Obama calls for urgent action on climate change

[Shodan]

@Knorf

It’s a fact that the debt increased more under GOP presidents in the past 50 years.

No, it is not a fact. Obama has increased the national debt more than under every President in history put together. (Cite - pdf.)

Regards,
Shodan

[ElvisL1ves]

So the President is responsible for the budget if there are deficits and he’s a Democrat, but a Republican Congress is responsible when there are surpluses and he’s a Democrat, even though they voted against it? That has always been your claim about the Clinton economy, Shodan.

[Knorf]

Yep, we see here in this very thread, one “conservative” arguing that the budget is the responsibility of the Congress, another wanting to put the responsibility for current debt and spending on the current president.

But the reality is, both increases in spending as a %, and the increase in debt as a % of the GNP, have been highest under GOP presidents since the 1970s. See the following. Look at the chart entitled, “Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP.”

Obama is second to Reagan. A distant second.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Shodan

No, it is not a fact. Obama has increased the national debt more than under every President in history put together. (Cite - pdf.)

Regards,
Shodan

No he hasn’t (even if one accepts the dubious premise that the POTUS is responsible for debt increases.) Actual cite.

[Shodan]

@Knorf

Yep, we see here in this very thread, one “conservative” arguing that the budget is the responsibility of the Congress, another wanting to put the responsibility for current debt and spending on the current president.

Assuming Magiver is correct (he is), Congress is responsible for the budget. Assuming you are correct (you’re not), it is demonstrably false that “the debt increased more under GOP presidents in the past 50 years”.

So if Presidents are responsible for the national debt, Obama has increased the national debt more than every GOP President in history put together. If Obama is not responsible for the national debt, then it is not true that the national debt has increased more under GOP Presidents than Obama.

You need to come up with a better talking point.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

No he hasn’t (even if one accepts the dubious premise that the POTUS is responsible for debt increases.) Actual cite.

Yes he has. Your cite does not extend to the end of Obama’s first term. As of roughly January 2013, the national debt under Obama has increased more than for every other President in history put together.

Regards,
Shodan

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

No, he hasn’t. $17,293,020,000,000 minus $10,024,724,896,912 (which includes the end of GWB’s second term) equals $7,268,295,103,088. That is less than $10,024,724,896,912.

Regards,
Arithmetic*

*Sorry, I had to.

[Shodan]

But it’s also a fact that the federal debt has just about exactly doubled since he took office.

Cite from FactCheck.

:shrugs: You can lead a horse to water…

Regards,
Shodan

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Linky no worky. I just get a blank page.

[Learjeff]

Let’s discuss the budget in a separate thread. Oh wait, we did.

@doorhinge

Obama would have to rein in volcanoes, and continental drift if he plans on controlling the weather.

Really? You don’t want us to take anything you say seriously, do you?

First, we’re discussing climate, not weather.
Second, volcanoes reduce the planet’s mean temperature, so Obama would have to stimulate them, not rein them in.
Third, are you aware of the rate of tectonic plate drift? The fastest moving one is the Indian subcontinent, crashing into Asia at the rate of about 5" per year. When do you expect plate tectonics (not “continental drift”) to start affecting climate?

@ITR_champion

Let me offer some suggestions.

First, eliminate the mandate for ethanol is gasoline. At best it’s useless at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and it’s bad for the environment in countless ways.

Second, reduce the size and activity of the U. S. military. I don’t think all those cruisers and F-22’s and tanks are powered by wind or hydrogen. The less they do, the less carbon dioxide they’ll emit.

Third, update the archaic air traffic control standards so that commercial airlines don’t have to waste so much fuel in the takeoff and landing stages.

Fourth, cancel the recent increase in required training for pilots. More training flights means more emissions.

Fifth, drop tariffs on foreign crops that can be used as biofuels.

These are things that Obama could either do my executive action or else have a reasonable chance of passing Congress.

Thanks! Those don’t amount to much, and some involve risks we might not want to take (pilot training, which I don’t know enough about to comment), but it’s a start.

Just because it’s not enough doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing. NOTHING we do will be enough; we’ll also have to convince the rest of the world to cooperate as well. The only harm in doing small things is using them as an excuse not to do more.

[BrainGlutton]

@doorhinge

Climate change happens every spring. And then again in the fall. Obama doesn’t seem to be able to anything about that.

What’s that got to do with this?

[Lobohan]

@BrainGlutton

What’s that got to do with this?

It’s, I assume, an attempt to assert folksy platitudes as a rebuttal to a serious issue.

Typical of the GOP, I’d say.

[Lightnin]

@BrainGlutton

What’s that got to do with this?

Well, duh. Weather is the same as Seasons is the same as Climate. Every (right winger) knows that.

[doorhinge]

FYI

@XT

You aren’t really addressing the OP. I’m not asking to debate climate change in this thread. I’m asking ‘How much can he do on his own? Will he be able to rally enough congressional support to do more? What impact will anything he does have on actual climate change? Obviously there are going to be some sacrifices that Americans are going to be asked to make, but will any of it make any difference to the global carbon foot print?’. If you want to debate climate change (for the umpteenth time) then feel free to start a new thread to do so. Discussing it in here will simply derail the thread. Just a request though…do what you like.

@Learjeff

…Really? You don’t want us to take anything you say seriously, do you?

First, we’re discussing climate, not weather.
Second, volcanoes reduce the planet’s mean temperature, so Obama would have to stimulate them, not rein them in.
Third, are you aware of the rate of tectonic plate drift? The fastest moving one is the Indian subcontinent, crashing into Asia at the rate of about 5" per year. When do you expect plate tectonics (not “continental drift”) to start affecting climate?

Really. (Your opinion is always welcome but not required. just sayin’)

climate
noun [C/U] (WEATHER) /ˈklɑɪ·mət/
› earth science the general weather conditions usually found in a particular place:
[C] My parents like the warm, dry climate of Arizona.

climate

Erupting volcanoes can reduce the planet’s mean temperature (aka global un-warming).

Tectonic plate drift can redirect more moisture to a specific region or reduce moisture to a specific region.

So what can Obama do about the questions asked in the OP?

[YogSothoth]

You can fill up a wholebook with all of the stuff right wingers know about global warming.

[Deeg]

@Magiver

And yes, I agree they should lower the nox emissions and let the diesels in. That was my original point.

You wasted an entire paragraph nitpicking hyperbole. And I say that raising gas taxes a few dollars/gallon will do much more for reducing petrol consumption than lowering nox emissions. I’ll go for yours if you go for mine.

[SmartAlecCat]

Don’t just listen to the news, go read the report for yourself – it is written to be read and understood by everyone. It isn’t just for scientists.

[Knorf]

@Learjeff

Let’s discuss the budget in a separate thread. Oh wait, we did.

Fair enough. I’m somewhat responsible for the budget digression, so I’ll drop it.

Just because it’s not enough doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing. NOTHING we do will be enough; we’ll also have to convince the rest of the world to cooperate as well. The only harm in doing small things is using them as an excuse not to do more.

Also, even some small steps might be just enough to mitigate effects as to keep them from being catastrophic for someone.

[Magiver]

@Deeg

You wasted an entire paragraph nitpicking hyperbole. And I say that raising gas taxes a few dollars/gallon will do much more for reducing petrol consumption than lowering nox emissions. I’ll go for yours if you go for mine.

raising taxes will do nothing but increase the cost of production and slow down the economy. 1 in 5 people are on food stamps and it makes no sense to penalize them further. There are already substantial increases in fuel efficiency standards in place for the upcoming years. Keeping money in people’s pockets so they can afford to buy those cars is the direct path to making that happen.

What we lack for immediate reductions today is the ability to take advantage of the cars already in production.

[Deeg]

@Magiver

raising taxes will do nothing but increase the cost of production and slow down the economy.

Really? You don’t think raising gas prices a significant amount would reduce consumption? That goes against pretty much everything I believe regarding the free market. Anyway, this chart says otherwise. And you haven’t heard my whole plan–the hike in gas prices would be offset by an income tax credit. People on food stamps could pocket the credit and save even more money by reducing consumption.