Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama zeroes in on myopic GOP energy plans and touts his own, but not one word about climate change (221 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Just for the record, not everything the... (20+ / 0-)

    ...president advocated does go to the climate change issue. Advocating more production or oil and gas goes the opposite direction. Other things left out of the speech, like opening up 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to exploration, as well as areas of the Arctic and off the Atlantic Coast, plus opening more land to coal mining likewise cut the opposite way.

    I have nothing against the use of "climate chaos." But few of the leading climate scientists have adopted this term. Some still use "global warming."

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 04:31:06 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  On climate change (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, fcvaguy, orange dog, bmcphail

      Obama is not the droid we are looking for. He seems perfectly happy to support bad energy if he can sneak in some good energy while he is at it.  His principal virtue in this is that his misguided policy is better than all the available alternatives. Someday the need will become so great and the crisis so profound that we will finally have a climate change warrior for President, but that will be too late to avert much chaos, horror and human suffering and dislocation.

      That said, if he is directly confronted by his GOP opponent with the hoax myth, I believe he will fight back and affirmatively embrace, at least, the science that his opponents reject.

      Bumpersticker: GOP. Cheering Death. Booing Soldiers. Join Us.

      by LeftOfYou on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 05:57:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, Climate Chaos (0+ / 0-)

      vs Climate Change. In a way it sort of validates the problem with some on the far left where the words and language are far more important than the actual message.

      •  I see the problem as being that... (5+ / 0-)

        ...some people (at various places on the political spectrum) mistake words, language and message for reality.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 07:08:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  completely agree (0+ / 0-)

          for example, I see a speech that talks about clean and renewable energy to be synonymous with climate change; the message being we need to focus on these types of energy because we're doomed if we don't. Whereas, you're hung on the fact that he didn't use specific approved language. IMO, that's superficial and ignores the central message.

          •  What's superficial is focusing on one part... (5+ / 0-)

            ....of the speech and ignoring other parts that have nothing to do with "clean" and renewable energy. Parts like this:

            Now, it starts with the need for safe, responsible oil production here in America.  We’re not going to transition out of oil anytime soon.  And that’s why under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years.  That’s why we have a record number of oilrigs operating right now -- more working oil and gas rigs than the rest of the world combined.

            Over the last three years my administration has approved dozens of new pipelines, including from Canada.  And we’ve opened millions of acres for oil and gas exploration.  All told we plan to make available more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico.

            Last week, we announced the next steps towards further energy exploration in the Arctic.  Earlier this week, we joined Mexico in an agreement that will make more than 1.5 million acres in the Gulf available for exploration and production, which contains an estimated 172 million barrels of oil and 304 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

            These are not clean energies. And every extra minute we hold the atmosphere hostage to our burning of these fuels exacerbates what we already know is going to be a serious problem. These are policies that extend rather than shorten the period of time we will keep mucking up the atmosphere.

            I am not a purist, as you are well aware. I do not spend all of my time criticizing Barack Obama. This diary was hardly an attack on him for leaving out a reference to the devastating impacts that our current energy policies are having. A good deal of what I have written here is strong praise for his initiatives. Hundreds of words of it, in fact.

            But it's a misjudgment on the part of the President and his advisers to avoid even mentioning the damage that pouring additional carbon into the atmosphere is causing and will cause. Especially when he is talking to a university audience. My diary was not a call for him to focus his entire speech or even a major portion of it on climate change, merely that he should have included this important matter. In a speech that includes paragraphs of paeans to future decades of additional extracting oil from fragile environments and to 100 more years of burning natural gas, I think the central message is more than a bit confused.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 08:03:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (147)
  • Community (57)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Culture (29)
  • Elections (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Law (25)
  • Texas (23)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Environment (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Education (18)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Racism (17)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Politics (16)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site