I cannot exhort everyone enough to read Freakonomics, and especially its sequel
Super Freakonomics, where the author raises a critical eye at all sides of the
global warming debate. Water vapor is the real culprit, and if only 2% of
current sulfur emissions were emitted into the stratosphere rather than the near
atmosphere, it would be enough to counter any damage done by the water vapor.
All the extra carbon emissions actually helps trees grow better, and they
require less water when in a carbon-rich environment.
The real issue is whether it is important or not to control CO2. We all
can't do the research. So who are you listening to about this? There are
many voices as you would expect. There is a lot at stake including money. Who is
saying what and what stake to they have in the outcome. Here are a couple you
could think about."Human‐induced climate change requires
urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climatechange
observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly
lessen negative outcomes." American Geophysical Union"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no
mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s
physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are
likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning
now."American Physical Society
If Obama can with a stroke (without Congress passing a law) establish carbon
rules. What is to prevent some future president from getting rid of or severely
diminishing these rules?
@ Invisible Hand, the tug between the Executive and the Legislative branches is
as old as the nation. I assure you that Republican legal theorists believe in a
stronger executive. I've seen it in action. I've been involved in
the middle of it personally. I've been involved in court cases on the very
issue. Trust me, those Republicans arguing against the executive actions of
President Obama will sing a completely different tune if a Republican gains the
Thank you, Mr. Obama for doing what Congress does not have the political will to
do. For all our benefit!
Since most of what Obama is doing is being done with executive order, it
hopefully will be undone with a Republican Presidents executive order. This job
killing, energy killing, and economy killing policy will need to be reversed and
ask a liberal about his/her iPhone or Facebook or Titter or iPads or even
electric cars. They are all for them!!! Ask a liberal where the power comes from
to power their device or the internet and ...your usually get a blank stare and
then they tell you that the government controls all of that stuff. Long story
short - they have no clue how electricty is produced. Obama has his own private
stash I heard one clueless Obama supporter say ...no kidding. Maybe the sun
provides all the power we need?? How many gigawatts does it take to run a major
city? What's a gigawatt? So America has finally become what many feared it
would one day and when the wall outlet doesn't work they stand there and
stare and scream for the government to fix it. Welcome to AmeriKa.
Meanwhile -- We have Reagan and Bush as "leading" this
country by passing the most "Executive Orders".People who
live in glass houses should not throw stones...
"Those who think that Obama has been given the right to rule by dictate seem
to forget that by extending that power to Obama, they are also extending that
power to all presidents. Are they certain that they want to give that power to
those with whom they disagree?"Am I worried that Obama is
executing the power granted to the office of the president through the Clean Air
Act.....um..... no. The same power was granted to Bush, and will be granted to
who ever is the next president.Am I worried that there are those who
think the powers of the president should be a variable determined by his or her
party, gender, race, religion, or what ever else..... yes.The Clean
Air Act is the authorizing power behind these actions. What Utah puts into the
air impacts states east - this falls under interstate commerce.
Cheney gave us alternatives to coal. It is the natural gas from fracking that is
replacing coal. Cheney, who is now from Wyoming, is supportive of clean coal
because Wyoming has the cleanest coal in America. Wyoming has legislated hard
for clean coal. Obama simply raised the bar on cleaner air? Now
everyone is mad?
Re: "To have any moral authority on carbon emissions America must make the
first move."And the second. And the third, fourth, fifth, etc.,
etc., etc.No developing nation has the slightest incentive to, or
interest in reducing carbon emissions. No foreign "moral authority"
could induce them to abandon self interest and bankrupt their already fragile
economies.This American "moral authority" that liberals love
to blather about is either a callow true believer's pipe dream, or a
cynical socialist's propaganda ploy. Nothing more.Every gram of
carbon footprint Americans abandon will be quickly snapped up by our economic
competitors in the Third World. And, since that will assuredly produce more, not
less pollution across the face of "Mother Earth," you'd think tree
huggers would wake up and smell the coffee.They don't because
their primary concern has more to do with destroying America, than with saving
When people compare America's envriromental policies to China's its a
very weak argument. To have any moral authority on carbon emissions
America must make the first move.In addition the technology we
develop will be a valuable asset to import to other countries.
Extremely troubling. EXTREMELY bad precedent set here.Obama needs to be
held to a reckoning. Our Democrats leaders need to do a better job reining in
the defacto leader of their party.
There's no longer compromise to be had on any issue. So to get anything
done means one of two things; total outrage or total concession from
republicans. Well, sorry about their luck.
@Esquire: Thank you for clarifying your position. Some posters here are probably
in favor of tearing up the constitution, but you at least say you aren't.
On the other hand, allowing presidents to do what they want just because
Congress doesn't act, is in effect tearing up the constitution. If Congress
doesn't act it's because there's a lack of consensus in the
country. Maybe we will achieve some consensus in the next election cycle. If not
then it is perfectly appropriate to continue to not act, even though both sides
may feel frustrated. This is not an excuse to expand executive power that will
undoubtedly come back to bite us in the end.
@Mark from Montana,Re: "Congress has shown their inability to
negotiate on anything"...But what about the bipartisan budget
they just passed? Little drama, lots of compromise. 8 Republicans even joined
with Democrats to give it the votes needed to pass (note: not one Democrat
crossed over).Google "Senate passes bipartisan budget
agreement"... (The Washington Post)====What about
the bipartisan debt-limit increase they just passed? No drama for the news
media... so you don't even know about it!Google "A summary
of the debt ceiling compromise" (CBS News)...===You
"Tea party can't compromise"... "Congress can't do
anything", people need watch what's really happening, and not the
politico-spin-guys you've been watching. Get back in touch with
reality.There's been LOTS of compromise since the gov shutdown
(one good thing that came out of everything coming to a head during the gov
shutdown). BOTH sides have been more willing to compromise since then.Probably not what they intended.... but it's been a pretty nice
unintended-consequence of the gov shutdown standoff...
Others have already said it, but it is important enough to bear repeating again.
Congress has shown their inability to negotiate on anything. Both the
Republican lead House and Democratic lead Senate refuse to negotiate on any
aspect of any subject. Both sides are wrong. There is a word that, if things
do not change, should be removed from the dictionary; Statesmanship. Neither
side even understands what it means. Poverty, communism, drugs,
terrorism...none of these are the enemy any more. The only enemy each side has
sits across the isle. Our country will never return to greatness until both
sides are willing to negotiate and recognize that the other is not the enemy.
Those who think that Obama has been given the right to rule by dictate seem to
forget that by extending that power to Obama, they are also extending that power
to all presidents. Are they certain that they want to give that power to those
with whom they disagree?This nation was founded on the principle
that the people rule and that the elected officials are servants of the people.
In addition to that, the duties assigned to government by the people are clearly
described in the Constitution. Only Congress has the power to legislate. That
grates against Obama. He craves the power to legislate and the power to enforce
those laws that he alone has legislated and then to rule as the final authority
on whether he has that power.He does not have that authority. We,
the people, have not given him that power. We are represented by the House.
The States are represented by the Senate. The duty of the President is to
enforce the laws passed by Congress unless the Court has invalidated those
laws.Obama is clearly assuming authority that he does not have.
It's time for impeachment and a trial.
The times are a changing as long as the earth will keep turning. Look at the
ring of an old tree, good times and bad times happened. Never assume anything.
@The Rock"There is a one to one correlation of sun spots to
temperatures."I think the better term to use is solar irradiance
rather than sun spots (the latter influences the former). There's a decent
correlation between solar irradiance and temperature... except from the 1970s
onward where the former has declined slightly and the latter went up
significantly. We're currently in the weakest solar cycle in a century
while temperatures are just flat at their warmest decade in modern record
@ Thid Barker, you of all people "quoting" the Huffington Post. I think
you once ripped me for doing the same. LOL!!@ Invisible Hand, is it
a conservative tactic to deliberately misrepresent the other side? I never said
we shouldn't have a Congress. I said Congress is a joke because it
doesn't act. Nada. Not even on things on which they agree. Get Congress
to act on something significant, and then come back to discuss their appropriate
role. And to those of you wringing your hands over separation of powers, let
me say two things. One, Congress can act, but they don't. If the
Legislative branch is weak, it is because they are acting weak. Simple. Two,
Obama acted within his legislatively granted mandate to execute the laws passed
by Congress. He is actually doing what he is supposed to do. That's what
executive orders do. They are not chits in right wing conspiracy theories when
you don't like what the Executive does to carry out the laws passed by
Congress. But even more, having experienced it first hand, Republican legal
theorists love, and believe in, a strong executive. They are getting exactly
what they want.
So what is Obama's solution once we have coal plants closing down because
they cannot afford to upgrade their plants? Is he going to fast track some
nuclear power plants or some gas plants? What does he plan on doing for the
poor and elderly that now will have to pay more for power?To
"JoeBlow" no conservative or anybody with common sense has said that
climate change isn't real. The question is the cause. Is the global
climate changing because of CO2 or is it because of natural fluctuations that we
have yet to be able to model.If the whole thing is natural, what can
we do to change it, and how do we know that our changes will actually work?The problem that your ilk has is that they are making decisions based on
faulty models and a very limited understanding of the atmosphere.I
am a scientist, and have yet to see anything that points to CO2 being the
source. Even the IPCC (if read carefully) shows that CO2 is not a driver.
marxist,If sea level is rising... it would be rising everywhere in the
world (not just Norfolk VA). They don't have a different sea level in
Norfolk.Gravitational pull will cause sea level to be different in
different areas at different times (thus the tides). But "sea level"
doesn't change in one city.====If new flooding is
happening in this town... Maybe the town is sinking. It happens. Geology
changes over time. Some areas lift, others sink a little.Jakarta
has experienced flooding it didn't in the past... but geological surveys
indicate that area is sinking (geologically, not sea level rising). New Orleans
is gradually sinking... Venice is sinking (becoming geologically lower...
it's been measured, they are sinking).Areas in Japan sunk
significantly after the recent earth quake and tsunami. Some areas grow higher
every year (ie Himalayas). Others experience the opposite.====Global warming isn't the answer to everything...That's one possible view of what's going on... not saying it's
correct (don't know Norfolk's specific situation).But if
Sea Level is rising... it would be easily measurable in absolutely every part of
the ocean (not just Norfolk VA).
act first - think about it later ...if at all. The Obama model.
@marxistYes, sea level is rising at a rate of 7" per century.
Has maintained this rate for at least 4 centuries.The earths
temperature was so warm 1000 years ago that the Vikings had farming communities
in Greenland (yea, it was green then). England and Scotland had a wine industry.
It is too cold for that today.Temperatures cooled from 1000 AD to
about 1500 during the little ice age. It has been warming ever since. Sun spot activity is a good indicator of over all temperatures. The more the
warmer. We have data on sun spots going back centuries. There is a one to one
correlation of sun spots to temperatures. We had lots of sun spots in the
warmer periods and almost none in the little ice age.Only
governments fund climate research, and governments only fun scientists who give
them the answer they want. Scientists know this. If they don't produce
reports that support the global warming cult, they will not be working. Little
wonder that after 10 years all climate researchers agree.It's a
self fulfilling prophecy.
Re: The Rock "Global Warming is a fraud." First, props to
you for doing some of your own science. That's neat.But,
getting to your statement above, why then is sea level rising? I've
pointed out what is happening in the naval port town Norfolk VA. Flooding is a
major issue there now, unlike the past. It is just one example. So, The Rock,
what in your view is going on?
@Howard BealRe: "So those tea-party Republicans are willing to
compromise, right"...Contrary to the constant drum beat you get
from the politicos... tea party Republicans HAVE compromised on a lot of things
since the gov shutdown.Pay attention to the news (not just the
rhetoric) you would know that Congress (including tea party Republicans)
compromised on a LOT of things recently. They increased the debt
limit (no brinkmanship from either side... just found compromise, and passed
it).They also passed a new budget (no brinkmanship, just found
compromise and Republicans even helped Democrats get the votes needed to pass
it).I guess without the usual political brinkmanship... politicos
don't even know about it!======Google "Murray -
Ryan budget"Paul Ryan appeared on Meet the Press after the
agreement and said the secret was... Day ONE they agreed to not even bring up
the few things you KNOW the other side won't give on (ObamaCare for
Democrats, Defund the military for Repubs)... and focus on everything else.Pretty common-sense approach from a "tea party person"...It's also key to keep Harry Reid and John Bohner out of it. They
are showmen... not Statesmen.
@Thid Barker – “Go back and read the article again and don't
over look all the numerous graphs and charts! Its no April fools joke except on
"scientists".”Quote from article - “Apparently,
a few weeks ago, a graduate student at the University of California discovered,
through the mistaken introduction of an erroneous "minus" sign into all
climate data sets back in 1882…”Oh this is hilarious!
Conservatives are now quoting April Fools pranks (as the above quote
from the article makes abundantly clear) in support of their denialism. I love
@ VSTSo what's wrong with America leading the way?Did we wait until the rest of the world had a space program before we tried to
go into space?What's wrong with America leading the way?
Setting the example? Doing the what it can to cut carbon emissions and develop
green energy?I'm so tired of the denialists and the Debbie
downers. It's so un-American!
VST,Now YOUR argument has merit. One can make a reasoned and
logical argument based on your post.Unfortunately, the GOP is
generally all over the map.Climate Change is not happeningorClimate is always changingorIt is changing but not because
of mans activityorCO2 is good for the environmentorIt
may be changing but there is nothing we can do about itor, the latestI am not a scientist.The GOP tact seems to be "lets frame our
belief system around the fact the we dont want to have to change anything.
@Thid BarkerIn the article that yes is an April Fools' Day joke, it
says this..."Apparently, a few weeks ago, a graduate student at
the University of California discovered, through the mistaken introduction of an
erroneous "minus" sign into all climate data sets back in 1882, that all
data suggesting growing concentrations of greenhouse gases, rising temperatures,
increasing sea level, disappearing ice, and other changes were actually
completely backward."Do you really think that's real? Those
charts are all the real data reversed.
@Tekakaromatagi... that is soooo funny. April 1. Gesh!
"The American system was designed to avoid concentrations of power and
compel even chief executives to sit down and talk to those with whom they
disagree. But the administration seems to be looking for every possible way to
dodge that process."The American system was made to prevent
tyrants from running and ruining the country. Obama's administration does
an end run around the system at every opportunity. The economy was
diminished last quarter, not only no growth, but it shrank. Obama's
response? Drop an anvil on the economy. I hope 2016 is soon enough to stop the
bleeding before we run out of blood.Is he really that economically
clueless, or is he trying to destroy our county?
Oh No! What a villain! How dare the President of the
United States clean up our environment! Who wants that? Oh, the majority of
Americans, you say? Oh... So who doesn't want that? The Koch
Bros? Oh. I see.
@marxist, @embarrassed Utahn!, @RanchHand, @Karen R, @liberal larry, @EsquireThe US Constitution was created with checks and balances for 2 reasons.
1. So there would be control on the actions of government. Each
branch's power was checked by the other two.2. So that getting
major changes implemented would be difficult. Slow changes, negotiated over
time, with the consent of the governed were how the framers felt we could avoid
the chaos of vacillating political opinions.If you support the
President side-stepping those principles (and the Constitution itself), you
support some form of despotism. Better a "Party of No", than a one-man
Thid Barker - I sure hope you're joking. Ever notice the date on that
article? April Fools - with such investigative prowess, I am beginning to
understand why conservatives don't "believe" in science. To the more general point, I am certainly not an Obama fan and, to
marxist's point, this is not enough but the DesNews needs to get real.
Obama has been pushing for this since he ran for the presidency in 2007; if
anything, this has come at a snail's pace. Further,
conservative politicians have repeatedly refused to act like adults in this
conversation so the time has come to literally leave them behind and move
forward on our own. Conservatives should be precluded from this arena of
governing because they have demonstrated a proclivity to harm, not help. This
issue spans the topics from individual health to national security to economic
stability - the day has come wherein conservatives are literally irrelevant on
the subject matter.
@Esquire - I want a much stronger Congress. The Executive Branch has no
business pushing a legislative agenda to the exclusion of Constitutionally
enumerated duties. It is obvious that Pres. Obama has charged his
cabinet with finding any means (legal or not) to force his objectives. He rules
by despotic fiat, and there are no checks and balances to stop him. Meanwhile, Congress is atrophying due to neglect. The House is blocked by the
Senate, and the Senate's sole purpose is to keep Pres. Obama from being
removed from office.
@ Tekakaromatagi. Go back and read the article again and don't over look
all the numerous graphs and charts! Its no April fools joke except on
Uh oh. Obama did something about cleaning up the air. What an outrage.
On a daily basis... DN readers find reporting that verifies a fact.It does not matter what the POTUS does...Republicans will vilify
every decision...parse every statement.The DN will continue with
this policy whenever the next Republican is in The White House?Right?
So Esquire and like minded people really do think we shouldn't have a
congress. Good, let's get that out in the open. You prefer that we rip up
the constitution and have a democratically elected dictator. Is that what
I'm reading? If congress doesn't agree with you, just get rid of it?
There are a lot of parallels here to the fall of the Roman Republic. Populist
leaders took absolute power using the excuse that it was necessary to protect
the people. I am happy to have a constitution to protect us from power hungry
despots, from either left or right. I suspect if the shoe were on the other foot
Esquire would also see it my way.
@Thid Barker:"Huffington Post: 04/2013 "In a stunning
development today, the community of global climate scientists announced that the
problem of global warming is actually one of global cooling, overturning decades
of previously accepted, peer-reviewed science."I did a search.
One little problem. The date should read "04/01/2013" as in April 1st,
April Fools Day. I wish you were right.I am sceptical that Pres.
Obama made the right decision. Action needs to be taken, but it has to be the
right action. Obamacare didn't end up working like he had intended. It
hurts. This may not help either. Unintended consequences.
So those tea-party Republicans are willing to compromise, right?
This Barker.... you forgot to include the following from the same article...
"Policy makers are struggling to adjust to the new information. If burning
fossil fuels removes greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, the planet is still
threatened with severe climate change -- just a global cooling and ice age --
and efforts to cut the use of these fuels are still critical."Problem is, we do have evidence that things are changing. By step brother who
is a merchant marine for the UK this last summer sailed across a northern
passage that has not been open to shipping in recent memory. The ice cap had
receded far enough for his ship to leverage this short cut. We also know the
antarctic sheet is breaking up.... problem is we don't know why
exactly.But global warming silliness aside, we know dumping
pollutants into the air has impact. Whether it be mercury found in water
supplies, acid rain, heavy ozone days... it is real. I am not worried about
conditions 30 years down the road... we need to clean up todays messes....today.
Re: ". . . the approach that is increasingly emblematic of the way the Obama
administration approaches controversial subjects . . . ."Why
compromise? He has the media, the snarky liberal commentators, the international
"hate America first" crowd, the know-nothing vote, and a pandering
liberal Congress on his side.Real people just don't count.Not to Obama. Not to the media. Not to liberal commentators and
international haters. Not to a Congress dedicated, above all else, to preserving
its lifetime lock on an American political nobility.Least of all, to
Obama and his cohort of doctrinaire liberal true believers in monarchical,
freedom-sapping, trickle-down politics.
Repubs are now complaining about the President not compromising? Wow.Maybe the repubs deserve a taste of their own medicine? After
all, Obama couldn't have had better teachers of stubborn non-compromizers
than those from the right in Congress!
Huffington Post: 04/2013 "In a stunning development today, the community of
global climate scientists announced that the problem of global warming is
actually one of global cooling, overturning decades of previously accepted,
peer-reviewed science. "We're very embarrassed," said Dr. Melissa
Tonnennsen, a climate scientist with NASA, "but we must admit that errors do
occasionally occur. We normally discover them, but this one slipped by us for
over a century. The climate is still changing -- we got that right -- it's
just that everything is going in the other direction."Told you global
warming was a hoax!
Barrel ahead? Are you kidding me? This was way beyond overdue. How much
evidence do we need? How much deterioration of our environment must occur? At
last, the President showed some courage, took action. If the change is a little
painful for some, so be it. Any move forward can have a degree of discomfort.
I'm glad the President acted, because Congress certainly won't,
particularly as they are owned and controlled, literally, by special interests,
including the carbon industry. More needs to be done, and I am eager to see it
happen after waiting for way too long for Washington to act.@
Invisible Hand, your question "Why even have a congress?" made me
literally laugh! That's a great question. Congress does virtually
nothing, even on stuff they agree on, because they are more concerned that those
in the other party might get an edge. Spare me from complaints about Executive
authority. I know for a fact (time in Washington) that the GOP believes in a
strong executive authority. Their tune will change once they regain the White
House. Congress. What a joke.
It sounds like all of you people who applaud the president because Congress
won't act on this think that presidents should do whatever he wants. Why
even have a congress? Will you be just as happy when a Republican president
takes office and reverses all of Obama's mandates, also without consulting
Congress? It sounds like you want a dictator, not a president.
Also, in case you Democrats have forgotten. The Dems controlled Congress for
the first two years of this imperialistic presidency and still control the
majority of the Senate. Why don't we elect Republicans to control both
houses, so we can see who the real imperialist is. Get off the blame the
Conservatives band wagon. The sign on the roadway reads "no outlet."
Isn't it amazing how the chief executive of our land can take unilateral/
tyrannical action and it is all the fault of the Republicans in Congress? Such
an attitude, as expressed so regularly by the contributors of these types of
comments, is beyond reason (and appears to be organized to obfuscate the facts).
Man-made global warming is not a scientific consensus, because it is not based
upon true science. The theory is based upon an agenda - an agenda that says
that humans are the only problem with this planet (see "Noah," the
recent Hollywood production). This is an agenda that has gone on for years,
with different issues - overpopulation of the earth, global-cooling,
global-warming, climate-change, unequal distribution of resources and wealth.The issue here is the unilateral action of an executive to "fundamentally
change" a system and government that has functioned remarkably well for a
couple of hundred years. The agenda is to u-turn the system within this
tyrant's elected term. The side-effect will be an impoverished and enslaved
people. Smirk all you want - the facts are there.
Maybe the legislature will invite all coal burning plants to seek immunity in
Salt Lake Valley.
I am a research engineer for a fortune 50 company. I know something about
science. I make my living with it.Greenhouse gases don't
create heat any more than a greenhouse does.Greenhouse gases hold heat
in.Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas on the planet.
Humid climates don't cool off at night in the summer. Dry climates do.
Barstow, Calif. my home town, has humidity levels in the 6% to 10% range. The
low temperature in the summer can be up to 35 or 40 degrees below the high in
July. Atlanta, Georgia on a hot humid day may only see a 6 degree drop.The difference between the high and low temperature (temperature
differential) is the key indicator for the presents of greenhouse gases. As
greenhouse gases increase, the temperature differential will decrease. This is
the only piece of data you have to look at. This is the canary in the coal
mine.Having reviewed the temperature differential in Barstow from
1975 to 2010 in 5 year increments, I have concluded that greenhouse gases are
not an issue there. All I was was expected random variation. No trend. A
similar review of other locations produced the same result.Global
Warming is a fraud.
The Supreme Court has twice ruled that the EPA has the power to regulate carbon
emissions. They're just doing their job here.
American's spend $74,000,000,000.00 each year on soft drinks. I
don't think that spending 1/8th of that amount to curb the effects of
global warming will be quite as catastrophic as the right is predicting!The history of belly aching over taking responsibility for unsafe
business practices is a long one, Henry Ford ll predicted that if seat belt laws
were passed Ford Motors would "have to close down".Similar
dire predictions were made about laws banning lead in gasoline, eliminating
asbestos in building materials, and cleaning up our air and water.None of the cataclysmic predictions panned out.
If there has ever been an imperial presidency, this president makes all others
look like rank amateurs.
The current Congress has proven time and time again that it is incapable of
being a productive part of the process. Until this changes, what do you expect
a President - any President - to do?The American voter still has the
power to do something about this (in theory anyway). We must return to sending
to Congress people who know what "compromise" means, believe it is an
acceptable practice, and know how to achieve it in a way that moves the ball
"We are troubled, however, by the approach that is increasingly emblematic
of the way the Obama administration approaches controversial subjects: avoid
Congress and charge full stream ahead."I am troubled by that
also. But I am more troubled that roughly half of Congress will oppose anything
and everything (controversial or not) that Obama proposes, and for purely
partisan reasons.No two wrongs don't make it right, but, hey,
at least be honest enough to identify both sides of the problem.
What can you say? The Republican party has been the party of *NO* and
won't do anything to govern because Obama is the President. If the other
party only obstructs, then you have to do what you have to do.
This bas been a known administration objective now for over 5 years..... and
congress.... both sides..... has failed to act. With their inaction, there is
not platform for compromise. Perhaps this now is catalyst for a legislative
"compromise" to codify something palatable for all sides.You
can't compromise if the other side doesn't show up to the table.
Thank You Mr. President!
Unfit to lead is probably the best way to describe Obama, does he not realize
that the next Administration can undo his actions as quickly as he did them,
does he not realize the more alone he goes the crazier it seems to make him,
does he not realize that the very people he says he assisting are the very
people he is hurting the worst.Going at things alone has never been a
popular way of governing and one can see why with this President. He will have
a very tough time blaming this on someone else and therefore his legacy wii be
will not be positive. What a strange way to act.
"Once again, drastic decisions are being taken without commensurate efforts
to achieve a workable consensus in Congress on carbon reductions. "First, consensus with and within the congress is not possible because
Republicans do not believe climate warming is occurring. Do any in the Utah
Republican delegation believe such is happening? No. So they are not going to
agree to ANY CO2 reduction targets, and the president has to proceed on his
own.Second, the president's plan is NOT drastic - 30% reduction
by 2030? Wimpy. This will not do. We have to proceed faster, much faster.Third, the president should include a component in the EPA plan to
produce much more nuclear power. As a practical matter this is necessary, and
as a political matter it would make the CO2 targets an easier sell to
Republicans, and to the rest of the world.Fourth, such is the hatred
for Obama among many Republicans (equal to the hatred for Hitler during WWII) it
is doubtful these extremists will do anything to cooperate with the president on
anything. Your encouragement to the president to seek consensus falls on deaf
ears, and it should.