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
Justin Sane
September 22, 2009 8:52 pm

Who’s Obamas speech writer anyway, Al Gore?
If the Senate won’t pass the energy & security law then the EPA, a non-elected, partisan hand picked Obama group will dictate to the entire country what the noisy misguided green Luddite minority wants. I just hope it won’t be too late to undo this pile of BS in the next election!

Roger Knights
September 22, 2009 9:04 pm

“China’s Carbon Emissions Pledge Leaves UN Negotiators Guessing”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aenpm99Ba8Pc

Patrick Davis
September 22, 2009 9:13 pm

Glad I didn’t vote (Couldn’t anyway) for KRudd747. But here’s the results from the Youth decide site;
http://www.youthdecide.com.au/

Back2Bat
September 22, 2009 9:13 pm

… but Why is the answer. Greed,power,out of control government, lobbiest and money the ingredients of a great mystery novel. Bill McClure
When I was younger I heard people blame the bankers. I attributed this to envy or perhaps antisemitism. Later, I noticed how the Fed under Greenspan could drive the Stock Market wild with low interest rates. Much later, I studied banking a bit and came to the stunning realization that banks don’t lend depositor’s money; they create it as they lend it! This practice leads to the boom/bust cycle, environmental destruction, wars, social degeneration, etc., etc.
All that to say this: Our banking and money creation system is a root of very much of the evil in the world today. It IS the bankers after all.
“Respectable banker” is an oxymoron. They have set the population against itself when their banking model is to blame.
You wanted to know “Why”. It turns out to be systematic, government backed violation of “Thou shall not steal”.
Hi Pam 🙂

John Andrews
September 22, 2009 9:15 pm

I watched the first part of Obama’s speech today. I watched him for a while and listened carefully to what he said. I soon understood that he did not understand the truth and was simply talking to the teleprompter. He never looked at me (the camera); not once! Unfortunately, I think he believes what he is saying is the truth. It bodes ill for all of us. Buy gold.
John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee

F. Ross
September 22, 2009 9:35 pm

Obama and climate change: trying to “fix” something that “ain’t broke.”
…I guess the fix is in.

September 22, 2009 9:36 pm

“You lie!”
Harsh words in the blogs responding to Obama’s speech to the UN.
Harsh words, but accurate, as the US President spills out all of the old chestnuts of doom, disaster and death espoused by the carperbaggers of the C02 industry as though he were a paid spruiker for their wares.
Patsy or deluded? Or just too young to have yet gained wisdom, and too proud to acknowledge it? Or really too green to yet know what wisdom is?
Any one or all of those would be better than another possibility: that he attempts to manipulate to feed an ego. That would place him in the ranks of the despots of history.
We must hope he is not one of them.
Better for the world he is just a patsy or deluded.

Can't Win
September 22, 2009 9:40 pm

We should do nothing about GW. If it still happens this will be a great way to cull the Worlds population and the survivors WIN. OTOH if we do stop GW the population will continue to rise and the energy/food will fail and many will die and the earths population will again be reduced.

September 22, 2009 10:43 pm

Most cogrent point supporting the one…Policy-makers have to rely on “expert” advice,…
Expert is a curious word, within the field of science over 30,000 signed the oregon petition, with far more PHDs then the IPCC, perhpas people listen to “their” expert, you know, the one they pay to get the result they want for their own POLITICAL agaenda.
Obama has only one agenda, to change the foundation of the, in his own words, “flawed” constitution, he does not care if our economy is destroyed, it does not matter because this will just make more people turn to HIM for aid, changing forever the structure of our country. Bye Bye Miss American pie indeed. Millions unemployed is simply more fodder for the one’s “national security force as large and well funded as the US military”.

Back2Bat
September 22, 2009 10:53 pm

“OTOH if we do stop GW the population will continue to rise and the energy/food will fail and many will die and the earths population will again be reduced.” can’t win
Until evan pounds your comment, this:
To Chicken Little with Love
When the sky don’t fall
like we think it should
has reality
been misunderstood?
When things are better
than they’ve a right to be
is it just blind luck
or was it meant to be?
Are we just vain
and a mockery?
Deluded bags
of biochemistry?
Are the adults right
and the children wrong?
Should we crush their hopes
and still their songs?
When the sky don’t fall
like we think it should
has Reality
been misunderstood?

p.g.sharrow "PG"
September 22, 2009 11:30 pm

Pamela Gray; Welcome to the light. Carter was the last democrat president I voted for as a life long democrat. Was damned disappointed on that one.
Maybe we can start a New Democratic party as the old one is going to be so discredited it will be 24 years before anyone will vote for them for anything.
2012 is the end of time (the old ways) and the start of the next, new time. The Obama nation think they are the start of the new way but really they are the last gasp of the old ways.
May we all live in interesting times.

Jack Hughes
September 23, 2009 12:01 am

The Carteret Islands are disappearing under the sea. The cause is disputed – the islanders have decamped to nearby Bougainville which has not disappeared.
Wikipedia tells us more than the CNN piece:
“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 [5] in the Carterets such as occurred in the island during the prolonged Bouganville 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. [7]”

Richard
September 23, 2009 12:23 am

I listened to the news on our TV. The political correspondent said that in Obama’s carefully scripted speech he left out anything specific that he would be doing for “global warming” (I prefer to call it by its correct original name). John Key our PM was very “disappointed”. Maybe Obama is not all that silly after all, unlike our John Key, who must join the bottom of the heap among the leaders who are lacking in intelligence.
He staunchly believes in AGW as advised by his science advisor, who is an expert in premature babies.

Richard
September 23, 2009 12:27 am

PS – they said that China would be planting trees, the total area the size of Norway. Very sensible. It will do them good and they can afford it with all the money they are generating in their factories powered by coal and oil.

Philip_B
September 23, 2009 12:37 am

Gary Hladik,
I thought I would find considerably more information on these stilt villages than I did. And somewhat confusingly the same Malay word -kelong – is used to mean a group of houses on stilts and a fishing platform.
I was referring specifically to kelong located on offshore reefs close by islands in places like the Riau archaepeligo. They are common and large enough to house at least a dozen people and some many more. Typically they are a hundred to a couple of hundred meters offshore. I’ve seen a couple up close and they were built on reefs perhaps 2 to 5 meters below sea level rather than flat ocean floor. Apart from the reefs the ocean is deep in this area.
I recall seeing a paper that said they were originally built in response to rising sea levels on islands that were originally above water and/or the technology developed slowly as sea levels rose, which makes sense given the difficulty in building on a rocky reef in several meters of water. Note the tidal range here is small and there are no cyclones.
This book describes human impacts of holocene sea level changes. I learned that a rapid fall in sea level around 1350AD of half a meter or more caused widespread social disruption in the Pacific. Sea levels stayed low during the LIA and rose into the modern era, but not surpassing the 1350 peak.
Climate, environment and society in the Pacific during the last millennium
Sea levels have risen since 1850 and there is no evidence that any of the kelongs has been forced to relocate as a result, even though houses built below sea level are necessarily impacted by rising sea levels.
So whether the kelongs were built in response to rising sea levels or just protected from rising sea levels as an unintended consequence of their location is unclear. And Google gave me no hits that any have been abandoned in modern times due to rising sea levels.

Mark H
September 23, 2009 12:45 am

DID HE SAY THAT CO2 IS POLLUTION.UNBELIEVABLE-NUFF SAID.
IF this is what the majority of uninformed people think? Theres no hope for us.

Mike Nicholson
September 23, 2009 4:06 am

Given the recent speech of President Obama, I would reccommend everyone to re read, or read for the first time, 1984 by George Orwell. Written in 1948, he describes a world, supposedly permanently at war, where news to the masses is filtered and controlled, history is snipped to remove anything which contradicts the current political views,and even free thinking is monitored by the Thought Police. Ring any bells??!

Bruce Cobb
September 23, 2009 4:35 am

Pamela: Yes, I voted for him too, but really, what choice did we have? Hopefully the Republicans can come up with a better candidate in 2012. Meanwhile, change is coming in the mid-terms, and it won’t be the type of change Democrats can believe in, either.

Chris Schoneveld
September 23, 2009 4:52 am

Come on guys, give Obama a break. He is as erratically parroting the global warming mantra as all the other presidents, prime ministers and what have you in the world from left, right to centre with the exception of Vaclav Klaus. So it is not a socialist hobbyhorse per se.

Chris Schoneveld
September 23, 2009 4:54 am

Come on guys, give Obama a break. He is as erratically parroting the global warming mantra as all the other presidents, prime ministers and what have you from left, right to centre with the exception of Vaclav Klaus. So it is not a socialist hobbyhorse per se.

Stefan
September 23, 2009 5:49 am

If I was Obama I’d be looking to sell the third world a whole lot of nuclear power stations, all inspected and legislated by an international authority, giving direct control to the West of the rest of the world’s energy supply, and giving the west a reason to put its own governing structures into every part of the world, and where necessary, its own armies. Iran building its own nuclear power? Not allowed. But put it under Western control, and that would be ok. Repeat for rest of world.
Remember, as the rest of the world develops, it will also increase its prosperity and military power. We can’t have countries in Africa starting wars with each other. We need something that will give the West control over all these places. And they’ll pay us for those nuclear stations, like we pay for oil today. In the meantime, we’ll probably carry on using oil as it is convenient. But they’ll develop how and where we say so.
We already have enough divisions in the world, between rich and poor, and between cultural blocks. Islam and Christianity are growing rapidly in Africa, China is having ever greater influence, and so on. The tectonics of the global system are ever shifting.
The money the West gives to the third world now will be used to buy stuff from the West, and kickstart their development and help guarantee repeat custom. That’s what I’d be trying to do, if I was Obama.
Nuclear proliferation continues to be the number one threat from man to man. It was bad enough having a small handful of technologically advanced countries with nukes. We don’t know how we survived those decades. But imagine, seeing as people are so fond of projections and forecasts by experts, imagine a world in 20 years where 50 countries have nukes, and somebody sneezes. That’s what we are heading for.
International laws and control of countries where any rogues country is immediately identified, and effectively stopped, will be absolutely necessary (in my expert judgement) if we are to survive. We will need to stop them using the least damaging means. This means we need to control them. This means we need to control their energy supply.

Mark H.
September 23, 2009 5:52 am

And from the “Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain” category, the NY Times this morning reported that advancement on the GW issue has been bogged down by an uncooperative climate. Apparently the Earth has just stopped warming (and may be cooling, darn the luck!), and it’s throwing a major wrench into the works. In addition, the article says:
“The plateau in temperatures has been seized upon by skeptics as evidence that the threat of global warming is overblown. And some climate experts worry that it could hamper treaty negotiations and slow the progress of legislation to curb carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. ”
Wouldn’t you know it? Just when they thought they had GW sewn up, the Earth has to go and cool off. Well, back to the old drawing board. Now they’ll have to search for another way to convince us all the world is ending.
The entire article can be accessed here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html?_r=1

Craig D. Lattig
September 23, 2009 5:52 am

Jerry Lee Davis (14:50:51) :
Now, all I have to do is figure out what Mr. Obama says America must do (easy in this case, tougher in most other policy areas). Then, knowing what Mr. Obama thinks, I can be fully confident that the truth lies in the exactly opposite direction.
My lady and I observed this a few months back and named it the “180 Rule”.
So far, it has very high predictive value.
I heard the first few minutes of the speach and switched to a CD…if I want to hear whoppers, I drop down to the pier and listen to the fisherman for a while…and they generally have a better grasp of scientific facts…or at least the ones that actually catch fish do…..
The President has been averaging more than one speach a day since he was sworn in…doesn’t leave much time for him to be in his office…makes me curious….just who the heck is actually running things???
cdl

September 23, 2009 5:55 am

Nicholson (04:06:47) :
I said it before, 1984 was meant as a warning, not as a manual.

wilbert Robichaud
September 23, 2009 6:24 am

Remember in 11 days the Olympic committee will announce who will get the Games from Copenhagen Denmark. Chicago is on a the list and Obama want the games in Chicago . the Copenhagen talks in December will need the US to be on board if it is to succeed. a deal in the making?