Anti-Climate World Leaders Keep Losing Their Jobs
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
-
AiA in Atlanta
- Posts: 7259
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:44 pm
Anti-Climate World Leaders Keep Losing Their Jobs
Seeking employment: Canada's Stephen Harper
-
Rorschach
- Posts: 14801
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:25 pm
Re: Anti-Climate World Leaders Keep Losing Their Jobs
Really? 
DOLT - A person who is stupid and entirely tedious at the same time, like bwian. Oblivious to their own mental incapacity. On IGNORE - Warrior, mellie, Nom De Plume, FLEKTARD
-
Super Nova
- Posts: 11788
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:49 am
- Location: Overseas
Re: Anti-Climate World Leaders Keep Losing Their Jobs
They should all lose there jobs.
Look here. The polluting powerful are about to mobilise.
Numerous States Prepare Lawsuits Against Obama’s Climate Policy
WASHINGTON — As many as 25 states will join some of the nation’s most influential business groups in legal action to block President Obama’s climate change regulations when they are formally published Friday, trying to stop his signature environmental policy.
In August, the president announced in a White House ceremony that the Environmental Protection Agency rules had been completed, but they had not yet been published in the government’s Federal Register. Within hours of the rules’ official publication on Friday, a legal battle will begin, pitting the states against the federal government. It is widely expected to end up before the Supreme Court.
“I predict there will be a very long line of people at the federal courthouse tomorrow morning, eagerly waiting to file their suits on this case,” said Jeffrey R. Holmstead, a lawyer for the firm Bracewell & Giuliani who represents several companies that are expected to file such suits.
The Rosebud coal mine in Colstrip, Mont. A measure that Senate Democratic leaders plan to unveil on Tuesday would establish a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 2 percent each year through 2025.
While the legal brawls could drag on for years, many states and companies, including those that are suing the administration, have also started drafting plans to comply with the rules. That strategy reflects the uncertainty of the ultimate legal outcome — and also means that many states could be well on the way to implementing Mr. Obama’s climate plan by the time the case reaches the Supreme Court.
The E.P.A.’s climate change rules are at the heart of Mr. Obama’s ambitious agenda to counter global warming by cutting emissions of planet-warming carbon pollution. If they withstand the legal challenges, the rules could shutter hundreds of polluting, coal-fired power plants and freeze construction of such plants in the future, while leading to a transformation of the nation’s power sector from reliance on fossil fuels to wind, solar and nuclear power.
Mr. Obama has also used the rules as leverage in his negotiations to reach a global climate change accord in Paris in December. He hopes to broker a deal committing every country to enacting domestic climate change policies.
The official publication of the rules will also spur legislative pushback on Capitol Hill, where Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, will introduce two resolutions to block them. The legislation will be introduced under the rarely used Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to block an executive branch rule within 60 legislative days of its publication.
While the resolutions are likely to pass the Republican-controlled Congress, Mr. Obama would be expected to veto them. But by introducing the resolutions, Mr. McConnell hopes to convey to the world that Congress does not support the Obama regulations — a message that could be amplified if the Senate votes on the resolutions before or during the Paris summit meeting.
The Obama administration has sought to ensure that the rules will not come under question before that meeting. By delaying the official publication of the rules until nearly three months after they were announced, for example, the administration appeared to be trying to ensure that no major legal decisions to weaken them would be issued before the Paris meeting.
A broad and powerful coalition of governors, attorneys general, coal companies, electric utilities and business groups such as the United States Chamber of Commerce will file suits contending that the rules, put forth under the 1970 Clean Air Act, represent an illegal interpretation of the law. They will also petition to delay implementation of the rule until the case is argued in federal court.
“The president’s illegal rule will have devastating impacts on West Virginia families, and families across the country,” Attorney General Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia said in a statement. Mr. Morrisey, whose home state’s economy is heavily dependent on coal mining, is expected to play a lead role in the multistate lawsuit.
States and companies may be hedging their bets.
In Georgia, Gov. Nathan Deal’s administration plans to sue the E.P.A. At the same time, the governor, a Republican, has also instructed his director of environmental protection, Judson H. Turner, to begin crafting a plan to comply with the rules.
“The governor of Georgia said to me, ‘Whatever action may be taken on the legal front, we’ll need to develop a plan that works for Georgia,’ ” Mr. Turner said. If Mr. Obama’s plan survives the legal challenge, Mr. Turner added, “we’ll have the confidence that we’ll put a plan for Georgia together that’s better than a federal plan.”
Similar dynamics are playing out in many other states that are suing over the rules, said Vicki Arroyo, the executive director of the Georgetown University Climate Center, which focuses on state-level climate policies.
“It’s really rare to find a state that just says, ‘Hell no,’ ” she said.
The rules assign each state a target for reducing its carbon pollution from power plants, but allows states to create their own custom plans for doing so. That rule is designed to encourage states to make major changes in their electric power sectors — for example, to shut down coal-fired power plants and replace them with wind and solar power. It is also designed to encourage states to enact so-called cap-and-trade systems, under which they would place a cap on carbon emissions and create a market for buying and selling pollution credits.
States have to submit an initial version of their plans by 2016 and final versions by 2018. States that refuse to submit a plan will be forced to comply with one developed by the federal government.
Republican governors have denounced the rule, particularly its emphasis on pushing cap-and-trade systems; in his first term, Mr. Obama tried but failed to send a cap-and-trade bill through Congress. Since then, the term has become politically toxic: Republicans have attacked the idea as “cap-and-tax.” The governors of five states — Texas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Louisiana and Oklahoma — have threatened to refuse to submit a plan of any kind.
But economists and many industry leaders have found that in many cases, the easiest and cheapest way for states to comply would be by adopting cap-and-trade systems.
American Electric Power, an electric utility that operates in 11 states, is among the companies that intends to sue the administration over the rule. At the same time, the company’s vice president, John McManus, said: “We think it makes sense for states to at least start developing a plan. The alternative of having a federal plan has risks.” And he said that his company could support a cap-and-trade plan. “The initial read is that a market-based approach is more workable,” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/us/po ... opics&_r=0
Related Coverage
White House Emphasizes Companies’ Commitment to Cutting EmissionsOCT. 19, 2015
Oil rigging equipment near Sweetwater, Texas. The Obama administration has set a goal of reducing methane emissions by 40 to 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025.
E.P.A. Announces New Rules to Cut Methane EmissionsAUG. 18, 2015
A Republican supporter wore a tie decorated with elephant mascots at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., in 2012.
Many Conservative Republicans Believe Climate Change Is a Real ThreatSEPT. 28, 2015
The Guardian Industries glass plant in Carleton, Mich. The global company agreed to spend $70 million to control emissions from plants in seven states, federal regulators said.
Guardian Industries Settles Allegations It Violated Clean Air ActSEPT. 29, 2015
Look here. The polluting powerful are about to mobilise.
Numerous States Prepare Lawsuits Against Obama’s Climate Policy
WASHINGTON — As many as 25 states will join some of the nation’s most influential business groups in legal action to block President Obama’s climate change regulations when they are formally published Friday, trying to stop his signature environmental policy.
In August, the president announced in a White House ceremony that the Environmental Protection Agency rules had been completed, but they had not yet been published in the government’s Federal Register. Within hours of the rules’ official publication on Friday, a legal battle will begin, pitting the states against the federal government. It is widely expected to end up before the Supreme Court.
“I predict there will be a very long line of people at the federal courthouse tomorrow morning, eagerly waiting to file their suits on this case,” said Jeffrey R. Holmstead, a lawyer for the firm Bracewell & Giuliani who represents several companies that are expected to file such suits.
The Rosebud coal mine in Colstrip, Mont. A measure that Senate Democratic leaders plan to unveil on Tuesday would establish a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 2 percent each year through 2025.
While the legal brawls could drag on for years, many states and companies, including those that are suing the administration, have also started drafting plans to comply with the rules. That strategy reflects the uncertainty of the ultimate legal outcome — and also means that many states could be well on the way to implementing Mr. Obama’s climate plan by the time the case reaches the Supreme Court.
The E.P.A.’s climate change rules are at the heart of Mr. Obama’s ambitious agenda to counter global warming by cutting emissions of planet-warming carbon pollution. If they withstand the legal challenges, the rules could shutter hundreds of polluting, coal-fired power plants and freeze construction of such plants in the future, while leading to a transformation of the nation’s power sector from reliance on fossil fuels to wind, solar and nuclear power.
Mr. Obama has also used the rules as leverage in his negotiations to reach a global climate change accord in Paris in December. He hopes to broker a deal committing every country to enacting domestic climate change policies.
The official publication of the rules will also spur legislative pushback on Capitol Hill, where Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, will introduce two resolutions to block them. The legislation will be introduced under the rarely used Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to block an executive branch rule within 60 legislative days of its publication.
While the resolutions are likely to pass the Republican-controlled Congress, Mr. Obama would be expected to veto them. But by introducing the resolutions, Mr. McConnell hopes to convey to the world that Congress does not support the Obama regulations — a message that could be amplified if the Senate votes on the resolutions before or during the Paris summit meeting.
The Obama administration has sought to ensure that the rules will not come under question before that meeting. By delaying the official publication of the rules until nearly three months after they were announced, for example, the administration appeared to be trying to ensure that no major legal decisions to weaken them would be issued before the Paris meeting.
A broad and powerful coalition of governors, attorneys general, coal companies, electric utilities and business groups such as the United States Chamber of Commerce will file suits contending that the rules, put forth under the 1970 Clean Air Act, represent an illegal interpretation of the law. They will also petition to delay implementation of the rule until the case is argued in federal court.
“The president’s illegal rule will have devastating impacts on West Virginia families, and families across the country,” Attorney General Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia said in a statement. Mr. Morrisey, whose home state’s economy is heavily dependent on coal mining, is expected to play a lead role in the multistate lawsuit.
States and companies may be hedging their bets.
In Georgia, Gov. Nathan Deal’s administration plans to sue the E.P.A. At the same time, the governor, a Republican, has also instructed his director of environmental protection, Judson H. Turner, to begin crafting a plan to comply with the rules.
“The governor of Georgia said to me, ‘Whatever action may be taken on the legal front, we’ll need to develop a plan that works for Georgia,’ ” Mr. Turner said. If Mr. Obama’s plan survives the legal challenge, Mr. Turner added, “we’ll have the confidence that we’ll put a plan for Georgia together that’s better than a federal plan.”
Similar dynamics are playing out in many other states that are suing over the rules, said Vicki Arroyo, the executive director of the Georgetown University Climate Center, which focuses on state-level climate policies.
“It’s really rare to find a state that just says, ‘Hell no,’ ” she said.
The rules assign each state a target for reducing its carbon pollution from power plants, but allows states to create their own custom plans for doing so. That rule is designed to encourage states to make major changes in their electric power sectors — for example, to shut down coal-fired power plants and replace them with wind and solar power. It is also designed to encourage states to enact so-called cap-and-trade systems, under which they would place a cap on carbon emissions and create a market for buying and selling pollution credits.
States have to submit an initial version of their plans by 2016 and final versions by 2018. States that refuse to submit a plan will be forced to comply with one developed by the federal government.
Republican governors have denounced the rule, particularly its emphasis on pushing cap-and-trade systems; in his first term, Mr. Obama tried but failed to send a cap-and-trade bill through Congress. Since then, the term has become politically toxic: Republicans have attacked the idea as “cap-and-tax.” The governors of five states — Texas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Louisiana and Oklahoma — have threatened to refuse to submit a plan of any kind.
But economists and many industry leaders have found that in many cases, the easiest and cheapest way for states to comply would be by adopting cap-and-trade systems.
American Electric Power, an electric utility that operates in 11 states, is among the companies that intends to sue the administration over the rule. At the same time, the company’s vice president, John McManus, said: “We think it makes sense for states to at least start developing a plan. The alternative of having a federal plan has risks.” And he said that his company could support a cap-and-trade plan. “The initial read is that a market-based approach is more workable,” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/us/po ... opics&_r=0
Related Coverage
White House Emphasizes Companies’ Commitment to Cutting EmissionsOCT. 19, 2015
Oil rigging equipment near Sweetwater, Texas. The Obama administration has set a goal of reducing methane emissions by 40 to 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025.
E.P.A. Announces New Rules to Cut Methane EmissionsAUG. 18, 2015
A Republican supporter wore a tie decorated with elephant mascots at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., in 2012.
Many Conservative Republicans Believe Climate Change Is a Real ThreatSEPT. 28, 2015
The Guardian Industries glass plant in Carleton, Mich. The global company agreed to spend $70 million to control emissions from plants in seven states, federal regulators said.
Guardian Industries Settles Allegations It Violated Clean Air ActSEPT. 29, 2015
Always remember what you post, send or do on the internet is not private and you are responsible.
-
Outlaw Yogi
- Posts: 2404
- Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:27 pm
Re: Anti-Climate World Leaders Keep Losing Their Jobs
Nobody, and especially those making the most noise about global warming has the slightest intention of preventing it, even if they could.
Everybody involved in this industry is just trying to make a buck out of scare campaigns and clean green images.
I laughed when I read about VW's "dieselgate" scandal, 'coz it proves what I've been saying for years.
The way I see it, there's no genuine intent to deal with GW, including adaption and mitigation. A planet that can only sustainably support 3 billion people has 7+ billion on it, so we may as well push this GW phenomenon into overdrive to induce a big cull.
Everybody involved in this industry is just trying to make a buck out of scare campaigns and clean green images.
I laughed when I read about VW's "dieselgate" scandal, 'coz it proves what I've been saying for years.
The way I see it, there's no genuine intent to deal with GW, including adaption and mitigation. A planet that can only sustainably support 3 billion people has 7+ billion on it, so we may as well push this GW phenomenon into overdrive to induce a big cull.
If Donald Trump is so close to the Ruskis, why couldn't he get Vladimir Putin to put novichok in Xi Jjinping's lipstick?
-
Super Nova
- Posts: 11788
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:49 am
- Location: Overseas
Re: Anti-Climate World Leaders Keep Losing Their Jobs
It's time for a big cull. Natures way of setting the balance right.Outlaw Yogi wrote:Nobody, and especially those making the most noise about global warming has the slightest intention of preventing it, even if they could.
Everybody involved in this industry is just trying to make a buck out of scare campaigns and clean green images.
I laughed when I read about VW's "dieselgate" scandal, 'coz it proves what I've been saying for years.
The way I see it, there's no genuine intent to deal with GW, including adaption and mitigation. A planet that can only sustainably support 3 billion people has 7+ billion on it, so we may as well push this GW phenomenon into overdrive to induce a big cull.
Always remember what you post, send or do on the internet is not private and you are responsible.
-
Super Nova
- Posts: 11788
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:49 am
- Location: Overseas
Re: Anti-Climate World Leaders Keep Losing Their Jobs
Interesting.....
Presidential Candidates: Who Believes in Climate Change?
By Renee Cho | October 28, 2015 |
Editor’s Note: This article was originally published by the Earth Institute at Columbia University on October 26, 2015, and is republished here with permission.
The presidential election of 2016 will determine the United States’ role in confronting and managing the impacts of climate change for years to come.
A new University of Texas poll found that 76 percent of Americans (an increase of 8 percent from one year ago) now believe climate change is occurring, including 59 percent of Republicans. Will the growing numbers of believers affect the election?
“Issues like climate change, habitat destruction and pollution are of interest to the public, and big majorities favor protecting the environment—usually around three-quarters of the total population,” said Steve Cohen, executive director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. “Now, whether it gets reflected in a political campaign is another question.”
Where do the presidential candidates stand today on these issues?
Republicans
Jeb Bush (former governor of Florida) believes that climate change is real, but says that the science is not clear about what proportion of global warming is manmade. While he has called for some action on climate change, he has not said how he would combat it. He supports using all sources of energy including nuclear, natural gas, coal and renewables and would phase out all energy tax credits to let the market pick winners and losers. Bush supports the Keystone XL pipeline. If elected, he would lift the ban on oil and natural gas exports and reverse the EPA’s Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants.
Ben Carson (retired neurosurgeon) believes that climate change is happening in the sense that there’s “always going to be either cooling or warming going on” and has called the climate debate “irrelevant.” While he has no plans to combat climate change, he does believe it’s important to protect the environment. If elected, he would approve the Keystone XL pipeline and develop oil resources while also investing in renewable resources; however, he would not support any government subsidies because he feels they interfere with the free market.
Chris Christie (governor of New Jersey) believes manmade climate change is real but has not put forth any proposals to reduce emissions. If elected, he would proceed with the Keystone XL pipeline, end the ban on crude oil exports and invest in research into new technologies. He supports renewable energy that is appropriate for each state’s particular geography and touts New Jersey as the country’s third largest solar energy producer. However, in 2011, he withdrew New Jersey from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a northeast cap and trade program.
Ted Cruz (U.S. senator from Texas) says that the data and facts do not support climate change and has called the theory that human activity causes it “pseudoscientific.” He has accused government researchers of “cooking the books” on climate change to have a basis for controlling the economy and energy industry. Cruz took the No Climate Tax pledge (created by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group funded by the Koch brothers) not to support any legislation on climate change that includes an increase in taxes. If elected, he would construct the Keystone XL pipeline and do away with all energy subsidies to let the market decide.
Carly Fiorina (former CEO of Hewlett Packard) acknowledges that manmade climate change is occurring, but does not believe it is a pressing issue and has not put forth any plans to combat it. She supports the Keystone XL pipeline, and believes we must develop all sources of energy including nuclear and gas. According to Fiorina, environmental regulations will not make any difference at all in fighting climate change and will only hurt the economy; rather the answer lies in innovation, especially clean coal. She supports tax credits for renewable energy.
Jim Gilmore (former Governor of Virginia) believes climate change is real and manmade and has called for some action against it, but has not put forth any proposal to reduce emissions. He supports the Keystone XL pipeline, and oil drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If elected, he would encourage private investment into alternative fuels and energy, and clean coal technology.
Lindsey Graham (U.S. senator from South Carolina) believes climate change is occurring and that human activity has contributed to it. He has said he would take action against it in a business-friendly way that supports an all-of-the-above energy policy including oil, gas, nuclear and investment in renewable energy. He voted against the Production Tax Credit, a tax credit for companies that generate electricity from renewable energy (which has been temporarily extended). Graham also voted against a national goal of getting 25 percent of electricity from renewables by 2025. He supports the Keystone XL pipeline.
Mike Huckabee (former governor of Arkansas) does not believe climate change is real or manmade and would not call for action against it if elected. He has said, “Science is not as settled” on climate change as it is on other things. Huckabee advocates an all-of-the-above energy policy that includes oil and gas, nuclear and renewable energy, and emphasizes using the resources we have.
Bobby Jindal (governor of Louisiana) believes in manmade climate change and has called for action against it. He believes the best way to combat climate change is to work in concert with other major economies to promote smart policies, and develop strategies to adapt to climate change. If elected, Jindal would develop more oil and gas resources as well as nuclear power, approve the Keystone XL pipeline and roll back the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. He would encourage technological innovation of renewables and phase out subsidies so that all energy sources compete on a level playing field.
John Kasich (governor of Ohio) believes climate change is real and manmade and has called for action against it, but has not said how he would combat climate change if elected. While he feels renewable energy should be a large part of our future energy mix and encourages research into new technologies, he supports an all-of-the-above energy policy, which includes approval of the Keystone XL pipeline and oil drilling on federal lands. Kasich opposes the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and would undo all federal fracking regulations.
George Pataki (former governor of New York), an environmental lawyer, believes manmade climate change is real and has called for action against it, but he supports private and market-based initiatives rather than government regulations to reduce carbon emissions. Pataki would develop renewable energy sources and technology, as well as innovations that can make fossil fuels cleaner. He opposes extending the Production Tax Credit and is against other exemptions, but would work on permitting issues and storage capacity to help develop wind energy.
Rand Paul (U.S. senator from Kentucky) believes climate change is happening, but not that humans have contributed to it, and has not said he would do anything to combat climate change, if elected. Paul took the Americans for Prosperity’s No Climate Tax pledge. He supports the Keystone XL pipeline and voted against a national goal of 25 percent of electricity from renewables by 2025, against legislation supporting the installation of solar panels, and against renewing the Production Tax Credit to support renewable energy.
Marco Rubio (junior U.S. senator from Florida) believes climate change is happening, but not that it is caused by man. “And I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy,” he has said. Rubio supports the Keystone XL pipeline and offshore oil and gas drilling. If elected, he would lift the ban on oil exports, stop the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, and nullify federal regulations on fracking. He took the No Climate Tax pledge and voted against extending the Production Tax Credit.
Rick Santorum (former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania) believes climate change is real, but not that it is manmade. If elected, he would not do anything about it, because he believes there is nothing the United States can do. “Everything that is being considered by the United States will have almost—well, not almost, but zero impact on it given what’s going on in the rest of the world,” he has said. Santorum supports the Keystone XL pipeline.
Donald Trump (real estate developer) doesn’t believe in climate change and asserts that the changes we see are actually just weather, unaffected by human actions. He puts climate change low on the list of problems we need to address. In 2012, Trump said global warming was a hoax created by China to make U.S. manufacturing uncompetitive. He supports regulating air pollution.
Democrats
Hillary Clinton (former U.S. senator from New York and secretary of state) believes climate change is real and manmade. She has called it “the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world.” Clinton unveiled a plan that would install half a billion solar panels across the country by 2020 (a 700 percent increase in solar capacity); and expand renewable energy (including geothermal and hydro) sufficiently to produce 33 percent of U.S. electricity by 2027. Her Clean Energy Challenge, partnering with states, cities and communities, will include incentives, competitions, and investment in transmission and R&D. Clinton is opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline and Arctic drilling and supports extending the Production Tax Credit.
Martin O’Malley (former governor of Maryland) acknowledges that climate change is happening and believes it is manmade. He has a plan to move the U.S. to renewable energy completely by 2050, double energy efficiency within 15 years, invest in clean energy infrastructure, and create a clean energy job corps to retrofit and restore communities and the environment. If elected, O’Malley would support local renewable energy generation and modernize the electric grid. He supports a long-term extension of the Production Tax Credit.
Bernie Sanders (U.S. senator from Vermont) believes climate change is real and manmade. He has called it “the single greatest threat facing the planet.” He and Sen. Barbara Boxer introduced climate change legislation to tax carbon and methane emissions, and he secured $3.2 billion in the economic stimulus package for greenhouse gas emission-reduction grants. Sanders voted for the national goal of 25 percent of electricity from renewables by 2025 and for the extension of the Production Tax Credit. He led the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline, and opposes fracking and Arctic drilling.
Lawrence Lessig (law professor at Harvard Law School) believes manmade climate change is occurring and that it is a moral principle to protect the environment. He supports a carbon tax as well as green energy policies. Lessig is pushing for election finance reform because, “Coal interests and oil interests have spent endless sums distorting the science and politicizing the policy, so that it is harder today to get legislation passed than it would have been a decade ago.”
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gue ... te-change/
Presidential Candidates: Who Believes in Climate Change?
By Renee Cho | October 28, 2015 |
Editor’s Note: This article was originally published by the Earth Institute at Columbia University on October 26, 2015, and is republished here with permission.
The presidential election of 2016 will determine the United States’ role in confronting and managing the impacts of climate change for years to come.
A new University of Texas poll found that 76 percent of Americans (an increase of 8 percent from one year ago) now believe climate change is occurring, including 59 percent of Republicans. Will the growing numbers of believers affect the election?
“Issues like climate change, habitat destruction and pollution are of interest to the public, and big majorities favor protecting the environment—usually around three-quarters of the total population,” said Steve Cohen, executive director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. “Now, whether it gets reflected in a political campaign is another question.”
Where do the presidential candidates stand today on these issues?
Republicans
Jeb Bush (former governor of Florida) believes that climate change is real, but says that the science is not clear about what proportion of global warming is manmade. While he has called for some action on climate change, he has not said how he would combat it. He supports using all sources of energy including nuclear, natural gas, coal and renewables and would phase out all energy tax credits to let the market pick winners and losers. Bush supports the Keystone XL pipeline. If elected, he would lift the ban on oil and natural gas exports and reverse the EPA’s Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants.
Ben Carson (retired neurosurgeon) believes that climate change is happening in the sense that there’s “always going to be either cooling or warming going on” and has called the climate debate “irrelevant.” While he has no plans to combat climate change, he does believe it’s important to protect the environment. If elected, he would approve the Keystone XL pipeline and develop oil resources while also investing in renewable resources; however, he would not support any government subsidies because he feels they interfere with the free market.
Chris Christie (governor of New Jersey) believes manmade climate change is real but has not put forth any proposals to reduce emissions. If elected, he would proceed with the Keystone XL pipeline, end the ban on crude oil exports and invest in research into new technologies. He supports renewable energy that is appropriate for each state’s particular geography and touts New Jersey as the country’s third largest solar energy producer. However, in 2011, he withdrew New Jersey from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a northeast cap and trade program.
Ted Cruz (U.S. senator from Texas) says that the data and facts do not support climate change and has called the theory that human activity causes it “pseudoscientific.” He has accused government researchers of “cooking the books” on climate change to have a basis for controlling the economy and energy industry. Cruz took the No Climate Tax pledge (created by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group funded by the Koch brothers) not to support any legislation on climate change that includes an increase in taxes. If elected, he would construct the Keystone XL pipeline and do away with all energy subsidies to let the market decide.
Carly Fiorina (former CEO of Hewlett Packard) acknowledges that manmade climate change is occurring, but does not believe it is a pressing issue and has not put forth any plans to combat it. She supports the Keystone XL pipeline, and believes we must develop all sources of energy including nuclear and gas. According to Fiorina, environmental regulations will not make any difference at all in fighting climate change and will only hurt the economy; rather the answer lies in innovation, especially clean coal. She supports tax credits for renewable energy.
Jim Gilmore (former Governor of Virginia) believes climate change is real and manmade and has called for some action against it, but has not put forth any proposal to reduce emissions. He supports the Keystone XL pipeline, and oil drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If elected, he would encourage private investment into alternative fuels and energy, and clean coal technology.
Lindsey Graham (U.S. senator from South Carolina) believes climate change is occurring and that human activity has contributed to it. He has said he would take action against it in a business-friendly way that supports an all-of-the-above energy policy including oil, gas, nuclear and investment in renewable energy. He voted against the Production Tax Credit, a tax credit for companies that generate electricity from renewable energy (which has been temporarily extended). Graham also voted against a national goal of getting 25 percent of electricity from renewables by 2025. He supports the Keystone XL pipeline.
Mike Huckabee (former governor of Arkansas) does not believe climate change is real or manmade and would not call for action against it if elected. He has said, “Science is not as settled” on climate change as it is on other things. Huckabee advocates an all-of-the-above energy policy that includes oil and gas, nuclear and renewable energy, and emphasizes using the resources we have.
Bobby Jindal (governor of Louisiana) believes in manmade climate change and has called for action against it. He believes the best way to combat climate change is to work in concert with other major economies to promote smart policies, and develop strategies to adapt to climate change. If elected, Jindal would develop more oil and gas resources as well as nuclear power, approve the Keystone XL pipeline and roll back the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. He would encourage technological innovation of renewables and phase out subsidies so that all energy sources compete on a level playing field.
John Kasich (governor of Ohio) believes climate change is real and manmade and has called for action against it, but has not said how he would combat climate change if elected. While he feels renewable energy should be a large part of our future energy mix and encourages research into new technologies, he supports an all-of-the-above energy policy, which includes approval of the Keystone XL pipeline and oil drilling on federal lands. Kasich opposes the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and would undo all federal fracking regulations.
George Pataki (former governor of New York), an environmental lawyer, believes manmade climate change is real and has called for action against it, but he supports private and market-based initiatives rather than government regulations to reduce carbon emissions. Pataki would develop renewable energy sources and technology, as well as innovations that can make fossil fuels cleaner. He opposes extending the Production Tax Credit and is against other exemptions, but would work on permitting issues and storage capacity to help develop wind energy.
Rand Paul (U.S. senator from Kentucky) believes climate change is happening, but not that humans have contributed to it, and has not said he would do anything to combat climate change, if elected. Paul took the Americans for Prosperity’s No Climate Tax pledge. He supports the Keystone XL pipeline and voted against a national goal of 25 percent of electricity from renewables by 2025, against legislation supporting the installation of solar panels, and against renewing the Production Tax Credit to support renewable energy.
Marco Rubio (junior U.S. senator from Florida) believes climate change is happening, but not that it is caused by man. “And I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy,” he has said. Rubio supports the Keystone XL pipeline and offshore oil and gas drilling. If elected, he would lift the ban on oil exports, stop the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, and nullify federal regulations on fracking. He took the No Climate Tax pledge and voted against extending the Production Tax Credit.
Rick Santorum (former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania) believes climate change is real, but not that it is manmade. If elected, he would not do anything about it, because he believes there is nothing the United States can do. “Everything that is being considered by the United States will have almost—well, not almost, but zero impact on it given what’s going on in the rest of the world,” he has said. Santorum supports the Keystone XL pipeline.
Donald Trump (real estate developer) doesn’t believe in climate change and asserts that the changes we see are actually just weather, unaffected by human actions. He puts climate change low on the list of problems we need to address. In 2012, Trump said global warming was a hoax created by China to make U.S. manufacturing uncompetitive. He supports regulating air pollution.
Democrats
Hillary Clinton (former U.S. senator from New York and secretary of state) believes climate change is real and manmade. She has called it “the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world.” Clinton unveiled a plan that would install half a billion solar panels across the country by 2020 (a 700 percent increase in solar capacity); and expand renewable energy (including geothermal and hydro) sufficiently to produce 33 percent of U.S. electricity by 2027. Her Clean Energy Challenge, partnering with states, cities and communities, will include incentives, competitions, and investment in transmission and R&D. Clinton is opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline and Arctic drilling and supports extending the Production Tax Credit.
Martin O’Malley (former governor of Maryland) acknowledges that climate change is happening and believes it is manmade. He has a plan to move the U.S. to renewable energy completely by 2050, double energy efficiency within 15 years, invest in clean energy infrastructure, and create a clean energy job corps to retrofit and restore communities and the environment. If elected, O’Malley would support local renewable energy generation and modernize the electric grid. He supports a long-term extension of the Production Tax Credit.
Bernie Sanders (U.S. senator from Vermont) believes climate change is real and manmade. He has called it “the single greatest threat facing the planet.” He and Sen. Barbara Boxer introduced climate change legislation to tax carbon and methane emissions, and he secured $3.2 billion in the economic stimulus package for greenhouse gas emission-reduction grants. Sanders voted for the national goal of 25 percent of electricity from renewables by 2025 and for the extension of the Production Tax Credit. He led the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline, and opposes fracking and Arctic drilling.
Lawrence Lessig (law professor at Harvard Law School) believes manmade climate change is occurring and that it is a moral principle to protect the environment. He supports a carbon tax as well as green energy policies. Lessig is pushing for election finance reform because, “Coal interests and oil interests have spent endless sums distorting the science and politicizing the policy, so that it is harder today to get legislation passed than it would have been a decade ago.”
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gue ... te-change/
Always remember what you post, send or do on the internet is not private and you are responsible.
-
AiA in Atlanta
- Posts: 7259
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:44 pm
Re: Anti-Climate World Leaders Keep Losing Their Jobs
Too many Americans believe that Jesus/God would not let climate change happen or it it did wouldn't let it get too bad. You really can't underestimate these fool. One one them wants to be president: Dr. Ben Carson.
-
skippy
- Posts: 5239
- Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:48 pm
Re: Anti-Climate World Leaders Keep Losing Their Jobs
I kind of remember from my Sunday school days that it says somewhere in the bible that the Earth will experience massive fire( heat) and that will wipe out humanity like the flood did in Noah's time.AiA in Atlanta wrote:Too many Americans believe that Jesus/God would not let climate change happen or it it did wouldn't let it get too bad. You really can't underestimate these fool. One one them wants to be president: Dr. Ben Carson.
The problem may be too many of these loopy Christians may think it's gods destiny we all die this way.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 60 guests