President Barack Obama spoke to reporters on Wednesday afternoon in the White House Rose Garden commenting on the required number of nations having ratified the Paris climate change agreement and, almost on cue, NBC’s Ron Allen connected global warming to Hurricane Matthew set to bear down on the Bahamas, the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida.
Speaking on MSNBC Live to host Kate Snow, Allen first gushed about how the President“believes so deeply in protecting the environment” that the deal marks “one of the most significant aspects of his legacy” before bringing in Hurricane Matthew as a intriguing “practical matter.”
In making the following comments, Allen failed to realize that there hasn’t been a major Atlantic Hurricane to crack the top ten in intensity in nine years and if it comes ashore, Matthew would be the first major hurricane to make landfall in the U.S. since Hurricane Wilma in 2005:
[I]t’s very interesting that this is happening a day when there’s a hurricane bearing down on the United States and in the Caribbean because these severe storms, beach erosions, intense weather episodes that we’ve had is perhaps the most practical sample of what the president was talking about as the threat that the planet faces[.]
Calling it a “historic day” and a possible “turning point for the planet,” President Barack Obama lauded the landmark Paris climate agreement, which takes effect Nov. 4.
“This gives us the best possible shot to save the one planet we’ve got,” Obama said in remarks in the Rose Garden at the White House.
While the deal will help delay some of the most pressing threats posed by climate change, he said, it alone “will not solve the climate crisis.”
“No nation, not even one as powerful as ours, can solve this challenge alone. All of us have to solve it together,” Obama said.
Under the terms of the deal, it goes into effect 30 days after it is ratified by at least 55 signatory nations accounting for at least 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Seventy-three countries — including some of the world’s largest emitters, like China, India and the U.S. — have now formally adopted the agreement.…
Testifying before the US Senate Environment Committee, noted economist Eugene Trisko says the government’s own economic multipliers show that EPA’s Clean Power Plan, “would lead to the cumulative loss of $47 billion of [West Virginia] economic output, $11 billion of household income, and 229,000 job years of employment by 2040.”
EUGENE TRISKO: “Applying US Department of Commerce economic multipliers specific to the West Virginia mining sector, we estimate that the EPA carbon rule, and this is just the rule that’s on the books today, would lead to the cumulative loss of $47 billion of state economic output, $11 billion of household income, and 229,000 job years of employment by 2040. A job year is one job held for one year. Even larger losses would occur if an extended Power Plan were adopted along the lines of the Paris Agreement. West Virginia state output could be reduced by a cumulative $60 billion by 2040 along with a $14 billion loss of household income. A total of 288,000 job years of employment would be loss. Clearly, West Virginia can not afford such draconian economic impacts.”
Hearing to examine the local impacts of EPA’s climate regulations
US Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Logan, West Virginia
October 5, 2016…
These were all findings of the Pew Research Center’s 1,100-person poll of Americans on their feelings not just about climate change but on the whole bundle of climate and energy issues. The poll’s headline number is that 48 percent of Americans correctly understand the Earth to be warming due to human activity. This number has recovered to 2006 levels, when it stood at 50 percent. It fell below 40 percent following the election of Barack Obama.
The report also confirms that Republicans and Democrats—especially on the parties’ respective right and left wings—hold differing views on climate change. But it finds that, especially on the left, these views are modestly moderated by someone’s understanding of general science. In other words, a Democrat with a high amount of science knowledge (including on health and biological concepts) is more likely to correctly state that humans are causing climate change than a Democrat with low science knowledge. Whereas being highly educated or having a high amount of science knowledge doesn’t make Republicans any more likely to say the same.…
He’s traversed the sea, fought through the brutal terrain of the Wild West and survived exploring the human psyche.
But it seems that Leonardo DiCaprio now has his sights set on the final frontier. Space.
Speaking at the South By South Lawn talk at the White House on Monday, the 41-year-old actor let slip that he had signed up for a shuttle trip to Mars.
Scroll down for video
Betting it all on Red? It seems that Leonardo DiCaprio now has his sights set on the final frontier. Space
Interviewing President Barack Obama and climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe about the issues of climate change Leonardo let slip that he’d signed up for a mission to the red planet.
As the trio discussed the effect of climate change on planet Earth, the talk took an unexpected turn when Dr. Hayhoe made a quip about a mission to Mars.
Referencing the off-world colony projects being championed by the likes of Elon Musk, the Canadian scientist quipped:
‘If you’re a human living on this planet – which most of us are, yeah? As long as we haven’t signed up for the trip to Mars – I don’t want to know if anyone has – I think you’re crazy.’
To which the Oscar-winning actor responded: ‘I did.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3823210/Leonardo-DiCaprio-reveals-s-planning-trip-Mars-climate-change-talk.html#ixzz4MEvXYVoJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook…
United Nations Security Council members have chosen former Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Guterres as the international body’s next secretary-general.
Guterres previously served as the UN’s high commissioner for refugees before being chosen to head up the whole UN by the 15-member Security Council Wednesday.
But before Guterres worked for the UN, he served as the president of Socialist International (SI), a global network of national socialist parties seeking to establish “democratic socialism” around the world.
SI was formed after World War II, and helped fund socialist movements in Spain and Portugal. In the late 1980s, SI even funded the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua — a move that flew in the face of U.S. interests.
Guterres also became the leader of Portugal’s Socialist Party in 1992, and then the country’s prime minister when socialists won a major electoral victory in 1995.
Guterres enjoyed widespread popularity in his early years, increasing welfare spending and taxes to cut budget deficits. He was re-elected in 1999, but his popularity crumbled when economic growth stalled and the Hintze Ribeiro Bridge collapsed and killed 59 people.
Socialists suffered a crushing electoral defeat in 2001, and Guterres resigned. He then went to work at SI until 2005 when he joined the UN.
‘Climate change’ campaigners ‘terrified of Trump presidency’ – EU quickly approves Paris climate deal
The U.N.-sponsored climate pact to limit greenhouse gases crossed a critical threshold far ahead of schedule Tuesday with the approval of the European Union, as world leaders raced to cement the deal amid fears that Donald Trump would make good on his vow to end U.S. participation if elected president.
With the addition of the 28 European Union nations, the agreement cleared the hurdle of 55 countries representing 55 percent of global emissions required for the accord to enter into effect — less than a year after being negotiated by the Obama administration and more than 190 countries in December.
With the approval by the EU parliament needing a month to officially take effect, the accord could start to come into force on Nov. 7 — one day before the presidential election in the U.S.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest praised the speed at which the deal was ratified even as critics attributed the flurry of approvals to the possibility of a November victory by Mr. Trump, who vowed in May to “cancel” the accord.
Mr. Earnest said that multilateral, U.N.-backed agreements “typically take multiple years, if not decades, to enter into force.”
“And the fact that this agreement will take effect in less than a year is not just a historic accomplishment, it’s a historic commitment to fulfilling the terms of the deal in a way that will have enormous positive benefits for the planet,” he said.
“The Paris agreement is a grand theater designed to convince Western taxpayers to cough up more money,” said Australian climate skeptic Joanne Nova. “China and India are part of the show, putting on their best environmental faces while they do nothing green — or even less.”
By Washington Post Editorial Board October 4 at 7:33 PM
IT TOOK global negotiators a quarter-century to strike the Paris climate agreement, an international accord aimed at slowing global warming. The agreement represents the best hope for a world in which no one country acting alone can do enough to fight this global threat. Donald Trump could destroy the agreement with a stroke of a pen, and with it any hope that the world will keep the planet’s temperature within the boundaries scientists say are safe.
The Paris deal represents a major U.S. commitment, but it is not a treaty with the force of law. President Obama submitted the U.S. emissions goal; Mr. Trump could withdraw it just as easily. He also could deeply undercut or eliminate the basis for any future U.S. commitment. Mr. Trump has promised to rescind the Clean Power Plan, which obliges electrical utilities to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions by cutting down on coal burning and increasing their use of natural gas and renewables. The Environmental Protection Agency drew up the plan using authorities that Congress gave it decades ago in the Clean Air Act. Mr. Trump could press the agency to revoke it or water it down.
Mr. Trump also would have considerable sway over the state of the nation’s land and water. He has promised to use that power to quash regulations on drilling and to open federal lands to coal, oil and gas production. He could do more; for example, he could attempt to use executive discretion over drilling royalties, pipeline construction, permitting, drilling leases, oil and gas exports, and other matters to reward firms and people he likes or to punish those he does not.
U.S. foot-dragging on warming would give other nations a pretext to avoid hard actions, too. The planet would warm more; the oceans would become more acidic; corals would bleach; sea levels would rise; deadly temperature extremes would get more frequent; species would die off; landscapes would change; shipyards would swamp; climate refugees would seek shelter. Some of these things are already bound to happen, to some extent. Mr. Trump is promising to exacerbate the problem, and he could do so by executive fiat.…
Former vice president Al Gore will start campaigning for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, according to individuals briefed on the plan, in an effort to mobilize young voters who see climate change as a key issue.
The decision by Gore to plunge into the campaign during the final weeks shows the extent to which Democrats remain concerned that Clinton has yet to connect with many millennials, some of whom are backing third-party candidates this year. The former vice president, a climate activist, will speak about not just Clinton’s plan to address global warming, but also the idea that voting for an independent presidential candidate could deliver the White House to Republicans in the same way that Ralph Nader’s candidacy helped undermine his presidential bid in 2000.
CNN first reported Gore’s plans Monday evening.
Gore first endorsed Clinton’s candidacy in late July in a three-part tweet, writing, “Given her qualifications and experience and given the significant challenges facing our nation and the world, including, especially, the global climate crisis, I encourage everyone else to do the same.”
But he has stayed largely on the sidelines during the campaign since then, in part because the two politicians have been distant since the end of Bill Clinton’s time in office. Their relationship became strained for many reasons, including the fact that Gore distanced himself from the two-term president in the wake of his affair with Monica Lewinsky, and they competed for Democratic donors when they were both running for office in 2000.…