Obama To Ask For $1 Billion Climate Change Fund 410
An anonymous reader writes "President Obama will ask Congress for a $1 billion 'Climate Resilience Fund' in his proposed budget next month. From the article: 'Obama is expected to release his proposed 2015 budget in early March. The prospects for the climate fund are uncertain in a Republican-controlled House. But Obama, who made preparation for climate change one of the major themes of the climate action plan he released in June, will continue to press for the need to adapt, according to the White House.'"
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:5, Informative)
The difference between our government and others is that we have a Constitution which restrains corruption. The further we drift from the law, the more lawless we become.
We are fortunate that Madison was prescient in this thinking and chose to include a mechanism for recovering control in the face of a thoroughly corrupt federal government.
The states will do their duty, and it will be a signal to the world that the American People are both resilient and well equipped to handle any challenge.
Re:There are no comments (Score:5, Informative)
In my wee opinion, this is prima facie evidence that there is money in shouting the AGW 'gospel' and pushing the panic button.
Using your logic:
There's been massive flooding in the UK in recent weeks. So if the government allocate a significant budget to deal with the problem, that means that there wasn't really any flooding, it's just that there's money available for people to shout "Flood!"
Re: Sure, why not? (Score:2, Informative)
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/... [heritage.org]
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDelâ(TM)s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsenâ(TM)s Crop Service and Olsenâ(TM)s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chemâ(TM)s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.
Re:Sure, why not? (Score:5, Informative)
Given that Solyndra is the only failure that the Obama critics can ever come up with, and given that a subsidy program for renewable energy obviously has high risks (but also high gains), Obama has a very impressive track record in this area.)
I'm all for solar and renewal energy development. But let's not kid ourselves over President Obama's track record. Here's a list of the ten largest loans to solar panel companies that went bankrupt:
If we add in Solyndra at $570 million he's managed to piss away about $2.5 billion on those ten companies. If that's what you consider an impressive track record, I'd hate to see what you consider mediocre, or poor.
Re:There are no comments (Score:2, Informative)
1) Nobody is claiming that climate doesn't change - the debate is over the source(s) of that change.
Change? There are still a handful of idiots trying to make the case that there is a global cooling trend.
There is no serious debate left. The only people that don't accept AGW are the same type of lunatics that still deny smoking causes cancer. They have been left behind by the rational people who tend to believe the scientists rather than the cranks.
Re:No Problem (Score:5, Informative)
Yep looks like it did.
http://www.almanacnews.com/squ... [almanacnews.com]
http://dailycaller.com/2011/09... [dailycaller.com]
Take it as you want.
Re:There are no comments (Score:5, Informative)
Using your logic:
There's been massive flooding in the UK in recent weeks. So if the government allocate a significant budget to deal with the problem, that means that there wasn't really any flooding, it's just that there's money available for people to shout "Flood!"
1) Nobody is claiming that climate doesn't change - the debate is over the source(s) of that change.
I still see lots of people claiming that it's mostly due to the urban heat island.
2) Flooding is a present problem that causes damage, and is quite demonstrable as to its immediacy and even its sources. AGW theory on the other hand promises problems later down the road... maybe, well, if their models are proven to be correct.
Try again?
Well AGW theory promises problems like flooding, and preparing for AGW can help us mitigate or even reduce those problems.
As for your skepticism over the theories, the only way to truly prove the models correct is to wait for the consequences to happen, and at that point it might be too late to act.
For a country the size of the US $1 billion is minuscule, even if the skeptics were right and the science was shoddy group think and the models were wildly inaccurate, the potential size of the problem is so big that this would still be a good investment.
Re:There are no comments (Score:5, Informative)
Cite? I've generally heard 2020s or 2030s but that might be true and they might have been right. For all we know we're already past the tipping point and are going to get hit no matter what.
Re:Ha ha ha ha ha (Score:5, Informative)
As it reports, America is dropping our emissions a great deal. We have been for 6 years, which is why the stats like to use 2005, rather than the more accurate 2011 or 2012.
In addition, it points out that 60% of the emissions come from '3rd world' nations, which for all intents and purposes, means the BRIC nations. The developed world emits less than 40%, with just China emitting more than EUROPE AND AMERICA COMBINED.
Re:Just say "No" (Score:4, Informative)
Ahhh, no. Levels of tracked pollutants came down a bit between 2007 and 2009, but there was a bounce in 2011, and they're still way above the 1990 level that the US set as a target to reach by 2020, while the EU's target of 8% below 1990 levels was exceeded by 2012.
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:4, Informative)
It's a political thread and there's a lot of pseudolibertarians here nowadays, hence the stupid.
Re:There are no comments (Score:3, Informative)
There is no scientific consensus on what should be done about global warming.
The commonly accepted way to reduce climate change (archaic form: global warming) is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHG).
The largest sources of human caused GHG emissions are a. coal fired electricity generation b. industrial agriculture.
The total CO2 equivalent emitted by you, me and what we consume, every year is 30 Billion tons.
That needs to be reduced by at least 50% within two decades or so.
Coal fired electricity generation produces prodigious amounts of CO2.
The problem with reducing coal based emissions is many fold:
on one side are entrenched interests in coal mining, and built infrastructure, that influence politics and public opinion.
Renewables were once very expensive but are competitive now. The mass production of PV panels shows what can be achieved.
The Germans have done a great deal of research to evolve technology solutions to maintain modern lifestyles.
Industrial agriculture produces prodigious amounts of CH4 (aka methane).
The waste of up-converting feed stock into live stock will be reduced by increasingly poorer climate conditions.
Since the ratio of petrochemical energy in to food energy out is something like 10:1 all food will get expensive
as fuel costs keep rising with the inexorable increased cost of oil exploitation (aka peak oil).
Obama's $1B will fund a lot of US research to help you maintain your life without ruining the earth's ecological systems
Re:There are no comments (Score:3, Informative)
E X A C T L Y
Now why are we crying about a meagre $1B to get that answer?
Re the " Apocalyptic Global Warmists ":, we are more concerned with methane tipping points
(you know, when we burn enough carbon to warm the oceans and atmosphere so the TRILLIONS of tons of
methane in permafrost and in undersea clathrate deposits are emitted). That promises runaway climate change.
Re:There are no comments (Score:3, Informative)
There is no scientific consensus on what should be done about global warming.
Yes this is true, just as there is no scientific consensus for how to solve global poverty. Both issues are for politicians to solve. Science tells us there is a problem. It is up to our political system to decide which solutions to choose from.