Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth The Almighty Buck United States Politics Science

Obama To Ask For $1 Billion Climate Change Fund 410

Posted by samzenpus
from the won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-cost? dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama To Ask For $1 Billion Climate Change Fund

Comments Filter:
  • Just say "No" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Banichi (1255242) on Sunday February 16, 2014 @06:09PM (#46261969)

    Just say No to this.
    The U.S. is doing fairly well on pollution, It's the third world up-and-comers with a massive increase in their oil budgets and no, or suppressed, or wholly state-owned, watchdogs who are polluting the world.

    A pork fund by any other name is still a pork fund.

    • Re:Just say "No" (Score:4, Interesting)

      by thesupraman (179040) on Sunday February 16, 2014 @06:48PM (#46262249)

      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?

      • 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?

        'cause that's the important thing, who we can laugh at.

        In the meantime, how is one billion more that we don't have anyway going to help?

      • And that is the WORST metric going. The reason is that emissions is NOT based on ppl, but GDP. [oilprice.com]
        Only idiots try to push the concept of per capita.

        And claiming that 3rd and 2rd world produce small amounts per capita indicates total foolishness on your part. Many of their are massive. Worse, China doubles every 10 years, and they are NOT SLOWING DOWN.

        here is based on 2005 emissions which is worthless, but there it is [wikipedia.org]
        This is based on PPP GDP (which is also a bad idea, but still better than per capita) [worldbank.org]
    • by quantaman (517394)

      Just say No to this.
      The U.S. is doing fairly well on pollution, It's the third world up-and-comers with a massive increase in their oil budgets and no, or suppressed, or wholly state-owned, watchdogs who are polluting the world.

      A pork fund by any other name is still a pork fund.

      Yeah, you're only the 2nd highest gross emitter [wikipedia.org] responsible for ~18% of the worldwide emissions (and probably a lot more of the cumulative emissions already there). You're practically a nation of vegan hippies!

    • Right, point fingers rather than doing anything to fix the problem. That's a sure-fire way to solve it.

      Those other nations will point out we've already contributed the lion's share, so why should they do green energy when we didn't and won't even though we have the money. And nothing will change.
    • Re:Just say "No" (Score:4, Informative)

      by jrumney (197329) on Sunday February 16, 2014 @09:20PM (#46263133) Homepage

      The U.S. is doing fairly well on pollution

      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.

  • No Problem (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16, 2014 @06:17PM (#46262027)

    For starters, just ask Solyndra for our $500 million back. Oh wait, they went bankrupt and most of it ended up in the executives' pockets and from their into your campaign fund.

  • by Mikkeles (698461)

    Why does he want to change the climate? It was good enough for my father, it's good enough for me!

  • by SensitiveMale (155605) on Sunday February 16, 2014 @06:23PM (#46262089)

    Don't be fooled.

  • ... is a good PR campaign [bsalert.com] to convince people that the problem is imminent.

    • The problem is NOT people. It is politicians and CEOs. Politicians know that they want economic growth and to own all of the companies. Look at europe. Western europe is cutting their emissions by outsourcing the nasty work to eastern europe nations that are NOT under the same issues. As such, they keep the work fairly local, and the money there, while at the same time, pulling a fast one.

      Now, you have Germany that is killing off their nuke program, BUT massively increasing coal and importing electricity
  • by zerodl (817292)
    Obama to bail out mother nature.
  • Obama has to keep paying off his supporters. And it's not like it's *his* money, right?

  • If they were serious about climate change and environmental sustainability, they'd do something more along the lines of enforcing existing regulations and laws, instead of pretending Republican President Nixon had never signed them into law. That's right, Obama is to the right of Nixon and less concerned with environmental protection, and economic resilience and sustainability.

  • by WindBourne (631190) on Sunday February 16, 2014 @07:20PM (#46262469) Journal
    I appreciate that he is doing this, but as long as nations like China are growing their emissions as fast as they are, none of this will matter.
    What is needed is to get ALL NATIONS to drop their CO2 emissions quicker, not to allow say all of the BRIC nations to go on a emissions spree.

    So, who to do this? Simple. We need to put a tax on ALL GOODS CONSUMED based on where they and their parts come from.
    The tax needs to start low and raise over a period of time.
    Base it on REAL measurements of CO2 emissions, and not on guesses. Simply use the OCO2 that will be launched this year to record how much CO2 enters a border and how much exits. With this approach, we can see how much CO2 a region is responsible for.
    And then to equalize it, do it based on GDP, not per capita. Per capita is the WORST idea going. The fact is, that 80-90 of emissions are based on sloppy manufacturing and energy. By focusing on emissions / $ of GDP, it makes it possible to get all nations to focus on clean energy. In addition, this rewards nations that have clean energy. They can scale up their manufacturing and be cheaper than others since they know that they will not have an expensive tax(way to go iceland).

    America is the great importer. Worst of all, we import heavily from some of the worst emitting nations. So, this will force those nations to change their ways, while helping any nation that cleans up.
  • Oil and gas subsidies. [wikipedia.org] Record profits and they are still getting subsidized?

    priorities.

  • From the summary: "The prospects for the climate fund are uncertain in a Republican-controlled House".

    There's no uncertainty about it. Anyone with five or more brain cells to rub together can tell you that this will never pass in the House. In fact, I doubt it will even get out of committee to be debated on the floor, much less come up for a House vote.

  • With the winter we've been having.I want more global warming!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by DexterIsADog (2954149)

      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.

  • by MacTO (1161105) on Sunday February 16, 2014 @08:03PM (#46262767)

    This makes sense, whether or not you agree with climate change models or the proposed mechanisms of climate change, because it provides funds to protect critical infrastructure during extreme weather events.

    We already know that different regions are susceptible to different types of extreme weather. For example: some areas are prone to flooding while others are susceptible to drought. Prior generations have decided to deal with measures such as building levees or irrigation systems, simply because they understood that infrastructure has to be protected. They didn't worry about the politics of climate change simply because the controversy didn't exist. However, data about prior weather events did exist. (Alas, some of that data was due to contemporary floods or droughts which had a considerable cost in life and property.)

    Now if Americans want to stick their heads in the sand and insist that years of flooding and drought won't exist because they don't agree with the AGW crowd, that's up to them. They should also realize that when the inevitable happens, they are the ones that will pay the price for their lack of preparedness. That is true regardless of whether the weather is caused by natural mechanisms or exacerbated by human factors.

  • He has a pen and a phone.

A LISP programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing. -- Alan Perlis

Working...