Thank you to President Barack Obama

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    July 12, 2013 10:13 p.m.

    I have no clue as to your age. I do have a clue that you are clueless on the topic of the tar sands. Maybe it would help if you would do some REAL research on heavy oil in Alberta. Until you can speak with some real knowledge it would be best to restrain your gushing accolades for the President who has done absolutely nothing for the environment but has brought the American economy to the brink of total collapse.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    July 11, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    re: Mike Richards

    "Never take accept the "obvious" when a politician is speaking. Follow the money. Always follow the money."

    Wow!? For once, I am in complete agreement w/ Mike.

  • tenx Santa Clara, UT
    July 11, 2013 12:47 p.m.

    LIb 2day- Wow a great idea. Since we have too many drones we can put the bombs on the drones and kill two birds with one stone. We can bomb the heck out of Iceland, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Washington state, Philippines, and even Hawaii in order stop those pesky Volcanoes from raining on BO's parade. However, be careful because a lot of those volcanoes have a bigger bite than the bomb. You sure you didn't use to work in Washington DC for the guvermint?

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    July 11, 2013 3:10 a.m.

    I have one simple question for all those who are giving President Obama a pat on the back for his attempts to fight climate change. If climate change is as drastic as all of you make it out to be, how come only the U.S. has to be part of the solution?

    Environmentalists continue to talk as though the U.S. is the only country in the world which contributes to pollution and climate change. Why is it whenever people like President Obama, Al Gore or Robert Kennedy Jr. discuss climate change, we never once hear a thing about China, India, Russia or other countries helping out? Over and over again it is always, "The U.S. must do more! The U.S. must do more!"

    Oh, and speaking of Robert Kennedy Jr., wasn't he among those who fought to kill the building of wind farms near Martha's Vineyard because it would "hurt the view" ?

    Liberals are great at talking about climate change, but ask them to sacrifice a little like the rest of us? Forget it!

  • Liberal Today Murray, UT
    July 10, 2013 9:57 p.m.


    I have said it before, and I will say it again. We have way more nukes than we need or really want to maintain. We have the smartest scientists in the world. I think we can find a way to use all that to control the climate by controlling the volcanoes with nukes.

    The benefits are double.
    1. A safer world with fewer nukes
    2. We control the climate

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 10, 2013 2:07 p.m.

    Open Minded Mormon
    Everett, 00

    The LDS church builds green buildings because it's the right thing to do. They understand that we should have as little negative impact on the planet as possible. Any conservative person knows that. But that's WAY different than being Global Warming obsessed like some people are.

    IF you are insinuating that the leaders of the LDS Church are Global Warming obsessed liberals who think humanity is a stain on the earth... I'd disagree with you. I think they understand that we are stewards of the earth and we need to care for it. Global Warming movement is a whole different thing (mostly about money and politics IMO).

    I'm not a Global Warming disciple.... but I still try to have as little impact on the planet as I can. Does that mean I automatically side with the Global Warming extremists? No.

  • tenx Santa Clara, UT
    July 10, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    I was there when Pinatubo went off, there when Poas did, seen Mayon go many times and even that sleepy thing (more than 100 years) near Pasto, Colombia blew its top. So WHAT'S the PLAN for dealing with those? IPP stacks look plain puny in comparison.

  • tenx Santa Clara, UT
    July 10, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    Now if we could just figure out how to cap those unruly volcanos of the world, BO's plan might have a chance. Failing that feat, it ain't going to work!

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    July 10, 2013 10:53 a.m.

    Kristin, I just want to come over to your house and visit your Obama statue sanctuary and light a solar candle to him.

    (Please note the sarcasm.)

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 10, 2013 10:42 a.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" look at the green energy from a different perspective. If you knew that someday in the next 20 years the nation was going to collapse, would you buy systems to replace the power and gas companies? Their investment into those technologies has to do with prepardness, not CO2 emissions.

    The truth of the warming is that it will lead to MORE crops being planted and harvested (according to NASA). So, that means that that if you want to stop the warming, you are supporting starvation throughout the world.

    To "Tyler D" at one time scientists thought that the sun revolved around the earth, and had mathematical models to prove it. They also thought that you could turn lead into gold. Scientists once thought that you couldn't fly faster than the speed of sound, yet all of those things have been proven wrong. Just because a consensus (meaning no proof, just an idea) is widely accepted, does not make it true.

    Read "The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming" in Forbes to better understand what is going on.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    July 10, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    Why does the LDS Church - at the direction of the "Brethren" -
    spend the "Lord's money" building green energy buildings
    on these so called baseless Scientific Studies and mindless ramblings of AM radio talk show hosts?

    Does the use of Green Energy Technologies make the LDS General Authorities a bunch of mindless "Liberal Lefties" who are bend of Socialism and the over throw of our Freedom?
    Does it make them Good Stewards of the Earth, and the Tithes of the Lord?

    Think about it for just a minute,
    and ask youself --

    Do you believe and follow Rush Limbaugh?
    The Brethren?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    July 10, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    @lost in DC

    I enjoyed your lecture farming - really, it was nice… totally off topic and nothing whatsoever to do with pollution and the climate, but nice.

    @Spoc – “Think how much cooler and more productive our farms and forests would be with a little extra CO2.”

    Nice theory – so what do scientists have to say about it? 97% of all climate scientists think that the rate (continuous & growing) we are pumping pollutants (e.g., carbon, etc…) into the atmosphere will not result in the rosy scenario you outline.

    Your theory sounds charming but in trying to decide whether to side with a DN blogger or thousands of PhD’s all over the world… well, I’ve given this a lot of thought but I’m afraid I have to go with the scientists on this one.

    Reached comment limit…

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    July 10, 2013 5:13 a.m.

    so since enough food does not grow naturally, on its own, without modern farming methods, we should just sit back and let even more people starve because nature, by itself, does not grow enough food?

    there are certain insects beneficial to plants as they prey on harmful insects - we should not be aiding their introduction into crops, thus allowing harmful insects to destroy more of the crops?

    Natural fertilizers should not be spread by modern, man-made means, but they should only be allowed to sit where the cattle and horses drop them? no man-made assistance at spreading and ensuring the correct amount?

    no more farm-raised fish?

    We cannot do anything to improve food production because it is not the "natural balance"?

    I reject that selfish, short-sighted, liberal ideology.

    and you will note I have said NOTHING about man-made fertiliers or genetically engineered food, just improving natural means.

    Comparing Laman and Lemuel to those who believe God created the earth with enough and to spare (but He has charged us with taking care of the planet), is the wrong analogy. You SHOULD be comparing the liberal global warming alarmist with Chicken Little.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 10, 2013 12:35 a.m.


    LEFT: "Let's destroy the economy to solve a non-existent problem."

    RIGHT: "That would be foolish."

    LEFT: "All you ever do is complain. Why don't you offer any solutions of your own?"

  • FreedomFighter41 Orem, UT
    July 9, 2013 10:42 p.m.

    So what's the repubs' idea? What are their solutions? To sit around, complain, and kick the can down the road?

    I have no problem with them criticizing President Obama. I do however, have a problem with them criticizing and offering absolutely NOTHING as an alternative.

    They remind me of Laman and Lemuel. When Nephi broke his bow did Laman and Lemuel fix it? Did they offer any solutions? Or did they just sit around and complain?

    I grow tired of the GOP sitting around and complaining.

    Don't like Obama's suggestions? Great! So what are yours?

    If you don't have any, it's simple, STOP COMPLAINING!

  • Spoc Ogden, UT
    July 9, 2013 10:31 p.m.

    Tyler D,
    Just so you know, greenhouse operators routinely pump CO2 up to 1,400 ppm because plants grow faster and more productively when they are not being starved for food at atmospheric levels of 310 ppm. Three quarters of the sunlight that hits most plants is wasted as heat. Think how much cooler and more productive our farms and forests would be with a little extra CO2. How many more people could be fed, how much cooler would the climate be if more sunlight was being turned into sugar instead of heat? Although recently it has been a little lower, during most of history it has been a lot higher than today. What is the optimal level?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    July 9, 2013 6:59 p.m.

    @lost in DC – “You call a substance ESSENTIAL for plant life pollution?”

    Couple of concepts you should familiarize yourself with – 1) man-made waste vs. naturally occurring, and 2) percentage amount of any substance in the natural environment relative to other substances.

    Plant life on Earth evolved under relatively stable conditions over long periods of (geologic) time. A balance is maintained between different forms of organic life. When that balance is upset (e.g., meteor strike, large volcano, etc…) things die off.

    We are now upsetting that balance at rates far faster and over sustained period of time (what makes it different than an anomalous volcano) than at any time in history that did not involve cataclysmic changes to the planet.

    Nutshell – too much or too little of any substance that is not the result of gradual shifts (again, in geologic time) will cause major problems for any life sustained by that balance of elements.

    Wow - this is basic science.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    July 9, 2013 6:04 p.m.

    Kirsten, you're absolutely right. Keep those letters coming. The Deseret News needs them.

  • MacKayJones PROVO, UT
    July 9, 2013 5:39 p.m.

    Are fires raging now more than ever? (There were a third fewer U.S. wildfires in 2012 than in 2006.) Are the number and severity of fires determined by climate change rather than forestry and land-use practices? Is today’s drought worse than, say, that of the Dust Bowl, and was it caused by 1930s global warming?

    Because Sandy struck New York City, where the nation’s media congregate and participate in the city’s provincialism, this storm was declared more cosmically momentous than the 74 other hurricanes that have hit or come near the city since 1800. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina was called a consequence of global warming and hence a harbinger of increasing numbers of Category 3 or higher hurricanes. Since then, major hurricane activity has plummeted. No Category 3 storm has hit the United States since 2005. Sandy was just a Category 1.

    George Will

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    July 9, 2013 4:03 p.m.

    @ PhD,

    Who gave anyone the right to have a progressive tax system? That concept is not found in the Constitution which states: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

    That part of the Constitution does not allow for progressive taxing. That part of the Constitution does not allow you to pass your burden onto the shoulders of anyone else.

    The 16th Amendment modified the taxation powers of the federal government: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

    Still no "progressive tax" has been allowed.

    It's about time that those "Americans" who think that they are somehow superior to the mythical "rich guy" that Obama likes to talk about, start paying their fair share of taxes instead of trying to pass that burden onto someone else.

    By the way, the people have not authorized Obama or anyone else to levy a "carbon tax". Read Article 1, Section 8 where all the duties of the Federal Government are enumerated.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    July 9, 2013 4:01 p.m.

    Climate change has been going on for millions of years, why on earth would a bunch of arrogant, pinhead leftists think they are going to change that? Thankfully we don't have to read sappy, 2nd grade logic, obama worshiping letters like this everyday, I really hate to throw-up that often!! And another point, why would you even believe anything this liar of a president proposes? Even the dimmest of the left, has to acknowledge that obama is a liar and just has to propose ideas, because he likes the sound of his gums flapping. The only parts of this "proposal", that will get enacted are ideas that raise taxes, and ideas that provide more payoffs to his specific well-heeled supporters!

  • CB Salt Lake City, UT
    July 9, 2013 3:42 p.m.

    When I first started reading this comment I thought it was tongue-in-cheek. This person needs to read "A World Lite Only By Fire' by Wm Manchester to view the world that she is advocating.
    I remember the 70's when we were facing the coming Ice Age. Then it was the ultimate starvation
    because of over population. Now it is Earth Warming, which when it quit warming 5 years ago, it
    became political correct to call it Climate Change. Of course the climate is always changing, in some areas of the earth, at least 4 times each year and in other place, hardly at all.
    Being married to a Environmental Engineer, I know that great strides have been made in taming the
    pollutions caused by those wonderful God given gifts of coal, gas, oil that have given us the society to be able to do more than struggling to stay alive by having to obtain our own food, fuel
    and never traveling more a few miles from where we were born and raised.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 9, 2013 3:34 p.m.

    To "Kirsten Gellella" what is so brave about going along with what his base already supports? If he was brave, he would call out the AGW alarmists on their bluff, and make them actually do some legitimate analysis of the their models that keep getting proven wrong or missing large chunks of data.

    On the topic of Global Warming, there is NO scientific data that meets established scientific standards to prove what the cause is of global warming. The Climate models analysis showed that there could never be more than a decade of with no significant warming. We are now headed into 16 years of no warming. The models are wrong, so why trust their output?

    Think of it this way. If the power company estimated your bill the way AGW alarmists model warming, you would be paying for more power than you actually consume. Would you pay for power you didn't use? If you wouldn't pay for power you didn't use, why suffer for AGW that mankind did not cause?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    July 9, 2013 3:32 p.m.

    Tyler D,
    "carbon dioxide is simply a subset of pollution as a whole."

    You call a substance ESSENTIAL for plant life pollution?


    nothing else to say - just - wow.

    When do you start calling oxygen a subset of pollution as a whole? or water, or any other essential element/substance?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 9, 2013 3:21 p.m.

    If by some unlikely miracle a Christian was installed as the new president of Egypt, the treatment given him would be miniscule when compared to the treatment that the American Christians are giving President Obama.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 9, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    OK. The hero worship surrounding Barack Obama is just getting ridiculous. I just watched a video of Obama Supporters signing a petition to repeal the Bill of Rights (and they signed because they were told Obama wanted it)!

    It was a trick of course. But to see these sheep signing a petition to repeal the Bill Of Rights because they heard it was something Obama wanted.... just made me sick.

    I thought the left valued the Bill of Rights as much as I do. Either these Obama supporters don't even know what the Bill Of Rights is... or hearing that they are doing what Obama wants trumps even their own core values. It's just ridiculous.

  • Whatever Springville, UT
    July 9, 2013 3:06 p.m.

    Oh come on we all know that global warming is a hoax and everything President Obama says and does is wrong. After all that's what Glenn Beck says so it must be right.

    Lets just all take a cue from the tea party dominated house, you know, the one with the nine percent approval rating and a bunch of high school dropouts and oxycontin addicted radio DJ's. They should be the ones we should have running the country... Lemmings.

  • Eli Tesecular PhD Salt Lake City, UT
    July 9, 2013 1:38 p.m.

    Mike R. makes a good point. Increased energy costs, if any, may be passed along to consumers. But, we can mitigate this by adopting progressive energy pricing similar to our income tax system. The rich would pay $XX per kilowatt, middle earners $X per kilowatt and the bottom 50% of us would pay nothing. The very poor could even receive Obamergy credits and get money back the next year. The IRS could run the whole thing just like the ACA. What could go wrong?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 9, 2013 1:35 p.m.

    Re: "After all, the planet needs our help."

    Yeah -- mainly it needs our help to save it from the callow, shallow liberals whose pathologic hubris leads them to believe they actually know better that anyone else how to save it.

    And whose untried, untrue policies and actions will inevitably harm it.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 9, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    Re: ". . . we know some percentage of the damage is due to sea levels being 9in higher . . . ."

    Actually, we don't know that.

    A goodly portion of today's NYC was underwater in 1660. And Dr. Hansen's famous 20-year-old prediction -- that the Westside Highway would be underwater in 20 years -- clearly did not come to pass. This is partly because sea-level rise was a fraction of predictions, and partly that much of the land has been significantly built up over the years.

    Most of the area affected by Sandy is elevated more than 9 inches from what it was in 1870, so 9 inches [which is actually a little low] of local mean sea-level rise over that time actually had negligible effect.

    There's the rub -- human interaction with nature is hard to predict.

    NYC responded quite differently to a local sea-level rise similar to that of New Orleans [NO's problem is more subsidence than sea-level rise]. Clearly, any AGW effects that may occur are WAY more complex than liberals like to admit.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 9, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    Let's try again. What is the cost of Obama's plan? Who pays the "carbon tax"? Who gains? Who looses?

    The government gains. It receives tax revenues for "polluters". It doesn't matter that those "polluters" followed every rule and every regulation put on them by government. Now they are the enemy. Now they have to pay. Now they will either pay or close their doors. What do they do? They have a simple choice. They can either pass the cost of doing business on to you and me or they can close their doors. Guess what they're going to do? Yes, that's right. You and I are going to pay much more for the energy that we need. You and I are going to pay a hidden tax. You and I are going to be penalized because some liberal who has power can force us to pay that tax.

    We have tyrants in many places, but we should never have a tyrant in the Oval Office. He should be the ONE person whom we can trust.

    Unfortunately, he is in the middle of things. He wants that money.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 9, 2013 12:39 p.m.


    The repubs are in mass today! Which means, this letter and Pres Obama must be doing something right!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 9, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    "Theoretically, what are the costs of dealing with the effects of climate change (flooding, drought-food shortages, severe weather etc) as opposed to the costs of measures to slow climate change?"

    It's difficult to say like for Sandy, it's not like you can peg the entire 70 billion cost as being a result of climate change. However, we know some percentage of the damage is due to sea levels being 9in higher than they were in 1870 which elevates storm surge and increases storm surge damage (the largest contributer to the damage total). I'd say we're looking at at least a couple billion in Sandy damage as a result of global sea level rise. Then global warming makes droughts more severe (warmer -> more evaporation), that 2012 US drought had economic losses of around 50 billion. Presumably the drought would've been there without global warming but with temperatures say 1C cooler every single day (still way above average, just not as much as it ended up being), it wouldn't have been quite as severe. So that's probably another couple billion dollars there.

    Anyway, it's difficult to estimate but signs are there.

  • Truthseeker2 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
    July 9, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    Theoretically, what are the costs of dealing with the effects of climate change (flooding, drought-food shortages, severe weather etc) as opposed to the costs of measures to slow climate change?

  • Eli Tesecular PhD Salt Lake City, UT
    July 9, 2013 12:18 p.m.

    I too love having a president bold enough to save the earth from noxious CO2 pollution. The American people don't care... they rank global warming last out of 21 issues. Congress doesn't care... the Kyoto treaty got 0 votes in the Senate. It warmed my heart, during the last State of the Union address, to hear President Obama say, "If congress doesn't act on climate change, I will." It's high time we give up some of the silly notions about how our government is supposed to function. After all, the planet needs our help.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 9, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    Yes... Thank you, THANK YOU oh thow great Obama! What would we have done without you... and what will we do after you are gone?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    July 9, 2013 11:40 a.m.

    @lost in DC – “where do you get the idea I have climbed on board? I spoke of pollution, not carbon dioxide…”

    My comment was ironic (i.e., a joke)… figured the “evolution” thing would have given that away.

    Regarding pollution, that’s what I spoke of too, however, carbon dioxide is simply a subset of pollution as a whole.

    But you might want to be careful with the term “pollution” because the minute the President starts to talk about limiting pollution in general, you guys will have to be against it… it’s on the card they give you at the meetings, or it might be written inside the foil hat (fyi - more irony).

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 9, 2013 10:43 a.m.


    As a former insurance agent, I know that any insurance company in Utah is obligated to "buy out" a failing insurance company. NO policy holder will ever be denied the benefits promised unless ALL insurance companies fail.

    There is no possible way, given the revenue going into Washington, that Congress can ever honor all future demands on SS. You can easily do the math. Open a spreadsheet and get to work. The only way that Congress can handle the coming influx of "baby-boomers" is to inflate the money by printing by the ton, or by denying benefits.

    The carbon tax is one way that devious liberals want to use to increase revenue. Obamacare is another tax that devious liberals plan on using to let Peter pay Paul.

    It's a Ponzi scheme. It won't work. It only takes more money from the private sector. It only decreases the ability of businesses to hire employees. It only decreases SS payments and income tax revenues.

    Never take accept the "obvious" when a politician is speaking. Follow the money. Always follow the money.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    July 9, 2013 10:21 a.m.

    Tyler D,
    where do you get the idea I have climbed on board? I spoke of pollution, not carbon dioxide, which the doomsayers like BO are trying to limit.

    BO has promised to kill the domestic coal industry. It's not a question of how many jobs has his failed green companies killed, but how many jobs are his overall policies killing? why do you think we have such a weak recovery and why unemployment is stuck so high? The only job growth we have is in part-time employment.

    BO's EPA and Obamacare are killing real jobs growth and prosperity in this country.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 9, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    The price attached to the tax or to cap and trade hasn't been determined so I have no interest in pulling out a number that isn't yet determined. For all we know it could be like the gasoline tax and amount to a quarter a gallon, not 6-9 dollars as you suggest.

    Besides, if it's like a carbon tax used in Denmark then the money collected would be turned around and mostly refunded to the taxpayers as a form of redistribution from heavy energy users to those who use less in order to encourage efficiency.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    July 9, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    This discussion would be more germane if the worst case scenario for climate change would be a couple of degrees of warming or just a couple of bucks more at the pump when the rest of the world has paid that and more for years. If it was really just an issue in need of political horse trading we could give some here give some there, but is it? If the science is correct the result could well be that Richards boogie man ("sit in the dark, deep inside a cave") could become reality.

    Can we "afford" to do nothing?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 9, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    Mike - I agree with you about the usage of SS funds being mixed, it is wrong and needs to be stopped.... but, not a single person has not been denied benefits yet. The fund is solvent. What insurance companies have done isn't the answer.... see what AIG managed to do with their policy holders funds.... and how the government had to bail them out.... and now the leader of AIG during its crash is suing the government because he lost money. Pretending the private markets have our interest more in mind than the governments is just totally misguided.

    Meanwhile - lost in DC would have us believe that the private markets haven't wasted billions of people dollars. In one corner we have the pro-green crowd.... in the other.... we have traditional energy crowd as represented by Enron. Lets ring the bell and see which one is the biggest failure.

    lost in DC- exactly how many jobs across multiple states has green energy wiped out in one of their mistakes? You want to start adding up the cost of Exxon-Valdize and BP Deep Sea Horizon? Lets try to be a little balanced here...

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 9, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    Re: "You're just pulling random numbers out of thin air..."

    Yeah, but unfortunately, they're some of the same numbers being suggested by economists and commodities investors that are not wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Obama regime.

    And, if your own random numbers [which we'd love to hear] suggest that energy prices are NOT going to "necessarily skyrocket," -- as even your anointed one admits -- you're bound to be seriously disappointed over the next couple years.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    July 9, 2013 9:30 a.m.


    Again you are ill informed. Climate-change naysayers like to cherry pick the 16 year figure. Why 16 years? Why not 20 or 15 or 25 or 10 or 30? Because all those numbers would show an average increase in global temperature. The 16-year figure works because 16 years ago we had a very atypical spike in temperatures. It was the hottest year ever. It was an anomaly, but so if you use that as a starting point, then yes, the average since then has not increased. But if you look at the overall trend, the earth is getting hotter. And it's getting a lot hotter than air temperatures indicate. Much of the increased heat is being trapped in the oceans. In time, that heat will be released, and then the fun begins. So go ahead, conservatives, keep your heads in the sand. When you finally pull them out, you'll find that the earth is a lot hotter than you thought.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 9, 2013 9:15 a.m.


    "It'll be interesting to see what you think in a year or two, when gasoline is $10-15 a gallon, electricity has "necessarily skyrocketed" to quadruple its current,"

    You're just pulling random numbers out of thin air...

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 9, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    I am actually disappointed in how little President Obama has done to change Global Warming in his first term.

    I mean really... what has he done? Especially after blaming President Bush and Republicans for causing Global Warming and then claiming he was the only candidate who could solve the problem.

    And the Governor Herbert angle?? Now we're blaming Global Warming on Utah and Governor Herbert?

    We need to give this partisan hero worship a rest. In truth Governor Herbert didn't cause Global Warming... and President Barack Obama has done almost nothing to fix it.

    Both Herbert and Obama are just "politicians"... doing what politicians do (basically nothing unless it's good for PR and may get their party re-elected).

    I expected President Obama to do MUCH more to change Global Warming in his first term (especially after all his grandiose promises). I expected Gov Herbert to do about what he did (he is in no position to fix global warming, he didn't promise to solve global warming if elected, the Gov of Utah should focus on the Utah economy and Utah jobs, which involves energy exploration in Utah. Yes, even the evil tar sands)

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    July 9, 2013 8:33 a.m.


    How much of the oil from the Keystone Pipeline do you think will actually be used to lower gas prices to the poorest Americans vs. how much of the oil is to be shipped overseas to a bidder who will pay more?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    July 9, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    @lost in DC – “…chinese and indians who are pumping out much more pollution than we ever dreamed of and whose pollution levels are INCREASING while ours are DECREASING.”

    @Mike Richards – “Sorry, but Obama doesn't give a hoot about climate change.”

    Glad to see you guys are finally on board!

    Now if we can just convince the Chinese and Indians maybe we can begin to make real progress in reducing pollution and mitigate whatever effects it is having on the planet.

    Curious what changed your minds? Did you finally make peace with science (i.e., are you guys good with the whole “evolution” thing now too)?

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    July 9, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    Agreed! Well said Kristen.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    July 9, 2013 7:40 a.m.

    Be sure and thank Obama for the billions of wasted and squandered taxpayer monies on failed green energy projects and especially for killing the Keystone Pipeline which guarantees high gasoline prices to the poorest Americans who can afford it the least! In the meantime, the earth has not warmed for 16 years!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 9, 2013 7:23 a.m.

    Re: "Thank you to President Barack Obama for courageously unveiling a bold Climate Action Plan . . . ."

    It'll be interesting to see what you think in a year or two, when gasoline is $10-15 a gallon, electricity has "necessarily skyrocketed" to quadruple its current, and you'll only be running your furnace an hour or two a day in the winter to keep pipes from freezing, since that's all the natural gas you can afford.

    And your job, of course, has been outsourced to China, India, or Russia, where there are no looney artificial government limits on energy use.

    We'll see how bold and courageous you think Obama is then.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 9, 2013 7:23 a.m.

    Sorry, but Obama doesn't give a hoot about climate change. He wants to impose Al Gore's "carbon tax" on us. If you think that you're paying excessive amounts of your personal budget for gas and electricity, just wait until the government imposes a "carbon tax". Your bills will double.

    Look at Social Security. It was just another tax levied on us. The revenue from SS was to be used to pay us a modest retirement. Regular insurance companies would have invested that money so that it would have grown sufficiently to pay the policy holder when promised. The federal government mixed SS funds with the general fund. All that is left is an I.O.U.

    Obamacare is just a tax. We pay about 18% of our income for health care. Obama wants that 18%. He will mix it into the general fund where it won't be available for health care.

    A "carbon tax" will not stop "pollution".

    Since we don't sit in the dark, deep inside a cave, we need heat and light in our lives. Gas, oil and coil produce that heat and light. A "carbon tax" would take away our heat and light.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 9, 2013 6:40 a.m.


    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    July 9, 2013 5:00 a.m.

    yeah, Kirsten, he is SO brave standing up to the chinese and indians who are pumping out much more pollution than we ever dreamed of and whose pollution levels are INCREASING while ours are DECREASING.

    of wait, he is not.

    Thank you, Governor Herbert, for working to ensure Utahans have employment so we can put food in our bellies, clothes on our backs, and shelter over our heads; unlike BO, who is more concerned about protecting his political cronnies' investments in ill-designed "green" companies.