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:Just say "No" (Score:4, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Be careful with that link, you may just learn something....
Especially if you remove the oil producing countries (they burn a lot as a side effect of providing oil to the other countries, and have low populations..).
The third world (and in fact second world) produce small amounts per capita, or are you going to argue against per capita, so we can all laugh at you?
Re:Sure, why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, that Solyndra thing worked out great. Why not give Obama a $1B slush fund to play with?
you forgot the other 24 companies that succeeded. a 96% success rate isnt good enough?
Re: Sure, why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's some terrible formatting - mixing billions and millions and straight dollar amounts.
After some simple parsing: 33 companies total, 19 filed for bankruptcy, 14 did not.
Of the 19 that filed for bankruptcy, Solyndra was easily the largest with $535M.
Of the 14 that did not, Brightsource is easily the largest with $1600M.
Brightsource alone constitutes more money involved than the total for those that filed for bankruptcy; $1598M.
The total money involved for those that did not: $5837M
Ultimately these numbers don't mean a whole lot without looking at the complete effects, but I thought I'd at least make that list a little easier to work with; numbers in millions.
1600,Brightsource
1460,First Solar
1200,SunPower
529,Fisker Automotive
299,Johnson Controls
178,Babcock and Brown
151,LG ChemÃTM
126.2,ECOtality
100,Mascoma Corp.
98.5,Nevada Geothermal
50,Vestas
39,Navistar
5.9,Amonix
0.5,GreenVolts
535,* Solyndra
400,* Abound Solar
279,* A123 Systems
118.5,* EnerDelÃ(TM
80,* Range Fuels
43,* Beacon Power
33,* Raser Technologies
25,* Evergreen Solar
20,* Konarka Technologies Inc.
16,* Nordic Windpower
13.3,* Energy Conversion Devices
10,* OlsenÃ(TM
7,* Stirling Energy Systems
6.5,* Thompson River Power
5.4,* Azure Dynamics
3,* Satcon
2,* Mountain Plaza
0.700981,* Willard and Kelsey Solar Group
0.5,* SpectraWatt
Re:There are no comments (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
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?
Re:Ha ha ha ha ha (Score:5, Interesting)
Secondly, America's emissions are dropping in EVERY arena. In fact, for the last 5 years, we have dropped more than any other single nation OR ENTITY.
Third, I always have to laugh when I see nutjobs like you screaming (anonomously) that America is the great evil on this, based on calculations of 50,75 years, while ignoring the fact that Europe, China have been emitting large amounts for millenniums. Heck, there is not virgin forest in either China OR Europe. And even now, Europe far outdid America in total emissions throughout most of the 1900s, until 1995. Then when Europe focused on taxing their fuel to stop future shock, did they lower their emissions. Regardless, America continues to drop our emissions.
Re:Just say "No" (Score:4, Interesting)
Wake up. CO2 is not "pollution" by any rational reckoning. CO2 is plant food.
This. Is. Awesome! Okay, I'll play - oxygen is human food! So, let's all consume pure oxygen! What could go wrong? And water? H2O is a vital element of all complex life on Earth! Go stick your head in a bucket of water for 10 or 20 minutes. We'll wait.
(Some weird rant against the EPA)
Yep, the evil EPA, created by that Earth-hugging pot-smoking hippy, our elected representative Richard M. Nixon in 1970. With that uid, I would have guessed you lived through the 70's in the U.S. I was alive then - pollution by UNACCOUNTABLE INDUSTRY was out of control. Remember Love Canal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org] Remember the Cuyahoga River that CAUGHT FIRE in the late 60's? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org] Remember smog in LA in the 70's? It's down 85% since then. Do you know why? http://thegoodhuman.com/2012/0... [thegoodhuman.com]
Nope, don't need that evil EPA, no siree.
Re:Stop global warming. (Score:3, Interesting)
With the winter we've been having.I want more global warming!
I don't believe you really do. More warming may disrupt the jet stream even more, so while some portions of the planet bake, and the U.S. experiences continuing drought and record breaking summer heat, we will ALSO see more winters like this one. Which would suck.
You didn't really think that global warming meant that every place gets warmer, did you? That's not how the world works.
Re:There are no comments (Score:2, Interesting)
“Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000
****
“This data confirms what many gardeners believe – winters are not as hard as they used to be. And if recent trends continue a white Christmas in Wales could certainly be a thing of the past.”
BBC, Dr Jeremy Williams, Bangor University, Lecturer in Geomatics, 20 Dec 2004
****
The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999
****
“Computer models predict that the temperature rise will continue at that accelerated pace if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not reduced, and also predict that warming will be especially pronounced in the wintertime.”
Star News, William K. Stevens, New York Times, 11 Mar 2000
Re:There are no comments (Score:3, Interesting)
There IS scientific consensus. Just no political consensus. Equals: we are so screwed.
If there is a scientific consensus, then what is the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity? That's the Billion dollar question, the Apocalyptic Global Warmists need a value above 3 for their vision of Thermageddon to come to fruition, yet emerging research is pointing to a value of 1.5-1.8.
The only real consensus I've seen is that 98% of the climate models agree, the real world observations are wrong.
Re:There are no comments (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually there are two handfulls of Idiots, one handfull claiming a cooling trend is happening and one handfull claiming a warming trend. Most reasonable people, who don't have a vested interest in either outcome are pretty consistant in saying any trend right now is too deeply buried in natural noise to be determined.
Re:There are no comments (Score:4, Interesting)