Obama Meets With Gore, Rejects Denial

It seems Obama didn’t get Nisbet’s memo. Just watching on CNN, future president Obama says:

The time for delay is over, the time for denial is over. We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now, that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way. That is what I intend my administration to do. I think what is exciting about this conversation is that it is not only a problem but an opportunity.

I can not be happier that we have a president who is willing to stand up and call global warming denialism what it is.


  1. Trin Tragula

    All that money Obama wants to spend on public works to stimulate the economy – maybe some of it could go into a decent train system, instead of more highways.

  2. Svend Erik Hendriksen

    Bye bye America

  3. complex field

    A decent train system would be nice, but I wonder whether it would be practical? Europe’s system is great, but we simply do not have their population density.

  4. North America’s population density makes it a poor choice for trains, except between close urban centers (the eastern seaboard comes to mind). A better investment would be tax incentives for plug-in hybrid consumer vehicles, which essentially turn urban commutes into gas-free ordeals (without forcing the car-centric and headstrong/independent Americans onto public transit) while still allowing long-range travel without extreme costs.

    (An even better investment would be on efficiency standards, not just for fuel economy but also for construction and retrofitting. Not only does this save energy, it also creates jobs for exactly the demographics that need them most. There’s several stellar examples in Van Jones’ The Green Collar Economy, which interestingly enough sounds an awful lot like Obama’s transition plan on energy.)

    Out of curiosity, any chance of a video? I can’t find a copy of this segment.

  5. As I recall, Nisbet thought Gore was bad for the global warming action movement because he was too political a figure. So, that’s two memos missed, I guess.

  6. Aaron: speaking of that, I just read Nisbet’s newest. His vote for the most effective Climate communicator? An evangelical reverend. I’m starting to see a pattern here.

  7. a) Anyone who still pays attention to the little nyaff needs question themselves, seriously.

    b) You have never had so much leverage over your auto industry as you do now. Use it well, please.

    I fully agree with Brian D’s points on personal independence and so you need green cars. All you gotta do is ask; or no bailout.

  8. Anonymous

    Mightygodking.com ,a blog, has some interesting approaches and ideas under the tag “David Suzuki says you’re bad”.
    I like how it can be possible for individual residences to be off grid independent through solar combined with geoheat exchange pumps type tech.
    In the end a lot of sacrifices have to be made but not by the elite, most likely they will be imposed on the lower class while the upper classes continue on business as usual

  9. North America’s population density makes it a poor choice for trains, except between close urban centers

    Which is why railroads play virtually no role whatsoever in American history…

  10. A more comprehensive train system might not be practical everywhere, but someone has to explain to me how, living in NYC I can take commuter rail to New Have of Philadelphia for $35, but somehow going to Boston or Washington requires Amtrak and $150. I lived in rural Japan for a couple of years (yes not everyone in Japan lives in Tokyo or Osaka) and yet managed to get all over by local commuter trains (no Shinkansen in the boonies) just fine. Why is the US northwest corridor or the whole east coast for that matter that difficult?

  11. Dunc: Allow me to be more specific: Commuter trains, the sort designed to displace cars, require high population densities to function well. Case in point, most of Europe and Japan. The US Midwest is practically barren by comparison. See also Micah S’s comment.

  12. Having voted for Mr. Obama I hope that he will continue to pay lip service to the eco-left while pursuing more realistic energy policies.

    Mark, I think you are going to be quite disappointed if you expect Obama to tax or hinder oil/gas/coal energy production/usage when the country is on the precipice of an economic melt-down.

    I suspect he will make grand sounding ?stop the seas from rising? pronouncements while proposing alternative energy subsidies to placate his “environmentally” conscience backers while allowing “business as usual” fossil fuel development and usage. This mundane action will satisfy all but the most rabid of the “green” Democrats.

    What would you have him do Mark, throw the paddles out of the life boat before we’ve even figured out a “green” propulsion system?

    I suspect he will take this tepid course, all the while blaming the Republicans in congress for “blocking” any grand green plans.

    I almost perversely wish that the congress would pass an eco-fantasy energy package that would effectively cut off oil and coal energy. The resultant economic implosion would banish the greenies from public prominence for the foreseeable future.

  13. Mark, it seems that Obama’s tapped Dr. Steven Chu as Energy Secretary, which (given the nature of the problem) is arguably the most important position relating to climate issues (barring a hypothetical ‘climate czar’). Here he is last summer (I’m particularly fond of his quip at 4:12); later in the year (as Chris Mooney points out) he voiced support for ScienceDebate2008.

    The current Secretary of Energy is a member of the inactivist Hudson Institute.

    Talk about a rejection of denial!

  14. Re Lance

    It should be pointed out for those new to this blog that Mr. Lance is a notorious global warming denialist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *