Obama's disconnect with America on the climate issue

Here’s the latest poll from Bloomberg on most important issues facing the country:

Bloomberg_poll_092209

Climate change ranks dead last in importance. Source: PollingReport.com

Now compare what the American People think to what Obama thinks in his UN speech today.

The following is the text of Obama’s speech as prepared for delivery today at the UN:

Good morning. I want to thank the Secretary-General for organizing this summit, and all the leaders who are participating. That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it — boldly, swiftly, and together — we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.

No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees.

The security and stability of each nation and all peoples — our prosperity, our health, our safety — are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.

And yet, we can reverse it. John F. Kennedy once observed that “Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man.” It is true that for too many years, mankind has been slow to respond to or even recognize the magnitude of the climate threat. It is true of my own country as well. We recognize that. But this is a new day. It is a new era. And I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history.

We’re making our government’s largest ever investment in renewable energy — an investment aimed at doubling the generating capacity from wind and other renewable resources in three years. Across America, entrepreneurs are constructing wind turbines and solar panels and batteries for hybrid cars with the help of loan guarantees and tax credits — projects that are creating new jobs and new industries. We’re investing billions to cut energy waste in our homes, buildings, and appliances — helping American families save money on energy bills in the process. We’ve proposed the very first national policy aimed at both increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks — a standard that will also save consumers money and our nation oil. We’re moving forward with our nation’s first offshore wind energy projects. We’re investing billions to capture carbon pollution so that we can clean up our coal plants. Just this week, we announced that for the first time ever, we’ll begin tracking how much greenhouse gas pollution is being emitted throughout the country. Later this week, I will work with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge. And already, we know that the recent drop in overall U.S. emissions is due in part to steps that promote greater efficiency and greater use of renewable energy.

Most importantly, the House of Representatives passed an energy and climate bill in June that would finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy for American businesses and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One committee has already acted on this bill in the Senate and I look forward to engaging with others as we move forward.

Because no one nation can meet this challenge alone, the United States has also engaged more allies and partners in finding a solution than ever before. In April, we convened the first of what have now been six meetings of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate here in the United States. In Trinidad, I proposed an Energy and Climate Partnership for the Americas. We’ve worked through the World Bank to promote renewable energy projects and technologies in the developing world. And we have put climate at the top of our diplomatic agenda when it comes to our relationships with countries from China to Brazil; India to Mexico; Africa to Europe.

Taken together, these steps represent an historic recognition on behalf of the American people and their government. We understand the gravity of the climate threat.

We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations.

But though many of our nations have taken bold actions and share in this determination, we did not come here today to celebrate progress. We came because there is so much more progress to be made. We came because there is so much more work to be done.

It is work that will not be easy. As we head towards Copenhagen, there should be no illusions that the hardest part of our journey is in front of us. We seek sweeping but necessary change in the midst of a global recession, where every nation’s most immediate priority is reviving their economy and putting their people back to work. And so all of us will face doubts and difficulties in our own capitals as we try to reach a lasting solution to the climate challenge.

But difficulty is no excuse for complacency. Unease is no excuse for inaction. And we must not allow the perfect to become the enemy of progress. Each of us must do what we can when we can to grow our economies without endangering our planet — and we must all do it together. We must seize the opportunity to make Copenhagen a significant step forward in the global fight against climate change.

We also cannot allow the old divisions that have characterized the climate debate for so many years to block our progress. Yes, the developed nations that caused much of the damage to our climate over the last century still have a responsibility to lead. And we will continue to do so by investing in renewable energy, promoting greater efficiency, and slashing our emissions to reach the targets we set for 2020 and our long-term goal for 2050.

But those rapidly-growing developing nations that will produce nearly all the growth in global carbon emissions in the decades ahead must do their part as well. Some of these nations have already made great strides with the development and deployment of clean energy. Still, they will need to commit to strong measures at home and agree to stand behind those commitments just as the developed nations must stand behind their own. We cannot meet this challenge unless all the largest emitters of greenhouse gas pollution act together.

There is no other way.

We must also energize our efforts to put other developing nations — especially the poorest and most vulnerable on a path to sustainable growth. These nations do not have the same resources to combat climate change as countries like the United States or China do, but they have the most immediate stake in a solution. For these are the nations that are already living with the unfolding effects of a warming planet — famine and drought; disappearing coastal villages and the conflict that arises from scarce resources. Their future is no longer a choice between a growing economy and a cleaner planet, because their survival depends on both. It will do little good to alleviate poverty if you can no longer harvest your crops or find drinkable water.

That is why we have a responsibility to provide the financial and technical assistance needed to help these nations adapt to the impacts of climate change and pursue low-carbon development.

What we are seeking, after all, is not simply an agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions. We seek an agreement that will allow all nations to grow and raise living standards without endangering the planet. By developing and disseminating clean technology and sharing our know-how, we can help developing nations leap-frog dirty energy technologies and reduce dangerous emissions.

As we meet here today, the good news is that after too many years of inaction and denial, there is finally widespread recognition of the urgency of the challenge before us. We know what needs to be done. We know that our planet’s future depends on a global commitment to permanently reduce greenhouse gas pollution. We know that if we put the right rules and incentives in place, we will unleash the creative power of our best scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs to build a better world. And so many nations have already taken the first steps on the journey towards that goal.

But the journey is long. The journey is hard. And we don’t have much time left to make it. It is a journey that will require each of us to persevere through setback, and fight for every inch of progress, even when it comes in fits and starts. So let us begin. For if we are flexible and pragmatic; if we can resolve to work tirelessly in common effort, then we will achieve our common purpose: a world that is safer, cleaner, and healthier than the one we found; and a future that is worthy of our children. Thank you.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
196 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
matt v.
September 22, 2009 5:40 pm

From Rasmussen reports for Sept 2009
Forty-seven percent (47%) of U.S. voters say global warming is caused by long-term planetary trends rather than human activity.
However, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% still blame human activity more for climate change, while five percent (5%) say there is some other reason.
Except for June when the two points of view were virtually tied, voters have been trending away from blaming human activity since January.

Benjamin
September 22, 2009 5:41 pm

If government always has its priorities backwards, then here’s what *their* list would look like…
1. Unsure
2. Other
3. Climate Change
4. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
5. Budget deficits
6. Healhcare
7. The Economy
Sounds about right!

lucklucky
September 22, 2009 5:59 pm

But no disconnection with Journalists.

3x2
September 22, 2009 6:03 pm

Fairly sure that the one tax fits all is, and always has been, a recipe for riots on the street. (see UK Poll Tax, peasants revolt and numerous other attempts)
I see no graded tax here. Florida energy taxes will be the same as those in Maine. If Florida residents use energy to be comfortable in Winter but the residents of Maine use it to stay alive (scale that planet wide). What exactly happens to residents of more northerly regions compared to the more equatorial? Don’t tell me “we give you a tax rebate proportional to your average GPS position for the last 12 months”
Strange, looking back, that even up to a decade ago I really believed in global government but now I have come to see the EU/UN as the enemy – alien, something to be destroyed before it destroys me and mine. By force of arms if necessary. I suppose it was inevitable – one size fits all never lives up to the advertising. There is no way the UK Gov. would ever re-run the 1970’s “do you want to be in the EU?” vote. They already know the result for 2009.
Two Wolves and a Sheep at the table deciding on dinner – the Sheep flicks the “safety” off his AK47.

Robert Wood
September 22, 2009 6:17 pm

Adam from Kansas (16:11:37) :
There’s still time for Lief to be right about solar flux as the second spot isn’t directly facing Earth yet, if we see a third group yet than that may be a sign that the Sun finally turned itself on.

If a third set of sunspots occur within the next 15 days, so all three groups are present at the same time, I will send Lief $20US.

John M
September 22, 2009 6:28 pm

Philip_B (14:40:24) and Joel Shore (12:54:15) ::
I’d agree with Philip_B’s comment wrt to the survey of scientists and similar surveys that are often bandied about—they are worded in such a way that even a hefty number of skeptics would answer the “correct” way. Somehow, though, that leads to leaps in logic such as these from our friends at the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8265974.stm

The vast majority of climate scientists say there must be no further delay in emissions cuts.

But for all Mr Brown’s promise of leadership, the UK has not yet committed to the 40% CO2 cuts most scientists say are needed from rich nations by 2020 to contain climate change.

Someone please point me to a poll where “most scientists” say “rich” nations have to cut emissions by 40% to “contain climate change.”
And Joel, that Zogby poll you link to doesn’t seem to have anything in the question about costs and sacrifice. Maybe this is why?

The Zogby International telephone survey of 1,005 likely voters was commissioned by the National Wildlife Federation and was conducted from July 31-August 4, 2009.

Trevor
September 22, 2009 6:34 pm

There is a touch of a “Messiah Complex” in some of the statements of Obama.
There is a great similarity between the nations of USA and Australia: We are both headed by men who have vastly inflated opinions of themselves and yet they were both elected by a large popular vote. Say’s a lot out our respective populace, we deserve what we get, unfortunately.

3x2
September 22, 2009 6:35 pm

Tom in Florida (15:50:28) : (and of course the US DoI)
Better to keep your muzzle clean and your powder dry.
“That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government…..”

Adding ..
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
Ah … how times don’t change eh?

Ron de Haan
September 22, 2009 6:36 pm

michel (12:57:41) :
“Yes, this is quite dangerous. It is going to blow up, and it will take sensible, moderate environmentalism with it, and we will all lose heavily from that”.
I don’t believe it will.
If this blows up, common sense will rule again.

Paul James
September 22, 2009 6:37 pm

To quote a fine lady of my aquaintance
“He couldn’t lie straight in bed”

George S.
September 22, 2009 6:37 pm

Thanks for yet another emetic Obama address. The text of this speech provoked in me a physical response and some sailor-like cursing.
Barry Soetero (Der Leader) and his band of merry men know what’s best for us. Nothing to see here…keep moving along.
I haven’t heard about any outbursts of “you lie” from any of those in attendance.

September 22, 2009 6:39 pm

“the GW hysteria is depressing, because it will not be stopped.”
It takes 67 votes in the Senate to ratify a treaty.
They may (or may not) get 60 to pass obamacare, but they’ll never get 67 to
chain the U.S. to an international Cap & Tax or Spread the Wealth (what’s left of it) Plan.

Robert Wood
September 22, 2009 6:41 pm

evanmjones @14:14:52
Overstatement from an understatesman.

Applause!!! clap. calap!!

Robert Wood
September 22, 2009 6:46 pm

Trevor @18:34:21
There is a touch of a “Messiah Complex” in some of the statements of Obama.
Just a touch? He is Mr. Vanity Megalomania Himself.
It’s all about him; his reflection in his own miroire

September 22, 2009 6:54 pm

Richard Hill:
“You should encourage commenters to act through their own professional societies to get their views known. “
I agree, completely. In fact, I give a formal speech to professional societies, on the subject of global warming laws in California (AB 32) and the impact on engineers. I gave this speech on September 17 to the Northern California section of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and earlier in June to the Los Angeles section. I make my skeptical views known, and the reception was enthusiastic.
see http://www.aiche-norcal.org/Meetings/sept09_north.php

Michael
September 22, 2009 7:09 pm

[snip way off topic – likely spam]

September 22, 2009 7:24 pm

Scott A. Mandia (16:46:28) :
We finally have a leader in the White House that consults the scientific experts on these matters instead of his horoscope.

Current data suggests that the horoscope has tighter error bars.
Grammar n*zi suggests using ‘who’ instead of ‘that’ when referring to a person.
.
Philip_B (14:51:59) :
There are many thousands of villages in SE Asia built on stilts due to rising sea levels. As far as I am aware they all pre-date WWII and most pre-date the 20th century.

They were built on stilts as the population expanded because the dry land was already taken. The water pre-dated the villages.
.
Perusing Axelrod’s BO’s speech, my b.s. meter pegged out high. But he is right about time running out. He has until November 2010, inshallah.

Joel Shore
September 22, 2009 7:48 pm

John M says:

And Joel, that Zogby poll you link to doesn’t seem to have anything in the question about costs and sacrifice.

Well, it did ask a question about how they thought the plan would affect jobs. Mind you, I am not saying it is a perfect poll and I have already noted that there is definitely a disconnect between what the public believes and what climate scientists believe. But, the disconnect is not as large as Bloomberg poll that Anthony cited might lead you to believe.

Pamela Gray
September 22, 2009 7:50 pm

I voted for this idiot. To be sure, I posted a letter on his campaign website to please reconsider his stance on climate change and instead consider the Science on its own merit. He must not have read it. Or if he did, he didn’t take the feedback seriously (sarc off). Next time I am voting Libertarian. Unless he backs off of this climate bill, I will not vote for him again. Nor any of his ilk.

Evan Jones
Editor
September 22, 2009 8:03 pm

Ah, Pamela. Remember when I told you that we liberals had been orphaned?
What you describe is how it feels; I sympathize very much.

Nick
September 22, 2009 8:13 pm

Unusually for me I happened upon the speech live.
He sounds **exactly** like George Bush. (who was a wonderful listen, for the gaffs)
I think it is the dreadful rhythm and monotone drone. Presumably this is the result of terrible coaching.

rbateman
September 22, 2009 8:28 pm

I believe a lot of folks sent those letters, Pam.
They obviously were not read. One look at the new offices created tells me why.

Bulldust
September 22, 2009 8:28 pm

I miss the ole terminology… were it the Republicans pushing this agenda
(I know… it’s a stretch of the imagination) they would be declaring a “War on Climate!” So, is it time to The South to rise again?
Incidently I saw a good cartoon in an Aussie paper today… middle aged couple sitting watching TV:
Husband: What does hugh Jackman know about climate change?
Wife (sweating profusely & fanning herself): Is it hot in here?
Yeah Hugh might be hot, but that is where it ends in respect of his impact on climate change.

Bill McClure
September 22, 2009 8:29 pm

If the voters are not driving this issue,who is? In this blog I know that is a retoricial question but Why is the answer. Greed,power,out of control goverment, lobbiest and money the ingrediants of a great mystry novel.

Roger Knights
September 22, 2009 8:51 pm

Here’s the case of island inundation Obama was probably referring to, at http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Carteret_Islands
The Carteret Islands (also known as Carteret Atoll, Tulun or Kilinailau Islands/Atoll) are Papua New Guinea islands located 86 km (53 mi) north-east of Bougainville
The atoll has a scattering of low-lying islands called Han, Jangain, Yesila, Yolasa and Piul, in a horseshoe shape stretching 30 km (19 mi) in north-south direction, with a total land area of 0.6 square kilometers and a maximum elevation of 1.5 m (5 ft) above sea level.
Flooding
It was widely reported in November 2005 that the islands have progressively become uninhabitable, with an estimate of their total submersion by 2015. The islanders have fought a more than twenty years battle, building a seawall. However, storm surges and high tides continue to wash away homes, destroy vegetable gardens and contaminate fresh water supplies. The natural tree cover on the island is also being impacted by the incursion of saltwater contamination of the fresh water table.
Cause of Carteret Inundation
Huene Carteret Islands
Paul Tobasi, the atolls’ district manager with PNG’s Bougainville province, and many other environmental groups have suggested that the flooding is the result of sea-level rise associated with global warming. He also stated that small tidal waves were becoming more frequent.
The Carteret islands likely consist of a base of coral that sits atop an extinct volcanic mount. In the usual geological course of events first proposed by Charles Darwin, such islands eventually subside due to weathering and erosion, as well as isostatic adjustments of the sea floor. It has also been speculated that dynamite fishing in the Carterets such as occurred in the island during the prolonged Bouganville
Bougainville Island conflict may be contributing to the increased inundation. Coral reefs buffer against wave and tidal action, and so their degradation may increase an island’s level of exposure to those forces. Another suggestion is that tectonic movement may be causing the gradual subsidence of the atoll.
Ongoing Relocation
On November 25, 2003, the Papua New Guinean government authorized the government-funded total evacuation of the islands, 10 families at a time; the evacuation was expected to be completed by 2007, but access to funding caused numerous delays.
In October 2007 it was announced that the PNG government would provide two million kina (USD $736,000) to begin the relocation, to be organized by Tulele Peisa of Buka, Bougainville.
CNN has reported that the Carteret islanders will be the first island community in the world to undergo an organized relocation, in response to their island sinking. The people of the Carteret are being called the world’s first environmental refugees.