The NY Times provides "coverage" of Obama's latest posturing on global warming:
Speech Gives Climate Goals Center Stage
WASHINGTON — President Obama made addressing climate change the most prominent policy vow of his second Inaugural Address, setting in motion what Democrats say will be a deliberately paced but aggressive campaign built around the use of his executive powers to sidestep Congressional opposition.
Yeah, yeah. Pravda describes his last bellyflop on this:
After the defeat in 2010 of legislation that would have capped carbon emissions and issued tradable permits for emissions, Mr. Obama turned to regulation and financing for alternative energy.
2010? My goodness, weren't they the halcyon days of Nancy running the House and Harry marhsalling 9 Democratic Senators? Here are the Times editors describing Obama's failure in July 2010:
With A Whimper
On Thursday, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, abandoned the fight for meaningful energy and climate legislation. The Republicans — surprise — had been fiercely obstructionist. But the Democratic leaders let them get away with it, as did the White House. It has been weeks since President Obama spoke out about the need for a serious climate bill to address the very real danger of global warming and to lessen this country’s dependence on imported oil.
The Republicans obviously bear a good part of the responsibility for this failure. With a handful of exceptions, they have denied or played down the problem of global warming for years and did pretty much anything they could to protect industry from necessary regulation. There are, however, as many as a dozen Senate Democrats, mainly from the South, Appalachia and the Midwest, who share the blame.
The politics haven't gotten better for the Democrats. But then the Pravda science writers take over:
Beyond new policies, the administration is seeking to capitalize on the surge of natural gas production over the past few years. As a cheaper and cleaner alternative to coal, natural gas gives it a chance to argue that coal is less economically attractive.
...Despite the lack of comprehensive legislation, emissions have declined roughly 10 percent since he took office, a result both of the economic slowdown and of energy efficiency moves by government and industry.
Who the frack do they think they are kidding? Well, "Frack" is a four letter word at the Times, whose editors will always believe that more study is needed until a quasi-credible effort puts the kibosh on fracking, at which point the science will be settled.
However, this appeared in their pages (or at least, their website) last August:
Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the United States from January through March were the lowest of any recorded for the first quarter of the year since 1992, the federal Energy Information Administration reports.
The agency attributed the decline to a combination of three factors: a mild winter, reduced demand for gasoline and, most significant, a drop in coal-fired electricity generation because of historically low natural gas prices.
The extraction of large natural gas deposits in the Marcellus Shale has contributed to the rise of inexpensive natural gas, causing prices to decline in the last four years and making it a far cheaper option than burning coal. In 2005, coal accounted for half of all electricity generated in the country. But the embrace of natural gas, which now accounts for about 30 percent of electricity generation, has caused coal’s share to retreat to 34 percent, a 40-year low.
And an important reminder:
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the means by which much of the shale gas is being acquired, also raises questions about potential environmental effects like groundwater contamination, critics say.
I foresee an Orwellian New Year - Obama will attempt to lead an national conversation on energy policy without ever mentioning fracking, a process to which his big donor base is opposed. And the Times will report in this conversation in code.
And speaking of losing the future, Obama can't even talk about nuclear power because Harry Reid wants endless re-study of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository. Meanwhile, China is going to find out once and for all whether thorium is the nuclear dream metal.
ERRATA: A victory lap from the Skeptical Environmentalist.
IF I ONLY HAD A BRAIN - STRAWMEN DIVISION:
Classic Obama rhetoric:
For we have always understood that when times change, so must we, that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges, that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.
For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future. Or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.
No single person can make an I-Phone. Or for that matter, a PC (former TIME Thing of the Year, now on the back shelf). "Fracking" was hardly a project pushed by Big Government, although they certainly contributed.
But evidently in ObamaWorld, if I can't do it myself the only other step is a Big Goverment project. Hmm... I have a large, awkward piece of furniture I need to get up the stairs. I had been thinking of calling my neighbor for a hand (and give him a chance to blow out his other knee), but now I see I should be writing to my Congressman. Or to Barack himself!
Well, what should we expect from a guy who can't even call a plumber when the toilets are backed up?