Yes for all those people who think skeptics are lavishly funded, here’s proof. Oh, wait…..
Obama to propose $1 billion climate fund
By Alex Guillén, Politico
President Barack Obama will ask Congress to set up a $1 billion Climate Resilience Fund in his proposed budget next month.
Obama is traveling to Fresno, Calif., on Friday to discuss the drought plaguing most of California and the Western U.S. and to announce new administration actions, including the proposed billion-dollar climate fund.
The fund, according to the White House, would go to research on the projected impacts of climate change, help communities prepare for climate change’s effects and fund “breakthrough technologies and resilient infrastructure.”
It remains to be seen whether the administration can secure such a high figure from Congress for a climate fund not likely to attract widespread Republican backing.
…
White House spokesman Matt Lehrich told POLITICO that Obama “is going to continue to make the case that climate change is already hurting Americans around the country and that it will only get worse for our children and grandchildren if we leave it for future generations to deal with.”
While no single extreme weather event can be attributed directly to climate change, Obama will stress the scientific understanding of how climate change makes events such as the drought more extreme, said John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
…
The administration’s new push to address the drought comes a week after the Agriculture Department announced it would set up a series of “climate hubs” across the U.S. to study climate change’s impacts on agriculture and rural activities and develop mitigation and adaptation measures.
To view online:
https://www.politicopro.com/go/?id=30857
http://pjmedia.com/blog/yearly-climate-spending-10x-more-than-un-estimate-for-ending-world-hunger/?singlepage=true
“The United Nations estimates it would cost $30 billion a year to end world hunger. That sounds like a lot, but the world spent more than ten times that amount in 2012 on global warming mitigation, according to a recent Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) study.”…
“…According to the Reuters analysis of the Summary for Policymakers of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, due to be released this April, the UN is calling on the world to invest an extra $147 billion a year in wind, solar, and nuclear power from 2010 to 2029. If we add that figure to CPI’s measure, the UN wants us to spend approximately $506 billion a year to mitigate global warming,”…
The whole thing is very much worth a read….
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with developing climate resilience all over the globe.
The question is whether you develop it by promoting carbon technologies or not.
The paper’s I’ve read recently suggest that you can predict a cold and snowy winter for the NE half of the USA based on monitoring oscillation indices in the Eastern Pacific, the Arctic and the North Atlantic. I’ve read that there are linkages between oceanic oscillations in the Indian Ocean and SSWs although I”m not sure the link is quite as causal as some are making out.
I don’t think water management has anything to do with carbon dioxide, it has to do with dredging rivers or not, building more reservoirs or not, groundwater management, forestry policy, urban planning policy and farming policy.
I don’t think coastal erosion needs carbon capture and storage, it needs civil engineering.
I don’t think that that this actually has anything to do with global warming per se. It has to do with basic ‘climate events can hurt us so how do we prepare best for them?’
Actually, that is something everyone should be able to agree is sensible.
It’s only when you get down to what you propose doing that politics may come in.
Considering the “pause” and some predictions of cooling due to solar cycles, it might be a good idea to actively stockpile foodstuffs and perhaps expand lower latitude agriculture to compensate for the shorter growing seasons.
It may be that the Global Warm-mongers greatest disservice to humanity is preparing for the wrong thing- wasting increasingly scarce resources (ie., the government(s) gobbling up the economy) on rising sea levels and the like, while we should be paying attention to the opposite possibility…
Steven Mosher says:
February 14, 2014 at 9:03 am
Haha, yeah. Guys, I need a billion dollars to look at the idea of trying to start thinking about mitigating the effects (or impacts, if you’re illiterate) of something that I can’t really define right now. Might be flooding, or hurricanes, or droughts, or snow, or lack of snow, or a fish with a headache in Burma, but I need that money to study it.
I mean, if somebody tells you they’ll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for $100, you’d be a fool not to take it. Look at the risk/reward profile of that scale of investment!
I think that these people (the feds) might have a little more credibility if they could actually even build a functional web site.
I like that! ( no problem on the misspell )
I should have added a disclaimer to the original post “with apologies to those who sincerely belief in and practice Wicca no insult intended.”
Witch craft was just the scape goat du jour then much as global warming and climate change has become today’s scape goat du jour.
a bone to the disgruntled anti-Keystoners.
President Obama wants to spend a billion dollars, not to actually do anything to stop climate change but just to make Americans aware of it. Apparently no one will realize the devastating effects of climate change without a billion dollar propaganda campaign to inform them. I have a better idea. I just need to change the White House spokesman’s quote slightly:
Runaway deficit spending “is already hurting Americans around the country and that it will only get worse for our children and grandchildren if we leave it for future generations to deal with.”
The President hasn’t made the case against deficit spending in a long time. I wonder why. But there was a time when he did. Here are some past quotes from him on the subject:
“I’ve personally asked the leadership in Congress to pass into law rules that follow the simple principle: You pay for what you spend — so that government acts the same way any responsible family does. If you want a tax cut, you got to pay for it; if you want a new program, you got to pay for it. Tell the American people the truth — how are you going to pay for it?
I want to warn you, there will be setbacks. It will take time. But I promise you I will always tell you the truth…”
— Pres. Obama, “Change that you believed in”, Apr 29, 2009
“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China. We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt. … It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”
— Pres. Obama, May 14, 2009
The “pay as you go” rule is very simple. Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere.”
— President Obama; June 9, 2009
So what spending is the President going to cut to pay for his billion dollar propaganda program on climate change?
About the American two-party paradigm (not systematized anywhere); it’s good cop/bad cop (Mutt & Jeff) written on the political slate. There’s not a spit of difference between them.
Only The Constitution Party represents America’s conservative Country Class against the progressive Ruling Party.
“There is some sense to the idea expressed by Steven Mosher at 9:03. However, these sorts of studies have been going on for years – I think maybe AL G. stuffed agencies with folks that pushed studies of such. One place to look is on the SPPI web site. Go to Reports, then SPPI State Climate Profiles. (SPPI = http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/) There are many projects that cities, counties, and states have identified for upgrade – no need to search for new ones. Here’s an older article that claims “Since Katrina the Corps and its contractors have built $15 billion worth of levees, pumps, walls and gates. Forbes-Billions
What the issue seems to be is that the current president needs a “legacy” and the expected one, namely The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), sometimes called the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but mostly called “Obamacare”, is in shambles. Note the recent delay in implementation of another part of this Act, such that it pushes the problems out beyond the current election cycle.
Perhaps the One who promised to keep the sea from rising will be more positively remembered than the one who promised if you like your policy and your doctor, you can keep your policy and your doctor. He can be remembered for funding all the pork his big donors want and some of the useful projects already identified.
Did not Obama say that the scientific process is about evidence and facts that “are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.” ?
Evidentially, he didn’t believe himself then, so why should anyone believe him now?
Just wondering.
There is nothing wrong with being resilient to real natural climate change that is happening all the time , like for recovery from global cooling ,winter storms, tornadoes ,etc. There is nothing wrong with helping dought victims. However when they add the comment that all droughts are due to climate change (really global warming according to their science ), then I am afraid that this is just another cover word to spend money to fight global warming only , rather than being truly resilient against all forms of natural climate change. In the east, we have had the worst winter in 30 years and you do not hear the Administration being resilient to help 80 % of the country which was freezing its butt and running out of winter funds . This California trip and the Billion $ fund is purely political ploy in my opinion and has very little to do with being truly resilient to all parts of the country with all real natural events
Ah, yes he did:
“”The truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources—it’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us.”
Barack Obama – 12/20/.08
Seems you haven’t been paying attention. Obama doesn’t need congressional approval for anything he does anymore, and everyone seems perfectly willing to allow him to do what he wants. Guess the constitution doesn’t mean much these days.
Maybe I can get some mitigation funds for the “endangered” Fairy shrimp, protected tiger salamanders and spade-foot toads that can’t breed in my empty vernal pool this year in central CA???
Sweet!
Simon says:
February 14, 2014 at 10:24 am
—————————————-
@ur momisugly Simon…read this comment…
“”Louis says:
February 14, 2014 at 12:45 pm
President Obama wants to spend a billion dollars, not to actually do anything to stop climate change but just to make Americans aware of it. “”
—————————————————————-
That is exactly what is wrong with the great leaders proposal. The drought looms large, and the president says let’s model a solution. Meanwhile they are all set to dump 2 billion dollars into a high speed rail line, which is not necessary at this time. The true drought problem is the massive population, without any further planning for water storage solutions. What is going to happen if this drought lingers for several more years or a decade or two? I honestly hope that it does, because the way that these Democrats misuse the people,s money is going to lead this state and the nation into a mire, which could potentially lead to desperate times for many. Why wait till 2100 for catastrophe, when a good one can be initiated within a shorter term by proper planning?
Have voted Republican since my 1st national election in 1980. Still believe it is generally the correct line. That said I have learned through close contact that we have a poor choice to make in most political contests here. Think some in other places may agree with that sentiment.
So yes Bush and the Republicans lavished money on a fraud. Obama simply takes it to the next level. The corruption is our political hope because everyone understands greed. Unfortunately science which so many here feel strongly about will end up trashed.
troe, I agree with you in general.
“So yes Bush and the Republicans lavished money on a fraud.”
I believe that he and (some of) his advisers were taken in- I think his intentions were honorable, just misguided. Unfortunately that just set the stage for the enviro-“mentals” to run with it.
The thing that astonishes me is that geologists, archeologist, anthropologists and historians are not jumping up and down and shouting at the top of their lungs, —-
Wait a minute we have substantial historical evidence that this is not unprecedented, we have had mega droughts that lasted decades in the past, and destroyed civilizations. This is nothing new!
It is even implied in news stories but no one makes the obvious logical jump, if this is the worst drought in 800 years — what caused the mega drought 800 years ago — certainly not the burning of fossil fuels and high CO2 levels.
Some times I just want to slap someone and say — look moron if you studied history, geology and anthropology you wouldn’t be running around waving your arms and shrieking it’s CO2’s fault. We’ve been here before, it has been predictable (in the sense it could happen at any time) for over a hundred years.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/50/21283.full
White House spokesman Matt Lehrich told POLITICO that Obama “is going to continue to make the case that climate change is already hurting Americans around the country and that it will only get worse for our children and grandchildren if we leave it for future generations to deal with.”
If only they thought about our future generations in regards to spending up the national debt to crazy levels!
I’m surprised that it is only $1B. I’m expecting Obama to announce a major fiscal stimulus program now that there is no quantitative spending limits for Congress (only a movable date) to establish his “legacy” before his current terms ends.
A $1T fiscal stimulus would not surprise me – I would expect spending to the tune of $2T to $4T to be announced before 2016.
=====================================================================
“It’s not Obama’s fault! Therefore we must spend more money to make it worse for our children and grandchildren. A 17 Trillion dollar debt isn’t enough for future generations to deal with. Next we’ll make learning Chinese mandatory to help prepare future generations for the Change You’ve Been Deceived In!.”
Kpar says:
February 14, 2014 at 4:58 pm
“So yes Bush and the Republicans lavished money on a fraud.”
——————————————————————————–
The climate change story was not as clear back then as it is now.
True Conservative says:
February 14, 2014 at 9:04 pm
If only they thought about our future generations in regards to spending up the national debt to crazy levels!
—————————————-
They do not seem to have a clue about the future consequences of their overspending.
==================================================================
I think a step in the right direction for the USA would be that in any Federal election where the top vote getter had less than 50% of the vote, a run off between the top two would be held 1 month later.
The “two party system” would then have to pay more attention to the other parties and people would be more likely to actually vote for them if they represented what they really wanted. It would also prevent an aberration such as Adolf winning with only 33% of a vote.
goldminor says: @ur momisugly February 14, 2014 at 10:08 pm
They do not seem to have a clue about the future consequences of their overspending.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They know exactly what the consequences are. National bankruptcy and an IMF/World Bank Structural Adjustment Program
The recommendations are already in from the IMF
Notice the ‘debt’ is money printed out of thin air for which we, the American citizens are now collateral for thanks to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
If you have not read it, read Congressman McFadden on the Federal Reserve Corporation Remarks in Congress, 1934
We could use him in the oval office right now, it is no wonder he was murdered.
Regardless of whether climate change is a human fault, I think we can all agree on the need to stop relying on the earth for resources
REPLY: OK then I nominate you for resource mining on Mars then. Adios! – Anthony