Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Address climate change

January 18, 2013

During his first news conference following re-election, President Obama offered a vision of his second term agenda....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(61)

Tedeaux

Jan-18-13 5:07 AM

Den Socling needs to understand that while wind and solar generated power are wonderful, we currently don't have the technology to do away with CO2 producing power sources. Coal, petroleum, natural gas and even firewood will have to be the major producers of power for our life sustaining industries until that long talked about miricle clean energy technology is invented. Instead of sitting around complaining Den, being you are so worried, why not get busy inventing that miricle fuel and yourself disgustingly wealthly in the process?

11 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Jan-18-13 5:31 AM

Dan, What do you do when the wind stops blowing?

How are you going to manufacturer the copper windings that go in the wind generators, the steel that goes into the metal towers that the generators are set on, the concrete that anchors the towers into the ground and the lightweight fan blades that drive the generators without burning carbon based fuels?

Maybe instead, we should all just use less power and be more effecient.

10 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Jan-18-13 5:41 AM

"our president ...........has the endurance and courage to lead on climate change."

++++

He creates the largest carbon footprint in the world with the amount of travel, modes of travel, and the size of the entourage that follows him. While he is the leader in changing the climate, he wants to regulate everyone else. Do as I say not as I do.

10 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jan-18-13 6:08 AM

I'm not a scientist. So please..explain to me with the resources and technology or lack there of, how we are supposed to combat/address climate changes? Don't like the weather..move. I understand that's not a very 'concerned' response but again..I'm not a scientist I can't do much about it. Furthermore, when you bring up the Industrial components of the issue, there are just some Industries that, like it or not, until there is a more profitable alternative, aren't going to change. Think about it logically for a moment. Most companies, unless required, are not going to go to a 'greener' way of doing things that cost more money..that's less money for them. They likely won't even go to a method that cost the same amount that their current methods cost them..they have to spend to get the new methods/structures/etc in place.. In order for Industries that are still causing part of the 'pollution issue' that is often discussed to go to greener facilities and methods, it HAS to be

10 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jan-18-13 6:10 AM

cheaper than their current costs. Because then, while they have to spend money to get it in place, they have the knowledge that they'll get that spent money back, plus profit above that margin. I'm not a business man, so I'm sure I have some of my vocabulary and explanation scrambled but I'm simply looking at this from a logical point of view.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sideliner

Jan-18-13 6:12 AM

Why are so many people just flat out against reducing carbon output? They refuse to look at scientific data suggesting carbon does indeed effect climate. Then rant on about this one, that one, and so and so that leaves a heavy footprint so I will too. That is just plain little-kid like and ignores the problem we are facing.

12 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sideliner

Jan-18-13 6:15 AM

"Think about it logically for a moment. Most companies, unless required, are not going to go to a 'greener' way of doing things that cost more money."

Absolutely factual. That's why legislation is needed. Just like the legislation that reduced pollution in the Industrial Era. Without it we would be breathing in heavy smog and drinking contaminated water.

12 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jan-18-13 6:22 AM

I agree completely with your statement sideliner. I do believe they need to enforce change in industrial and carbon output in general. Unless legislation is created to do so, it's going to be very difficult to get some industries to make the necessary changes. While it's not just about Industry, I do believe you can argue that most things start there; for example, cars.

9 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jan-18-13 6:30 AM

"Why are so many people just flat out against reducing carbon output? They refuse to look at scientific data suggesting carbon does indeed effect climate. Then rant on about this one, that one, and so and so that leaves a heavy footprint so I will too. That is just plain little-kid like and ignores the problem we are facing." - sideliner

*

Easy, there. The Tea Party needed SOME kind o' text for their Charter.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jan-18-13 6:33 AM

See:

Global Warming Skeptic Richard Muller

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CaveFelem

Jan-18-13 6:43 AM

When is someone going to address the huge carbon output being produced in countries like China and India? Why is it just the USA that is the culprit here?

Billions of taxpayer dollars have been lost over the past few years in solar panel and other "green" energy companies. Until solar power becomes reasonably priced with a better ROI, it's not a practical solution for widespread use. Wind and solar will make a good assist someday, but IMO could never totally replace fossil fuels and nuclear power.

8 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Jan-18-13 7:17 AM

What a day, I mean really. We hit the mother of LTEs today. We have gun control, global warming and abortion...all in one day. Topics near and dear to the right. To bad someone didn't write about gay rights.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SteelerFan

Jan-18-13 9:02 AM

Cave, you're correct. China and other industrial powers outside of the USA have done little to cut back on CO2. While I believe that the Earth has been warming up lately, we really don't know what occurred in the Earth's distant past and all the so-called warming might just be a natural cycle.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-18-13 9:23 AM

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant! it is naturally occurring. We exhale it and plants thrive on it. How can we have an intelligent dialogue when the left refuses to use facts.

6 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Jan-18-13 11:34 AM

Try living in a room of carbon dioxide only and see how long you last. It is a pollutent, sorry.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sideliner

Jan-18-13 12:56 PM

"When is someone going to address the huge carbon output being produced in countries like China and India? Why is it just the USA that is the culprit here? "

Here we go again with that: "They are doing it so why can't I?" mentality that is in no way a solution oriented approach. It is an empty blame game that does nothing to improve the situation and I'm actually sick of hearing it.

The USA is not the "culprit" but we are the only ones we can control. We should reduce our own carbon output and raise awareness of the benefits of doing so to the rest if the world.

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KrazyK

Jan-18-13 12:58 PM

Fossil fuel plants, and coal plants in particular, are being forced to shut down due to unreasonable environmental regulations. If alternative power sources are the wave of the future, then so be it; but don't just kill the current sources. All power plants have an operating lifetime and should be allowed to continue operation until the end of that lifetime.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnZook

Jan-18-13 1:01 PM

We live in the middle of a forest and we pay an emissions tax. Trees and plants consume the Co2 and release oxygen. It's called photosynthesis. Also, why is the president of Brasil allowing evil McDonalds to strip the rain forests, thereby causing "climate change"? It's not the burger consumers that are destroying the climate, it's the greedy humans that allow deforestation in the first place. That, not SUVs, is what is harming the planet.

10 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Jan-18-13 1:21 PM

This conversation has taken an interesting turn. CO2 in large amounts does cause problems. It is a proven scientific fact.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KrazyK

Jan-18-13 1:26 PM

The installation and start up costs of windmills per megawatt are the same as a natural gas or coal plant - about $2 million per megawatt. The down time percentage is also about the same. And the comments that the wind doesn't blow all the time - I've stood below many of these windmills in the U.S. and Europe. Many times the wind is not blowing on the ground, but a few hundred feet in the air it is. They are strategically placed to take advantage of convective currents caused by the surrounding topography. So don't bad mouth the technology, they are very feasible. Conservatives ignore these facts simply because they have to disagree with anything Obama likes.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Jan-18-13 3:17 PM

I am so glad you represent the right so well Bobbie.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BornHere

Jan-18-13 3:52 PM

Regulations need to be put in place and enforced to bring global warming under control, or our economies will suffer if we don't invest more heavily into our children's futures.

We need to use nature respectfully and never take more than is needed.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zephyr

Jan-18-13 3:53 PM

Rick,

what effect would you expect a room of carbon dioxide to have on a person other than the obvious lack of breathable oxygen?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KrazyK

Jan-18-13 3:55 PM

Carbon dioxide represents less than 1/10th of 1% of the air we breath. It has to be much more concentrated to be considered dangerous. Bobbie's point of living in water is an excellent analogy.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jan-18-13 4:30 PM

"I'm not a scientist. So please..explain to me with the resources and technology or lack there of, how we are supposed to combat/address climate changes? Don't like the weather..move." - wwhickok

*

You mean...like...to the Southwest...where drought-conditions have worsened; yearly????

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 61 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web