Actually, even the Flat Earth Society believes in climate change

In his big speech on climate change today, President Obama mocked Republicans who deny the existence of man-made global warming by derisively referring to them as members of "the Flat Earth Society."

"We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society," Obama said. "Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm."

As it turns out, there is a real Flat Earth Society and its president thinks that anthropogenic climate change is real. In an email to Salon, president Daniel Shenton said that while he "can't speak for the Society as a whole regarding climate change," he personally thinks the evidence suggests fossil fuel usage is contributing to global warming.

Continue Reading...

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

Obama on climate change: "We need to act"

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama declared the debate over climate change and its causes obsolete Tuesday as he announced a wide-ranging plan to tackle pollution and prepare communities for global warming.

In a major speech at Georgetown University, Obama warned Americans of the deep and disastrous effects of climate change, urging them to take action before it's too late.

"As a president, as a father and as an American, I'm here to say we need to act," Obama said.

Obama announced he was directing his administration to launch the first-ever federal regulations on heat-trapping gases emitted by new and existing power plants - "to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution."

Other aspects of the plan will boost renewable energy production on federal lands, increase efficiency standards and prepare communities to deal with higher temperatures.

Even before Obama unveiled his plan Tuesday, Republican critics in Congress were lambasting it as a job-killer that would threaten the economic recovery. Obama dismissed those critics, noting the same arguments have been used in the past when the U.S. has taken other steps to protect the environment.

Continue Reading...

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

Before you get excited about Obama's climate speech...

Later today, President Obama will give what's being billed as a major new speech on climate change, where he's expected to announce a series of new measures the administration will take that don't need congressional approval to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

It's a welcome and overdue move, but those who believe in science should probably keep their optimism guarded and praise conditional for the moment, considering Obama's habit of promising big and delivering smaller when it comes to climate.

"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal," he famously (or infamously) said when accepting the Democratic nomination five years ago.

Continue Reading...

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

Obama's Climate Hypocrisy: We Need People In DC 'Willing To Speak Truth To Power ... To Take Some Risks Politically'

Some days the president seems to have no clue about what his own administration has and hasn't done on climate change.

Late Wednesday, President Obama gave a speech to a Democratic fundraiser for the House that tried to rewrite history and shift any blame for climate inaction away from his failed leadership and failed messaging.

Obama actually ended his remarks on what is needed to achieve climate action by saying:

But the most important thing that it's going to take is people in Washington who are willing to speak truth to power, are willing to take some risks politically, are willing to get a little bit out ahead of the curve - not two miles ahead of the curve, but just a little bit ahead of it. And that's why your presence here is so important.

The donor's presence is important to "support the prospect of Nancy Pelosi being Speaker once again." At a second event, Obama even went so far as to say, "If we're going to deal with climate change in a serious way, then we've got to have folks in Congress - even when it's not politically convenient - to talk about it and advocate for it."

Apparently the President is unaware that it was his own White House that shut down any serious talk of climate change by his Administration, by environmental groups, and even by Congress - see "Team Obama Launched The Inane Strategy Of Downplaying Climate Change Back In March 2009."

And, of course, the Congress did pursue serious climate action when it wasn't "politically convenient" - during the nadir of our recent economic collapse - when the House, under the leadership of then-Speaker Pelosi, passed the Waxman-Markey bill. Then leading Senators spent months trying to put together a deal.

But the President never gave one single speech on the subject, he didn't lead, and he wouldn't twist arms in the Senate on climate the way he did on health care (see "The failed presidency of Barack Obama, Part 2").

To repeat, it is just bizarre that the president would say the key thing is to elect a Democratic House who can speak truth to power and take risks politically, given that when he had a Democratic House (and as Democratic a Senate as he is ever going to see), he didn't speak truth to power and he wouldn't take risks politically.

And his other remarks on climate in the home of Tom and Kat Steyer in San Francisco are even more head-exploding when examined closely:

And something that I know is near and dear to Tom and Kat's hearts, and to Nancy's - we've got more work to do in terms of dealing with climate change and making sure that we've got an economy that is energy-efficient, that is productive, that is cutting-edge, and thinks about not just the energy sources of the past, but also the energy promise of the future.

And the thing that I'm going to have to try to work to persuade the American people a little more convincingly on is this notion that there's a contradiction between our economy and our environment is just a false choice - that if we invest now, we will create jobs, we will create entire new industries; other countries will be looking to catch up, they will be looking to import what we do. We will set the standard, and everybody else will have to adapt.

But - and I mentioned this to Tom and Kat and a few folks right before I came out here - the politics of this are tough. Because if you haven't seen a raise in a decade; if your house is still $25,000, $30,000 underwater; if you're just happy that you've still got that factor job that is powered by cheap energy; if every time you go to fill up your old car because you can't afford to buy a new one, and you certainly can't afford to buy a Prius, you're spending 40 bucks that you don't have, which means that you may not be able to save for retirement - you may be concerned about the temperature of the planet, but it's probably not rising to your number-one concern. And if people think, well, that's shortsighted, that's what happens when you're struggling to get by. You're thinking about what's right in front of you, which is how do I fill up my gas tank and how do I feed my family.

And so part of what we're going to have to do is to marry a genuine, passionate concern about middle-class families and everybody who is trying to get into the middle class to show them that we're working just as hard for them as we are for our environmental agenda, and that we can bridge these things in a way that advances the causes of both. And that's going to take some work.

"The politics of this are tough," Mr. President? That's the big insight you shared with the mega-donors.

First off, the politics of everything are tough! The politics of the stimulus bill, the politics of the financial oversight bill, and the politics of health care reform. And yet, those three all happened.

Second, and more important, the President is apparently completely unaware that his White House organized the entire climate messaging in his first term around the economic issue, around debunking the false choice - and that public opinion polls make clear that piece of messaging worked.

In "Revealed: the day Obama chose a strategy of silence on climate change," the UK Guardian quoted Betsy Taylor (and others) about the big March 2009 messaging meeting convened by the White House:

"What was communicated in the presentation was: 'This is what you talk about, and don't talk about climate change'." Taylor said. "I took away an absolutely clear understanding that we should focus on clean energy jobs and the potential of a clean energy economy rather than the threat of climate change."

The message stuck. Subsequent campaigns from the Obama administration and some environmental groups relegated climate change to a second-tier concern.

The Guardian story explains, "The White House, after studying polling and focus groups, concluded it was best to frame climate change as an economic opportunity, a chance for job creation and economic growth, rather than an urgent environmental problem."

I and others, such as the WashPost's Ezra Klein, explained at length why this was only half a message (see "Can you solve global warming without talking about global warming?").

But the President seems to have no idea that his team got everyone pushing a climate bill to focus on the economic message, on the economic benefits to the middle class of climate action - and that polling makes clear it worked at the time:

• Swing state poll finds 60% "would be more likely to vote for their senator if he or she supported the bill" and Independents support the bill 2-to-1 (9/09)
• New CNN poll finds "nearly six in 10 independents" support cap-and-trade (10/09)
• Voters in Ohio, Michigan and Missouri overwhelmingly support action on clean energy and global warming (11/09)
• Overwhelming US Public Support for Global Warming Action (12/09)
• Public Opinion Stunner: WashPost-ABC Poll Finds Strong Support for Global Warming Reductions Despite Relentless Big Oil and Anti-Science Attacks (12/09)
• It's all about Independents - and Independence (1/10)
• Yale: When asked whether they "support or oppose regulation of carbon dioxide ... as pollutant," 73 percent said yes, with only 27 percent opposed, including 61 percent of Republicans (2/10)
• Memo to policymakers: Public STILL favors the transition to clean energy (3/10)

As you can see if you click on those links, most of those explicitly polled on the question of whether the public thinks the climate bill would create jobs, foster new industries, and be good for the economy - and key middle class groups - including independents and key swing voters - overwhelmingly said yes.

Obama's remarks last night would seem to confirm that it was David Axelrod who mismanaged the messaging decisions without discussing the matter at length with the President. Even so, the president cannot be unaware of his general silence on the issue and his leadership failure at the key moment. The speech is a disappointment for anyone expecting serious leadership on this issue from Obama in his second term.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/04/1820951/obama-climate-hypo

EPA hopes to tighten emissions standards on cars

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration will unveil a proposal Friday to clean up gasoline and automobile emissions, a step that officials say will result in cleaner air across the U.S. and slightly higher prices at the pump.

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the rule to reduce sulfur in gasoline and tighten emissions standards on cars beginning in 2017 could increase gas prices by less than a penny per gallon and add $130 to the cost of a vehicle in 2025.

But the agency says it will yield billions of dollars in health benefits by slashing smog- and soot-forming pollution come 2030.

The oil industry, Republicans and some Democrats had pressed the EPA to delay the rule, citing higher costs. An oil industry study says the rule could increase gasoline prices by 6 to 9 cents per gallon.

The so-called Tier 3 standards would reduce sulfur in gasoline by more than 60 percent and reduce nitrogen oxides by 80 percent, by expanding across the country a standard already in place in California. For states, the regulation will make it easier to comply with health-based standards for the main ingredient in smog and soot. For automakers, the regulation allows them to sell the same autos in all 50 states.

Continue Reading...

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/29/epa_hopes_to_tighten_emissions_standar

John Kerry Says 'The Science Is Screaming At Us' But Would Approving Keystone Destroy His Climate Credibility?

Secretary of State John Kerry delivered another set of powerful remarks on climate change last night. But all his poignant words will come to nought - indeed, they'll come back to haunt him - if he makes the wrong decision on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

How precisely could Kerry lobby other countries to join an international climate treaty (and move away from fossil fuels) - perhaps his primary goal as Secretary - after enabling the accelerated exploitation of one of the dirtiest sources of fossil fuels in the world?

I had thought that Obama's strong post-reelection words on climate, coupled with the choice of climate hawk Kerry as Secretary of State, might be a double signal that the administration was prepared to kill the Keystone XL pipeline. But last week, the White House started sending signals "the president is inclined to approve the Keystone XL pipeline."

Keystone is a gateway to a huge pool of carbon-intensive fuel most of which must be left in the ground - along with most of the world's coal and unconventional oil and gas - if humanity is to avoid multiple devastating impacts that may be beyond adaptation. That can't happen without some sort of international agreement (or multi-lateral or bilateral agreements). And such an agreement is not possible without the U.S. taking a leadership role, since we are the richest country and the biggest cumulative polluter.

Kerry certainly understands the risks posed by climate inaction. Yesterday at the National Geographic Society's Ross Sea Conservation Reception, he said:

I have seen this fragile ecosystem change before our very eyes, whether it's a problem of acidification, a problem of pollution and development, a problem of ice melt and potential ecosystem collapse, to the rise of the sea levels, which is happening in various parts of the world....

The entire system is interdependent, and we toy with that at our peril....

So climate change is coming back in a sense as a serious international issue because people are experiencing it firsthand. The science is screaming at us, literally, demanding that people in positions of public responsibility at least exercise the so-called "precautionary principle" to balance the equities and not knowing completely the outcomes at least understand what is happening and take steps to prevent potential disaster.

... I'm here to tell you that, proudly, President Obama has put this agenda back on the front burner where it belongs, that he has in his Inauguration Address and in his State of the Union Address and in the policies he's working on now said we are going to try to exercise leadership because of its imperatives.

[Well, figuratively, not literally....]

But I'm not sure if Kerry has thought through the international implications of approving Keystone. The United States has already undermined its standing to cajole other countries into climate commitments by expanding oil and gas drilling as well as coal exports. But none of those were Kerry's decision, whereas Keystone is.

Yes, the U.S. has a serious shot at hitting Obama's Copenhagen pledge of a 17% cut in CO2 emissions from 2005 levels - if the President embraces strong emissions reductions from existing power plants. But let's not pretend that target is either especially hard to hit or scientifically meaningful (see "Developed Nations Must Cut Emissions In Half By 2020, Says New Study").

That is to say, the fact Kerry can go to the other big emitters and commit to meeting Obama's pledge is a necessary minimum condition to achieve a climate agreement - but it is not sufficient. He needs some moral standing, he needs to be able to demonstrate to the world the U.S. understands that far deeper cuts are needed post-2020 and that means not sticking new spigots into huge, dirty carbon pools like the tar sands.

Kerry needs to show that his words are more than words, that he actually hears the screams from the science - and from generations yet unborn. Kerry must recommend to Obama that Keystone be killed. And Obama must agree - and no, Kerry will not gain anything if Obama were to over-rule him. Quite the reverse: That would be a vote of no-confidence in his Secretary of State on climate issues and make of Kerry a paper tiger.

Kerry starts as Secretary with clean hands on climate. But approving Keystone would be like dipping his hands into the dirtiest, stickiest tar imaginable - they could never be cleaned again.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/19/1743291/john-kerry-science

Obama Makes Case For Curbing Carbon Pollution From Existing Power Plants, Also Vows To Use 'Bully Pulpit'

The President has (finally) been talking hawkish on climate. Turns out he now realizes that is part of his job! (Duh?)

In his second inaugural address, Obama said failing to respond to the threat of climate change "would betray our children and future generations." In his State of the Union, Obama vowed to take executive action if Congress fails to pass a climate bill.

The most important action he can take without further Congressional approval is restricting emissions from existing coal-fired power plants using his authority under the Clean Air Act.

While he didn't announce specific plans for such regulations in the SOTU, he did make the case for them during a recent Google+ hangout:

"The truth is if you produce power using old power plants, you're going to be emitting more carbon - but to upgrade those plants, energy's going to be a little bit more expensive, at least on the front end. At the core, we have to do something that's really difficult for any society to do, and that is to take actions now where the benefits are coming down the road, or at least we're avoiding big problems down the road,"

Watch it:

During the online video chat, he also said that speaking out on climate change is part of his job:

"Part of my job is to use the bully pulpit to help raise people's awareness, because if the public cares about it, eventually Congress acts. If the public doesn't care about it, it's very hard to get big stuff done because legislators respond to their constituents sooner or later."

That is quite a reversal from the climate silence Obama has practiced for much of the past years - a flawed strategy that team Obama actually pushed others to adopt starting back in March 2009. Let's hope this is all more than rhetoric, something we will find out relatively soon - when he makes the final Keystone XL tar sands pipeline decision.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/15/1603871/obama-makes-case-f

Al Gore Says Obama Could Have Had A Climate Bill, Warns Shale Gas 'May Be A Bridge To Nowhere'

Al Gore's new book, The Future, isn't mostly about climate change. In fact, global warming is only one of the "Six drivers of global change."

Others drivers include globalization, the internet (surprise, surprise) and "the reinvention of life and death" from the genomic, biotech, neuroscience, and life sciences revolutions.

Any Gore book is worth reading - Our Choice is one of the best books on climate solutions - and The Future is no exception. Let me cut to the chase on climate and energy.

In his discussion of why the climate bill failed after passing the U.S. House, Gore takes a different view of one recent academic essay and slams the White House:

... the obsolete and dysfunctional rules of the U.S. Senate empowered a minority to kill it in that chamber. Senators in both parties said privately that passage of the climate plan might have been within reach but it seemed to them that President Obama was not prepared to make the all-out effort that would have been necessary to build a coalition in support of the plan. Earlier, he had chosen to make healthcare reform his number one priority, and the badly broken U.S. political system produced a legislative gridlock on his health plan that lasted until the midterm campaign season began, leaving no time for even Senate discussion of the climate change issue.

By then, Obama and his political team in the White House had apparently long since made a sober assessment of the political risks involved in states where the power of the fossil fuel industries would punish him for committing himself to the passage of this plan. So, instead, when his opponents in Congress took up the cry "drill, baby, drill," the president proposed expansion of oil drilling-even in the Arctic Ocean-and opened up more public land to coal mining. For these and other reasons, the positive impacts of the energy and climate proposals with which he began his presidency were nearly overwhelmed by his sharp turn toward a policy that he described as an "all of the above" approach-one that has contributed to the increased reliance on carbon-rich fossil fuels.

Precisely.

Gore has a long discussion on one new source of fossil fuels in particular, natural gas from fracking. The whole discussion is thoughtful and well worth reading.

Here is what the Nobel-Prize winning former VP concludes:

Years ago I was among those who recommended the greater use of conventional natural gas as a bridge fuel to phase out coal use more quickly while solar and wind technologies were produced at sufficient scale to bring their price down even more. However, it is increasingly clear that the net effect of shale gas on the environment may ultimately be inconsistent with its use as a bridge fuel. Global society as a whole would find it difficult to make the enormous investments necessary to switch from coal to gas, and then turn right around and make equally significant investments to substitute were nubile technologies for gas. It strains credulity. In other words, it may be a bridge to nowhere.

Again, precisely.

So many recent futurist books ignore or downplay the polar bear in the room, which isn't a mistake Gore makes. I highly recommend The Future as one of the most comprehensive and readable books on the subject written in recent years.

Related Post:

• Bridge To Nowhere? NOAA Confirms High Methane Leakage Rate Up To 9% From Gas Fields, Gutting Climate Benefit

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/30/1515161/al-gore-says-obama

Obama Goes Hawkish: Failure To Respond To Threat Of Climate Change, 'Would Betray Our Children And Future Generations'

Obama went all climate hawk on America in his second inaugural address (full text here).

These are, I believe, his longest and strongest remarks on the subject in any major national speech, let alone one of this import:

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.

The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries - we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure - our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That's what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

We will soon see if these words have any meaning whatsoever - since approving the Keystone XL pipeline would utterly vitiate them.

Related Post:

• Obama Wins Reelection, Now Must Become A Climate Hawk To Avoid Dust-Bin Of History, Dust Bowl For America

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/21/1475231/obama-goes-hawkish

Why President Obama Is Wrong To Separate The Economy And Climate

Obama can't keep pushing climate away.

by Kiley Kroh

President Barack Obama raised expectations for climate action when he said in his election night acceptance speech that "we want our children to live in an America that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet."

But in his first post-election press conference, he backed away, implying that climate must take a back seat to dealing with the country's economic woes - a distinction echoed by his spokesperson Jay Carney shortly thereafter. The President is exactly right in his first statement and dead wrong in his second.

Sweeping action to address climate change faces enormous political opposition, especially when the economy is the dominant issue of the day. But the reality is that they can be approached simultaneously. In fact, this decision to separate the economy and the environment is a marked reversal from the president's previous statements.

In March, for example, Obama stated quite clearly that environmental and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive:

"There will always be people in this country who say we've got to choose between clean air and clean water and a growing economy, between doing right by our environment and putting people back to work. And I'm here to tell you that is a false choice. That is a false choice. With smart, sustainable policies, we can grow our economy today and protect our environment for ourselves and our children."

In addition to addressing the urgent need to curb our carbon emissions, the economic benefits of dealing with climate change should merit their inclusion in both short-term policy discussions about deficit reduction and long-term economic growth strategies.

For example, a recent analysis from the Congressional Research Service found that a modest carbon tax of $20 per ton that rises 5.6 percent annually could cut the projected 10-year deficit by 50 percent - from $2.3 trillion down to $1.1 trillion. If designed correctly, a carbon tax could help shift the burden of paying for pollution (and solutions to it) from taxpayers to polluters, as well as generate much-needed revenue that could be used for a variety of purposes, including paying down the debt, incentivizing clean energy, and building our resiliency to climate change.

Climate action through clean energy investment has a variety of economic benefits in both the near and long term, driving investments that put people back to work now and increase our economy's productivity over time. Such policies simultaneously reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, curb carbon emissions, and mitigate the negative effects of climate change. A few specific examples:

• Investment in energy efficiency is a win-win for the climate and the economy. The U.S. wastes an estimated $130 billion a year on inefficient buildings and appliances, an obvious and costly drag on the economy. Buildings consume nearly 49 percent of all energy in the economy and emit nearly half of total carbon emissions. A 2011 CAP analysis found that retrofitting just 40 percent of the nation's residential and commercial building stock would create 625,000 sustained full-time jobs over a decade - especially in the hard-hit construction and manufacturing sectors - generating as much as $64 billion per year in cost savings for U.S. energy ratepayers.
• As climate change diminishes our natural resources, efficient use of lands and oceans will benefit both the planet's health and the country's economy. On public lands, conservation-related industries - such as tourism, recreation, and renewable energy development - have enormous economic value and job creation potential. The same can be said for the various sustainable ocean and coastal industries that fuel our nation's blue economy - with coastal restoration in particular providing a tremendous opportunity to create jobs across a wide range of skill sets, diversify local economies, and help protect coastal communities from the increasingly severe storms that result from climate change.
• Though significant action to address climate change will require a substantial investment, failure to act will be far more costly. A new World Bank report released yesterday carried the dire warning that we're on track for a 4¬∞C warmer world by as soon as 2060, a catastrophic scenario "marked by extreme heat-waves, declining global food stocks, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise." With the impacts of pollution currently costing us $500 billion a year and climate destruction already hurting lower and middle-class Americans the most, the implication that climate action would come at the expense of economic growth becomes even more glaringly off-base.

Far from distinct and unrelated, climate and the economy are inextricably linked. The transformation from a predominantly carbon-intensive economy to one built on clean energy will be an enormous undertaking, but one that bears vast potential for job creation, economic diversification, and equipping communities to cope with the devastating impacts of climate change. This shift is not an option. It is imperative.

Last week the International Energy Agency released its annual World Energy Outlook report which made headlines for projecting that the U.S. could become the world's largest oil producer by 2020. The much bigger story, however, is their warning that over 2/3 of the world's proven reserves need to still be in the ground in 2050 in order to prevent catastrophic climate change.

A new PriceWaterhouseCooper study echoed this urgency, concluding we need to quadruple our current rate of decarbonization in order to avoid the absolutely devastating 4°C scenario. We must aggressively deploy clean technologies, internalize the actual price of pollution by putting a price on carbon, and make major investments in climate resiliency. In short, the time for piecemeal solutions has passed.

When it comes to finally tackling climate change head-on, rhetoric will not suffice. It is no longer an option to continue kicking the can down the road, hoping for a better political climate or more stable economy.

As David Remnick writes in the New Yorker, Obama must escape the dangerous Washington mindset that believes "a difficulty delayed is a difficulty allayed" because in the case of climate change, "there will not be a better time. There will only be worse times."

The President must stop separating climate action from economic well-being. It's a wrong - and dangerous - policy stance.

Kiley Kroh is the Associate Director for Ocean Communications at the Center for American Progress.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/climateprogress/lCrX/~3/imAHatMCpNI/story01.htm

http://thinkprogress.org.feedsportal.com/c/34726/f/638933/s/25c9bf8c/l/0Lthinkprogress0Borg0Cclimate0C20A120C110C20A0C12222310Cwhy0Epresident0Eobama0Eis0Ewrong0Eto0Eseparate0Ethe0Eeconomy0Eand0Eclimate0C/story01.htm

Obama Talks Climate Change During His First Post-Election Press Conference

Slate Magazine Staff Writer Will Oremus summed up how a lot of folks in the climate advocacy community were likely feeling this afternoon after Obama's first post-election press conference, in which he was asked about climate change.

There's been a lot of talk in Washington in recent weeks about the possibility of a carbon tax proposal from Congress or even the White House. Along with the fact that the Obama Administration says it is not planning such a proposal, Obama's response in today's press conference shows that broad action on climate probably isn't very high up on the priority list at the moment. While he did say he wanted to do more on climate in his second term, Obama gave few specifics about what a plan might look like.

Here's the full New York Times transcript of the President's comments on climate change from this afternoon:

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. In his endorsement of you a few weeks ago, Mayor Bloomberg said he was motivated by the belief that you would do more to confront the threat of climate change than your opponent. Tomorrow you're going up to New York City, where you're going to, I assume, see people who are still suffering the effects of Hurricane Sandy, which many people say is further evidence of how a warming globe is changing our weather. What specifically do you plan to do in a second term to tackle the issue of climate change? And do you think the political will exists in Washington to pass legislation that could include some kind of a tax on carbon?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, as you know, Mark (sp), we can't attribute any particular weather event to climate change. What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago. We do know that the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than was predicted even five years ago. We do know that there have been extraordinarily - there have been an extraordinarily large number of severe weather events here in North America, but also around the globe.

And I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions. And as a consequence, I think we've got an obligation to future generations to do something about it.

Now, in my first term, we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. That will have an impact. That will a lot of carbon out of the atmosphere. We doubled the production of clean energy, which promises to reduce the utilization of fossil fuels for power generation. And we continue to invest in potential breakthrough technologies that could further remove carbon from our atmosphere.

But we haven't done as much as we need to. So what I'm going to be doing over the next several weeks, next several months, is having a conversation, a wide-ranging conversation with scientists, engineers and elected officials to find out what can - what more can we do to make short-term progress in reducing carbons, and then working through an education process that I think is necessary, a discussion, the conversation across the country about, you know, what realistically can we do long term to make sure that this is not something we're passing on to future generations that's going to be very expensive and very painful to deal with.

I don't know what - what either Democrats or Republicans are prepared to do at this point, because, you know, this is one of those issues that's not just a partisan issue. I also think there's - there are regional differences. There's no doubt that for us to take on climate change in a serious way would involve making some tough political choices, and you know, understandably, I think the American people right now have been so focused and will continue to be focused on our economy and jobs and growth that, you know, if the message is somehow we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anybody's going to go for that.

I won't go for that.

If, on the other hand, we can shape an agenda that says we can create jobs, advance growth and make a serious dent in climate change and be an international leader, I think that's something that the American people would support.

So you know, you can expect that you'll hear more from me in the coming months and years about how we can shape an agenda that garners bipartisan support and helps move this - moves this agenda forward.

Q: It sounds like you're saying, though - (off mic) - probably still short of a consensus on some kind of - (off mic).

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I - that I'm pretty certain of. And look, we're - we're still trying to debate whether we can just make sure that middle-class families don't get a tax hike. Let's see if we can resolve that. That should be easy. This one's hard. But it's important because, you know, one of the things that we don't always factor in are the costs involved in these natural disasters. We'd - we just put them off as - as something that's unconnected to our behavior right now, and I think what, based on the evidence, we're seeing is - is that what we do now is going to have an impact and a cost down the road if - if - if we don't do something about it.

Nothing shocking here. Don't expect anything ground-breaking on climate coming out of Washington anytime soon.

But while some will be disappointed in the lack of policy specifics, the climate advocacy community is surely breathing a sigh of relief that we still have a President who says this:

(Hat tip: Adam Peck of ThinkProgress)

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/climateprogress/lCrX/~3/F1TogeofNZs/story01.htm

http://thinkprogress.org.feedsportal.com/c/34726/f/638933/s/2596c570/l/0Lthinkprogress0Borg0Cclimate0C20A120C110C140C11918410Cobama0Etalks0Eclimate0Echange0Eduring0Ehis0Efirst0Epost0Eelection0Epress0Econference0C/story01.htm

Obama Talks Climate Change During His First Post-Election Press Conference

Slate Magazine Staff Writer Will Oremus summed up how a lot of folks in the climate advocacy community were likely feeling this afternoon after Obama’s first post-election press conference, in which he was asked about climate change.

There’s been a lot of talk in Washington in recent weeks about the possibility of a carbon tax proposal from Congress or even the White House. Along with the fact that the Obama Administration says it is not planning such a proposal, Obama’s response in today’s press conference shows that broad action on climate probably isn’t very high up on the priority list at the moment. While he did say he wanted to do more on climate in his second term, Obama gave few specifics about what a plan might look like.

Here’s the full New York Times transcript of the President’s comments on climate change from this afternoon:

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. In his endorsement of you a few weeks ago, Mayor Bloomberg said he was motivated by the belief that you would do more to confront the threat of climate change than your opponent. Tomorrow you’re going up to New York City, where you’re going to, I assume, see people who are still suffering the effects of Hurricane Sandy, which many people say is further evidence of how a warming globe is changing our weather. What specifically do you plan to do in a second term to tackle the issue of climate change? And do you think the political will exists in Washington to pass legislation that could include some kind of a tax on carbon?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, as you know, Mark (sp), we can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change. What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago. We do know that the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than was predicted even five years ago. We do know that there have been extraordinarily — there have been an extraordinarily large number of severe weather events here in North America, but also around the globe.

And I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions. And as a consequence, I think we’ve got an obligation to future generations to do something about it.

Now, in my first term, we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. That will have an impact. That will a lot of carbon out of the atmosphere. We doubled the production of clean energy, which promises to reduce the utilization of fossil fuels for power generation. And we continue to invest in potential breakthrough technologies that could further remove carbon from our atmosphere.

But we haven’t done as much as we need to. So what I’m going to be doing over the next several weeks, next several months, is having a conversation, a wide-ranging conversation with scientists, engineers and elected officials to find out what can — what more can we do to make short-term progress in reducing carbons, and then working through an education process that I think is necessary, a discussion, the conversation across the country about, you know, what realistically can we do long term to make sure that this is not something we’re passing on to future generations that’s going to be very expensive and very painful to deal with.

I don’t know what — what either Democrats or Republicans are prepared to do at this point, because, you know, this is one of those issues that’s not just a partisan issue. I also think there’s — there are regional differences. There’s no doubt that for us to take on climate change in a serious way would involve making some tough political choices, and you know, understandably, I think the American people right now have been so focused and will continue to be focused on our economy and jobs and growth that, you know, if the message is somehow we’re going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don’t think anybody’s going to go for that.

I won’t go for that.

If, on the other hand, we can shape an agenda that says we can create jobs, advance growth and make a serious dent in climate change and be an international leader, I think that’s something that the American people would support.

So you know, you can expect that you’ll hear more from me in the coming months and years about how we can shape an agenda that garners bipartisan support and helps move this — moves this agenda forward.

Q: It sounds like you’re saying, though — (off mic) — probably still short of a consensus on some kind of — (off mic).

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I — that I’m pretty certain of. And look, we’re — we’re still trying to debate whether we can just make sure that middle-class families don’t get a tax hike. Let’s see if we can resolve that. That should be easy. This one’s hard. But it’s important because, you know, one of the things that we don’t always factor in are the costs involved in these natural disasters. We’d — we just put them off as — as something that’s unconnected to our behavior right now, and I think what, based on the evidence, we’re seeing is — is that what we do now is going to have an impact and a cost down the road if — if — if we don’t do something about it.

Nothing shocking here. Don’t expect anything ground-breaking on climate coming out of Washington anytime soon.

But while some will be disappointed in the lack of policy specifics, the climate advocacy community is surely breathing a sigh of relief that we still have a President who says this:

(Hat tip: Adam Peck of ThinkProgress)

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/climateprogress/lCrX/~3/F1TogeofNZs/story01.htm

http://thinkprogress.org.feedsportal.com/c/34726/f/638933/s/2596c570/l/0Lthinkprogress0Borg0Cclimate0C20A120C110C140C11918410Cobama0Etalks0Eclimate0Echange0Eduring0Ehis0Efirst0Epost0Eelection0Epress0Econference0C/story01.htm