State of the Union address doesn’t address climate change

 By
Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

I was, like the millions of you out there, glued to my television set during the State of the Union address earlier this week.

But there was something missing from President Obama’s speech. There was a word that he refrained from using and that word was climate. It was as if not mentioning it made it not a problem we are facing as a nation or brushes it under the rug with all the other problems we have turned our back on in the past.

Numerous sources noticed the vanishing C-word such as The New York Times and the LA Times.

But the President did mention initiatives toward clean energy and cleaner transportation, which did gain the attention of many environmentalists. According to ClimateWire, “Obama unveiled a plan to promote renewable energies from sources like wind and the sun by slashing $4 billion annually in government subsidies to oil and gas companies.”

But many have taken notice to Obama’s definition of “clean.” This is only because that most nature-enthusiasts believe that nuclear power, natural gas and “clean coal” aren’t that clean. Well, that’s because they aren’t!

As for Obama’s plans for a high-speed rail, a six-year plan to fix roads, bridges and transit plus the creation of a National Infrastructure Bank, all I have to say is that I’ll believe it when I see it. For someone who doesn’t mention climate change in his State of the Union Address, I really don’t think that this the environment is at the top of your priorities.

I voted for you. You are my president and I support you. But you kind of let me and the environment down with this one.


Disclaimer: The Daily Sundial is not responsible for comments posted on dailysundial.com. In accordance with the Communications Decency Act of 1996 the Sundial is not liable for the content of comments. By commenting, all persons posting on dailysundial.com have agreed to our comment policy. If a comment does not abide by the comment policy the Sundial reserves the right to delete comments without warning. The Daily Sundial advises persons commenting not to abuse their First Amendment rights, and to avoid comments of hate speech or encouraging violence.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_CCQZWRRRFC2STTN3BLL63HNYYQ Bryce Covert

    I agree that he let us down. What’s so strange to me is that he wants to focus on jobs and the economy but doesn’t see how combating climate change is so directly tied to that. Investing in technologies and infrastructure that are renewable and clean could be the very key to pulling the whole world out of the recession. Take a look at this analysis of a recent speech by Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate — really interesting ideas: http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/01/28/investment-is-a-win-win-for-the-global-economy-and-climate-change-34211/

  • Anonymous

    Of course, below any article on global warming, you’ll find comments like those above. They are an homage to the effectiveness of the George C. Marshall Institute’s strategy of sewing doubt. Meanwhile, the scientific community has moved on. There is consensus on this science. The US National Academy has spoken as have 10 other national academies. This disconnect between the scientific community and the population at large is as ominous as the problem of global warming itself. Conservative ideology dictated disdain for the conclusions of the science. Put another way, if the science had pointed to tax cuts and smaller government, you can bet that every single Republican in the Senate would be demanding swift and decisive action on Global Warming and respect for scientific consensus based on the 40 years of extensive primary research and peer review. Unfortunately, the science points to a remedy that is anathema to the right: putting a price on carbon. That can only be done by, wait for it, governments working together. So there you have it. They will ignore the forest fires that will surely sweep the Western states. They will ignore the unfolding disaster of ocean acidification and the collapse of sea life that depends on coral reefs. They will ignore obvious water stresses and floods. They will point to every snow storm as an opportunity to ask Al Gore to shovel their driveway.

    They will cement the fate of human civilization by denying and delaying. And our president? I guess he’s concluded that Tuesday just wasn’t the time and that it’s better to let Lisa Jackson and the EPA handle it. Our children and grandchildren are in for an unpleasant epoch.

    • David the small-L libertarian

      There isn’t consensus within the scientific community; some very well-respected scientists dissent on this issue. Please research what Ian Plimer has to say on this, for example.

      One reason that there seems to be such support for the theory of man-made global warming is that those who question it don’t get funded. Support the global-warming theory and you’ll get lots of money to continue your reasearch. Remember “Climategate” from a year or so ago? Scientists were exposed trying to conceal evidence that showed that their global-warming theories weren’t as convincing as they’d like us to believe. It was a scandal.

      The climate has been changing since the beginning of time. The issue is whether man is causing it and if so, will it have catastrophic consequences.

      • Anonymous

        You can find scientists that dispute the link between cigarette smoking and lung caner. That doesn’t mean that the scientific community is still debating it. They’re not. You’re a buffoon and a moron. Climategate was investigated by the British government. No wrongdoing was found.

        Your ideology dictates your conclusions. History and your own children will revile your idiocy if we fail to act decisively and soon. They’ll revile you because of the environmental and economic parade of horrors that will unfold in front of their eyes. Don’t you understand this one simple fact: We’ve but one planet on which to conduct this experiment.

        You remind me of the jurors in the OJ criminal trial. No mountain of evidence could persuade them. That’s you to a T.

        • David the small-L libertarian

          I just love the Left. I’m not merely wrong; I’m a “buffoon AND a moron.” So much for civil discussion.

          Thanks, sdavis3398, for the stimulating discussion. Excuse me while I go lick my wounds.

          • Anonymous

            If the shoe fits, dude. It’s understandable for me to consider you my enemy when your declared ideology and ignorance puts your foot on the throat of my five-month old. When an issue like this comes along, intellectual laggards imperil the lives of our descendants. No one has said you can’t wake up some day, truly investigate the issue with an open mind and change your opinion, but if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. There’s really no middle ground on this one as every indicator reveals that this is actually happening faster than originally feared. We’re out of time.

    • http://twitter.com/motsatt mot.satt

      You lost by your arrogance but please keep it up. And the EPA will never get anything done. There is to many sane people around.

      Discussing with global warming people feels like discussing with religious people. Ah, hmmm..

  • http://twitter.com/motsatt mot.satt

    Maybe Obama also can see that observations don’t agree with the domes-day prophecies. It takes effort to avoid the debunking of the global warming hypothesis that happens almost by the day.

  • David the small-L libertarian

    Maybe he’s catching on to the fact that global warming–now called “climate change” as the evidence of it falls apart–isn’t nearly the issue that Al Gore made it out to be. Gore took his millions he’s made from this farce and you don’t hear much from him anymore.