Obama speech to Parliament skirts climate change

President Obama's speech Wednesday to England's Parliament was heavy on defense, foreign policy, trade and the common values that link Britain with her former colonies, but made scant mention of the global challenges presented by climate change.

"No country can hide from the dangers of carbon pollution, which is why we must build on what was achieved in Copenhagen and Cancun, to  leave our children a planet that is safer and cleaner," Obama said in one of only two references to climate change brought on by human activity.

In a reference to the ongoing struggle to emerge from economic recession, Obama added, "The successes and failures of our own past can serve as an example for emerging economies:  that it's possible to grow without polluting, that lasting prosperity comes not from what a nation consumes, but from what it produces and from the investments it makes in its people and its infrastructure."

The latter comment appears to be directed in part at China and India, whose spectacular economic growth threatens to multiply emissions of greenhouse gases that are warming the planet. The negotiations to renew a global climate pact, held in Copenhagen in 2009 and last year in Cancun, have been thwarted by tensions among developed and developing economies.

But there is palpable tension between the European Union and the United States, which has lagged in its efforts to curb its high per-capita emissions of greenhouse gases. The European Union already has a market to trade carbon offsets aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. failed to get a "cap and trade" measure through Congress last year. The issue is all but dead until after the 2012 presidential elections.

Environmentalists have been disappointed in the Obama administration, which appears to be in retreat in the face of a concerted campaign against government regulation from the GOP, its "tea party" faction and lobbyists from the petroleum industry. The administration in the last few months has delayed several key measures aimed at curbing air pollution, including a rule that would have cracked down on emissions from boilers at industrial plants.

Regulations affecting the coal industry, including those governing stored coal ash, and mountaintop-removal mining, likewise have been stalled.

Related:

Cancun climate talks: Island nations plead for survival

Developing nations hold the key to Copenhagen climate negotiations

-- Geoff Mohan

Photo: Melting glaciers in Greenland are among the effects of climate change. Credit: John McConnico/Associated Press

Comments

[G Clark]

Technology becomes more and more important for reduction of greenhouse gases. Obama should lead as it is an opportunity for new business growth where US can help emerging economies to implement new more sustainable technology.

I was reading an article about advancements in the food industry. The rearing of cattle and pigs for our daily meals causes 18% of the global greenhouse gas emission. NASA scientists used goldfish cells to grow edible protein resembling "fish fillet". This was initially done for astronauts but as it is reducing green house gas it is considered for wider use. Scientistis in the Netherlands discovered that Mealworms, house crickets, sun beetles less gases and look at how these can be processed into meat type products. It is a bit of a remarkeable example but indeed illustrates the use of technology to reduce CO2 output.

Below is the link to the article: http://thewritefuture.typepad.com/the-write-future/

[Andrew Gerdeen]

@most recent post: I predict that the global average temperature will be one of the top 5 warmest temperatures in 2012 (after La Nina subsides) and probably the warmest on record, not because of the Sun, which is coming our of a solar minimum but because of anthropogenic activity.

[Aristotle]

The fact that this man-made climate change business (deliberate use of that word) is a hoax, does not seem to bother the author this piece. Please use your climate change theory to make a single accurate prediction?

[RiHo08]

With the focus upon CO2 emissions instead of clean air, soot, coal ash, etc., the long standing environmental notion of "thinking globally and acting locally" has been turned on its head and acting locally has become getting the "CO2 is a pollutant" message out. Two issues seem to be acting in concert with one another that diminishes the veracity of the message and impedes public buy-in to "global warming", at least the "man made" portion of that message. Forty feet of "global warming" in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and drought breaking rains along with bad science reporting like recently saying global warming is causing more frequent and more intense tornadoes where the science says that is patently untrue, continue to diminish the audience that the environmental cause once had. Greenpeace is preaching to the choir and more and more choir members are finding something else to do on rehearsal night. When Greenpeace finds itself loosing "market share" of people's environmental awareness and concerns, maybe going back to what originally got Greenpeace an audience like clean air and water, soot, coal ash; quit opposing renewable energy locations, impacts, etc, etc, maybe there will be a seat at the table to dialogue and improve options/choices. At this point frankly, I don't see that Greenpeace has credibility to be invited to participate.

[Elizabeth Baker]

President Obama seems to say all the right things but until he puts a price on carbon, he can be viewed as sending our collective future downriver.

We have the solutions (see the recent IPCCC report stating that 80% of the world's energy needs can be met with renewables) and need only the political leadership.

For taking out Bin Laden, he's been lauded as a decisive U.S. president and commander in chief. If he can stop global warming, then he will go down as the greatest leader in the world's history.

And what U.S. president wouldn't want that?