90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
What Obama’s ‘Climate Action Plan’ Has In Store

The president moves on climate change. We’ll look at his program and its likely impact — climate-wise and economy-wise.

Last month, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases, hit the historic level of 400 parts per million — deep in the danger zone.

Tuesday, President Barack Obama rolled out a big, new plan for the United States to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, to do America’s part in attacking global climate change.

The plan skirts Congress, where gridlock has ruled on climate issues. It riles conservatives who just say no to the whole idea. It will be challenged on legal grounds, economic grounds. But it’s out there now. And it’s bold.

This hour, On Point: The president’s push on climate.

–Tom Asbhrook

Guests

Coral Davenport, energy and environment correspondent for The National Journal (@CoralMDavenport)

Joe Romm, fellow at the Center for American Progress and editor of Climate Progress.

David Kreutzer, research fellow in energy economics and climate change at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. (@dwkreutzer)

Video

On Tuesday, June 25, President Obama spoke on climate change at Georgetown University. Read the transcript or watch his full address:

From Tom’s Reading List

The White House: Fact Sheet: President Obama’s Climate Action Plan — “We have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet that’s not polluted or damaged, and by taking an all-of-the-above approach to develop homegrown energy and steady, responsible steps to cut carbon pollution, we can protect our kids’ health and begin to slow the effects of climate change so we leave a cleaner, more stable environment for future generations.”

The White House: Infographic: President Obama’s Plan To Fight Climate Change — “President Obama has announced a series of executive actions to reduce carbon pollution, prepare the U.S. for the impacts of climate change, and lead international efforts to address global climate change.”

President Obama’s ‘Climate Action Plan’

Tweets During The Live Show

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • S_Mangion

    One simple thing hat Obama could do would be to lower the speed limit.  Benefits would include:  less gasoline consumed; more money in our wallets; lower carbon outputs. 
    But the American people will not accept a lower speed limit. 

    Instead we will have a complex scheme that the public will not truly understand and one that will cost the average American more out of pocket money.

    In the meantime China and Asia and Africa will continue to grow and emit greenhouse gases. . . .

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      feel free to drive slower if you want

    • madnomad554

       FINALLY!!! Someone else who shares in this ideal. I have been preaching this since 05′ when gas first went above $2 a gallon. But even at $4 a gallon, most on the interstate are doing between 75 and 80 MPH and having my cruise set at 70, usually gets me every dirty look short of the middle finger.

      And scratch your head over this…our government requires the big three car makers entire fleets, to average a targeted MPG and that number raises about every three years or so.  As you know, highway mileage is based on 60 MPH, yet the fed’s have the interstate speed limit set at 70, thereby effectively undoing the very mileage standard they require.

      A good 95% of cars on the interstate are doing at least 75 MPH and a handful of states are raising their limits to 80. Which means a lot of cars running around at about 85 MPH. Encouraging more 4 cylinder powered cars would help too, as I’m not sure most are willing to let go of their gasoline power. Detroit is still churning out 300 and 400HP V-8′s…a good 90% of the population only needs 4 cylinders.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        if you  want to save gas feel free to drive slow. my car gets better mileage at 75 than it does at 60.

        • madnomad554

          No one can piss down my back and tell me it’s raining and I won’t buy that bridge in the dessert…

           http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml

          http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/speeding_and_mpg.html

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            thanks for providing a link to prove my point
            ” each vehicle reaches its optimal fuel economy at a different speed (or range of speeds), “

    • arydberg

      The gas crisis of the 70′s showed that lower speed limits would also save 50 to 100 lives every week but we want to go fast.    Meanwhile we give up both our freedoms  and our privivacy because of a terrorist threat that has killed 2 people in the last 10 years.    Something is rotten in Washington.   

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Lowering the speed limit is not necessary, changing gearing ratios would achieve the same thing. Do you think it is just coincidence that new vehicles always weigh in right around the target mpg?

      • Don_B1

        Trucking companies did that during the previous lowered speed limits, but it is hard to overcome the fact that air resistance increases with the square of the speed. This becomes the dominant force opposing motion when the speed reaches mid-fifties to 60 mph, even with the better streamlining cars have today.

    • donniethebrasco

       If we lower the speed limit to 25 miles per hour and make everyone drive a golf cart, we could save tons of lives.

    • hennorama

      S_Mangion – as you wrote, “the American people will not accept a lower speed limit.”

      This is a major rationale behind the Obama administration’s increasing vehicle fuel efficiency standards last August.

      The new standards will increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by model year 2025.  These new standards build on the success of the more recent standards, which were designed to raised average fuel efficiency to 35.5 MPG by 2016, and which are already helping significantly.

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    I wonder if he will be as effective at saving the planet as he has been at ending the deficit and paying off our debts

    • HonestDebate1

      Well, he has kept temperature at bay, this wasn’t EVEN supposed to happen what with all this CO2. Maybe he is the messiah.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        perhaps next he will turn the oceans to wine

    • pete18

      Yes and you’ll hear the same reaction to those “successful” results, “But he inherited the worst planet since the depression.”

      • donniethebrasco

         It’s still Bush’s fault?

    • Don_B1

      The deficit has fallen faster than after any other recession, and that fact, more than any other, has been responsible for the slow recovery of jobs.

      Do you actually read the news from a wide range of sources, or just the ones that are constructed to show you only what you want to know, whether it is true or false?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        you realize “lowering the deficit” just means “running up absurd debt less fast” the deficit should be ended. we should pay off our debts. its foolish to blame the “slow recovery of jobs” on any one factor. I am not sure we can even describe what is occurring as such.  good high paying full time jobs have been replaced by low wage low benefit jobs. I don’t know that jobs will ever “recover”. human labor is becoming obsolete.
        I find your question supercilious and it made me laugh, I would love to know what news sources you think I read or don’t and which are “true” and which are “false”.

        • Don_B1

          And it was Republicans, remember Republicans, under President George W. Bush, who ran up the deficit the most in history without any, repeat ANY, huge crisis to justify it, in the process creating the Great Recession (made “great” by neglecting the necessary regulation of the financial industry and the derivatives used to overleverage them) which required the stimulus and cut the revenues that would have prevented the huge deficits in the years since President Obama took office.

          Remember oh ye of little memory (except for irrelevant facts), the first thing the Bush administration did when it saw the surpluses that the Clinton administration had left was to cut taxes to end it because if the debt was ever, ever, ever paid off, what would the government do with the future surpluses?

          Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan weighed in, against lowering the debt to zero, and though some of what he said was specious, it is necessary for there to be some level of federal debt for citizens to be able to buy when they consider other investments too risky. This allows those who are saving money to be able to choose an investment from a range of risk, where the government investment risk is the least.

          But your demonstration of profound ignorance of history and economics which you demonstrated again in your answer to my question is what prompted me to ask the question in the first place.

          I take no pleasure in seeing you laugh at your own ignorance without understanding what you are doing, demonstrating that ignorance.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            what makes me laugh is that you think I am some kind of republican or George bush fan. what makes me laugh is your unfounded condescension. how did you come to such a conclusion? I am a little disappointed you did not tell me what news sources I see and do not see and what are good and what are bad. its fun for me to hear the fantasies you have about me. you know you are projecting right?

  • donniethebrasco

    This is a payoff to the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).

    The only thing I am trying to figure out is how Obama gets paid.  He must have a proxy in the company.

  • donniethebrasco

    People get ready, there is a train coming.

    Its going to run over you with energy prices.
    Get ready for electricity that is $0.50/kwh and $8 gasoline.

    Don’t need no ticket, just tax the rich. (Who already pay for 60% of our government)

    • Shag_Wevera

      …but own/control 75-90% of the assetts.  Quite a nice deal.

  • madnomad554

    Gas per gallon could be sold based on engine size or based on the number of cylinders under the hood. I think about 50 cents per gallon per cylinder.  

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       That idea is mad.

      The beauty of fuel efficiency is you end up paying less because you need less.  See, the market works.

      • madnomad554

         You may have misunderstood or I didn’t explain thoroughly…Multiply the number of cylinders times 50 cents. So a 4 cylinder would be $2 per gallon, a 6 cylinder would be $3 per gallon and so on. My two cylinder motorcycle would be $1 a gallon. Eight cylinders pollutes far more than 4. The ideal would be to encourage more smaller engines, so as to reduce pollution and reduce overall oil consumption.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           No, I understood completely.  Your proposal simply doesn’t make sense.

          IF the 8 cylinder car uses more gas than the 4 cylinder car then the owner will buy more gas to go the same number of miles.

          There are 6 cylinder hybrids that use less gas per mile than many 4 cylinder cars.

          IF you want to reduce gasoline consumption then raise the gas tax (btw – I don’t agree with raising the gas tax) but don’t pick arbitrary solutions.  You will never get it right.  Let the market pick solutions.

        • https://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

          “Eight cylinders pollutes far more than 4.”

          tl;dr: You have no idea what you’re talking about. Please make a better attempt not to broadcast your ignorance on the internet.

          The level of pollutants emitted by an engine is a function of lots of variables, one of which is engine displacement (e.g., “5 liter”). The number of cylinders, however, has basically nothing to do with it: in fact, one can easily argue that an inline 6-cylinder engine will be more efficient than a 4-cylinder engine of the same displacement because it will run more smoothly.

          Car manufacturers prefer engines with fewer cylinders because they are smaller and less complex. Drivers prefer engines with more cylinders because they are better.

          As others over the years have sarcastically pointed out, one measure we could take to substantially reduce the level of pollutants from cars would be to replace all the 20 year old Hondas with Kyoto NOW! stickers with brand new V8 pickup trucks. Vehicle age matters much more than even engine size, because emission technology has improved so dramatically over the past two decades.

          • jefe68

            I guess he does not understand that lawn mowers pollute more than a car engine does and they are single cylinder engines.

      • DrewInGeorgia

        The market shirks.

        I had a 1990 Honda CRX HF that ran on regular gasoline and averaged 54 mpg. What’s the average mpg for passenger vehicles these days?

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          I can’t be bothered with that figure.

          Hey, I’m too busy fantasizing about a world in which my commute from subdivision to office park requires a “truck” that gets 22mpg is “class leading fuel economy”. And represents a “market choice” with all costs internalized.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            And how about diesel? Are we going to do something about that? The
            exhaust fumes have been proven beyond any doubt to be carcinogenic yet
            the push for diesel powered vehicles remains because they are “more
            efficient”. 54mpg vehicle from 1990 running on regular gasoline says
            otherwise. Time to wake up.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Baby steps. I consider it a miracle that we have low-sulfur diesel in the US, finally.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            do you think the exhaust from a gas car is non carcinogenic? new diesel cars are very clean and much more efficient. your 1990 does not have all the airbags and other safety equipment and emission controls required on new vehicles. my 12 year old car gets better mileage than my new one even though they have the same displacement. mileage has most to do with how you drive anyways. the world record holder for mileage drives an ’86 civic and gets 118 mpg. not to mention that diesels can burn vegetable based fuels directly and when doing so produce zero net emissions

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Nah, I think “exhaust from a gas car” is peachy keen. Instigator.

            Do you think I don’t know what the effects of more stringent emission control systems are? Weight is as much a factor as anything else. The additional weight of required equipment (including airbags) could easily be offset by a change of the materials used in vehicle construction. But it isn’t. It’s too expensive right? What about the additional fluids, belts, hoses, parts, and maintenance that ALL combustion driven engines require? I haven’t had the CRX for twenty years. We don’t continue to use Diesel because we have to, we continue to use it because we choose to.

            I’m for primarily electric transportation and freight. Then the ‘nostalgic’ folks could still keep their beloved combustion engines and it wouldn’t be such a critical issue. I love them too, just not more than I love humanity. Primarily electric is the only complete solution I can see and it cannot be derived from the same old nightmarish sources that provide it now. Convert all freight and public transportation to electric and be done with it. I know, it’s just too expensive. And I’m just a dirty hippie.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            lol CRX I was going to guess civic.
            all freight trains are hybrid vehicles. I think electric is the best way forward for vehicles also. I also think that biodiesel can be a large part of the solution.  cost is always going to be a factor or we could all be driving tesla roadsters.

      • hennorama

        WftC – states are up in arms a bit, due to lower gasoline tax revenue from lower gasoline usage.  This is resulting in some states looking to increase registration taxes on highly fuel efficient vehicles.

        At least ten states are looking into this option, according to a recent article on foxnews.com.

        See:
        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/09/states-look-to-tax-hybrid-and-electric-car-owners-to-recoup-road-funding/

        • Don_B1

          It sounds like something Fox News would do: emphasize some scatterbrain idea of the fossil fuel industry to belittle energy efficiency.

          There have been attempts to prevent legislation that would increase energy efficiency, one a veto threat by Maine Governor LePaige, and others.

          I will attempt to get links later when I have more time.

          • hennorama

            Don_B1 – The Maine House has overriden LePage’s veto of the energy bill LD 1559, by a vote of 121-11. 91 percent of those present and voting in the House voted to override. The Senate, which originally passed LD 1559 by a 28-7 vote, may act to override tomorrow.

            In addition, both chambers of the Maine legislature just overrode LePage’s budget veto about an hour ago.

            Things get a bit crazy in Augusta this time of year, and there’s a good deal of last minute action taken.

            “The [Maine] House voted 114-34 [77% voting to override], followed by a 26-9 vote in the Senate [74% voting to override], easily reaching the two-thirds majority of present and voting members needed to override LePage’s [budget] veto.”

            There are 89 Democrats, 58 Republicans, and 4 Independents in the Maine House, and the Senate has 19, 15, and 1, respectively. This means that significant numbers of Republicans voted to override the vetoes of their fellow Republican, Governor LePage.

            The Legislators seemed to work very hard to craft a veto-proof budget, and their efforts clearly paid off. It was reported that they worked for 40 straight hours to get the bipartisan budget passed initially, but it only took about 4 hours of debate to override the veto.

            See:
            http://www.newmainetimes.org/articles/2013/06/26/legislative-round/

            http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/national/northeast/2013/06/maine_lawmakers_override_gov_lepage_budget_veto

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Obama claims he is doing this for the children.  However, his actions announced yesterday will have little effect on the children. The fracking revolution has reduced the US C02 emissions 10x all the ‘green’ solutions put together in just a few short years.  Also, while US emissions are going down, the Chinese emissions are increasing rapidly.

     However, Obama’s actions and inactions on  the debt and deficit WILL have a profound negative effect on the children and the grand-children.

    • DrewInGeorgia

      “The fracking revolution has reduced the US C02 emissions 10x all the ‘green’ solutions put together in just a few short years.”

      Get back to us in twenty years when the ACTUAL effects fracking has on water supplies literally comes to light. I think you’ll find that NG proprietary cocktail a bit rough going down. I’m sure there will be a Subsidy chaser to make it easier to swallow though…right?

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    IF the President was serious about CO2 then he would be pushing nuclear advancements.  20% of our electrical power comes from carbon free nuclear power today.  However, we have stopped advancing the technology.  The Chinese are aggressively  developing Thorium molten salt reactors based on research developed by the US government in the ’60s but was scrapped because it couldn’t be used to spawn nuclear weapons.  The NRC needs major reform because it is now structured to block nuclear advancement and protect the entrenched interests.  It is incredible how we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot, time and time again.  When are we going to wake up?

    • Don_B1

      Electricity from a nuclear plant built today would cost at least $0.25 per KWH plus delivery. Enjoy paying for that when wind and solar are half that today and going down fast.

      But I am glad to see you putting your money where your mouth is.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      newts moon base could have had America corner the market in H3

      • Dataninja

        You would have to hate it?

        No weather on the Moon, so you can’t do your dumb weather report making fun of weather disasters.

        http://youtu.be/yN2_5jlpMFM

  • Shag_Wevera

    I don’t for a second believe that we are ready to do anything about this yet. 

  • TomK_in_Boston

    Finally!, but I fear that as usual Obama’s talk is a lot better than his walk. I liked the reference to the “flat earth society”, as that is a good description of the climate deniers. 

    I suspect new Sec Energy Moniz has something to do with this. He is a hard headed, very forceful, engineer from MIT and will not hold back in describing the fossil-fuel-funded “flat earthers”. He knows what CO2 does to climate. The earth has always been very hot at 400 ppm, and it’s insane to say “it will be different this time” – tho that’s exactly what the fossil-fuel-funded righties do say.

    Unfortunately I think we’re already seriously effed. Sea level rise might be the worst. Some areas will be uninhabitable and others will suffer a lot more in storms.

    Sandy already cost hundreds of $millions. Imagine several Sandys a year. We can’t afford to just let this happen.

    What can we actually do? The righty TP, a “war on coal”, wd be a great first step. Then on to all the alternatives.

    Obama’s speech and Markey’s win help with the Broonz pain :)

    • HonestDebate1

      Imagine several Sandys a year.”
      You don’t have to imagine, we’ve had them since the beginning of time. 

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         26 hurricanes hit the US during Grover Cleveland’s  Presidency and only 3 have hit the US during Obama’s 4 plus years (actually it is only 2 since Sandy wasn’t a hurricane when it made landfall).  What were CO2 levels in 1885?

        • Don_B1

          Right, it was a combined hurricane and nor’easter megastorm that relied on the hurricane part for a lot of the water buildup from sweeping the Atlantic waters from as much as 900 miles east into New York Harbor.

          And the blocking high that steered Sandy west into New York-New Jersey was an effect of climate change.

          The warming waters of the ocean gave Sandy the increased power over many other hurricanes.

      • TomK_in_Boston

        Wow, I didn’t know the NYC subway was that old.

        • HonestDebate1

          Hurricanes do not know the difference between crowded subways and vacant wilderness.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       TomK, just to correct the record:  during the late Ordovician, CO2 levels were 10X current values, and there was an ice age.

      • TomK_in_Boston

        It is amazing how you focus on one thing that supports your ideology and ignore 99 that go against it.

        The obvious conclusion, without fossil-fuel-funded ‘splainin away, is that high CO2 = high temp and high sea levels. 

        http://rpmccarthy.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/carbon-dioxide-temperature.jpg

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Tom, you use the word “always”.  I simply corrected the record.  A simple thank you would have sufficed.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Sure, but you corrected the record in a way that indicated it changed the conclusion. As long as we agree it doesn’t thank you.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             OK.

  • donniethebrasco

    It is horrible that the sea level has been raised 100 feet.

    Oh, wait, that didn’t happen.

    Average world temperatures have been going down since 1998 (unless you cook the books like East Anglia).

    http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

    • Don_B1

      You and your fellow travelers are the ones “cooking the books” by cherry-picking the year 1998, a particularly warm year for understandable reasons: that was the last year that an El Niño occurred and it was the strongest one in the 50 years of documented measurements of the Pacific El Niño-Southern Oscillation; see:

      http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/eln/rcnt.rxml

      This oscillation has tended to have a ten-year cycle, but there have been extended periods without an El Niño at least twice in the past; see:

      http://climatecrocks.com/2013/06/01/the-weekend-wonk-trenberth-on-ocean-heat-and-surface-temps/

      In particular the graph just above the heading, “Global warming is here to stay,” shows two other ten-year periods where surface temperature hit a near-flat “plateau.”

      I know you will not respond with anything approaching a serious comment, but keep posting so I can show your ignorance.

  • donniethebrasco

    How to get elected:

    “Let’s make gas $12/gallon (but first lets start charging by the liter so that people don’t realize that $4/liter is really $12/gallon)

    Also, electricity should be $0.50 per KWh.”

    Please, liberals, push this agenda.  You will be out and NPR will have no more government support.

    • John Cedar

      How to get elected:
      Secretly control all the education and media but talk radio and use it to tell lies about your opposing party 24/7

      • https://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

        As if the opposition party is full of misunderstood saints.

        Face it: both parties suck, and neither is motivated by the welfare of individual Americans.

      • Don_B1

        Sounds like the Republican Party agenda for cutting public school support in favor of vouchers too small to help the poor and then use Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to convince the science ignorant that everything is going their way.

        It is interesting that Republican elites are much more for putting down the middle class than Democratic “elites.”

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Obama announced his plan for Democrats to lose the Senate in 2014 yesterday.

    • John Cedar

      Pfft…which state Senators will be ousted?

      I know only one thing for sure about this global warming…I am going to make money off it no matter what they decide to do about it.

  • donniethebrasco

    People create carbon everyday.

    TAX BREATHING

    • John

      The Troll has returned

      • DrewInGeorgia

        You mean he left at some point? Wish I would’ve been around during his absence, my timing needs some work.

    • nj_v2

      Translation” “Look at me! I’m a flaming, ignorant jackass!”

  • donniethebrasco

    This will solve the immigrant problem.

    Eventually most of us will all know what Mexicans go through in the US, because we will be illegals in Mexico.

  • donniethebrasco

    Flat earthers still believe that world temperatures are going up.

    • Don_B1

      Surface temperatures are not the only measure of a warming earth which will cause devastation to all advanced life forms on earth. See my earlier posts.

  • donniethebrasco

    War on coal is a war on freedom.

  • donniethebrasco

    The free market defeats coal because of fracking.

  • donniethebrasco

    It is not just coal mining.  It is also the industries that use the energy created by the coal-fired power plants, like plastics, etc.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       40% of our electric power comes from cheap coal.  So the guest doesn’t believe that is SIGNIFICANT?

      • MidBosque

        US electricity generation by fuel source: In 2012 coal was 37.4 percent. In  2006 coal was 49 percent.  These are EIA figures. Coal will continue to decline as a percentage over the coming decade according to all analysts, to be replaced by natural gas, wind, solar, geothermal, and dramatic gains in energy efficiency and demand response, all the while cleaning up the power delivery system and saving rate payers money. Why this is a bad thing begs understanding, excepting those who unwisely choose to remain invested in coal.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           I have no issue replacing coal IF it saves the rate payers money.

          The Cape Wind project in MA will cost  rate payers 3-5x their current rates.  It starts at $.18/kwh and increases 3.5% every year over 20 years.  The average wholesale cost of electricity in 2012 was $.036/kwh.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            “If it saves ratepayers money”?

            How about “lets price energy at what it really costs?”

            The subsidies for extractives and nuclear are borne elsewhere than their electric bills. Subsidies for other technologies are pennies by comparison.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            “Subsidies for other technologies are pennies by comparison.”

            Wrong.  Subsidies for wind and solar are much higher on a per khw basis.

            Many of the subsidies don’t show up on your bill directly because they are paid out of income tax credits and taxpayer funded loans, etc.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Every subsidy is higher per unit of output at the beginning.

            Don’t try to fool us by comparing that to a mature industry.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          so what are we going to do with all this  coal? I guess we will sell it to china where they build a coal powered plant an average of once per week? I am going to hold on to my coal stock.

  • donniethebrasco

    Wind and solar do not replace a single KWH of Coal, oil, gas, hydro, or nuclear capacity.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Only 84k jobs in coal mining.

    And remember: The future of coal mining is mountaintop removal, which provides fewer mining jobs in WV than florists do.

    Maybe Mitch McConnell is just holding on to the memory of coal mining jobs as the Senator from Massey. If only someone would ask him to his face.

    • donniethebrasco

      Obama has ruined 4 million jobs.  84K is nothing.

      • TomK_in_Boston

        School is out! 

      • Don_B1

        The Tea/Republican Congress is responsible for the slow recovery from the Great Recession; they are the ones responsible for the continuing Lesser Depression.

        But interesting to hear you don’t think stopping coal mining would hurt the overall job problem.

    • DrewInGeorgia

      And I notice there was no mention of the fact that Black Lung is still kicking around. Or the number of deaths resulting from coal mining “accidents”. Why am I not surprised?

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Obama was running pro-coal ads in Ohio during his re-election campaign.

    What happened? Fraud?

    Obama’s approval in Ohio is now below 40%.

  • donniethebrasco

    The Center for American Progress is a 501(c)3.  It sounds like a liberal hack.

    They were given IRS approval in a nanosecond.

    • Don_B1

      CAP is a policy development/analysis group, which does not support or attack candidates fior office or contribute to campaigns.

      There is a separate entity which does not give donors a tax deduction where candidates which meet progressive standards are supported.

      Note that is the opposite of the Karl Rove, Koch, etc., operations.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Here comes the collision between any guest from the Heritage Foundation and science.

    Tom, don’t let this become another “public radio polite” failure.

    And I see that the Hertigate guy spieled his breath control talking points, and then interrupted the other guest in the middle of that guest’s first sentence.

    Classy, classy stuff. So predictable.

    • Don_B1

      It is called the “Gish Gallop” debate technique, exemplified by the rash of posts at the beginning of this webpage, with the first xxx posts full of distortions and lies interspersed with snark by the “regular suspects on this site.

      The technique is exemplified by the “Gish Gallop” debater putting out a number of false claims and before the opposition can debunk even the first one, the “galloper” is on to a new one. In this way the listener is overwhelmed and tends to think the false claims are reasonable as they never get shown false.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Just your saying “Gish Gallop” in public will get you on my good side, y’know.

        But it is amusing to read people using it on the internet (which goes on forever) and thinking that has the same effect as a limited-time TV or radio show.

        Like any good leftie, I’m familiar with it to the point that figuring any interview on The Evening News is a waste of my time.

  • DrewInGeorgia

    How many jobs would a cohesive push to cover every square inch of roof in the US with photovoltaic sheeting or cells produce? How much energy could be generated?

    “We can’t afford to!”
    We can’t afford not to.

    • DeJay79

       I LOVE THIS IDEA!

      • DrewInGeorgia

        As always the problem is not a lack of conceivable solutions, the problem is a lack of willingness to implement them.

    • hennorama

      DrewInGeorgia – as in many things, California has been ahead of the curve on this, with the state-supported California Solar Initiative (CSI). CSI expanded state support for solar technology, and is one of the best things former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did during his time in office, promoting a vision of a “Million Solar Roofs” in California.

      A significant program milestone was reached in November 2011, when the total installed rooftop solar photovoltaic capacity in CA exceeded 1,000 megawatts in total. This is enough to power between 750,000 and 1 million homes, depending on the region.

      See:
      http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/puc/energy/solar/aboutsolar.htm

      http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/programs/million-solar-roofs

      • DrewInGeorgia
      • Don_B1

        Some time back in the 1980s, I believe, California separated the return on fuel costs from profits so that the power industry was given incentives to promote efficiency and homeowner installation of solar (hot water and/or electric power), which, while raising the electric rates, has kept the electric BILL near flat compared to the bill for other states.

        The Governator’s action was the next step in this progression.

        Note that the separation of generation and delivery utilities was NOT part of this and gave companies like Enron the ability to manipulate time-varying generation costs, bilking CA out of some $8 billion or more while President Bush’s FERC looked on silently.

  • BlueNH

    Tom,

    If you continue to allow the climate deniers (i.e. Heritage Foundation) to spout their lies, you will lose more listeners and donors.

    It’s 2013, for crissakes, time to move ahead with climate action. Leave the deniers in the 20th century.

  • donniethebrasco

    Burn the witch.

    Science has died a little today.  Global Temperature going DOWN.

    • nj_v2

      Though it’s barely possible given the starting point, what’s going down is your credibility.

      • sTv0

        oooh, !  points awarded!  Nice jab!

      • jefe68

        Did he have credibility in the first place?

  • DeJay79

    David Kreutzer Is still lacking the simple view of common sense. What is stopping him from perceiving reality? Money i guess would be the answer to that question

    • Don_B1

      It is the classic idea found in Upton Sinclair’s famous observation: “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”

  • nontoxicissexy

    David Kreutzer, you sound ridiculous. But by all means, keep talking- you’re just helping to make the case that we need to act now.

  • donniethebrasco

    In 5 billion years, the sun will engulf us all.  Stop the sun!

    • DeJay79

       I know you are a troll but I still like this comment because it is funny!

  • Yar

    Energy prices will increase, jobs will be lost?  Where does that money go?  Money is trading work over time, who benefits and who pays?  Doing any job right creates more jobs!

    • donniethebrasco

       It goes to Obama hacks at the CCX.

      • Yar

        You just love to hate, don’t you?

  • nj_v2

    The Heritage Hack is lying.

    Climate models have generally underpredicted the severity of climate change effects.

    “Natural” effects only account for minor perturbations in the overall warming trend.

    • donniethebrasco

      But the earth is cooling.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mike.lints.5 Mike Lints

       Climate models have been uniformly and spectacularly unsuccessful at predicting anything that has subsequently occurred.  They fail to satisfy the basic requirement of science, i.e. a testable hypothesis.

      • nj_v2

        The basic tenants of global climate change do not depend on the accuracy of predictive models for their legitimacy.

        Even given that, your statement is bullsh*t not accurate.

        On the whole, climate prediction models are very accurate.

        http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/27/climate-change-models-predict-remarkably-accurate-results/

        [[ "The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree." ]]

  • donniethebrasco

    Let’s delay global warming by 10 years by bringing technology back 200 years.

  • burroak

    Air pollution, where is it heading without this serious debate
    Observe some Chinese cities; air so polluted that face masks are worn outside.
    Why should it not be possible to find solutions that could be environmentally and economically positive?
    Science is serious study, should we at least consider the vast amounts of its data?

    • donniethebrasco

      Air pollution is different than Carbon Dioxide.

      Plants need CO2 to live.

  • donniethebrasco

    This is all marketing for the CCX from Chicago.

    There is nothing we can do about climate change.

    If every rode a bicycle and grows their own food, we will all die.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Tom should ask Joe Romm if he has a financial stake in the CCX.

  • donniethebrasco

    Al Gore is laughing at you all.

    He takes private jets everywhere.  Sold a TV station to oil sheik.  Owns 50,000 sq. ft. houses with ice cold air conditioning.

    Now he wants you to kill the coal industry.

    LMAO

  • donniethebrasco

    Responsible father

    1. Saddles my grandchildren with 300,000 in debt.
    2. Kills the coal industry (and the steel industry)

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    I feel sorry for a blue-collar worker who thinks that Massey is the organization which is going to save him.

    • donniethebrasco

       Massey isn’t going to save him.  It is just going to not get in his way.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        You don’t know much about Massey’s history.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          You could remove “Massey’s” from that sentence and it would still be just as applicable.

  • Satwa

    Please ask your guest talking against this, what is wrong with developing clean burning coal plants?

    Tom in Vermont

    • donniethebrasco

      The problem is that you can’t clean carbon.

      • jefe68

        You ought to know, it seems that’s all you have in between your ears.

      • Satwa

         You can capture carbon from coal plants, and store it underground, and stop it going into the atmosphere, which is what this show is about.

        • TomK_in_Boston

          Supposedly. C is 12 and O is 16, so CO2 has almost 4x the mass as C. Then you probably complex it up with something else, so it’s over 4x for sure. So my question is, where does over 4x the mass of that coal pile go?

          Coal shd be used for making products that require C, not for burning.

          • Satwa

            It turns into glass.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Fine, but you said capture the CO2, and I asked about storing all that mass. Saying you make a glass doesn’t answer.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      “Clean coal” is an oxymoron, mainly a scam from the fossil fuel industry to let them go on doing what they’re doing.

  • donniethebrasco

    Solyndra bailed out by Obama to go bankrupt.

    • sTv0

      …and Bush signed TARP into law bailing out the banks…

  • Bennie BER

    How ironic is it that climate CHANGE is largely fueled by good-old resistance to CHANGE. 

    • donniethebrasco

       In theory.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    China plans to TRIPLE its electrical generation by 2030 — mostly from coal.  They already significantly exceed US CO2 emissions.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Yea! We can do nothing and feel OK!

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Obama’s plan is a panacea for big business corporate lobbyists.

        No thanks.

        http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-turns-climate-change-into-corporate-bonanza/article/2532397

        However, we do need an energy plan that helps the economy in the short term and long term.

         

        • TomK_in_Boston

          Well, he is a big business conservadem. How we need a new FDR! Geez, I’d be happy with a DDE.

          It will help the economy to not have superstorms and drowned cities.

          To help the economy in the short term, why not an Apollo project on alternatives and increasing efficiency of everything? Storm proofing coastal regions? Many possibilities.

  • donniethebrasco

    Talk about CCX in Chicago.

  • Bennie BER

    Plants have all the CO2 they need. You can stop now.

    • donniethebrasco

       I have a solution.  Voluntarily reduce your carbon footprint to 0.

      Not with offsets, just cease your existence.

      • MrWakiki

        Broad thinking on your part. 

        Don’t know you, but it appears you have that republican philosophy of not attacking the problem, but attacking the character of those who show you the problems.

      • Bennie BER

        I will not follow you advice and commit suicide. You are doing a fine job killing me already.

  • MrWakiki

    Wow! So the world can end, so I can feed my kids… I think they could close all the coal plants not lose one job, all those guys can go to work help digging everyone’s head out of the ground

    • donniethebrasco

       The issue is that the world is not going to end.

      You are just going to get stupider.

      • MrWakiki

        good, someone that disagrees with 99.9 % of all climate scientist… do tell — make me smart.

      • apaddler

         The world will continue to exist.  It just may not be habitable for the human species.

      • 1Brett1

        Well, that won’t happen to you; you couldn’t get any stupider.

  • Satwa

    Please ask your guest who is denying climate change, why is he against developing clean burning coal plants?

    Tom in Vermont

    • donniethebrasco

      The issue is that clean coal still creates carbon.

      • sTv0

        No, the issue is that there is no such thing as “clean coal”…or “healthy cigarettes”.

        • Satwa

           The question was not directed at environmentalists. It was directed at the right wing climate change denier. Why is he against developing clean coal? I’m not interested in discussing clean coal, I have been for alternative technology and spoke out for it many decades ago, when people just laughed at us.

          • sTv0

            Ah, excellent!  Clean coal, therefore we agree, doesn’t exist.  CCS (Carbon Capture/Storage) is, as far as the science goes, possible; as far as the economics go, to bring it to scale to absorb the amount of CO2 necessary to reduce our greenhouse gas pollution…is not feasible.  It is being done on small scale, this much is true.  But so far, no large-scale CCS project has reached completion.  However, wind turbines are maturing nicely, solar collectors are maturing nicely, costs are dropping precipitously…what’s not to like?

  • donniethebrasco

    Everyone here that thinks Al Gore is a hero for the environment has been hoodwinked.

  • http://www.facebook.com/anita.paul.5680 Anita Paul

    I would listen to the Heritage Foundation spokesmen if he based his answers on facts instead of fair. They constantly mislead the public.  It is not right.

  • donniethebrasco

    Climate change is groupthink.

     

  • MrWakiki

    Good news, Republicans now believe there is climate change and it is from green house gases

    Bad news: they are blaming it all on Al Gore’s airplane (ironically blaming the one guy who would have changed it if Jeb Bush wasn’t part of the triangle of corruption — cheny/bush/bush)

  • DeJay79

    David Kreutzer “WWII happened because of innovation, that is why innovation is bad, lets not innovate.”

    WTF!!!!

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Heritage Foundation. ‘Nuff said.

    • donniethebrasco

      No, it means, why create WWII, where people die, to create an environment of innovation.

  • donniethebrasco

    The crazy mythology of global warming.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

       You are denying reality, Donnie.  That makes you the crazy one.

  • pszabo

    arguing that current projections will only allow for a .4 degree change by 2040 is absurd- technology will continue to improve if we begin to use it now. if we wait for technology to be perfect, it will be too late and we won’t get the necessary opportunities for changes based on what works and what doesn’t

  • donniethebrasco

    Just get East Anglia to cook the books so that CCX can make billions.

  • Nick Nigro

    I can’t tell if David Kreutzer believes in externalities or not. What about the polluter pays principle?

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      I’m having audio issues so I haven’t heard the last 10m, but I think my stock answer applies:

      The theory (that it should) runs headling into the practice that the Heritage Foundation’s funders include a number of polluters who need the veneer of “respectable” covering.

      Then we get the Libertarians saying everything we have now is normal, thereby wiping out decades of letting the extractives dump crap all over us and we have to pretend that next year is year one.

  • BlueNH

    The deniers are here with their typical refrain: Al Gore rides in planes! China and India pollute! Solyndra was bad! Plants need CO2! Temps haven’t risen! Blah Blah Blah!

    OnPoint moderator: PLEASE add an “IGNORE” button so we don’t have to scroll through all these foolish comments.

    • donniethebrasco

      Al Gore rides in private jets, which creates 500 times more carbon per mile traveled than commercial jets.

      • 1Brett1

        I thought you said humans don’t impact carbon dioxide levels regarding climate change? I thought you said carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant? 

  • donniethebrasco

    Solar and wind are the biggest wastes of money and resources.  They are only supported by their tax breaks.

    • S_Mangion

       The tax break concern very much interests me. 
      I would like to hear discussion (from On Point?) on the tax breaks for “renewables” vs all the others including oil and gas, and NUCLEAR.  Others as well?

  • MrWakiki

    New head in sand mantra:

    we can’t do anything, like we couldn’t do anything 10 years ago, like we can’t do anything in 10 years…

    dig baby dig
    drill baby drill

    Take a deep breath of all that thinking

    • donniethebrasco

      If we did everything, it wouldn’t do anything to stop climate change.

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        So, we are causing climate change – but we can’t stop climate change?

        Which is it, Donnie?

        • MrWakiki

          It’s what ever ‘the brasco’ wants to believe at the moment  he wants to believe it.

        • jefe68

          Someone should throw this guy a fish.

      • Potter

        How do you know this?

  • donniethebrasco

    Coral just corrected herself.

    Instead of saying “Solar and wind” she said “renewables” which includes hydroelectric.

    Hydro is the only renewable that makes any sense.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

       Tidal power is already working now, as is wave power, and geothermal energy is great in some places.  Biomass is also critical – we can get plenty of methane from sewage and farm waste, and not only does that provide a net-zero carbon energy source, but it would provide high quality fertilizer.

      We can get about SIXTEEN TIMES as much energy as we need from combining all renewable energy sources.

      Neil

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      bad for the ecosystem

  • DrewInGeorgia

    Just so I’m sure I understand this correctly:
    “We shouldn’t do the right thing because other countries do the wrong thing”.
    Yah, that makes perfect sense.

  • nj_v2

    There is always going to be economic consternation during technology shifts.

    Ice harvesters had a tough time when electric refrigerators came into play.

    Buggy whip manufacturers similarly suffered when internal-combustion engine vehicles started taking the roads.

  • donniethebrasco

    Calling carbon a pollutant is idiotic.

    It won’t do anything.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Too much carbon dioxide will kill you almost instantaneously.

    • 1Brett1

      Please demonstrate by breathing only carbon dioxide.

    • jefe68

      Why do I get the feeling that you were not the brightest student in science class in grade school.

  • apaddler

    Should we still be subsidizing the people who made the masts for sailing ships?  How about the buggy whip industry?

    Times change. We need to change with them or we contribute strongly to our own demise.

    As far as cost on the economy, what is the cost of massive extinctions, food shortages, and coastal flooding?

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      A “like” for historical relevance.

      But did you know about the king’s arrow? It marked the trees that were reserved for masts for the Royal Navy.

      Some things never get old: Even before the railroads and steamships phase of the industrial revolution there were natural resource shortages to contend with. Timber shortages on the lands in Europe, driven in part by shipbuilding, resulted in a lot of timber trade and exploration, almost to the point of being a cycle.

    • hennorama

      I favor supporting manual typewriter manufacturers, simply for the wonderful clickety-clack sound of the keys striking paper, and the fun little ding of the bell when the margin is reached.

      Those were the days.

      And let’s not forget the abacus and slide rule makers.

  • donniethebrasco

    Solar companies are going out of business faster than a Al Gore private jet.

    • MrWakiki

      You would look like a genius, IF (big if) you were to actually use and cite facts

    • DrewInGeorgia

      That is much more a reflection of the HUGELY subsidized giants waging a Daddy Warbucks crusade against them than it is a demonstration of any failure on renewable energy’s part. But you already knew that didn’t you?
      Of course you did, you’re the Great and Powerful Flaws.

      • hennorama

        One aspect of the Solyndra debacle that often gets lost in the discussion is the main reason the company failed.

        Its innovative cylindrical designs were superior, but relatively expensive. They had cost and other issues with their unique designs, but were ultimately overwhelmed by lower-priced standard flat panel systems, primarily from China.

        Both the US and the Chinese governments recognized the merits of supporting alternative energy companies, but the Chinese support was MASSIVE compared to the $500 million loan to Solyndra. China’s state-run banks handed out almost $30 billion in loans to 5 of their solar companies. (Suntech, Trina, JA, LDK, and Yingli Solar).

        This was unfortunate for Solyndra, but ultimately good for US consumers and other users of solar panels.

        Just a little more info for added perspective.

        You can see Solyndra’s cylindrical PV panel design here:

        http://www.solyndra.com/technology-products/cylindrical-module/

        You can see a chart of conventional silicon-based solar photovoltaic cells, per watt, here: (Notice the massive 50% drop in 2009, coincident with the beginning of Solyndra’s ultimate demise).

        http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/12/daily-chart-19

  • Chris Lunghino

    It’s important to note that coal and natural gas are not less expensive than renewable energy when externalities are included in the cost comparison. The environmental and health costs of burning coal and natural gas make them more expensive than renewable alternatives.

    Chris Ann Lunghino
    Community Sustainability USA, Inc.
    Nashville, TN

  • apaddler

     So why are we still supplying millions in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry?

    • MrWakiki

      Shhhh! that is so the industries can profit, while saying they have too much regulations

  • nj_v2

    Caller is worried about costs of “socialist” programs to address human-influenced climate change.

    What was the cost of pollution before environmental regulations made the air somewhat more breathable and prevented rivers from catching on fire?

    What’s the solution to dealing with the effects of burning fossil fuels and, eventually, dealing with the inevitable fact of inexorable price increases for fossil fuels as the supply and consumption curves continue to diverge?

  • donniethebrasco

    East Anglia science.

    • nj_v2

      ^ Prima facie evidence of the need for an “ignore selected handles” function in Disqus.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

       Are you smarter than climate scientists?  Should we base our survival on what you say, Donnie?

      Excuse me if I think it would be best to follow what climate science says.

      Neil

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        “Hide the decline”

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

           I can’t help you understand reality, when you won’t listen to reason.  You’re under the spell of the Koch brothers et al.

          My question still stands: are you smarter than virtually all the climate scientists in the world?  How do the Laws of Nature work in your reality?

        • TomK_in_Boston

          What?

  • nj_v2

    The Heritage hack is embarrassing himself.

  • MrWakiki

    Some times I wish Tom would defer from being the objective questioner and point out, “saving the taxpayer” is such a bunch of hooey.

    You want to save the taxpayer, how about saving the world they live in. How about save the taxpayer some money by stopping the subsidies oil co., banks, coal companies.

    You reel those people in, and the only way to do that is to bring about campaign reform, and you will then save the taxpayer’s some money

  • Yar

    I just figured it out: socialism is when you give your money to me and capitalism is when I give my money to you.

  • DrewInGeorgia

    Can I send the Heritage Foundation guest the cleaning bill for the projectile vomiting his vitriol during today’s show induced?

  • donniethebrasco

    “Carbon pollution” is to create the billions for CCX.

  • Itsnatural

    Nasa scientists have noticed over the past 3 or 4 summers, that every planet in the solar system is warming very slightly,   A good sign that this warming is natural..  This in turn will turn around, and things will cool down again slightly.  There are many more scientists in the world who disagree with man made climate change than there are believing in it.

    • lakiesel

      Nope. Not true. The vast majority of scientists (those that specialize in atmospheric and environmental science) agree it is real. 

      • donniethebrasco

        Climate changing – Such a moronic statement, but it is true.  That is not being argued.

        Human causes of climate change – If everyone bikes to work, drives a Prius, grows their own food, and becomes a vegan, the climate will stop changing. FALSE

        • 1Brett1

          You just built a straw man, and a flimsy one at that.

        • apaddler

           I tried to tell those dinosaurs to knock it off with the carbon emissions.

      • Itsnatural

         he said… she said…

        • lakiesel

          Just like there used to be for whether the world is round and the sun revolves around us. Greenhouse gases are so called because they warm the atmosphere. That is hard scientific fact. We are releasing and burning them at an ever-accelerating rate. Let’s use logic for a moment and see how 1+1 = 2.

    • nj_v2

      They’re crawling out of the woodwork now.

      • Itsnatural

         how did you guess, I am a woodworker!

        • nj_v2

          For your clients’ sake, let’s hope your grasp of your craft is better than your understanding of climate science.

          • jefe68

            Maybe he’s into 15th century wood working techniques.

        • jefe68

          It’s the dry rot that seems to have effected your mind.

    • bfryer

      I’d like to know where you get this verifyable information. 

      • Itsnatural

         Let me ask, Do you believe that there is such a thing as natural climate change?

        • MrWakiki

          Let me ask you, why is the fact the current change is way beyond what natural change was 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago..

          And yet you want to just think it is ‘natural’

          Why is that?

          • Itsnatural

            And the rest of the solar system?

          • jefe68

            The rest of the solar system?
            Given that there are the variables such as atmosphere, what the planets are made up off, there sizes, and the distance from the sun, don’t you think you are being a bit simplistic in your view?

             

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Are they burning coal on those other planets?

    • nj_v2

      Let’s be clear…

      [[ Nasa scientists have noticed over the past 3 or 4 summers, that every planet in the solar system is warming very slightly, ]]

      Bullcrap.

      [[  A good sign that this warming is natural.. ]]

      Bullcrap.

      [[ This in turn will turn around, and things will cool down again slightly. ]]

      Bullcrap.

      [[ There are many more scientists in the world who disagree with man made climate change than there are believing in it. ]]

      Bullcrap.

      • Itsnatural

         seems you’re so full of it that that is all that you can say,  “bullcrap” seems to keep spewing out of your mouth,. why don’t you research the subject with an open mind, rather than bull crapping on the messenger.  so typical, follow along with the mainstream message, even though it really is not at all logical, especially when there is so much evidence to the contrary, and instead of opening your mind… you say “bull crap” how immature, and  closed minded!
         

        • jefe68

          No what’s typical is you trotting on about with the flat earth society in this regard.

        • nj_v2

          Run along, your play group is missing you.

    • jefe68

      NASA scientists said this? Which ones, where is the data? 

  • donniethebrasco

    We should outlaw the internal combustion engine.

    • MrWakiki

      When we do that, could we outlaw people with closed minds?

  • lp126

    In purely economic terms, I am tired of subsidizing the same old folks who got us into this mess and have not done much to get us out. Charge private sector prices for public lands and for air, land, and water pollution. I am very confident another group of Americans will figure new ways of doing things. Capitalism is paying for what you use in production as well as consumerism.

  • donniethebrasco

    The biggest economic rat holes:

    1. Dutch Tulips
    2. South Sea Company
    3. Solar and Wind generated electricity

    • AC

      make sure you are valuing yourself & the work you do being antagonistic by at least getting paid for it. – you are getting paid to spout all this, i hope?
      honestly, i’d almost think you meant some of it due to your persistence, but no one can be this un-realistic.

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    Mr. Kreutzer is a shill.  The cost of *not* doing anything to mitigate climate change is astronomical.  Nobody mentioned what Ed Markey spoke about last night – by starting to address climate change we will *save* our economy. 

    This is about so much more than energy; though that is the first thing we need to change.  Our food supply is one drought away from failure, and we are running out of water in many parts of the country, and the world.

    We simply have to do everything possible to address the causes of climate change – we must stop burning all fossil fuels.  We can get more than enough energy from renewable sources, and doing this will *fix* the economy.

    Neil

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Neil,
        We can measure the economic costs to Obama’s plan.  I challenge you to measure the economic benefit.  There is no way for you to objectively measure the benefit because there will be no MEASUREABLE benefit.  It is completely ‘feel good’.

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        The cost of burning fossil fuels is that it is causing the climate change that we are seeing now – and that means it is immeasurable.  How can we put a price on most the species on earth?

        Your arrogance is stunning, and unless you figure out that climate science is like all other fields of science – in that it is our best understanding of reality – then I have no time for you.

        Neil

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          You rant alarmism that isn’t based in fact.  The climate changes.  It has always been changing. It was warmer several thousand years ago. Southern Britain was a wine growing region during the Roman rule.

          And no, climate science is not like all other fields of science.  It is a relatively new field and it is a difficult field because of the complexities involved.  The alarmism is based solely on computer models that have yet to be accurate.  The more the scientists learn the more they realize how little they actually know.

          Sorry, but I’m willing to take a few deep breaths and let the real science advance.

          And again, if you are truly concerned about CO2 emissions (before the science is in) then you should be pushing for advanced nuclear CO2 free power that is scalable and relatively affordable (ie – doesn’t screw the poor).

          • nj_v2

            “Relatively affordable”

            Hahahahahahahaha!!!

            Whoohoo, good one!

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Yes.  Certainly compared to solar and wind.  We know Cape Wind is $.18/kwh in year one and $.37/kwh in year 20 because they have signed the contract and it has been approved by corrupt politicians.

             And nuclear can be much cheaper.  It is estimated that LFTR could be as low as $.03/kwh because the reactors are small and can be build in a factory.  Also, they operate without pressure unlike today’s reactor so they are much safer.  They also burn almost all of the nuclear fuel (unlike today’s reactors).

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Also, nuclear doesn’t need backup and storage solutions like wind and solar.  Storage, which is usually ignored by solar advocates, adds significantly to the cost.

          • hennorama

            WftC – storage is not required for solar photovoltaic power, unless it is one’s sole source of energy. Passive solar heating systems utilize thermal masses for storing captured solar heat for nighttime use.

            No single energy source is the answer for all US and global energy uses at present. It is prudent to utilize a mixture of energy sources, depending on the application, and to attain various other goals.

            Certainly the cheapest form of energy is the energy that one doesn’t use, making energy efficiency an obvious first choice.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Hey, I’m not anti-solar.  And I agree with you that we need a diversity of sources.  Solar and and especially wind aren’t the panacea portrayed  by many ‘greenies’.

          • hennorama

            WftC – TY for your response.

            Indeed wind and solar have some significant disadvantages, especially irregular periodicity and reliability.

            And indeed LFTR and MSR technology look promising, if they can work out the associated problems, notably the startup fuel issue.

          • nj_v2

            Nope, no backup needed, unless the plant gets hit by a tsunami, earthquake, terrorist attack, or an operator pushes the wrong switch or a computer circuit shorts out.

            You techno hyper-optimists are a riot.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

             Nuclear plants have to be shut down for refueling.  And they definitely have a “storage problem” – for the radioactive waste.

          • nj_v2

            Haha!!

            “could be” “can be” “it is estimated”

            Just like in the 60s when nuke power would be “too cheap to meter”

            No one, least of all you, has any f’ing idea how these things would work, what they would cost, or the problems they would present.

  • MrWakiki

    Facts — if you have facts — would really make you look like a genius.

    Or just how much the Koch brothers are paying you — or to ignore facts — would also show you are at lease profiting from the lack of facts

  • bfryer

    Mr. Kreutzer reminds me of the guy in the Woody Allen movie “Sleeper” who says that they’ve discovered that cheeseburgers and cigars are good for you. Charming fellow, too, calling his co-guest a liar. 

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Well, he was lying.

    • Itsnatural

       If the shoe fits…

    • K8te

       Yes, Kreutzer doesn’t like what someone is saying so he calls them a liar. What an intellectual giant…not.

  • BlueNH

    What a shame NPR’s ‘Talk of the Nation’ is being axed. The host, Neal Conan, never allows a guest to lie about facts. Tom, are you just trying to hold on to your job as you continually invite climate deniers to debate climate change? NEWS FLASH, Tom, climate change is proven science. Allowing Heritage liars on your show diminishes your credibility. What is happening to NPR? Are the Kochs running the show?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       “proven science”

      You need a refresher course in the scientific method.
      The AGW CO2 hypothesis has neither been proved or disproved.  You sound like a religious zealot.

      • MrWakiki

        how about a link to YOUR ‘proven science”??

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Aloha MrWakiki, but please try and pay attention.  AGW is neither proved or disproved.  Therefore, no link.

      • Itsnatural

         Remember that Al Gore mivie?  Can’t remember the name right now, but I remember his huge graph showing his connection between co2 rise and global warming.  problem was, those lines on that graph were not presented in a way that graphs are normally presented. they did not overlap each other, the way a graph would normally be presented.  when the two overlap, it’s plain to see that it’ global warming causing a rise in co2 levels, not the other way around.  hmmm maybe this is why the graphs were presented in such a way in the first place.  to mask the truth.

        • hennorama

          This site contains a little animated graphic of “Time history of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 800,000 years ago until January, 2012” that is likely similar to the CO2 levels presentation in the film ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ It’s only about 3 ½ minutes long:

          http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Great link, thanks.
            It’s too bad that Worried doesn’t understand how science is done.

          • hennorama

            TomK_in_Boston – TY for your response and your kind words.

            I’ve posted that link in the OP forum before. I thought the animation was interesting, showing the various constantly rising readings taken worldwide, and the seasonal variation. Then the dramatic shift about halfway through, showing the history.

            BTW – have you seen the Nova episode “Earth From Space”? It aired last evening, and is really amazing.

            You can watch it here:

            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/earth-from-space.html

            Also, have you read about the recently published findings indicate that the Redfield ratio for marine organic matter is not actually a constant, but instead has variability by latitude, with the C:N:P ratio in some areas nearly twice as high as the Redfield ratio?

            This implies that ocean phytoplankton may be able to absorb greater amounts of CO2, and through the “oceanic biological carbon pump,” lock more CO2 away when they die and fall to the sea floor. This also implies that climate models that have been using the Redfield ratio to account for the absorption and storage of CO2 in the oceans will need to be greatly modified.

            I read about it recently in Scientific American, here:

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=oceans-may-absorb-more-carbon-dioxide

            TY again for your kind words.

      • TomK_in_Boston

        You don’t understand the scientific method, Worried, so take that course yourself.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1091744903 Tracy Estabrook Boal

        Every time you spout stupid ass crap like “neither proved nor disproved” you negate any legitimacy  you claim as to your understanding of how science is actually conducted. You might want to look into that if you want your opinions about scientific matters to be taken into account. As it is, you humiliate yourself in this forum on a regular basis re: scientific topics, and you don’t even seem to realize that you are doing it.

        FYI, no theory in science can ever be definitively proven ‘true’. That’s not a bug; it’s a feature of the scientific method. Technically speaking, ALL scientific theories are provisional, FOREVER. Progress in scientific knowledge is made by establishing a preponderance of evidence supporting a hypothesis or theory, and a lack of evidence disproving it. ‘Truth’ about a theory remains provisional in that there could always, hypothetically, be additional causes or mechanisms affecting systems or patterns, of which we might not be aware or might lack the ability to measure.

        In science, to establish sound basis for further research and action, and to establish a theory as practically true, we look for statistical weight of evidence and we make decisions based on that. A great deal of supporting evidence must be gathered, and there must be no substantive disproving evidence available, for a hypothesis to stand as an accepted theory.

        If you are waiting for science to provide 100% certainty about anything, you’ll wait forever, and society won’t progress.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      It’s a disaster for the USA that 99 climate scientists who are reasonably confident that humans are causing a freaking disaster are presented with one fossil-fuel-funded economist who says hey no problem. That’s the state of the corporate mainstream media.

  • lakiesel

    re: David Kreutzer’s comments that 2 degrees is not a big deal – then going on to say “it’s 95 degrees today and what’s the big deal if it becomes 97 -can’t we adapt to that?” First of all, the 2 degree average we stand to increase is in Celsius, not F. This actually means the average day would increase to 98.6, not 97. And the 2 degree is the low mark. Right now we are on the path to increasing 3.6 – 5.3 degrees C – which is approximately 6 -9 degrees F (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h8ZNyhml9Qy1-VM2cArV8s_4fbtg?docId=CNG.438ffd47f4da14ce15519792179cae45.391). I am sure a lot of us citizens, including the poor and elderly who can’t afford backyards with indoor pools or central A/C running 24/7 for days on end, will find that a huge difference to withstand. And I think someone who can’t even tell the difference between Celsius and F should not even be allowed to talk on this show. Really, NPR, I love you, but at this point, can you stop getting economists to weigh in on science? Also, Kruetzer’s comment showed a stunning ignorance of other living systems on this earth and the temperatures they require to continue to survive and function, from crops to bees to birds to aquatic life. Those systems and creatures are already failing and believe it or not,  we humans do not exist in a vacuum and do depend on organic systems outside ourselves for our survival. And the sea ice shrinking means we will lost our albedo, compounding the issue even further. I am sure when all the crops are failing and we start getting refugees and more storms like Sandy come along, the economy will fail much worse than the supposed pangs we will have to endure transition to a low carbon economy.

    • MrWakiki

      If the only difference was an increase of 5° — and it was the ONLY change. Climate Change wouldn’t be so bad, but it is a domino effect. Every increase of temps, increases the melting ice cap, the temperature of the ocean, the amount of moisture in the air (during floods and hurricanes) and that one degree turns into two in a couple years and in 10 years, it become exponential 

      • apaddler

         If you’ll remember the movie “Soylent Green”?  The root of the problem was that the oceans had warmed, disrupting the food chain.

    • hennorama

      lakiesel – ask durum wheat farmers in eastern North Dakota about “adaptation”
      and whether change is “no big deal.”

      Here’s an excerpt from a recent Newsweek article titled “The End of
      Pasta – Temperatures are rising. Rainfalls are shifting. Droughts are
      intensifying. What will we eat when wheat won’t grow?”

      “Durum used to be grown throughout North Dakota, but over the past 30 to 40
      years, the growing zone has shifted farther west as weather
      conditions have changed. “Rainfall patterns have shifted,”
      explains Professor Manthey. “It’s become too wet in eastern North
      Dakota for durum.”

      Farmers can’t just “adapt” by picking up their land and moving it north
      or west to follow changing weather patterns.

      See the map below for 2006 ND durum production levels by county, and how
      production is now concentrated in the western half of that state .

      See:

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/12/09/bakken-oil-boom-and-climate-change-threaten-the-future-of-pasta.html

      http://www.business.nd.gov/uploads/resources/199/wheat.jpg

      • lakiesel

        Hennorama -

        If you actually read my post, I am not the one saying that climate change is no big deal. I was quoting (and then criticizing) what the Heritage Foundation person on OnPoint said for his closing remarks — hence the quotation marks and me starting out with “re: David Kruetzer’s comments that…” We are actually on the same side. Please read through a whole post before rebutting. 

        • hennorama

          lakiesel – TY for your response.

          I did read and understand your post. I was not rebutting you, but instead was “piling on” WITH you, and didn’t mean to imply otherwise.

          Apologies for the misunderstanding.

          • lakiesel

            Okay! Glad to hear we are on the same side and the same page now. 

          • hennorama

            lakiesel – no worries. I’ll edit my post to improve its clarity, beginning it with [Indeed, just] ask durum wheat farmers …

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        what a great blessing it would be if we were no longer poisoned by addictive genetically modified wheat
        http://www.amazon.com/Wheat-Belly-Lose-Weight-Health/dp/1609611543/ref=sr_1_1/178-3715641-3212054?ie=UTF8&qid=1372288793&sr=8-1&keywords=wheat+belly

    • Steve_the_Repoman

      I have tried to keep abreast of this issue since the early ’80′s.

      I believe that shows like this do little but stir up those that have long ago made up their minds on this issue and most likely have read very little of the science.

      It is a disservice to have ONLY journalists, economists, think tank bloggers, popularizing authors or politicians on shows such as this.

      At best, they may spur those with the interest to seek more informed sources -  at worst they degenerate into….

      If anyone regularly follows what they belief to be unbiased sources, please post links. 

    • Itsnatural

      The reason that the crops, bees. bats and human health is hurting has a lot more to do with Monsanto’s GMO’s and Round-Up than a little climate change.

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        Both climate change and factory farming are incredibly problematic.  Chemical fertilizer (that is made from natural gas!) eventually becomes nitrous oxide, which is a powerful greenhouse gas, and it accounts for a large portion of the GHG that are causing climate change.

        Factory farming is using up the fossil water in the large aquifers at an unsustainable rate.  Factory farming kills the natural decomposition processes in the soil, which means we are essentially mining the soil.  Erosion is an absolutely enormous problem – the SIX FEET of soil that used to be in places like Iowa is now down to inches, and this obviously cannot continue, either.

        We are one drought away from disaster.  The 2010 wheat crop in Russia was awful because of a drought, and if the wheat crop here in the USA has a similar drought, then we are screwed…

        Climate change is all too real, folks.

        Neil

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          you left out peak mined phosphorous lol

      • lakiesel

        Whereas I agree that GMOs and Round-Up ready and other pesticides and chemicals are also impacting the Earth and our health, I’d have to disagree with your dismissal of climate change. I am a conservation biologist and natural resources scientist. I did my Master’s thesis on the impact of climate change on agriculture. In relation to that and as a journalist, I have met with and interviewed countless organic farmers who are suffering from the premature seasonal shifts, as well as droughts and floods, as wrought by climate change. Bats (which I didn’t mention) are suffering from White Nose Syndrome (WNS), which has nothing to do with Round-Up Ready, but most likely from a fungus. Aquatic life is suffering as the oceans are acidifying, a direct impact of climate change. As for birds? See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/biologists-worried-by-migratory-birds-starvation-seen-as-tied-to-climate-change/2013/06/19/c04d8a74-d90d-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html

        • Itsnatural

          My argument is not that climate change isn’t happening, its that climate change is naturally occurring, of course there is climate change, some argue that there must be other reasons why the entire solar system is warming all at the same time, what kind of sense does that make?  If the polar Icecaps on mars are melting, then it must be for some other reason than the reason that our earth is warming, and since it has been observed that the other planets are showing signs of warming, why, it must be for yet another reason.. the main stream scientists never talk about other facors, instead, its got to be all our fault. What about the Ice ages?  good thing there was global warming to bring the world out of that deep freeze,  and people say its not natural?  what about the Wooly Mammoth found with food still in his mouth that he was eating as it was flash frozen to death?  Climate change can’t happen rapidly?
          “All over the frozen northern parts of Siberia and Canada we find the
          frozen carcasses of hundreds of thousands of large mammal species. These
          are mainly mammoths, but also [there are] wooly rhinos and other
          creatures of this kind.”
          It is obvious that the mammoth herds died quite rapidly; they were, so
          to speak, quick-frozen. James D. Dana, who served as Professor of
          Natural History and Geology at Yale, in his renowned work, A Manual of Geology,
          wrote that “the encasing in ice of huge Elephants, and the perfect
          preservation of the flesh, shows that the cold finally became suddenly extreme, as of a single winter’s night, and knew no relenting afterwards”

          thttp://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php 
          I urge you to check out this link .
          At least 37000 American scientists disagree with the Idea of man made climate change.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

             We humans are causing the climate to change this time around – and it is warming much more quickly than it typically has in the past.

            Those are the facts.  You cannot have your own…

            Neil

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      I think they have some pills now if you are suffering from lost albedo

    • hennorama

      lakiesel – given your expertise, I thought a small discussion might be interesting.

      Recently published findings indicate that the Redfield ratio for marine organic matter is not actually a constant, but instead has variability by latitude, with the C:N:P ratio in some areas nearly twice as high as the Redfield ratio.

      This implies that ocean phytoplankton may be able to absorb greater amounts of CO2, and through the “oceanic biological carbon pump,” lock more CO2 away when they die and fall to the sea floor. This also implies that climate models that have been using the Redfield ratio to account for the absorption and storage of CO2 in the oceans will need to be greatly modified.

      Have you seen this research? I read about it recently in Scientific American, here:

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=oceans-may-absorb-more-carbon-dioxide

      Also, as you indicated, surface albedo is being reduced as sea ice and surface ice melt, exacerbating solar energy absorption. Do you think this is perhaps being largely offset, at least temporarily, by the movement of energy absorbed at the ocean surfaces deeper into the water column? Also, if this is the case, doesn’t this argue for higher atmospheric CO2, since warmer water can hold less absorbed gases?

      I guess it’s a good thing we have computers to calculate some of these interrelationships.

      Any thoughts?

  • Potter

    You had one caller that frightened me. He holds an opinion that I fear many might or do. He said that nature takes care of itself. A very calming thought. Yes I think nature has a way of balancing. But by no means can this mean that the conditions that maintain the right balance for humans to exist will be maintained as we pour pollutants into the air, on the land, and into the oceans. 

    Maybe this person has strong religious beliefs but he did not say so. Instead he was more concerned about business interests! For god’s sake, he must not have any kids or any that he cares enough about. Or he is completely ignorant of the snowballing effects that will be, if they are not already, impossible to control. 

    We have to fear greed ignorance and myopia along with climate changes. Undoubtedly climate change is with us. The question is can we mitigate it?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      what scenario do you envision that no humans will survive?

      • Potter

        The air might become too toxic to breathe.Animals, birds fish will die off first. Lung diseases will be common.  For sure already humans will have to move or have the means to fortify their dwellings as their lands are submerged by rising sea levels. The oceans and the food produced might become too toxic to eat safely. The land may become too toxic to grow safe food. Basically the conditions for food plant life may not be favorable regarding the health of the soil. 

        This is not only about climate change, but about what it takes for this planet to support so many people even if they did not contribute, in the process of living, to that climate change.

        Yes, some will survive I believe.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          like any other species when we become overpopulated, and this has happened to humans before, the population will decrease to a point at which it can be supported by its environment.  humans typically achieve this by war and/or disease or famine

          • Potter

            what do you mean “like any other species” and “typically”?  How many times has this occurred recently during these times when we have Monsanto and advanced and nuclear weapons and planes to drop food cartons over starving areas? You mean the ancient civilizations that Malthus was probably looking at? And “population will decrease” will that be YOU and/or your progeny or the multitudes that you will maybe not have to look at or have to look at or have to protect yourself from while this is happening? Will they storm our borders? Will you build high walls? How does this work in contemporary times pray tell if we don’t collectively have a plan to deal and mitigate?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            humans are a species of primate. we are bound by the same ecological restrictions and forces as any other organism. for example when other predators are eliminated and humans fail to hunt then deer become overpopulated and then have mass die offs from disease or starvation.

            war, famine, and disease happen all the time. they are all happing right now somewhere. they affect populations that  are local to them if those conditions become global it will significantly reduce the population of humans

  • Potter

    It’s not record temps, but averages that should be compared. And then, look at the extent of what is melting up there in the permafrost, look at satellite pix, if you don’t have a head for figures. You sound like you don’t want to hear anything or can’t sort science and reality from “crap” to make up your mind.

    • B Bowman

      No lets hear what you stated and talk about that, not temps on a specific day. 

  • jefe68

    The permafrost was not melting a 100 years ago.
    You kind of left that out.

  • pete18

    An interesting and related article in Slate called “The Limits of Panic.”

    “And, while pesticides and other
    pollutants were seen to kill off perhaps half of humanity,
    well-regulated pesticides cause about 20 deaths each year in the U.S.,
    whereas they have significant upsides in creating cheaper and more
    plentiful food.

    Indeed, reliance solely on organic farming—a movement inspired by
    the pesticide fear—would cost more than $100 billion annually in the
    U.S. At 16 percent lower efficiency, current output would require
    another 65 million acres of farmland—an area more than half the size of
    California. Higher prices would reduce consumption of fruits and
    vegetables, causing myriad adverse health effects (including tens of
    thousands of additional cancer deaths per year).

    Obsession with doom-and-gloom scenarios distracts us from the real
    global threats. Poverty is one of the greatest killers of all, while
    easily curable diseases still claim 15 million lives every year–25
    percent of all deaths.

    The solution is economic growth. When lifted out of poverty, most
    people can afford to avoid infectious diseases. China has pulled more
    than 680 million people out of poverty in the last three decades,
    leading a worldwide poverty decline of almost 1 billion people. This
    has created massive improvements in health, longevity, and quality of
    life.”

    http://www.slate.com/articles/business/project_syndicate/2013/06/climate_panic_ecological_collapse_is_not_upon_us_and_we_haven_t_run_out.html

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Why don’t you apply that freedom from doom and gloom to deficit hysteria? Maybe you will realize that we’re not “gonna be like Greece” and SS is the soundest program in the galaxy.

      • RobertLongView

        The USA will not be like Greece because we have Obama in the white house and job-killing Mitch stays in the Senate Minority… .

    • nj_v2

      Not really understanding how genetics, farming, or ecology work, i suppose i can understand how someone could take the article seriously (i’m feeling charitable at the moment).

      One might expect that stunningly stupid—or at least extremely sloppy—statements by Lomborg such as, “Similarly, oil and natural gas were to run out in 1990 and 1992, respectively; today, reserves of both are larger than they were in 1970, although we consume dramatically more.”

      Right, “reserves” are larger now. The supply magically increased in a couple of decades.

      Conventional farming is unsustainable. Traditional pesticide use is unsustainable. “Growth,” dependent on continued inputs of high-density fuels and other finite resources is unsustainable.

      And any al all technological Magic Bullets, which Lomborg thinks will save our butts, will inevitably have cascades of unintended, unanticipated, negative consequences.

      Other than that, no problem with his analysis.

      • harverdphd

         Get under your bed with your inflatable Hillary doll and wait for the end.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        the power of biotech is limitless and hard for us to even fathom. you could grow a car and have it run on sugar or sunlight. humans already invented that a while back a genetic engineering triumph called the horse.

      • pete18

        “The supply magically increased in a couple of decades.”

        No, the
        estimates about how much we had and would be able to extract were wrong
        and the improved technology over the last thirty years has allowed us to
        extract more from unexpected places. This means the available supply of
        oil is far greater than predicted three-decades ago:
        http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/EF-pub-WorldOilReserves-101911.pdf

        I
        don’t think Mr Lomborg was promoting any “magic bullets,” just giving
        us a cautionary tale about doom and gloom environmental and energy
        predictions. Your three blanket statements about conventional farming,
        pesticides, and growth are a case in point. That is exactly what
        numerous policy advisers, and forecasters were telling us (wrongly)
        thirty-years ago.

        You are right that any new technology can have
        “cascades of unintended, unanticipated, negative consequences.” That is
        always the balancing act and caution with ANYTHING new. This also
        applies to any corrective policy spurned by “crisis scenario” thinking.
        Getting people out of poverty is far more important, and will save
        many more lives than trying to lower the amount of carbon in the
        atmosphere and the action of the latter will certainly greatly impede the progress of
        the former. Lomborg’s point is that we often lose track of that in our obsession with the doom and gloom predictions.

  • TomK_in_Boston

    Suppose you were using a drug and saw a chart like this 

    http://rpmccarthy.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/carbon-dioxide-temperature.jpg

    that correlated its use with the incidence of cancer, and your usage was literally off the chart. Would you?

    1. Cut back.

    2. Get an economist – not a doctor – from Heritage, funded by the drug mfgr, to tell you there was no problem. 

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      One thing that stands out in your chart is how low the earth’s temperature was 20,000 years ago when an ice sheet 3-4 km thick covered the northern part of North America.  Now that is scary.

      • TomK_in_Boston

        OK, I’ll put you down for “2″.

        • RobertLongView

          Med adjustment?

      • RobertLongView

        Brrrrr, and cave men didn’t have kerosene to burn… .  

  • nj_v2

    Geez, must be the heat (yeah, that’s the reason); i’m slow today. This just occurred to me.

    OnPoint today (once again) creates the false equivalency construct (i’d call it a mistake, but it seems willful and deliberate) so common amongst the main stream media in a misguided and ultimately deceptive attempt at “balance” or objectivity, or however one might construe the presumptive reason.

    98% of all climate researchers, professional science societies, science journal editors, etc. believe that 1) the greenhouse gas effect is a valid, verifiable phenomenon, 2) for nearly 100 years, climate change has been occurring primarily as a result of human activity, 3) the main driver of this change is the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the burning of previously sequestered fossil fuels.

    98%!!

    Yet, on a program discussing the role of policy on climate change, look at the panel:

    One, just-the-facts-m’aam reporter, presumably agnostic on the issue; one person who understands the science; and one who challenges the very validity of the concept of anthropopenic climate change. 

    Well, then, there must be some real doubt about all this climate change, stuff, then, mustn’t there, given that one third of the panel thinks so.

    Is NPR really that cowed by the reactionary right that the show feels obligated to give voice a representative of the tiny, small fraction of people—most of whom are paid corporate/industry shills and hacks trying to preserve the status quo for the profit of the people who hire them—to obfuscate the scientific consensus on the issue?

       

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      “98% of all climate researchers, professional science societies, science journal editors, etc….”

      Do you have a source?    Also, could you quantify your assertion?  For instance are you stating that 97% of all climate researchers believe that human released CO2 caused >51% of the 1C of the observed global warming during the last century?  I think you will have difficulty supporting this claim.

      However, why is that important?  The important question is a) will continued increased CO2 emissions cause significant damage to the environment and b) if a is true what are the best actions to mitigate the damage.

      • RobertLongView

        You have a quibble with the Parts Per Million, eh.  Hey Babe, there’s a forest behind them trees. Mention corporate shill and it’s a dog whistle attack code for the circling pack to close in on their prey.  I don’t see how you can sleep at night.  Zeez, does anyone expect an “Amen” from the Jim Demint South corner anyway?  

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Is there a question with your ‘quibble’ comment?  If there was, it didn’t come across.

          In the meantime, I’ll stick with science.

          • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

            Cherry picked, ideologically  tainted “Science”.

          • jefe68

            I wish you would.

          • nj_v2

            ^ Has no concept of what science is.

      • jefe68

        Do you have a source you ask.
        The National Academy of Sciences. It’s dated 2010:
        http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

        • HonestDebate1

          Bogus, how many times must it be debunked? 

          • nj_v2

            Except in the dark recesses of you cloudy mind, you haven’t debunked squat.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Here is what I real climate scientist thinks of the paper you posted.  Not pretty.

          http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/new-black-list.html

          And here is a partial list of articles that have taken this study apart.

          http://heartland.org/policy-documents/yet-more-problems-anderegg-et-al-denier-black-list-paper-0

          • jefe68

            So all the scientist associated with the National Academy of Sciences are not real scientists?

            How did I know you would do everything to debunk anything I or anyone else would post on this.

            It’s a waste of time. 

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Heartland?!  You think that citing the Heartland Institute gives you credibility?  Ha!

            They are funded by big oil and the Koch brothers.  They are doing exactly what the tobacco industry did.

            And we know how smoking doesn’t cause cancer, so carbon dioxide doesn’t cause global warming, either.

            Neil

    • MrBigStuff

      If you think that Tom Ashbrook is some sort of neo-conservative frontman for the oil and coal industry, I’d hate to see what you think of Fox News.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        NPR doesn’t really break out of narratives established inside the beltway.

        • nj_v2

          They do occasionally—as does PBS—but it’s rare compared to the bulk of their “news” coverage, and even analysis.

          To her credit, Terry Gross, when they do cover political stuff, has guests (and lets them talk!) who are well out of the usual beltway punditry herd.

          On the teevee, thank goodness Moyers came back out of retirement. And the Frontline programs are usually good.

          But for every one program like that, there are three “Washington Weeks” that simply regurgitate the main flow of the mainstream “news.”

  • harverdphd

    Good point, Cory.   This ain’t goin nowhere…DOA

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/28/obama-was-rightthe-rise-of-the-oceans-began-to-slow/
    see all we had to do was elect oboma. if we give him a third term he can finish healing the planet too.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

       Anthony Watts is a pretender, and he is dishonest.  He has zero credibility.  His opinion may be that science is wrong, but everybody has an opinion…

      Neil

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        this was the first article of his I have seen

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

           Now you know.

          Neil

  • Roy-in-Boise

    Climate variation and Climate change are two separate things.  400 ppm of CO2 is a real figure. Increased sea levels, hurricanes at higher intensity and frequency are all serious symptoms. Individuals who share Davis Kreutzer’s views are part of the problem. In the end their regressive brand of thinking will be proven wrong. In the mean time they are obstacles to progress.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       26 hurricanes made landfall in the US during Grover Cleveland’s presidency.   Exactly 3 made landfall in the US during Obama’s 4+ years.

      Cleveland entered office in 1885.

    • pete18

      Hurricanes are not more frequent, neither are tornadoes. We have not been getting less snow fall, the US is not any more wet or dry and the hottest days in the last 30-years are not any worse than they were at any time over the last century http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ChristyJR_130530_McKinley-PDF-of-PPT.pdf

      • nj_v2

        And there is no less Arctic ice, the severity of extreme weather events hasn’t increased, and ocean acidity hasn’t increased, nor has sea level…

        Oh, wait…

        • pete18

           What is your evidence that shows an increase in extreme weather events that is
          outside the historic norms?

          • nj_v2

            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120325173206.htm

            [[ "The question is whether these weather extremes are coincidental or a result of climate change," says Dim Coumou, lead author of the article. "Global warming can generally not be proven to cause individual extreme events -- but in the sum of events the link to climate change becomes clear." This is what his analysis of data and published studies shows. "It is not a question of yes or no, but a question of probabilities," Coumou explains. The recent high incidence of weather records is no longer normal, he says.… ]]

            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130201100036.htm

            [[ In the most comprehensive review of changes to extreme rainfall ever undertaken, researchers evaluated the association between extreme rainfall and atmospheric temperatures at more than 8000 weather gauging stations around the world.

            Lead author Dr Seth Westra said, "The results are that rainfall extremes are increasing on average globally. They show that there is a 7% increase in extreme rainfall intensity for every degree increase in global atmospheric temperature.…]]

            http://www.climatecommunication.org/new/articles/extreme-weather/overview/

            All weather events are now influenced by climate change because all weather now develops in a different environment than before. While natural variability continues to play a key role in extreme weather, climate change has shifted the odds and changed the natural limits, making certain types of extreme weather more frequent and more intense. The kinds of extreme weather events that would be expected to occur more often in a warming world are indeed increasing.

            For example, 60 years ago in the continental United States, the number of new record high temperatures recorded around the country each year was roughly equal to the number of new record lows. Now, the number of new record highs recorded each year is twice the number of new record lows, a signature of a warming climate, and a clear example of its impact on extreme weather.1

            The increase in record highs extends outside the U.S. as well. A similar two to one ratio of record highs to record lows recently has been observed in Australia.2

            Over the past decade, 75 counties set all-time record highs but only 15 countries set all-time record lows. In 2010, 19 countries set new all-time record high temperatures, but not a single country set a new all-time record low (among those countries keeping these statistics). 3…

  • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

    Why is it that the right wing has it out for only two, count them two branches of Science: climate change and evolution. (Oh dear I suppose my premise is wrong,with the likes of Michelle Bachman spouting that immunization causes brain damage.) But on the whole it’s true. Why?

    • insertcleverid

      I think its fear.  Fear that they’ll die because of climate change, and fear they won’t go to heaven when they do because a personal God is unnecessary to explain the natural phenomena of life. 

  • Gordon Green

    Oh good god. I can’t believe Kreutzer and is ilk are still at large. Look at the effects around  the world already.  Give it a rest, the days of your perspective having any credibility are long gone. This is the only country left where people like this are given the time of day on this subject.

    • donniethebrasco

      Why does Al Gore continue to fly in private jets and drive SUVs that get 10 miles per gallon?

      Because he wants his and wants you to give up yours.

      • nj_v2

        Add OGDS* to the list of ailments that “donniethebrasco” apparently suffers from.

        Perhaps there’s a therapy program or a support group, though it would likely be a long, difficult climb back.

        *Obsessive Gore Derangement Syndrome

      • Michele

         Gore drives a Lexus hybrid SUV. I personally would love a Tesla SUV.

        • donniethebrasco

           Al Gore’s SUV gets 26 MPG.

          • jefe68

            Seems as if his SUV get’s better milage then your comments.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    The President mocked any dissent to his overreach with shout out to the ‘flat earth society’.

    It turns out there IS a real Flat Earth Society AND they believe in global warming.  Now that is funny.

    http://www.salon.com/2013/06/25/flat_earth_society_believes_in_climate_change/

    • pete18

       That’s a riot. Did the president make any suggestions as to where all the missing warmth was hiding in his speech?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Of course he had NO reference to real science.

        • insertcleverid

          Weather or not the ‘missing warmth’ thing is real science is not something you can prove.  The articles you posted in the Lincoln episode notes were not science.  Rankexploits is a blog, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The explination for the plateau in air temperature is that the heat is in the ocean.  http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html

          • insertcleverid

            My apologies.  I mis-spoke.  Weather or not the ‘missing warmth’ thing is real science is something you have not yet proven.  

            It is, in fact, barely a controversy.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

       Do you not “believe” in the structure of the atom, or how DNA works?  If you understand science, then you’d know that you cannot reject one field of science; unless you reject ALL of science.

      Neil

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        so you accept phrenology?

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

           No.  That is not science.  Climate science is well over 100 years old, and it overlaps with dozens of other fields.

          Plate tectonics is a younger field than climate science, as is DNA.

          You want to believe in magical thinking – just come out and admit it.  You can try to deny reality, but reality wins.

          Neil

          • donniethebrasco

            Climate science is not science.  It is mass hysteria based on data faked by East Anglia.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Be sure to click the heels of your crystal slippers together three times when you say that…

            Climate science is well over 100 years old, and the data is all over the world.

            Neil

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I did not say anything about the veracity of climate science. ( I feel like you think I am a climate change denier)
            I was merely disagreeing with your claim: 
            “Do you not “believe” in the structure of the atom, or how DNA works?  If you understand science, then you’d know that you cannot reject one field of science; unless you reject ALL of science”
            I think you demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of science if you don’t understand that there is constant paradigm shift in science. there are dozens of models of the atom. since we don’t understand them 100% none of the models are 100% right and therefore not accurate.  we are also constantly rewriting our understanding of dna. scientists were sure phlogiston existed. they used the theory to build machines that worked.   if you think science in general is settled then you are the one thinking magic thoughts. the point of science is to disprove what was previously “believed”

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Climate science is the best understanding we have of reality.

            Neil

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you go to war with the army you have

          • Dataninja

            You seem to be a Climate Change comedian?

            http://youtu.be/yN2_5jlpMFM

  • donniethebrasco

    Let’s keep China as a third world nation.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

       Why would “we” want to do that?

      Neil

      • donniethebrasco

        To save the environment.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

           Here’s a better plan of action: we all should continue to move to renewable energy – which doesn’t pollute and we would stop changing the climate, too.

          Neil

  • Don_B1

    That would be a good start but they should have to fund it and show that the money spent is:

    1) identifying lowlands subject to flooding and either preventing development or requiring development to survive big floods,

    2) put in place programs to improve the energy efficiency of all new projects and provide financial support for those wishing to improve the efficiency of existing commercial and residential buildings, with a bias toward middle and low income residents.

    3) other accepted methods for mitigating the effects of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.

    4) publish the plan widely so the populace can judge the plan’s effectiveness.

  • donniethebrasco

    Is Obama going to heal the planet before or after he closes Gitmo?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      once he lowers the oceans enough they can all walk home

  • ExcellentNews

    Wow, what a stream of hot air from the paid shills of the coal industry and from their unpaid fundamentalist volunteers.

    Thank you Mr. President, from taking a step that has been badly needed for the last 20 years. A step that will be good for JOBS and for the quality of life of everyone – including the deniers.

    You see, if you just listen to the numbers, you will hear WHY the republicans are livid about the speech. 80,000 coal-related jobs in the US. That is fewer jobs than there are butlers in our nation’s country clubs…

    You see, the Republican party HATES JOBS for people. Jobs are a cost center and get in the way of corporate profits and fat offshore trust funds. The coal industry has no jobs to create. It is a highly-optimized, highly-automated MONEY-MAKING machine for a handful of foreign and domestic billionaires, such as Mr. Massie.

    Would a sustainable new energy infrastructure add few more trillions to the offshore accounts of our coal barons? NO. Would it create millions of jobs for working Americans? YES. Would the economy be overall better of? YES. Would quality of life be better? YES. Would energy be more expensive? YES, but the extra cost will be more than offset by the benefits shared across the middle class. THAT is what real economic growth means – growth for ALL, not just a handful of predatory oligarchs and banksters.

    And that is why there is such venom against Mr. Obama and his energy policy.

  • Regular_Listener

    I’m really glad the president has decided to do this.  The Republicans continue to live in the past and do the bidding of the energy companies.  We can count on more environmental destruction if they get back in power.  There are more important things than short-term profits and increases in the number of jobs – things like protecting our resources and environment for future generations.  

ONPOINT
TODAY
Aug 29, 2014
Ukrainian forces guard a checkpoint in the town of Mariupol, eastern Ukraine, Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014. Ukraine's president Petro Poroshenko called an emergency meeting of the nation's security council and canceled a foreign trip Thursday, declaring that "Russian forces have entered Ukraine," as concerns grew about the opening of a new front in the conflict.  (AP)

War moves over Syria, Ukraine. Burger King moves to Canada. Nine-year-olds and Uzis. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Aug 29, 2014
Beyoncé performs at the 2014 MTV Music Video Awards on Sunday, August 24, 2014 in Inglewood, California. (Getty)

Sex, power and Beyoncé’s feminism. The message to young women.

RECENT
SHOWS
Aug 29, 2014
Beyoncé performs at the 2014 MTV Music Video Awards on Sunday, August 24, 2014 in Inglewood, California. (Getty)

Sex, power and Beyoncé’s feminism. The message to young women.

 
Aug 29, 2014
Ukrainian forces guard a checkpoint in the town of Mariupol, eastern Ukraine, Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014. Ukraine's president Petro Poroshenko called an emergency meeting of the nation's security council and canceled a foreign trip Thursday, declaring that "Russian forces have entered Ukraine," as concerns grew about the opening of a new front in the conflict.  (AP)

War moves over Syria, Ukraine. Burger King moves to Canada. Nine-year-olds and Uzis. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: August 29, 2014
Friday, Aug 29, 2014

On hypothetical questions, Beyoncé and the unending flow of social media.

More »
Comment
 
Drew Bledsoe Is Scoring Touchdowns (In The Vineyards)
Thursday, Aug 28, 2014

Football great — and vineyard owner — Drew Bledsoe talks wine, onions and the weird way they intersect sometimes in Walla Walla, Washington.

More »
Comment
 
Poutine Whoppers? Why Burger King Is Bailing Out For Canada
Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014

Why is Burger King buying a Canadian coffee and doughnut chain? (We’ll give you a hint: tax rates).

More »
1 Comment