Quantcast

Comments about ‘Robert Bennett: Jobs and climate — Painting a complete picture’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, May 12 2014 4:52 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Yes Mr Bennett. This is a complex, interconnected issue.

It is good that you recognize that. You write "While in the Senate, I looked for good data. I talked to a lot of scientists"

And maybe that is why you are out of a job.

You want to appeal to your base? Just hold up a gun and shout "Drill Baby Drill".

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Responsible people act responsibly. but Obama craves popularity. He gives the people what he thinks they want, no matter what is best for the country.

A small segment of Americans, who have friends in the media, tell him NOT to allow the pipeline to be build. He listens to them because he knows that they have friends in the media and that the media will report whatever those vocal activists ask them to report. He's more concerned with what the media will report than what is best for this country.

We have more oil in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado than the rest of the world has - combined, according to CBS News, May 11, 2012. Obama will not let us drill on "government lands". The Constitution forbids the Federal Government from "owning" that land, but that doesn't matter to Obama. What he's concerned with is popularity, no matter how many people suffer.

Scientist "think" that burning fossil fuel "possibly" could "contribute" to global warming, but they know, without a doubt that millions of Americans are out of work. Obama listens to the "mights" instead of helping those who need jobs.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

Talking to experts is one way of gaining information, but it's not necessarily the best way.

One thing I've noticed about academic experts: they place a high priority on obtaining funding for their projects. When a former member of Congress such as Bailout Bob says he's been talking to experts, a warning flag always goes up for me. The advice I'm about to hear is coming from someone who wants my tax money.

It was the same way with TARP. He got his information by talking with the people who wanted a bailout.

I'd be much happier to hear that he had done some reading on a subject, from a wide range of sources. But he never mentions it. It's always just talking.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Mike,

I agree that the Keystone pipeline should be built. It is nice to not have to toe any party line.

"The Constitution forbids the Federal Government from "owning" that land"

That is blatantly and patently false.

The Shale oil in the Green River Formation is massive, no doubt. However this is not conventional oil and the technology is not there at this point to economically recover this oil.

I suspect that will change in the future.

Also, that was not CBS news. It was CNS news.

"Scientist "think" that burning fossil fuel "possibly" could "contribute" to global warming"

The ultimate down playing of the scientific community opinion. Do you consider your statement honest?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

re: Joe,

Let's look at what the Constitution says about government ownership of land: Article I, Section 8, "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

What is economical? Is it better to spend $750 billion on welfare, or to provide jobs where those on welfare become tax paying workers?

Sorry about the typo on CBS vs CNS. but the type didn't change the facts.

Yes,I consider my statement honest. There is only speculation from the scientific community. No scientist can absolutely predict the weather two weeks from now, much less two decades from now. There warnings are "substantiated" with speculation of what might happen if everything required by the data set occurs at the proper time and in the proper place.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

So, the lousianna purchase was illegal and should have been prevented by the constitution. Would that make sense? By the way, that happened under T. Jefferson's presidency

Mike, the founders were smart men. The constitution is a framework with the ability to be modified and interpreted in the light of changes that occur over time.

The majority of the US was at one time "owned" by the government.

So, feel free to quote the Constitution, but your interpretation appears to be in conflict with those who wrote it.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

Good grief Mike.... I love your passion.... but details is not one of the strong points to your arguments. Obama has next to nothing to do with whether the oil lying under the Green River Formation is economically recoverable. These reserves have been known for a long time, but technology to economically recover it haven't found their way to market yet. Right now the yields are extremely low. According to the Utah Geological Survey, of the potential 1.3 Trillion barrels of oil there, only 77 billion are considered recoverable right now.

Don't mistake recoverable oil with total reserve estimate. On average, maybe 40% are recoverable without going to extreme measures, like injection, to increase yields. Yield rates and economics have nothing to do with Obama... much to I am sure your dismay.

But all that said, the issue we currently have is we have two economies going on right now. One that is dying a slow death, and those who rely on it are in deep despair. Prospects are not strong for them. The other economy based on technology and global markets is doing just fine. Any one-sided view on the situation ignores the bigger picture.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

Well, at least now Bob Bennett is admitting that climate change is real.

The body of research pointing to significant, economically devastating, climate change is simply overwhelming. You have to make a concerted, willful effort to plug your ears and close your eyes to the science in order to deny it.

Pay a little now to begin weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels, or pay a _lot_ later in taxes, insurance premiums, disaster cleanup, crop losses, military conflicts, etc., - that's really the only choice before us. Not doing anything is itself making a choice - albeit a short-sighted and ruinously expensive choice.

This is _not_ a call to lower people's standards of living or shrink the economy! In fact, it's just the opposite. We have an opportunity now to pursue new technologies, re-establish ourselves as world leaders in innovation, clean up our air and water and give our grandkids a better world in which to live. This absolutely can be done - we just have to see past the PR machine of the oil & coal industry who understandably hate the idea that the world truly does need to begin moving away from their products.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

re: Joe,

You asked a valid question. What was the rhetoric about the Louisiana Purchase? Jefferson, himself, doubted that the purchase was legal under the Constitution.He believed that the Constitution did not authorize the government to make land purchases. Those who wanted that land convinced him that his authority to make treaties authorized the purchase.

Think about that. Think about what Obama is doing today. Think about how Obama is making an end-run around Congress through the use of executive orders. Then, read the Constitution, especially the part that ONLY gives Congress the authority to legislate.

As you said, the Constitution CAN be modified, but it has NOT been modified - yet - to allow the government to own land. Jefferson did not call for an amendment. He did an end-run.

The federal government may have purchased the majority of the land, but they had no legal authority to "own" that land.

The oil in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado does not belong to the "government", but people suffer because the government misuses authority.

The government has paid scientists to "find" a reason to tax us. That does not make the "facts" true.

Esquire
Springville, UT

Hey, why not just come out and admit that things are so much better, overall, under Obama than under the prior Administration. I know Republicans are really getting themselves twisted in tying to minimize success and find unique, creative ways to criticize the President they vowed to destroy. The right wing is in denial about a lot of things, not just about climate change.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

“By trying to please both sides of a bitter controversy by issuing separate statements aimed at each one, the Obama Administration has embarrassed itself with both.”

Really Bob? You are embarrassing yourself with such a ridiculous statement.

Both the announcement on sustainable energy progress and the reality of climate change were made to the same people, the American people.

And yes I know, Republicans are terribly jealous of the fact that oil and gas production has skyrocketed since Obama took over, when Republican “pundits” had predicted just the opposite, but facts are facts. Get used to it.

Yes, Climate Change is very real, and no, Obama is not advocating the “immediate end to fossil fuels [that] would end civilization as you know it.”

You’re complaining again, while offering no solutions. You’re mad at Obama now because he’s led the nation closer to energy self-sufficiency, and you’re mad at him because he recognizes climate change as a reality.

If the Dems had their way, this nation would be investing heavily in alternative energy, but the Repubs won’t allow it. What is YOUR solution?

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

@ Mike R... again, love the passion and commitment to a cause, but your opinion on constitutional law does not make it law... it is just your opinion... one that has been found to be wrong many times over by the Supreme Court of the US over the last 200 years. So while you vigor is great, it is misplaced. You may claim that you have deeper insight into constitutional law than all those who have served since the John Jay Supreme Court, but unfortunately that doesn't make what you think the law of the land. So until you succeed in overturning over 200 years of precedent, your just going to keep getting more frustrated.

And unfortunately you can't sue to get the current interpretation overturned, because you don't have standing in this issue. You would need to represent the state. Perhaps you could run for office on a platform of the agreement that incorporated the state of Utah as being invalid, and the sue.... or support someone that will.

But until you do get the victory, figuring out how to get equitably and just access under the current system is your best bet.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

re:UtahBlueDevil,

Personally attacking a poster does not make YOU an expert on the Constitution. You make vague arguments, never substantiated by citing the Constitution or Court cases that clarify an issue. Nothing you posted proves that the Government can own land. Nothing

===

I agree with Bob Bennett. He leans towards thinking that climate change may be impacted by what humans do. But, with the regulations already in place, the United States is a minor contributor to CO2 emmissions. China is a major contributor. Do you think that China will tax their people to reduce growth? How about Mexico? Have you ever been to Mexico City? The Olympians wore maskes to protect their lungs. What is Mexico doing to reduce CO2 emmissions? How about India?

As far as oil and gas are concerned, we have enough - and to spare - but Obama, being politiclly motivated, has no interest in opening those lands for drilling. He owes too much to those who fly around the world in private jets, using thousands of gallons of oil, to ever create jobs for those who can't afford private jets.

Fitness Freak
Salt Lake City, UT

Obama has politicized law enforcement, racism and civil rights issues, class envy, medical care, and the military.

He may as well add "climate change" to the mix.

MOST polarizing president in history!

bandersen
Saint George, UT

We need to rid citizens of the European view of the world, which is rooted in foolish ideas like fossil fuels needing to be eliminated. I would wager any amount that all those here responding are using fossil fuels in abundance, but, of course, in true progressive patronizing fashiion, want everyone else to stop using them! It is the typical big government knows best crowd that wants everyone else to pay the bills and live with unjust laws, while they go on their merry way. I'm all for going back to the dark ages, if that's what everyone wants, but I ain't going there alone. In meantime, forego the hypocrisy and stop talking nonsense. Climate change as a means to get more power is not worthy of any citizen, particularly someone who most likely is otherwise educated! If religion is a hoax, this ones rises above that in epic proportions.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Nate
Well who else should he be talking to? The fossil fuel lobbyists? People who aren't experts in the relevant field? Do you not trust doctors when it comes to cancer diagnosis because they get their paychecks by having patients?

mcdugall
Murray, UT

@Mike Richards - Read Article 4 Section 3 of the US Constitution, the Feds can own property, its very clear. The Antiquities Acts of 1095, enacted by the 59th Congress expressively gives the President authority to preserve American antiquities. A side note, this was Republican sponsored legislation.

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

Obama is trying desperately to save the train wreck called the 2014 midterms.
And he is dangling every carrot he has in front of the voters.
Amnesty
Student loans
Equal pay for women
Minimum wage
Clean air

Who knows what's next? Closing Gitmo? Bringing all the troops home?

Obama can throw out there anything he wants. Voters will buy it if he says it. And he has no obligation to make any of it work. He's moving out in January 2017.

Democrat
Provo, UT

Re: Mike--the part of the Constitution you reference has to do with DC and the "purchase" of lands that already lie within a state. The lands in the west currently owned by the federal government were federal territory before congress approved new states. Also, as Senator Bennett pointed out, we are producing more oil now in the U.S. than ever before--much of it drilled on federal land. So while I understand that some people wish we had more drilling, it is not accurate to say that "Obama will not let us drill on "'government lands'".

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

f freak:

No, Obama is not the most polarizing president in history. It's just that the Republicans declared before he ever took office that they would destroy him. So even when he pushes Republican ideas (see ACA) or leads from a right-of-center position on many issues, the Repubs oppose him. The polarization here is largely one-sided, largely disingenuous, and largely self-destructive.

I was a Republican until George W's second term. He and Dicky C scared me away, and the current crop of tea-party-scared GOPers have driven me so far from the Republican Party, I will never rejoin. Their antiscience, antiwomen, anti-immigrant, antieverything platform is not only extreme, it is irrational. And their war on the poor is shameful.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments