How Fox and Glenn Beck are Hurting America's Economic Recovery

Al Gore's documentary on global warming put me to sleep and for the far left climate change is a religion. But that doesn't mean that it's not happening. In fact, science says it is. But the ignorant, folks such as Glenn Beck, who expect to be raptured and therefore aren't concerned about the planet's future, continue to make a mockery out of climate change. Insightful piece by Tom Rand:

Another win for China

While America dithers on climate change, China is winning the fight for the biggest economic pie of the 21st century - the clean energy economy. Worse, China is playing the U.S. for a fool. And Fox's very own Glenn Beck, that most bellicose defender of the free market, is an unwitting stooge.

The U.S. has walked into a trap. To placate the far right, the U.S. has stated it will not commit to hard emissions targets as long as China refuses to do the same. The Chinese know this, and use it to their advantage. By refusing to agree to binding targets, China ensures the U.S. remains politically hamstrung, unable to pass the carbon legislation that would unleash American industrial might.

Beck's far-right, paranoid, climate-scam rhetoric may make great populist theater, and bring high ratings to Fox. But the net result is to help China keep the U.S. on the sidelines, while they capture the lucrative clean energy market, and all the jobs and investment that goes with it. Beck and Fox are hurting America's economic recovery.
....
While Beck rails against Marxist climate "conspiracy", China pours low-cost loans into state-owned wind farms, leveraging their demand for turbines to give Chinese manufacturers global advantages in scale. While Beck ridicules our scientific elite, another American solar company closes its local factories and moves to China, further establishing their massive lead in low-cost solar production.

Beck's ignorance of climate science, and his paranoid populist rhetoric of Marxist conspiracies, beggars our democratic free market. A price on carbon is not a left-wing conspiracy to control the world. It is the single best tool in our arsenal to unleash the might of our industry, capital and entrepreneurs against the very real threat of catastrophic climate change.Read more

Glacier Melt Underway in Peru

Glacier melt hasn't caused a national crisis in Peru, yet. But high in the Andes, rising temperatures and changes in water supply over the last 40 years have decimated crops, killed fish stocks and forced villages to question how they will survive for another generation.

Without international help to build reservoirs and dams and improve irrigation, the South American nation could become a case study in how climate change can destabilize a strategically important region, according to Peruvian, U.S. and other officials.
...
Glaciers in the South American Andes are melting faster than many scientists predicted; some climate change experts estimate entire glaciers across the Andes will disappear in 10 years due to rising global temperatures, creating instability across the globe as they melt.

Read more at WaPo

Most of Tea Party Blood Believe Climate Change is Unproven

What happens if people don't get out to vote in November? We'll get an even stronger conservative pull. Actually, I'd kind of like to see what the tea partiers do with power. I'd like to see if they disobey Mitch McConnell or if McConnell gets in line behind the tea partiers. I'd like to see if they push their social "values" once they're in office.

Since tea partiers don't "believe" in climate change, as if it's something to either believe in or not, that won't be good for any sort of environmental momentum. On the upside, if tea partiers behave recklessly in Congress, perhaps we'll purge that tea party anger from our system and then maybe we can get to the next level of truly trying to solve this nation's problems.

Rightwing and Chavez Agree

See how extremists are. Chavez is now suggesting Obama is satan, which puts him in agreement with the Sarah Palin-loving wingnuts. Chavez is comical and childish, calling Obama the "Nobel War Prize:"

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez spoke at the United Nations Climate Change Conference today in Copenhagen, and suggested that President Obama is the devil.
Chávez said that “the Kyoto Protocol cannot be declared dead or extinguished, which is what the US pretends to do. Which is why (President) Evo (Morales of Bolivia) tells a great truth: If Obama, Nobel War Prize, said here, by the way, it smells of sulfur here. It smells of sulfur. It keeps smelling of sulfur in this world. The Nobel War Prize has just said here that he came to act. Well, then show it, sir, don't leave by the back door, eh? Do everything you need to do for the US to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol, and let's respect Kyoto, and empower Kyoto, and respond to the world in a transparent fashion.” ABC

Obama's Speech in Copenhagen Dec. 18 Video

The media have characterized Obama's trip to work out a climate change deal as another do or die. "Obama's prestige is on the line," says the media.

Enough with the petty drama.

Obama is spending about 9 hours at the summit, trying to get the Chinese on board. Obama is also meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on an arms control deal.

In this speech he makes similar arguments for climate change as he does healthcare:

Bella Center
Copenhagen, Denmark

12:32 P.M. CET

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. It is an honor for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. All of you would not be here unless you -- like me -- were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, it is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. This much we know.

The question, then, before us is no longer the nature of the challenge -- the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, I have to be honest, as the world watches us today, I think our ability to take collective action is in doubt right now, and it hangs in the balance.

I believe we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of a common threat. That's why I come here today -- not to talk, but to act. (Applause.)

Now, as the world's largest economy and as the world's second largest emitter, America bears our responsibility to address climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That's why we've renewed our leadership within international climate change negotiations. That's why we've worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. That's why we've taken bold action at home -- by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.

These mitigation actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet global responsibilities. We are convinced, as some of you may be convinced, that changing the way we produce and use energy is essential to America's economic future -- that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industries, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. We're convinced, for our own self-interest, that the way we use energy, changing it to a more efficient fashion, is essential to our national security, because it helps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and helps us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.

So I want this plenary session to understand, America is going to continue on this course of action to mitigate our emissions and to move towards a clean energy economy, no matter what happens here in Copenhagen. We think it is good for us, as well as good for the world. But we also believe that we will all be stronger, all be safer, all be more secure if we act together. That's why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to certain steps, and to hold each other accountable to certain commitments.

After months of talk, after two weeks of negotiations, after innumerable side meetings, bilateral meetings, endless hours of discussion among negotiators, I believe that the pieces of that accord should now be clear.

First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I'm pleased that many of us have already done so. Almost all the major economies have put forward legitimate targets, significant targets, ambitious targets. And I'm confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.

Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we're living up to our obligations. Without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

I don't know how you have an international agreement where we all are not sharing information and ensuring that we are meeting our commitments. That doesn't make sense. It would be a hollow victory.

Number three, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least developed and most vulnerable countries to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion by 2012. And yesterday, Secretary Hillary Clinton, my Secretary of State, made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if -- and only if -- it is part of a broader accord that I have just described.

Mitigation. Transparency. Financing. It's a clear formula -- one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord -- one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.

I just want to say to this plenary session that we are running short on time. And at this point, the question is whether we will move forward together or split apart, whether we prefer posturing to action. I'm sure that many consider this an imperfect framework that I just described. No country will get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and no obligations with respect to transparency. They think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price; I understand that. There are those advanced nations who think that developing countries either cannot absorb this assistance, or that will not be held accountable effectively, and that the world's fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.

We know the fault lines because we've been imprisoned by them for years. These international discussions have essentially taken place now for almost two decades, and we have very little to show for it other than an increased acceleration of the climate change phenomenon. The time for talk is over. This is the bottom line: We can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be part of a historic endeavor -- one that makes life better for our children and our grandchildren.

Or we can choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year, perhaps decade after decade, all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course. We have made our commitments. We will do what we say. Now I believe it's the time for the nations and the people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.

We are ready to get this done today -- but there has to be movement on all sides to recognize that it is better for us to act than to talk; it’s better for us to choose action over inaction; the future over the past -- and with courage and faith, I believe that we can meet our responsibility to our people, and the future of our planet. Thank you very much.

Climate Talks Turn Unruly

I don't understand why people are protesting. These countries are trying to work together on climate change. How does protesting accomplish anything?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Meet the Joe Lieberman of Climate Change

Bjorn Lomborg is like Joe Lieberman. They both get off on being the rock through the window, the spider in the soup, the snowball that starts the avalanche. Lomborg isn't necessarily a climate change denier. He just doesn't think we should be dealing with it today. If that's what he believes, then why doesn't he focus his attentions on something positive instead of being a thorn and a distraction at the climate change talks in Copenhagen?

Massive March in Copenhagen for Climate Change Action

Republican Dismisses Sarah Palin on Climate Change

Republican Joe Barton dismisses her in a very kind way:

Kerry, Lieberman, Graham Work Together on Climate Change

John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham are an odd trio but it seems that small groups of republicans, democrats and independents dedicated to an issue can get stuff done.

I'm loving what the 5 liberal and 5 moderate democrats did with healthcare (let's hope it sticks) and Susan Collins and Ron Wyden have teamed on amendments to the Senate healthcare bill.

The very odd duo of Al Sharpton, Newt Gingrich and Al Sharpton have teamed on education and seem to be making strides.

Also working on climate change are Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins:

Also Thursday, Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced a climate bill using a model in which the government would auction off pollution permits and funnel three-quarters of the money back to every American in monthly payments.

"You've got to buy people's confidence that you can make this transition off carbon in a predictable fashion," Cantwell said. "We're going to protect consumers by giving them a check back." WaPo

Read the trio's outline for climate action here.
The Washington Post, which yesterday published Sarah Palin's climate change denying foolishness, puts a negative spin on the trio's climate change framework. Lighten up WaPo. It's a start.

As far as the climate change deniers, there comes a time when we have to turn our backs on ignorance. Climate change deniers are entertaining and annoying but we should be tackling the issue, not listening to dimwits.

An update on the Copenhagen summit and more expectations from Obama:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Al Gore Responds to Palin's Junk Science Commentary

Sarah Palin has no awareness of her ignorance. I think that's what frightens us the most. The other frightening thing is that she has so many followers and I say followers because her supporters tend to blindly follow her based on her "family values."
Read her nuttiness in the Washington Post. The Washington Post? Yep. That's also frightening. Palin gets to voice her looniness over millions of people who are brighter and newsworthy, yet not controversial enough to make it to the media. Palin is leading the further dumbing down of our nation.

"Climategate" is such a non-issue. Andrea Mitchell's interview with Gore:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

EPA's Jackson Says Climategate Doesn't Undermine Science of Climate Change

Full video:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sorry republicans, media.

In the EPA's announcement today, declaring greenhouse gases a pollutant that endangers human health, Lisa Jackson said there is nothing in the hacked emails, "climate gate," that undermines the science on climate change. Declaring greenhouse gases as a pollutant under the Clean Air act means the EPA can regulate without the approval of Congress. But Jackson said legislation can complement the Clean Air act in regulating pollutants. I'll post video when it's up.

The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded greenhouse gases are endangering people's health and must be regulated, signaling that the Obama administration is prepared to contain global warming without congressional action if necessary.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson scheduled a news conference for later Monday to announce the so-called endangerment finding, officials told The Associated Press, speaking privately because the announcement had not been made.

The finding is timed to boost the administration's arguments at an international climate conference — opening Monday — that the United States is aggressively taking actions to combat global warming, even though Congress has yet to act on climate legislation. NPR

EPA's press release:

After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat.

GHGs are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses; as well as other threats to the health and welfare of Americans.

“These long-overdue findings cement 2009’s place in history as the year when the United States Government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Business leaders, security experts, government officials, concerned citizens and the United States Supreme Court have called for enduring, pragmatic solutions to reduce the greenhouse gas pollution that is causing climate change. This continues our work towards clean energy reform that will cut GHGs and reduce the dependence on foreign oil that threatens our national security and our economy.”

EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHGs fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements but rather allow EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed earlier this year for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation.

On-road vehicles contribute more than 23 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions. EPA’s proposed GHG standards for light-duty vehicles, a subset of on-road vehicles, would reduce GHG emissions by nearly 950 million metric tons and conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of model year 2012-2016 vehicles.

EPA’s endangerment finding covers emissions of six key greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world.

Scientific consensus shows that as a result of human activities, GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are at record high levels and data shows that the Earth has been warming over the past 100 years, with the steepest increase in warming in recent decades. The evidence of human-induced climate change goes beyond observed increases in average surface temperatures; it includes melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, acidification of the oceans due to excess carbon dioxide, changing precipitation patterns, and changing patterns of ecosystems and wildlife.

President Obama and Administrator Jackson have publicly stated that they support a legislative solution to the problem of climate change and Congress’ efforts to pass comprehensive climate legislation. However, climate change is threatening public health and welfare, and it is critical that EPA fulfill its obligation to respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that determined that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants.

EPA issued the proposed findings in April 2009 and held a 60-day public comment period. The agency received more than 380,000 comments, which were carefully reviewed and considered during the development of the final findings.

EPA's Lisa Jackson to Make Climate Change Announcement

Update: Watch video here.
The announcement will come at 1:15 pm eastern. Watch a live stream here:

The Obama administration will formally declare Monday that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to the public's health and welfare, a move that lays the groundwork for an economy-wide carbon cap even if Congress fails to enact climate legislation, sources familiar with the process said.

The move, which Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa P. Jackson will announce at an afternoon press conference, comes as the largest climate change conference in history gets underway in Copenhagen. It will finalize an initial "endangerment finding" by the government in April.

While an EPA spokeswoman declined to comment on the matter, the agency sent out a press advisory that Jackson will make "a significant climate announcement at a press briefing" at 1:15 p.m. at EPA headquarters. Jackson will also speak at the U.N.-sponsored climate conference Wednesday; her address is titled "Taking Action at Home." Obama, who will attend the end of the U.N. talks Dec. 18, has sent a series of recent signals to the international community that the United States will curb its carbon output as part of a new global climate deal. Read more at WaPo

Republicans (Darrell Issa leading the way) think Obama should skip Copenhagen because of "climategate." What a joke:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Jon Stewart Roasts Republicans on Climate Change

It's fascinating to watch the republicans self implode.
I bet there is some sort of religious component as to why republicans deny climate change. God makes it that way and climate change is just a sign of the apocalypse.
Wingnuts don't "believe in" climate change but they believe in end times 2012. Sen. James Inhofe from Oklahoma calls global warming a hoax. Where are the legitimate republicans, other than the governor of California and Sen. Lindsey Graham, speaking out on climate change. Wingnuts have been fighting science altogether, a sorry trend in the republican party.

In other climate news, Obama rescheduled his trip to Copenhagen.

Wingnuts Trying to Kill Science

The rightwing believe killing the science on climate change is good for business because if there is no such thing as man-made climate change, then businesses don't have to spend money to abide by environmental regulations.

In fact, the opposite is true. Even if there were no such thing as man-made climate change, there is such a thing as polluting the air and water so that it effects our health.

Ignorant folks still think that climate change is something that you "believe in." Wingnuts have another agenda on science and that is it doesn't fit with their religious beliefs.

Truthfully, I think there is some politicking going on regarding climate change. "Climate-gate" is evidence of that. Wingnuts also despise Al Gore, who is the leading advocate for climate change, so following wingnut irrationality, hating Gore means denying climate change.

But scientists behaving badly and wingnuts dislike of Gore doesn't mean that climate change is fantasy.

Sarah Palin is one of those leading the way in the fight against science. The past couple of years have been really interesting. Mediocre has risen to the top and wingnut voices seem to be getting a disproportionate amount of air time. I think it's an example of our failing education system. People who aren't getting science and math in school are turning to religion for their answers.

Climate change is discussed in this video. Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute, who attended the jobs summit yesterday, also says something very interesting -- that companies aren't hiring, in part, because they can't find workers with the right skills. Seems to me the fact that companies can't find skilled workers is linked to our failing education system, which is responsible for creating the type of environment where a person such as Sarah Palin could be worshipped.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Future Earth (airs Dec. 20), a rather dramatic telling of climate change and its effect on water:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama to Attend Copenhagen Climate Change Conference Dec. 9

Update Dec. 4: Obama pushes the trip to Dec. 18.

US President Barack Obama will attend the UN climate conference in Copenhagen on December 9, the White House said Wednesday according to international news media.

During the president’s one-day stopover on his way to Oslo, where he will receive the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, Obama is expected to announce a provisional US emissions reduction target of 17 percent from 2005 levels.

This target – the first ever of its kind from a US administration – is in line with pending US climate legislation.

The announcement of Obama’s brief visit to Copenhagen was welcomed by the UN and the Danish conference hosts.

UN climate chief Yvo de Boer told reporters in Bonn that Obama’s attendance was critical.

“The world is very much looking to the United States to come forward with an emission reduction target and contribute to financial support to help developing countries,” he said according to AFP. More at COP15

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama Meets With European Leaders Nov. 3

Obama met with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and Javier Solana, who is the European Union foreign policy chief. They discussed Afghanistan, Iran, climate change and the global economy.

Al Gore Speaks to Katie Couric on Cap and Trade

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Chu and Locke Host Clean Energy Forum

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Energy Secretary Steven Chu host forum on climate change and clean energy:

Obama in Mexico: Swine Flu, Trade and Drugs

I've been trying to find coverage of this Mexico trip. But the media has its head wrapped around birthers and the health care town hall mobs. Of course, those are the two most important things to most Americans. That's sarcasm, just in case it didn't come through.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Apparently, swine flu plans a wallop for the fall:

John Brennan, Obama's chief homeland security aide, said the talks are timely — and crucial, given the long borders the U.S. shares with Mexico and Canada. As important as it is to further link up health officials and ready vaccine and antiviral supplies, the three leaders also must together and publicly reinforce a determination not to panic when cases arise, he said.
"There are people who are going to be getting sick in the fall and die," Brennan said. Keeping the severity and reach of the illnesses to a minimum is a priority, but officials also "want to make sure that we do everything possible to ensure the continuation of commerce, transportation and trade between the three countries."
America's first- and third-largest trade relationships are with Canada and Mexico. All three are partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement, the largest free-trade zone in the world. Closing borders or restricting travel would be very costly for families and businesses on all sides of the borders, an important consideration given the limping economy and the fact that health experts see such actions as pointless in containing the flu's spread. AP