsis is a good thing.Does this mean they are somehow wrong?Practically every scientist in the field accepts Darwin's basic premises, does this mean Darwin is wrong?He is also wrong in his strange views about the media. If you want to get your face in the press etc announce some weird idea and claim to be persecuted. In a recent case in the UK it has estimated that one weirdo may have caused children to develop measles (blindness etc) for idiotically caliming innoculation led to autism.As for GW. Things have moved on since 2003 and the threat is now perceived to be greater than before - and that is based on measurement not odd equations.And anyone who saw the faces of the US team who announced the new figures from the artic knew they were not getting a kick from the announcement - they looked shocked.As for Lombok he has largely recanted his views and now accepts Global warning is taking place.And it is. Tue 22 Sep 2009 23:38:06 GMT+1 turningblueandgrey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=22#comment21 The one aspect of talking about a "climate change track record" would be to restore the link between greenhouse gases and all pollution control, and talk about an anti-pollution track record instead. For example, using natural gas instead of coal to reduce CO2 emissions is not compelling to many, but making the same switch to reduce emissions of mercury, natural radioactive materials, soot ("PM-2.5"), acid rain, and so on, and have less disruptive doemstic energy production (less 'mountain top mining") all in addition to less CO2, is far more compelling to more people. What bothers me most about climate change/global warming discussions is that the condensed vocabulary of carbon makes it easy to forget all other pollutants and environmental issues. As John McCain said during the campaign, even if gloabal warming were untrue, what would be wrong with a greener US energy system bringing new jobs and less pollution affecting our children? Tue 22 Sep 2009 23:33:14 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=21#comment20 19. At 11:44pm on 22 Sep 2009, saintDominick wrote:Compared to what happened during the Bush Administration when the USA denied global warming was even a concern, paraded a few scientists to undermine concerns voiced by the science community, and rejected international proposals on this issue because they were detrimental to the ability of US corporations to operate profitably, I would say President Obama has done more in 8 months than his predecessor did in 8 years.President Obama is doing very well under the circumstances. He is not only taking a lot of heat from the far right on every issue he undertakes, he is also creating a lot of animosity in corporate America which may prove to be a huge mistake in 2012."One may say what one likes about this President (and the right plainly will and will probably go further) but no one can accuse him of ducking the big issues.And no one can accuse him of merely mumbling inanities, stumbling over his prewritten speeches and becoming profoundly irritated when anyone asked him a key question. Tue 22 Sep 2009 23:16:12 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=20#comment19 17. At 10:48pm on 22 Sep 2009, Interestedforeigner wrote:The road block is the US Senate.... and the way political campaigns are financed in the United States.Public opinion is way, way out in front of the elected legislators on climate change. Roughly speaking, where government looks for a 15 % reduction by 2050, the public is looking for a 50 % reduction by 2015 (and a fair number of scientists think that we really needed an 80 % cut yesterday).Of course, the public desire to address the problem then runs smack into the very real price tag of buying an hybrid car; or installing a ground-source heat pump; or of learning to sweat (shudder and gasp) instead of using the A/C; or wearing another sweater and snuggling with a friend instead of turning up the furnace.Strange how our parents and grandparents never had A/C and now we can't bear to live without it. But then again, they got through the depression; and beat the Germans twice and the Japanese once, too. We don't seem to have that grit anymore.Oops, time to finish up my latte and go to the tanning salon..._______There are times when the Obama Presidency can be compared to the Wilson Presidency. Wilson had lots of idealism, but also a marked ability to alienate potential supporters and allies, both at home and abroad.At least President Obama hasn't sent a letter to the other nations with his 14 points for solving climate change.Perhaps if President Obama's supporters can do a grass-roots end run around the foot-dragging legislators, climate change might avoid becoming the Obama's League of Nations."The problem is the basic inadequacy of the US system of Government. It is incredibly hard to change things in the US. Look at slavery, prohibition, civil rights, gun control etc.When you have a deeply divided Govermental system which retains various primitive and outmoded 18th century practises you tend to get hosotility to anything that might appear even vaguely radical. Simply having to please everybody (or at least not offend) to get something passed means that the prevailing attitude favours stasis.Added to this is the salient fact that many in the US congress are there for life and turnover is by most democratic standards very low.And of course added to this is a visceral political divide where each side (particularly the right)flies to extremes to gain any political point possible.The effect of all this is often to put the electorate or the country way ahead of its legislators who are supposed to represent them. This gap accounts for the declining interest in voting. If this continues it won't be long before the majority of the electorate do not bother to vote at all.And when that happens, in effect, no one in the Government can seriously claim to represent the country. Tue 22 Sep 2009 22:51:05 GMT+1 saintDominick http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=19#comment18 Compared to what happened during the Bush Administration when the USA denied global warming was even a concern, paraded a few scientists to undermine concerns voiced by the science community, and rejected international proposals on this issue because they were detrimental to the ability of US corporations to operate profitably, I would say President Obama has done more in 8 months than his predecessor did in 8 years.President Obama is doing very well under the circumstances. He is not only taking a lot of heat from the far right on every issue he undertakes, he is also creating a lot of animosity in corporate America which may prove to be a huge mistake in 2012. Tue 22 Sep 2009 22:44:00 GMT+1 GH1618 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=18#comment17 I just noticed that Carol Browner, cited by Mr. Mardell as the president's advisor on climate change, is mentioned in the Crichton essay to which I linked. Tue 22 Sep 2009 22:24:30 GMT+1 Interestedforeigner http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=17#comment16 The road block is the US Senate. ... and the way political campaigns are financed in the United States.Public opinion is way, way out in front of the elected legislators on climate change. Roughly speaking, where government looks for a 15 % reduction by 2050, the public is looking for a 50 % reduction by 2015 (and a fair number of scientists think that we really needed an 80 % cut yesterday).Of course, the public desire to address the problem then runs smack into the very real price tag of buying an hybrid car; or installing a ground-source heat pump; or of learning to sweat (shudder and gasp) instead of using the A/C; or wearing another sweater and snuggling with a friend instead of turning up the furnace.Strange how our parents and grandparents never had A/C and now we can't bear to live without it. But then again, they got through the depression; and beat the Germans twice and the Japanese once, too. We don't seem to have that grit anymore.Oops, time to finish up my latte and go to the tanning salon..._______There are times when the Obama Presidency can be compared to the Wilson Presidency. Wilson had lots of idealism, but also a marked ability to alienate potential supporters and allies, both at home and abroad.At least President Obama hasn't sent a letter to the other nations with his 14 points for solving climate change.Perhaps if President Obama's supporters can do a grass-roots end run around the foot-dragging legislators, climate change might avoid becoming the Obama's League of Nations. Tue 22 Sep 2009 21:48:14 GMT+1 GH1618 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=16#comment15 What nonsense! There is no coal production in California at all. Zero. Coal-fired power plants in California account for less than one percent of electricity production. Tue 22 Sep 2009 21:10:26 GMT+1 faeyth http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=15#comment14 Cars are 6% of pollution it's COAL that causes the most pollution Where do you think Electricity comes from? California attacks cars because they don't want to lose oil and coal revenue while still getting votes from their HIPPIE population.When they stop selling oil to Americans for cars You think oil producing states like California(who pretends they aren't an oil state)Texas,Alaska aren't going to sell oil to other countries than your a fool.California sells COAL to other countries.COAL is the biggest pollutant in this country.Just like Michigan sells Trucks and SUVs to other countries and doesn't care about the pollution.But America uses a lot of electricity and Coal is the problem. Tue 22 Sep 2009 20:41:03 GMT+1 GH1618 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=14#comment13 Here's a link to an essay by Michael Crichton on the subject of "consensus science" which I found interesting:http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.htmlHe does get to global warming towards the end of the piece. Tue 22 Sep 2009 19:49:17 GMT+1 Simon21 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=13#comment12 7. At 6:04pm on 22 Sep 2009, powermeerkat wrote:Oh! So it's no longer 'global warming' but a 'climate change' now?"What is the difference exactly?"Could it be 'cause Earth has been actually getting cooler in the last cople of years, when a typical 11-year long Sun flare-up cycle ended?"Oh so not only do you not believe scientific facts, but you have set up a whole pseudo science yourself. Its all to do with sunspots.Are you sure its not a plot by the Daleks :-)"Incovenient Truth" ;-)Inconvenient insanity. But let us not be judgemental. Next time you or one of your rels has to have a serious medical procedure dismiss the PC medical progessionals and do a sunspot dance. I'm sure it will be most efficacious. Tue 22 Sep 2009 19:31:14 GMT+1 Gavrielle_LaPoste http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=11#comment11 Mark Mardell 16:47 UK time, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 wrote:what do you think about the Senate holding up a worldwide deal?I think it's typical of the problems in Washington. The current Senate is a mix of gas and oil lobbyist funded, climate change "refuseniks" and weak-willed political hacks, who couldn't make a real decision about anything if they didn't first do a focus group and targeted poll. Obama has to work with what the American people have given him. And, unfortunately, most of the trash built up during previous administrations has yet to be tossed out.If the rest of the world is not happy with how fast, or slow, things are moving here, sorry. But they're just going to have to wait until after the 2010 elections. When the Republicans' "Party of No" strategy fails (which is likely) and the Blue Dogs' obstructionism forces their constituents to bring them to heel (another good possibility) then Europe will start to see some very clear changes in official US policy.Even then, Europe must bear in mind that getting consensus in the US is just as difficult as getting consensus in the EU. We have 50 states all with individual interests and needs, of which at least two thirds must agree on any one thing. It's just like having 27 different countries trying to hammer out a policy they can all agree on and support.Just because the President has extraordinary powers, doesn't mean he can just waltz in and order everybody to do as he pleases. It might seem that way because of the Republican party's ability to beat their members into submission, but that's a new and very dangerous development in American politics. Our government wasn't designed to move that fast. In fact, it was designed to do just the opposite to avoid hasty decisions. I apologize for the last 8 years of complete and utter inaction on this matter, but then I didn't vote for the neocon scourge and protested its behavior at every turn. Tue 22 Sep 2009 18:15:07 GMT+1 dennisjunior1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=10#comment10 Mark:I am glad, that the President is defending his climate record, since, he has been in office for only 9 months....=Dennis Junior= Tue 22 Sep 2009 17:28:34 GMT+1 U13817236 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=9#comment9 "There was a final question to Mr Stern: were the 20 to 30-car motorcades snarling up the New York traffic helping matters?" Actually, that should have been one of the first questions asked. America's car culture is a big part of the problem and the private automobile like so much else in the privatised economy is environmentally and socially harmful. If Obama and his handlers were the least bit serious about tackling climate change they'd be planning public transit systems around the country and building a viable national rail network instead of continuing to provide massive subsidies to auto and highway interests. "Mr Obama said that, since he had come to power, the United States had done more than ever before in its history to deal with man-made climate change"...which, of course, is only true insofar as Bush did even less in comparison, not that Obama has done a lot more. "Todd Stern, said that there had been a 'seismic turn' in the policy of the United States"...in an hilarious mixed metaphor which is as illogical as the U.S. policy it describes. Although it is true that the U.S. is in "an absolutely strong position." Which is why it will continue to try and maintain that increasingly shaky "strong position" of world dominance as long as it can - no matter what the costs to the environment or other smaller nations. That's something that both Obama and the Senate are in full accord on - maintaining American power and privilege by any means. Tue 22 Sep 2009 17:28:23 GMT+1 MacScroggie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=8#comment8 Give Mr Obama time. He's only been in the saddle for 8 months !To win the hearts and minds of his fellow Americans, and introduce new attitudes and legislation to improve the US's green credentials, is a job that will take more than one or two presidential terms. Tue 22 Sep 2009 17:20:20 GMT+1 LucyJ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=7#comment7 President Obama admitted that climate change is real and also that the USA should have done more in the past. We would have, if the Repubs weren't in control the last eight years and dead-set against helping the environment and hell-bent on war. But that is the balance of our politics- the far left and the far right. Usually, our best Presidents have been the ones that look for the best solution, not to the right or to the left. But in several years, when the USA is recovering more and in better shape, President Obama will be able to make more changes to help combat climate change. We just need some time to get over the two wars, recession, extreme job loss, health care crisis, and get back in gear. As for the American people, the majority of Americans support President Obama combatting climate change, when we can afford it. I believe it is very important to combat climate change, as some of it is man-made and some of it perhaps nature. But at the same time, people can only do so much, when the cost is so high. In several years, things will be much, much better. Will it be too late by then? We hope not, but there really isn't much of a choice now, until we get out of our recession, wars, and other financial, economic difficulties. The good news is, people are more and more aware than ever of climate change, people are less superficial than they used to be about spending ridiculous amounts of money on objects they don't need, and we finally have a President who has good intentions. I have hope for the future. It may take some time, but USA will not give up on fighting climate change. Tue 22 Sep 2009 17:14:27 GMT+1 powermeerkat http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=6#comment6 Oh! So it's no longer 'global warming' but a 'climate change' now?Could it be 'cause Earth has been actually getting cooler in the last cople of years, when a typical 11-year long Sun flare-up cycle ended? "Incovenient Truth" ;-) Tue 22 Sep 2009 17:04:25 GMT+1 shortputt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=5#comment5 MarkYou wrote "What was perhaps new was his reassurance to smaller countries that the US recognised that they were in a different position and that they could therefore expect some help."This is the carrot that must be offered and pushed whole heartedly to bring others with doubts on board.America cannot change itself overnight while awaiting the hoped for return to a future economic prosperity, but by initially offsetting it's own carbon footprint by stimulating others until it can revamp and reduce it's own industrial emissions, the ball should start rolling. Better to export technology, solar panels, USA know-how etc etc than weapons, and it creates jobs at home. Climate change you can believe in Tue 22 Sep 2009 17:03:29 GMT+1 fluffytale http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=4#comment4 lol but I don't think it was ajoke. This draws another GOP tactic to the front. keep the debate on healthcare by not debating it so that yet again the environment gets forgotten. It worked for the last 8 years with the terror of those that were not destroying the planet but killing people on it(ie not nice behaviour)Has he done enough. Not really but as in all the battles at the moment , small gains are better than none. There is a lot of resistance to "green" unless it's the right sort of green. ie money. technology is gaining batteries are better new "volts" are going to hit the high er end market over 40 000 dollars. shame about the EV. New grab for market will happen. more inbuilt failures will be included. after all we can't have a simpler easier to fix car and keep an industry going can we? How about legislation to ensure that as far as possible the connections to the battery packs are kept siple enough that there can be a standard. So a car that gets 300 miles a charge now can be upgraded easy to 400 and so on. lets not build them to be obsolescent 3 years down the line like they try with computers. But cars aside. the argument that industry provides what is wanted has been kicked into the bucket. The industry provided bigger dumber cars for years, here in the states.Wait not cars but "trucks" and the GOP energy policy dreamt up in secret encouraged people to but the trash.But industry did not provide. they almost did because the liberal pinko commie Californians did have the sense to mandate zero emission cars (easier to clean one big smoke stack than 5 million little ones)but they were alone and when GW pushed they fell back.Obama is trying to get that reversed. good on him.Can he try harder. Sure,but again the problem is the rather selfish american mentality that was predominant and show no signs yet of waning that just loves the big power toys will probably start crying "you can take my suv over my dead body" I heard one guy say " If I want to drive a truck that gets 8 miles per gallon THAT IS MY RIGHT" Ann coultar said something similar about driving her boat. and they are the same birther,anti immigrant, nobama, no healthcare people that are the biggest problem I see to world peace. Their selfish ideology is driving the world to more wars.And Obama has them to contend with.So yep he's no where near where we need. but what american is.Seeing as Ed cannot provide us with one obvious answer I will on his behalf without his knowledge a or consent post a link to the ever famous, true master of thought, THE ONE, THE ONLYWENDELL BERRYhttp://www.newyorker.com/fiction/poetry/2009/09/28/090928po_poem_berry Tue 22 Sep 2009 17:00:55 GMT+1 GH1618 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=3#comment3 The UN motorcades are merely symbolic of the larger problem. Perhaps it's time to dust off an old (1961) proposal by Paul and Percival Goodman to Ban Cars from Manhattan. Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:54:31 GMT+1 Roadkill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=2#comment2 Once again, it is up to the USA to take action. The Europeans, dispite giving great sound bites, have done nothing. The cap-and-trade law, before the Senate, is not perfect. But it is the only real actionable device to be possibly implemented. I guess this is what the world has been waiting for... the US to take the lead. Now (supposing it passes), the Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, and others can actually do something. Or, as usual, they will not live up to their obligations. Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:53:30 GMT+1 faeyth http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=1#comment1 The best way to tackle climate change in US is State by State.Go around the slow moving Federal Government.State politicians are held more accountable than federal ones.Plus you need a different solutions for each states specific energy needs and what the state's climate has to offer.Michigan might not want solar but would do well with wind and wave turbines.that's what our state is trying to do and we have agreed to 15% alternate energy than more gradually.And I don't think nuclear would be helpful here either since the lakes and rivers are connected underground by aquifer.The warm water would effect the species that inhabit the Great lakes.Each State needs a different solution.And you have to convince people that there will be replacement employment which will be hard as unemployment numbers are so high.And Dems won't hand out stimulus cash till 2011 to get re-elected for Senate and Presidential Race.They have the cash already to change Energy dependence and help unemployment they are sitting on it. Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:51:19 GMT+1 GH1618 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/09/obama_defends_climate_change_r.html?page=0#comment0 Here's a link to an article in The New York Times on the Senate's consideration of the climate change bill: NYT articleIt is largely the Republicans that are holding it up, but there are also Democrats who are seeking to protect business in their states. The Senate is doing its job; it is not, and should not be, a rubber stamp for administration programs.It is no benefit if a bill passes which hurts US businesses, but which is ineffective because other large industrial nations (particularly China) don't have similar programs. Controlling climate change is a global problem; restrictions on US industry are not sufficient. Tue 22 Sep 2009 16:36:08 GMT+1