Frankly, I’m not betting the farm on Obama vetoing the bill, particularly if Republicans in exchange go along with his cherished hike in infrastructure spending, designed precisely to create jobs. As the article says, even his Democratic base is split on the pipeline, at a time when jobs truly are THE issue in this election.

The case for a veto no matter what is, I believe, stronger. Politically, he shows backbone and principle, can blast Republicans for the same anti-job position they want to pin on him, and secures the grassroots support he so desperately needs from his environmental base, the same base he has mutilated into apathy with other antagonistic ecodecisions.

But then again, on the subject of backbone and principle, the president has been quite convincing of late that he doesn’t have any when it comes to climate change. The signs are anything but reassuring.

The U.S. was one of the countries that most blocked progress (even simple steps) at Durban. Obama’s new all-or-nothing energy policy proudly includes record hikes in American oil and gas exploration. And when he “killed” Keystone, I’ve warned earlier that we would be ill advised to celebrate much, so absent from his statement was any mention of climate change. Now, if he was willing to turn on the climate at these crucial moments, what makes us think he’ll stick to the Keystone decision in the face of potential political risk?

The writing is all over the wall, folks. This man has simply abandoned the climate in favor of his reelection. He fails to see the political, historical and economic value (to him!) of standing up to the Republicans on this all-important issue. So don’t let his support of cleantech fool you. On Keystone, we simply do not know which way he’ll go.

Yes, it’s great that the pipeline is dead, and everyone from Bill McKibben and 350.org to every single demonstrator who got this done by leading the charge against the project against all odds, deserves our sincerest and most heartfelt congratulations and gratitude. It really would have been game over for the climate had the pipeline gone through.

But as we get past the celebration and refocus on the hard work ahead to ensure that the game is won in the end, it’s crucial to note what the president’s Keystone statement says about our chances for victory. And it’s not one bit encouraging.

Two things stand out. First, there’s not a single mention of the climate threat as one of the motivations behind the decision, when in fact it should have been the MAIN motivation. He blames it on the administration’s inability to meet the arbitrary Republican deadline.

What??!! Are you kidding me? You mean to say he would have gone along if Republicans had been more lenient and agreed to more time? This alone raises a huge red flag, the same he raised with his stance at Durban, where the U.S. shocked everyone with its inexplicable foot dragging and outright opposition to any significant progress.

Second, Obama once again boasts about his perplexing all-of-the-above energy policy, which includes the support of domestic oil, gas and coal in addition to renewables. Congratulate me, he seems to say, because oil and gas are up in America, alongside increases in solar and wind.

This is simply mind blowing. The planet risks an end-of-the-world scenario in a few decades with today’s runaway climate change and record increases in carbon and methane emissions. The latest science is the scariest yet, saying we’re this close to passing the dreaded 2 degree C temperature rise, and dreaded indeed it is. Avoiding that threshold already requires a herculean task, which leaves zero room for NEW fossil-fuel generation that locks in tipping-point emissions for decades more.

So why is the president of the United States, the same one who once promised with inspiring passion to halt the rise of the oceans, feeling great about today’s increase in oil and gas production? That’s the alarming part of his statement, the fact that this is something he is PROUD of, not something he apologetically laments being cornered into by politics.

No, he’s not sorry at all. Not one iota. He is concerned solely, it seems, with enhancing our security by ending the country’s reliance on foreign oil and replacing it with an all-of-the-above American menu. His often stated concern over climate change, we are then led to think, must be blurred by the 1990s assumption that we have a long time to solve this mother-of-all problems.

Mr. President, we do not have that luxury. You have to stand for the end of fossil fuels TODAY. Stopping Keystone helps, but you can’t stop there. When you signed up for the job, you told us you knew damn well that you would be the final president with any chance at preventing irreversible climate change. If you lose this year, we all know your Republican successor will lose the game in regulation, so we’re still cheering for you, because you may still be able to pull it off, even if it takes double-overtime. But not like this, Mr. President.

Not like this.

But this rejection from the US state department is only a temporary setback for TransCanada, the developer, and not a definite “no” to the pipeline. As a result of a legislative standoff in 2011, where Republicans forced a final decision-deadline on the pipeline plan within 60 days, the state department didn’t have the time to do a full and proper investigation. And thus the Keystone XL pipeline was rejected by the state department.

President Barack Obama acknowledges this and blames the denied permit on the Republicans. According to Obama the rejection by the state department “is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline”:

“As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.”

“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down. In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security,” Obama said.

TransCanada has announced that they are “disappointed” by the outcome but that they are still “fully committed” to the Keystone XL pipeline project:

“This outcome is one of the scenarios we anticipated. While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL. Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project,” said Russ Girling, TransCanada’s president and chief executive officer. “We will re-apply for a Presidential Permit and expect a new application would be processed in an expedited manner to allow for an in-service date of late 2014.”

Several Republicans have criticized Obama for the rejection of the pipeline. Mitt Romney, one of the front-runners in the 2012 Republican primary, have said the decision shows a “lack of seriousness” when it comes to bringing down unemployment in the US. “President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs,” a spokesman for Republican house speaker John Boehner said. And Republicans in Congress have proclaimed that they will try and put forward new legislation to push the Keystone XL pipeline project forward, the Guardian reports.

But it’s interesting to note that the US state department concluded in their report that the Keystone XL pipeline “is unlikely to have a substantial impact on U.S. employment” levels. The report also concludes that the pipeline would make little difference to economic activity, trade, energy security, or foreign policy over the longer term in the US. According to the report only around “5,000 to 6,000 direct construction jobs” would be created because of the Keystone XL pipeline. And these jobs “would last for the two years that it would take to build the pipeline”.

So we can now be sure on a couple of things. The Keystone XL pipeline has only been temporary stopped. TransCanada will re-apply, and most likely they will get their permit a couple of months after the presidential election. Barack Obama doesn’t acknowledge the dangerous effects the Keystone XL pipeline and tar sands will have on our environment and climate. He would gladly approve the pipeline project today, if that was possible. If constructed, the Keystone XL pipeline will only create a few thousands temporary jobs and it will not help the US reach energy independence or energy security. And if the tar sands are exploited, it would only result in the destruction of our climate.

Groups such as the Chamber of Commerce support the pipeline because it would create a lot of jobs, thus stimulating the economy. According to TransCanada, a minimum of 20,000 jobs would be created through the building of the pipeline. These are jobs you can’t just bring out from behind your garage door. And there are a number of unions that are currently advocating the project such as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the International Union of Operating Engineers.

However, you would be hard-pressed to find an environmentalist who supports the pipeline project. The environmental concerns involve greenhouse gas emissions, damage to Alberta’s forests, the possibility of oil spills, and more.

Tiernan Sittenfeld is an important official in the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). According to Sittenfeld, the pipeline issue is a pivotal concern in the upcoming presidential election.

“This is not just about what LCV, which spent nearly $1 million to help elect Obama in 2008, or any other group that engages in electoral politics do in the upcoming election,” explained Sittenfeld. “It’s about people out there who care deeply about the environment, how much they volunteer, how many doors they knock on, how much money they contribute directly. We have LCV supporters who maxed out to the Obama campaign in 2008 who have told us they are not going to give this time around if the president approves this pipeline.”

Environmentalist Bill McKennan agrees with Sittenfeld and was among Friday’s crowd of pipe protestors. He declared, “I suppose you could look at our circle around the president as a kind of … symbolic house arrest.” McKennan continued, “We are very hopeful, indeed confident, that the president will do the right thing here.”

But what does Romney, Bachmann and Perry say about environmental and climate issues? Below is a quick summary on the three front-runners and just where they stand politically when it comes to the climate and our environment.

As a quick note before I start I must say that it’s sad to see that the American climate debate has taken a completely wrong direction since the last elections. The former Republican Presidential candidate John McCain, who proudly said he was a “coal booster” and his (joke to a) Vice President Sarah Palin who in the elections couldn’t even name a single man-made cause to climate change, supported a cap-and-trade system in the previous election. But none of the three Republican front-runners would today even consider a cap-and-trade system in the US. And somehow Rick Perry’s and Michele Bachmann’s rhetoric sounds remarkably similar to the Norwegian terrorist’s crazy ramblings about climate change being some sort of “eco-Marxist plot”. It is also sad that Mitt Romney is facing such strong criticism among Republican voters for his (weak) pro-climate and pro-science stance. It shouldn’t be “political suicide” to believe in basic climate science these days.

Rick Perry

Rick Perry is an religious, right-wing conservative who currently is the Governor of Texas. Many political commentators have likened Perry and his cowboy-like rhetoric and style to the former President George W. Bush. Which might say a lot where he stands political on environmental issues considering Bush’s awful climate record.

From his statements regarding climate change one can clearly see that Perry is a global warming denier. Perry wrote in his book Fed Up! that he believes that Al Gore and climate scientists belongs to a “secular carbon cult”, and that global warming is a “contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight.” Here is a quote from his book:

“For example, they have seen the headlines in the past year about doctored data related to global warming. They know we have been experiencing a cooling trend, that the complexities of the global atmosphere have often eluded the most sophisticated scientists, and that draconian policies with dire economic effects based on so-called science may not stand the test of time. Quite frankly, when science gets hijacked by the political Left, we should all be concerned. . . .

And it’s all one contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight. Al Gore is a prophet all right, a false prophet of a secular carbon cult, and now even moderate Democrats aren’t buying it.”

When Perry campaigned for Governor in Texas last year he was labeled as one of the twelve dirties state office candidates in the country by the Texas League of Conservation Voters. “Rick Perry has consistently put corporate polluters and other special interests ahead of protecting our natural resources and working to make Texas a leader in the new clean energy economy,” said David Weinberg, Executive Director of the Texas League of Conservation Voters. Jonathan Hiskes wrote a longer summary about Perry’s environmental record last year saying that while Perry fights climate action he embraces wind power. He also writes that Perry “relishes his role as a foe of national climate action” and that he have said that the climate bill that passed the House in 2009 was as an “economic disaster”. Perry has also tried to fast-track permits for 11 new coal plants in Texas.

According to the liberal blog Thinkprogress, Perry has received massive amounts of campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry:

“Since his 1998 candidacy to be George W. Bush’s lieutenant governor, Perry has raked in $117,091,642 in campaign contributions, with the oil and gas industry the top contributor. Big oil has fueled Rick Perry’s career, the top industry contributor at $11,189,103, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Top oil company contributions include $189,188 from Exxon Mobil, $147,895 from Valero Energy, and $116,000 from Koch Industries.”

So what kind of solutions does Perry have for Texas, which currently is experiencing one of the state’s worst droughts in history most likely due to man-made climate change? Well, Perry believes that the only viable solution is prayers. Jeff Goodell over at the Rolling Stone magazine writes:

“The other day, Texas Governor Rick Perry took dramatic action to save his state from the ravages of a changing climate. He issued a proclaimation for Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. For three days, Perry asked Texas to kneel at the pew, or at the foot of their beds, and silently ask God to bring water to their parched state.”

When it comes to EPA Perry says the Environmental Protection Agency and their regulations “are killing jobs all across America” and that he wants the president to “put a moratorium on all regulations across this country.” And like ThinkProgress notes, this would mean complete anarchy and a literal end to the rules of law in the USA.

Michele Bachmann speaking at CPAC 2011 in Washington, D.C. Photo credit: Gage Skidmore.

Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann is a congress member in the United States House of Representatives and a strong supporter of the populist, right-wing Tea Party movement. Bachmann is, similar to Rick Perry, a conservative right-winger who is supportive of corporations and doesn’t like environmental regulations. She is also a climate change denier.

During a GOP debate in New Hampshire last month, Bachmann said she wanted to stop EPA and repeal the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act:

“What we need to do is pass the mother of all repeal bills, but it’s the repeal bill that will get a job killing regulations. And I would begin with the EPA, because there is no other agency like the EPA. It should really be renamed the job-killing organization of America.”

And just two weeks ago during a campaign rally in Iowa she continued with her attacks against EPA saying that she would lock it down and shut of its lights:

“I pledge to you I’m not a talker. I’m a doer,” she said. “[...] And I guarantee you the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) will have doors locked and lights turned off and they will only be about conservation, ” she said earlier today at a campaign stop in Cedar Rapids. “It will be a new day and a new sheriff in Washington, D.C.”

During a radio interview in 2009 where Bachmann talked about the cap-and-trade bill, which she has described as “tyranny“, that was being debated in the House back then she called on citizens to get “armed and dangerous” in their opposition against the bill. This is what she said:

“I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.”

One can wonder that if by “armed and dangerous” Bachmann meant something along the lines of what the Christian right-wing terrorist succeeded with in Norway this summer?

When it comes to climate change Bachmann is just like Rick Perry a global warming denier. During a debate at the House floor on Earth Day in 2009 she claimed that “carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of nature” and that this would somehow disprove man-made climate change.

In 2008 Bachmann said that she believed that climate change was just a hoax and a conspiracy. This is what she said:

“The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax. It’s all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax…”

Bachmann also supports oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) saying the federal protected area would be “perfect for drilling” and that “it beast Saudi Arabia”. But allowing oil drilling in the ANWR is pretty mainstream Republican opinions. Republican John Boehner, who is currently the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, said in 2008 while pushing for oil drilling in the area that he didn’t believe that there is any wildlife at all in the ANWR.

Former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts speaking at CPAC 2011 in Washington, D.C. Photo credit: Gage Skidmore.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts, also wants to see oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). During a GOP debate in 2007 Romney said that to be able to reach energy independence USA needs to increase all their domestic energy productions. This would include investing more in nuclear energy and “more drilling in ANWR.”

But unlike Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, Romney has actually supported the idea of a cap-and-trade plan in the US saying he was “convinced” such a plan would be “good for business”. Unfortunately those opinions didn’t last very long. Andrew Schenkel writes:

But in just a few short years, Romney’s cap-and-trade feelings shifted. “We’re going to move our new facilities from the U.S. to China, where they don’t have those agreements. You end up polluting and putting just as much CO2 in the air because the big energy users go there. That’s why these ideas make sense, but only on a global basis. They don’t call it ‘America warming.’ They call it ‘global warming.’”

During a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire, earlier this summer Romney said that he believes “the world is getting warmer” and that he “believe that humans have contributed to that”. This is what he said:

“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire. “It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”

Al Gore even (sort-of) applauded Romney for ignoring the “anti-science wing of the Republican Party”. But Gore also noted that “we’ve long passed the point where weak lip-service is enough on the Climate Crisis”. Romney, unlike his fellow Republican presidential candidates, believing in global warming sounds good, don’t it? But just like Alexander Burns over at Politico notes, Romney is still not completely sure about the warming or how much responsibility we humans actually have:

“But Romney also says he’s not sure how much the globe is warming or how much responsibility humans bear, or what exactly the best climate policies would be. That’s not exactly a bold, maverick stance, and would seem to put Romney within the same ballpark on the issue as George W. Bush.”

And just like the other two Republican front-runners, Romney doesn’t think the EPA should be allowed to regulate greenhouse gases. Darren Samuelsohn over at Politico writes that Romney doesn’t believe that carbon pollution is a threat to public health:

“”Gov. Romney does not think greenhouse gases are pollutants within the meaning of the Clean Air Act, and he does not believe that the EPA should be regulating them,” said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul. “CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. Humans emit it every time they exhale.” Last week, Romney responded to a question at a town hall meeting in Derry, N.H., by saying he doesn’t think carbon pollution threatens public health or merits regulation under the Clean Air Act.”

So while Romney at least acknowledges climate change he is still unsure about it and has no real plans or ideas on how we can combat the climate crisis. Last week in Iowa, Romney said that “corporations are people, my friends.” So it seems we shouldn’t put much hope to Romney that if he gets elected as president he would enforce environmental regulations against his friends, the corporations.

Gore does acknowledge the “incredible challenges” that is confronting President Obama and recognizes the climate-friendly efforts Obama has achieved, such as the historic improvements in fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles and for instructing EPA to “move forward on the regulation of global-warming pollution under the Clean Air Act”. But despite this Gore says Obama has “failed” to present “bold action on climate change” and that Obama has only “slightly” moved the country forward on the climate issue. Gore writes:

“But in spite of these and other achievements, President Obama has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change. After successfully passing his green stimulus package, he did nothing to defend it when Congress decimated its funding. After the House passed cap and trade, he did little to make passage in the Senate a priority. Senate advocates including one Republican felt abandoned when the president made concessions to oil and coal companies without asking for anything in return. He has also called for a massive expansion of oil drilling in the United States, apparently in an effort to defuse criticism from those who argue speciously that “drill, baby, drill” is the answer to our growing dependence on foreign oil.”

Because Obama failed to pass legislation to limit global-warming pollution in the US he also contributed, Gore writes, to the disappointing failure of securing a global climate treaty at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen (Cop15) in 2009.

“The failure to pass legislation to limit global-warming pollution ensured that the much-anticipated Copenhagen summit on a global treaty in 2009 would also end in failure. The president showed courage in attending the summit and securing a rhetorical agreement to prevent a complete collapse of the international process, but that’s all it was a rhetorical agreement. During the final years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the rest of the world was waiting for a new president who would aggressively tackle the climate crisis and when it became clear that there would be no real change from the Bush era, the agenda at Copenhagen changed from “How do we complete this historic breakthrough?” to “How can we paper over this embarrassing disappointment?”"

Gore also directed strong criticism against Obama for failing to defend the climate science from “dishonest attacks” by the climate deniers and the fossil fuel industry.

“President Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis. He has simply not made the case for action. He has not defended the science against the ongoing, withering and dishonest attacks. Nor has he provided a presidential venue for the scientific community — including our own National Academy — to bring the reality of the science before the public.”

There is really no denying. Since taking office in 2008 Obama has failed to bring the change he promised. His track record has so far been a huge disappointment, especially when it comes to the climate crisis. Gore is just saying what has been on many environmentalists minds for a while now. And yet people who want to see real change on the climate issue doesn’t have many political options. As Dina Cappiello from the Associated Press writes:

“Regardless of views such as Gore’s, environmental voters may see little choice in the 2012 election. Those in the Republican field so far either deny global warming is a man-made problem altogether or say actions to address it would hurt the economy. For Obama, the biggest risk is that some environmental voters may not go to the polls.”

And this is really where the problem lies. The current two-party system in the US is undemocratic and is now also clearly responsible for killing our climate. But it’s a political system that Al Gore still remains a firm supporter of.

"Further, we must learn that with any risky technology, whether it is offshore oil drilling or nuclear power, it is not good enough to be 99% safe. One event can have a calamitous and irreversible impact. We need a major investigation to understand how this accident occurred. We must make certain that precautions are put in place so nothing like it ever happens again.

This crisis occurred at a time when the United States was considering opening new areas to offshore oil drilling. If there is a lesson to be learned from this disaster, it is that Congress must end that policy. There must be no new offshore drilling. Not now, not ever.

Offshore drilling simply does not achieve the goals that its advocates claim, and it is not worth the risk. If we are serious about wanting to break our dependence on foreign oil and move to energy independence; if we want to lower the cost of energy; if we want to combat climate change and cut greenhouse gas emissions; if we want to create millions of new jobs – then more offshore drilling is not the way to go."

In light of the BP oil disaster Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger promptly withdrew his plans on lifting a 40-year moratorium on drilling off the California coast. Earlier Greenpeace have called for an offshore moratorium in the USA and have asked President Barack Obama to cancel Arctic drilling plans. Schwarzenegger should of course be complimented for taking back his support for any new offshore oil drilling plans. But isn’t it a bit sad that an “unprecedented environmental disaster” has to take place before anyone cares to realize the dangers of offshore oil drilling (or nuclear energy)?

But then again this might just all be nice talk from politicians and legislators. It will be interesting to see if they will continue to talk about ending offshore drilling and transforming the nation’s energy system even after the media storm have calmed. Somehow I doubt it. After all, the current oil spill is nothing new. And we shouldn’t forget that the Gulf disaster is only unusual for being so near the US. Elsewhere in the world Big Oil rarely cleans up its dirty mess. And the Western media rarely cares about it.

But one might say that Barack Obama have called for the transformation of the US energy system long before the oil disaster in the Gulf. And yes this is true. In late 2008 when the failing auto industry was the hot topic of the day Obama said that this is "our pattern" and it has to be broken:

"We go from shock to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up, everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back down and suddenly we act like it’s not important, and we start, you know filling up our SUVs again.

And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It’s part of the addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to break it."

But then again, this is also nothing new. As Jon Stewart shows the last eight presidents in the USA have all gone on television and promised to move America towards an energy-independent future.

The Deepwater Horizon accident has resulted in eleven lives lost, countless of animal lives affected and an oil spill that is growing in size every day. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have concluded that around 5000 barrels of oil is leaking every day from the destroyed oil rig managed by BP. According to reports the oil spill has tripled in size during these past days.

While touring the area at risk from the oil spill Obama blamed the “unprecedented environmental disaster” on BP while saying they “will be paying the bill”:

“Let me be clear: BP is responsible for this leak. BP will be paying the bill,” said Obama as he visited the area and pledged a “fully coordinated, relentless relief effort” in the region where the coastlines of four Gulf states are being menaced. [...]“We a dealing with a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster,” Obama said.

And why shouldn’t they? After all BP is the third largest global energy company and the 4th largest company in the world. Reuters also reports that:

“The spill has also forced Obama to suspend politically sensitive plans to expand offshore oil drilling, unveiled last month partly to woo Republican support for climate legislation, one of the U.S. leader’s priorities.”

And following this suspension on offshore oil drilling Greenpeace Executive Director, Philip Radford said that while Obama’s announcement was “a welcome first step” it isn’t enough:

“The President’s announcement today, while a welcome first step, does not go nearly far enough. The only way to prevent human, economic and environmental tragedies like the BP Deepwater Disaster is to re-enact the moratorium on offshore drilling and to replace dirty dangerous fuels with clean energy.”

“If we cannot handle a spill in the Gulf of Mexico, imagine the impact even a small spill could have in the remote, pristine waters of the Arctic”, Radford said in a statement.

Greenpeace also notes that on April 2nd, just days before the BP Deepwater Spill began, President Obama said:

“It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced.”

Maybe this time BP really should go “beyond petroleum“?

Related reading:
- Documents Show BP Opposed New, Stricter Safety Rules
- Rig explosion dirties BP’s green image
- BP Deepwater Disaster and Gulf Oil Spill (Greenpeace)
- Dick Cheney and the oil spill
- BP warned of rig fault ten years ago
- BP accused as size of oil slick triples in a day
- Oil Spill Vs. Wind Spill Vs. Sun Spill.

During a visit to Henderson Nevada, President Obama explained basic climate science for the people who had gathered to listen to him at the town hall.

“First of all, we just got five feet of snow in Washington and so everybody is like — a lot of the people who are opponents of climate change, they say, see, look at that, there’s all this snow on the ground, this doesn’t mean anything. I want to just be clear that the science of climate change doesn’t mean that every place is getting warmer; it means the planet as a whole is getting warmer. But what it may mean is, for example, Vancouver, which is supposed to be getting snow during the Olympics, suddenly is at 55 degrees, and Dallas suddenly is getting seven inches of snow.

The idea is, is that as the planet as a whole gets warmer, you start seeing changing weather patterns, and that creates more violent storm systems, more unpredictable weather. So any single place might end up being warmer; another place might end up being a little bit cooler; there might end up being more precipitation in the air, more monsoons, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, more drought in some places, floods in other places.”

You should also take a moment to read George Monbiot’s article on why Britain’s cold snap does not prove climate science wrong.

“AMY GOODMAN: What level of emissions are you willing to support reductions of emissions?

PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ: [translated] One hundred percent. One hundred percent. We must reduce the emissions 100 percent. In Venezuela, the emissions are currently insignificant compared to the emissions of the developed countries. We are in agreement. We must reduce all the emissions that are destroying the planet. However, that requires a change in lifestyle, a change in the economic model: we must go from capitalism to socialism. That’s the real solution.”

You can read a rush transcript of the interview here. Amy Goodman and Democracy Now had a great coverage of the Copenhagen climate conference which is worth a look if you missed it.