Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
OBD ... explain this.....
How is that "paws" working out for you now?
You know that purple line in the graph...
With all your recent posts trying to deny that 2014 was not the hottest on record it does seem kind of silly.
How do you explain, in your own words, why 2014 was not anything special?
Can you not see with your own eyes why this is important?
Do you not see a trend and why that it may be a very bad thing?
You are digging a hole and it might be time to stop digging.
reread this bit....
"The denialists are denying it's the warmest year. Which makes sense if you're in denial" LOL

trend-since-1998.png

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-4
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/201...r-ocean-waters-to-drive.html?sp=/99/100/&rh=1
Study: Warmer ocean waters to drive Pacific Northwest fish northward
BY DAVE GALLAGHER
The Bellingham HeraldJanuary 18, 2015

Bad Fishing PAD
Pete Granger, a reefnet fishermen at the Lummi Island Wild Co-op, said local fishermen have noticed sardines and squid moving up north through the California and Oregon waters in recent years.
PHILIP A. DWYER — THE BELLINGHAM HERALD Buy Photo





Local fishing fleets may need to switch to warmer water species like squid, sardines and albacore in the coming decades, according to a recently published study.

Anticipated changes in climate that result in warmer ocean waters will push West Coast fish and other marine life north about 19 miles a decade through 2050, according to a study done by several scientists, including Richard Brodeur, a NOAA Fisheries senior scientist who works at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center’s Newport, Ore., research station. The study was published last fall in the journal Progress in Oceanography.

This northward movement is expected to happen to species like salmon, which have narrower temperature preferences than warmer-water species.

“As the climate warms, the species will follow the conditions they’re adapted to,” said Brodeur in a news release about the study. “We’re going to see more interactions between species and there will be winners and losers that we cannot foresee.”

Local fishermen already are noticing the changes. Pete Granger, a reefnet fishermen at the Lummi Island Wild Co-op, said they’ve noticed sardines and squid moving up north through the California and Oregon waters in recent years. Eventually that could lead to changes in what the local fleets fish for, a move Granger said the fleet is capable of handling.

“The Bellingham fleet is very adaptable,” Granger said, noting fishers were able to adjust when a large number of sardines came into the region around 15 years ago.

Perhaps even more dramatic will be the impact of existing northern marine life as more species shift north. The study expects warm-water species such as thresher sharks and chub mackerel to be more common off the coast of British Columbia and the Gulf of Alaska in the coming years. As a result, current northern predators such as sea lions and seabirds also may need to adjust.

“If their prey moves farther north, they either have to travel farther and expend more energy to get to them, or find something else to eat,” Brodeur said. “It may not happen right away, but we are likely to see that kind of a trend.”

The 2015 fishing season could have its own challenges. Granger is particularly concerned about the low snow pack for this time of year; it’s about half of normal. If it remains low, rivers could be very low in the fall, affecting fish runs.

For the Bellingham commercial fishing fleet, this year is expected to feature a strong pink salmon run. What could thwart local fishing efforts, however, is the blob of warmer water that was parked off the coast of Vancouver Island last spring and summer. That area of water was about 3 degrees Celsius warmer than normal and pushed most of the sockeye salmon Fraser River run around the northern part of Vancouver Island through the Johnstone Strait into Canadian waters. That allowed Canadians to pull in 94 percent of the overall catch, while many local fishers gave up because so few fish entered U.S. waters.

Currently the waters along Washington’s coast are quite warm, said Nick Bond, a research scientist for the University of Washington. One difference from last winter is that the warm anomalies are more prominent near the coast versus offshore.

This area also has had more warm storms coming in from the south this winter, producing less churning and cooling of the upper ocean levels than usual. Bond said a strong consensus of the climate models suggest that the local waters will remain considerably warmer than normal this year.

“(This is) not good news for many elements of the marine ecosystem, particularly the young salmon going to sea this upcoming spring,” Bond said.

Granger said pink salmon typically follow the same route in the Fraser River run, with about half of the run going around the north part of the Vancouver Island while the other half goes around the south end through the Strait of Juan de Fuca. He said it would be a big blow to the local fleet if most of the run goes north for the second straight year, though it’s unclear if pinks would react to warmer waters the same way the sockeye did.

“Our expectation is that it will be a good season,” Granger said.

Reach Dave Gallagher at 360-715-2269 or dave.gallagher@bellinghamherald.com. Follow him on Twitter at @BhamHeraldBiz and on Facebook at BellinghamHeraldBusiness.

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/201...-to-drive.html?sp=/99/100/&rh=1#storylink=cpy
 
Look, more magic.

NCDC has no data for half of the land surface on the planet, but was able to calculate a record temperature by a couple hundredths of a degree.
Grey areas have no data. They make it up for these areas.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    85.1 KB · Views: 36
No, it appears they are making it up to save their jobs.


ya OBD - 95% of all of NASAs, NOAAs, IPCCs likely thousands of scientists, technicians, and support staff are "secretly" against big oil and are making this stuff up to ruin the economy...

CHECK YOUR MEDICATION!

I think it's contraindicated.
 
Gee, your side gets awfull touchy when you are caught.
I see you cannot read again, your side agreed that they did not give out all the facts till they were called on it.


OBD ... explain this.....
How is that "paws" working out for you now?
You know that purple line in the graph...
With all your recent posts trying to deny that 2014 was not the hottest on record it does seem kind of silly.
How do you explain, in your own words, why 2014 was not anything special?
Can you not see with your own eyes why this is important?
Do you not see a trend and why that it may be a very bad thing?
You are digging a hole and it might be time to stop digging.
reread this bit....
"The denialists are denying it's the warmest year. Which makes sense if you're in denial" LOL

trend-since-1998.png

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-4
 
Look, more magic.

NCDC has no data for half of the land surface on the planet, but was able to calculate a record temperature by a couple hundredths of a degree.
Grey areas have no data. They make it up for these areas.
ummmm OBD? You do realize that the NCDC is but one federal AMERICAN agency, and there are hundreds of countries recording land temperatures, and dozens of multinational, interdisciplinary agencies and research consortiums also doing research into climate change using land, sea and satellite temperature recorders along with a plethora of other sensors. Try again.
 
<iframe width="623" height="450" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/0guPvFqVHcQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Video: Linda Solomon gets conflicting answers from Suncor executive, Mark Little, and scientist Dr. David Schindler about what causes tailings ponds seepage into Athabsaca River

Andrew S. Wright
Reactions to the federal government's attempts to stop NAFTA's environmental oversight commission from investigating environmental damage caused by tailings ponds in Alberta's oil sands came fast and fierce from critics.

“There’s compelling evidence that [industry contamination] is happening," said Dale Marshall of Environmental Defence, "and that the federal government is denying it, and not allowing that information to be known to Canadians and the people who live in that area."

"It's disheartening. The Canadian government is more interested in protecting oil sands companies," added Marshall.

Canada has already stopped NAFTA twice from investigating its environmental record in the past year. The trade organization’s environmental oversight commission seeks to review public complaints that Canada is ignoring its fishery laws by not acting strongly enough to protect the Athabasca River from industry pollution.

Environmental Defence is one of the complainants to the NAFTA review process, and says the Harper government is "blocking" science from getting out about the oil industry's harm to the watershed.

Toxic tailings seepage into the Athabasca River?

Suncor is one of Canada's largest oil sands producers. Vancouver Observer publisher, Linda Solomon Wood, asked its executive vice-president Mark Little last May if the company's tailings ponds were leaking into the Athabasca River.

"Oh, no," said Little, in a media briefing following Archbishop Desmond Tutu's tour of the oil sands. He said oil leaked naturally into the river, and that it was especially visible during hot days.

David Schindler, a water scientist at the University of Alberta, said this claim was false.
 
Look at the attached. There has been no warming since 1997 and no
statistically significant warming since 1995. Why bother with the
arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998? (Incidentally, the red
fuzz represents the error ‘bars’.)

Best wishes,

Dick

==================================================
Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
MIT Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    31.5 KB · Views: 42
So, you do not believe the NCDC? Then who do you believe is correct?

ummmm OBD? You do realize that the NCDC is but one federal AMERICAN agency, and there are hundreds of countries recording land temperatures, and dozens of multinational, interdisciplinary agencies and research consortiums also doing research into climate change using land, sea and satellite temperature recorders along with a plethora of other sensors. Try again.
 
"Let's set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline."
 

Attachments

  • 10940416_10152977298424454_6721685322901578853_n.jpg
    10940416_10152977298424454_6721685322901578853_n.jpg
    38.8 KB · Views: 40
So, you do not believe the NCDC? Then who do you believe is correct?
ummm...95% of the published science.....

OBD - If I spend a tiny bit of effort here - would you reciprocate like-wise - and not immediately jump to cut and paste whatever the "anti" of my view is here - and show a bit of respect and at least rationally consider what I am trying to say here - also respectfully? Think of it as a challenge to both of us.

1 - Science is never "perfect" - although it tries (or should, anyways) to - mostly through the venue of peer-review. Yes, some internet bloggers and news stories also are very trustworthy - but many - as you know - are not.

2 - Most people outside of those employed in the sciences - often do not have enough experience, familiarity, training and/or experience in the peer-review world to really understand what the peer-review process is, and how it works. Same can be said for a number also in the sciences.

3 - Most people in the sciences at least recognize that there is a difference between blogs, news, and published science. Some have even developed enough critical skills to critique, gauge, and "rate" the published work. The best way to do that - officially and scientifically - is to write back to that journal and submit a letter of comment. Sometimes that precipitates several scientific comments back and forth that are very enlightening and provide much depth and insight into anyone who wishes to immerse themselves in the debate. Generally, most thorough and "good" scientific papers generate less debate on an article-by-article basis. This would be the appropriate place for the climate blog deniers to publish their critiques. Not surprisingly - there have been very few if any scientific letters of comment that I have witnessed from the climate change deniers compared to the extent of the available peer-reviewed literature. There is of course a reason for that. Can you guess why?

4 - News and blogs do not work as above. News people are told there are always 2 sides to a story - and they normally give equal time to opposing views IRRESPECTIVE of any scientific consensus. That is if there is say 95% consensus that climate change is real, largely caused by human activities, and somewhat avoidable - we should have 95 scientists beating up on 1 industry hack on a talk show bench - but that seems to never happen. Again - can you guess why?

5 - Individual scientific papers are judged on a stand alone basis - but the field of science moves ahead by consensus. That is why we no longer believe the world is flat for example - or that the Earth is *NOT* the center of the solar system - although it is the center of our observable Universe - a very different reasoning. The courts similarly have what they call the weight of evidence when they reach decisions - and the weight of evidence in the scientific literature is that Climate Change exists - the predicted extremes are largely human-induced and potentially something we should take seriously.

6 - Whether or not human-induced Climate Change exists or not - our supply of hydrocarbons is limited - and we are burning through them. This is something that I have never seen the climate change deniers mention. Developing new technologies such as "green" energy based on renewable sources, along with the jobs-jobs-jobs mantra to extend our oil-based supplies should be welcomed by the business community. All of the business community - except for big oil, apparently. I don't see how any climate change denier could seriously argue against this - even you OBD.
 

Attachments

  • 10940585_10152977331734454_4326859078983199328_n.jpg
    10940585_10152977331734454_4326859078983199328_n.jpg
    39.7 KB · Views: 33
  • 10346279_962428883768582_8882541301499071869_n.jpg
    10346279_962428883768582_8882541301499071869_n.jpg
    93.2 KB · Views: 33
Last edited by a moderator:
Gee, your side gets awfull touchy when you are caught.
I see you cannot read again, your side agreed that they did not give out all the facts till they were called on it.

I see you have been getting your science news from the Daily Mail again.
David Rose is not one you should look up to, he is known for getting his stories wrong.
Remind you of someone we know? LOL
Hint if the other Daily Mail stories are all about boobs you should look elsewhere for science news.

You should have a look at here https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin

"The denialists are denying it's the warmest year. Which makes sense if you're in denial"
Feel for you there OBD.... in denial that is. Sad really.
 
Look at the attached. There has been no warming since 1997 and no
statistically significant warming since 1995. Why bother with the
arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998? (Incidentally, the red
fuzz represents the error ‘bars’.)

Best wishes,

Dick

==================================================
Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
MIT Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
attachment.php

Yup this one graph shows you have lost it completely OBD.
Now you want us to believe that your data proves that there is no warming since 1995 or 1997.
Answer this then.... why does your graph stop at 2007 when clearly we have data to the end 2014?
Do you even read what you copy / paste or do you just read the headline and figure that it belongs on this thread.
If you put half the effort into finding out what all this means then you might change your mind.
On second thought your in denial so that wont work will it?

Dang your team is slow.
 
Wow even the WSJ is reporting the warmest year on record.

[h=1]2014 Ranks as Earth’s Warmest Year on Record[/h][h=2]Nine of the 10 Warmest Years on Record Occurred in the 21st Century, Climate Scientists at NASA and NOAA Say[/h]http://www.wsj.com/articles/2014-ranks-as-earths-hottest-year-since-1880-1421427411

The year 2014 was the world’s warmest on record, despite relatively cool temperatures across parts of North America, two federal agencies responsible for monitoring global climate trends said Friday.
Climate experts from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, working independently, calculated that the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was 58.24 degrees Fahrenheit, 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average, the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880. By their reckoning, nine of the 10 warmest years now on record all occurred during the 21st century.
Their finding confirms an analysis by the Japan Meteorological Agency, which announced earlier this month that 2014 was the hottest year world-wide on record. The records used by Japan go back to 1891.
Many scientists attribute the warming temperatures to rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, soot and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as methane and nitrous oxide, and to land-use changes. Some skeptics, however, have suggested that the rise in global temperatures has actually slowed since 1998, which was itself a record-warm year.
“Why do we think this is going on? The attribution of these long-term trends is a complicated fingerprinting exercise,” but greenhouse gas emissions play a major role, said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, who helped prepare the analysis.

“We may anticipate further record highs in the years to come,” he said.
The overall global temperature in 2014 masked considerable local variation, the climate analysts said. For example, in the U.S., parts of the Midwest and East Coast were unusually cool, while Alaska and three western states—California, Arizona and Nevada—experienced their warmest year on record.

Unusually warm temperatures also were recorded in eastern Russia, in the interior of South America, most of Europe stretching into northern Africa, as well as parts of eastern and western coastal Australia. “Every continent had some aspect of record high temperatures,” said Thomas R. Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
The U.S. scientists said Friday that unusually high ocean temperatures combined with slightly cooler land-surface temperatures to make 2014 a record-breaking year. The averaged global ocean temperatures were 1.03°F (0.57°C) above the 20th century average. That too set a record. By themselves, the land temperatures were the fourth warmest on record.

 
300,000 at risk in Lower Mainland flood: experts
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/300-000-at-risk-in-lower-mainland-flood-experts-1.2196450

More than 300,000 homes and billions of dollars of infrastructure could be affected by a major flood in the Lower Mainland because our dikes haven’t been built to withstand more severe flooding caused by climate change, reports and experts say.
A $500,000 push is under way to assess how bad the damage could be and where is vulnerable – the first step to unifying a fragmented Lower Mainland flood management strategy, said David Marshall of the Fraser Basin Council.
“To me, this the most critical issue that the Lower Mainland will face in the next 15-20 years,” Marshall told CTV News.

There are some 1,100 kilometres of dikes in B.C., with 600 kilometres in the Lower Mainland. Much of that was built through a federal and provincial program in the decades after a devastating flood in 1949, which washed away 2,000 homes.In the late 1990s and 2000, cuts at the federal and provincial levels left municipalities in charge of the infrastructure, making B.C. one of the few jurisdictions worldwide without a region-wide flood authority, said flood consultant Tamsin Lyle.
“I would argue that we are extremely under-resourced when it comes to flood hazard,” Lyle said.
Some municipalities are aware of the flood risk and are actively investing in new equipment to protect their citizens, like North Vancouver, she said.
But others lack basic tools like flood maps, which can estimate where the biggest damage is likely to be, and require changes in new buildings in the area.
The disorganization becomes a huge problem now because flood risk has changed since the time those dikes were built, said Lyle.
Climate change models suggest that floods will be more severe and more frequent, putting pressure on the river dike system.
On top of that, sea level will rise, authorities say, with the City of Vancouver mandating that buildings must be prepared for flooding as much as 4.6 meters above sea level.
That means that even cities farther inland have to deal with the threat of a higher sea level, said Dana Soong of the City of Coquitlam.
“The current weather forecasts look at a sea level rise of meters,” he said. “We have to prepare for that.”
Lyle looks to the Calgary floods in 2013 to show off a worst-case scenario. In that flood, damages were estimated at more than $5 billion. Vancouver’s could be worse as it has a larger population with a larger river, as well as dangers from the coast.
The Fraser Basin Council’s Marshall says his organization has stepped in to unite the province, the federal government, 25 municipalities and other regional interests such as railway companies and pipeline company Kinder Morgan.
The non-profit has raised $500,000 to conduct a detailed study of the risks in the Lower Mainland, run through likely flood scenarios, and determine how best to allocate scarce resources to protect citizens, Marshall said.
That study will be finished at the end of the year, he said, and then the next job will be to figure out how to build the infrastructure required, he said.


Looks like it's going to cost us a large sum of money to prepare for the storms to come. I guess we can thank OBD and his kind for that one.
 
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/20/3613554/obama-climate-state-of-the-union/

Obama Touts Climate Action, Mocks The ‘I’m Not A Scientist’ Caucus
BY JOE ROMM POSTED ON JANUARY 20, 2015 AT 10:28 PM UPDATED: JANUARY 21, 2015 AT 9:41 AM

Barack Obama
Obama delivers State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress, Jan. 20, 2015. AP Photo.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama told a joint session of Congress and the American public on Tuesday night that “no challenge  —  no challenge  —  poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” He mocked the now-standard “I’m not a scientist” dodge used by climate science deniers. And he touted his record on climate change and clean energy.

Did you know, as Obama said, that “America is number one in wind power”? It’s true — if instead of going by installed capacity you go by “the total amount of electricity, measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh), that each country produces from wind and delivers to customers each year,” according to statistics from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

The President noted that, “2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record. Now, one year doesn’t make a trend, but this does  — 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century.”

With a climate scientist watching in his wife’s box, Obama eviscerated those who ignore the warnings from scientists and the Pentagon. He responded directly to the absurd “I’m not a scientist” dodge used by many conservatives (including Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, who delivered the GOP response):

I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act. Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what  — I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe. The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it.

The President touted his record on climate change — a record that was made immeasurably stronger last fall with the game-changing climate deal the White House negotiated with China.

That’s why, over the past six years, we’ve done more than ever before to combat climate change, from the way we produce energy, to the way we use it. That’s why we’ve set aside more public lands and waters than any administration in history. And that’s why I will not let this Congress endanger the health of our children by turning back the clock on our efforts. I am determined to make sure American leadership drives international action. In Beijing, we made an historic announcement  — the United States will double the pace at which we cut carbon pollution, and China committed, for the first time, to limiting their emissions. And because the world’s two largest economies came together, other nations are now stepping up, and offering hope that, this year, the world will finally reach an agreement to protect the one planet we’ve got.

As has become standard for the President, even while touting his record on climate change and clean energy, he couldn’t avoid boasting about our record production of oil and gas — fossil fuels that, of course, are major causes of climate change:

We believed we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect our planet. And today, America is number one in oil and gas. America is number one in wind power. Every three weeks, we bring online as much solar power as we did in all of 2008. And thanks to lower gas prices and higher fuel standards, the typical family this year should save $750 at the pump.

The GOP response by Sen. Ernst made no mention of climate change, instead devoting a whole paragraph to the absurdly named “Keystone jobs bill” — despite the fact that the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would only create a few dozen permanent jobs.
Obama didn’t mention Keystone by name, but he dismissed those who have kept touting it as some sort of major job creator, saying, “let’s set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline. Let’s pass a bipartisan infrastructure plan that could create more than thirty times as many jobs per year, and make this country stronger for decades to come.”

The GOP response makes clear that Obama will have to go it alone on climate action and clean energy. His address shows he is prepared to do just that.
UPDATE — Here is an extended excerpt from the speech: <iframe width="553" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/IkH4-yapGFg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Attachments

  • AWEA-638x643.jpg
    AWEA-638x643.jpg
    53.4 KB · Views: 14
http://www.onearth.org/earthwire/so...e=fb&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=socialmedia

THE STATE OF OUR UNION IS HOT
What the president said about climate change in his address to Congress.

BY BRIAN PALMER | @PALMERBRIAN | 13 hours ago
PHOTO: THE WHITE HOUSE

For several years, President Obama described his views on same-sex marriage as “evolving.” It’s a good word, since Democrats are generally enthusiastic about evolution. Well, it appears the president is evolving again.

The president has always been a believer in the science of climate change and the need for urgent action, but he didn’t like to talk about it very much—at least not in his biggest speeches to Congress. (Perhaps he knew his audience.) In his previous five State of the Union addresses, he used the word climate no more than three times. In 2011, he didn’t mention it at all.

Tonight, the President Obama mentioned climate four times. That sounds like a minor increase, but the content of those mentions suggests he’s evolving very, very quickly—like “becoming amphibious” quickly. That skill might be useful, by the way, if we don’t act on climate change.

Here’s what President Obama said in his 2010 speech, according to the official transcript:

And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)

Pretty limited mention. Here’s the transcript from 2013:

But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change. (Applause.)

And here is last year’s transcript:

But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. (Applause.)

Applause, applause, applause. It’s enough to make Lady Gaga switch to politics. (She lives for it, you know.) But the mentions are rarely more than that—the president never spent more than a few seconds of his State of the Union screen time on climate change.

This year, the president actually discussed the facts and the science:

And no challenge — no challenge — poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change. 2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record. Now, one year doesn’t make a trend, but this does —14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century.

And he had this zinger for the “I’m not a scientist” know-nothings:

I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists, that we don’t have enough information to act. Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what — I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe. The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it.

He connected the problem to his diplomatic efforts to forge a solution:

In Beijing, we made a historic announcement — the United States will double the pace at which we cut carbon pollution, and China committed, for the first time, to limiting their emissions. And because the world’s two largest economies came together, other nations are now stepping up and offering hope that, this year, the world will finally reach an agreement to protect the one planet we’ve got.

And he mentioned clean energy:

America is number one in wind power. Every three weeks, we bring online as much solar power as we did in all of 2008.

OK, OK—four mentions is a modest increase and the clean energy shout-out was sandwiched between some unfortunate bragging about fossil fuel extraction. President Obama’s evolutions, though, are unidirectional. What’s the over-under on next year’s State of the Union climate mentions? Five? Six? We can dream.

The more important thing, though, is not how much he talks about climate, but the action he takes. And on that score, 2014 was a banner year, with 2015 shaping up to be the same. The Clean Power Plan. A pact with China. Methane rules.

Talk can garner applause, but the real plaudits will come after action.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top