News Section
Stories from Climate Central's Science Journalists and Content Partners

Transcript of Obama’s Speech on Climate Change

Georgetown University
Washington, D.C. 
June 25, 2013

1:45 PM ET

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you!  (Applause.)  Thank you, Georgetown!  Thank you so much.  Everybody, please be seated.  And my first announcement today is that you should all take off your jackets.  (Laughter.)  I’m going to do the same.  (Applause.)  It’s not that sexy, now.  (Laughter.)

It is good to be back on campus, and it is a great privilege to speak from the steps of this historic hall that welcomed Presidents going back to George Washington. 

I want to thank your president, President DeGioia, who’s here today.   (Applause.)  I want to thank him for hosting us.  I want to thank the many members of my Cabinet and my administration.  I want to thank Leader Pelosi and the members of Congress who are here.  We are very grateful for their support. 

And I want to say thank you to the Hoyas in the house for having me back.  (Applause.)  It was important for me to speak directly to your generation, because the decisions that we make now and in the years ahead will have a profound impact on the world that all of you inherit. 

On Christmas Eve, 1968, the astronauts of Apollo 8 did a live broadcast from lunar orbit.  So Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, William Anders -- the first humans to orbit the moon -– described what they saw, and they read Scripture from the Book of Genesis to the rest of us back here.  And later that night, they took a photo that would change the way we see and think about our world. 

RELATED CONTENT


The big story:
Obama sets grand plan

The breakdown:
Key features of plan

Response to speech:
How it played

Watch the speech: 
Youtube

Charting the course:
Infographic

Details of climate plan:
Slideshare

It was an image of Earth -– beautiful; breathtaking; a glowing marble of blue oceans, and green forests, and brown mountains brushed with white clouds, rising over the surface of the moon.  

And while the sight of our planet from space might seem routine today, imagine what it looked like to those of us seeing our home, our planet, for the first time.  Imagine what it looked like to children like me.  Even the astronauts were amazed.  “It makes you realize,” Lovell would say, “just what you have back there on Earth.” 

And around the same time we began exploring space, scientists were studying changes taking place in the Earth’s atmosphere.  Now, scientists had known since the 1800s that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide trap heat, and that burning fossil fuels release those gases into the air.  That wasn’t news. But in the late 1950s, the National Weather Service began measuring the levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, with the worry that rising levels might someday disrupt the fragile balance that makes our planet so hospitable.  And what they’ve found, year after year, is that the levels of carbon pollution in our atmosphere have increased dramatically.  

That science, accumulated and reviewed over decades, tells us that our planet is changing in ways that will have profound impacts on all of humankind.  

The 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years.  Last year, temperatures in some areas of the ocean reached record highs, and ice in the Arctic shrank to its smallest size on record -- faster than most models had predicted it would.  These are facts.  

Now, we know that no single weather event is caused solely by climate change.  Droughts and fires and floods, they go back to ancient times.  But we also know that in a world that’s warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by a warming planet.  The fact that sea level in New York, in New York Harbor, are now a foot higher than a century ago -- that didn’t cause Hurricane Sandy, but it certainly contributed to the destruction that left large parts of our mightiest city dark and underwater. 

The potential impacts go beyond rising sea levels.  Here at home, 2012 was the warmest year in our history.  Midwest farms were parched by the worst drought since the Dust Bowl, and then drenched by the wettest spring on record.  Western wildfires scorched an area larger than the state of Maryland.  Just last week, a heat wave in Alaska shot temperatures into the 90s.  

And we know that the costs of these events can be measured in lost lives and lost livelihoods, lost homes, lost businesses, hundreds of billions of dollars in emergency services and disaster relief.  In fact, those who are already feeling the effects of climate change don’t have time to deny it -- they’re busy dealing with it.  Firefighters are braving longer wildfire seasons, and states and federal governments have to figure out how to budget for that.  I had to sit on a meeting with the Department of Interior and Agriculture and some of the rest of my team just to figure out how we're going to pay for more and more expensive fire seasons. 

Farmers see crops wilted one year, washed away the next; and the higher food prices get passed on to you, the American consumer.  Mountain communities worry about what smaller snowpacks will mean for tourism -- and then, families at the bottom of the mountains wonder what it will mean for their drinking water.  Americans across the country are already paying the price of inaction in insurance premiums, state and local taxes, and the costs of rebuilding and disaster relief. 

So the question is not whether we need to act.  The overwhelming judgment of science -- of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements -- has put all that to rest.  Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest.  They've acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.  

So the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late.  And how we answer will have a profound impact on the world that we leave behind not just to you, but to your children and to your grandchildren. 

As a President, as a father, and as an American, I’m here to say we need to act.  (Applause.)  

I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing.  And that’s why, today, I'm announcing a new national climate action plan, and I'm here to enlist your generation's help in keeping the United States of America a leader -- a global leader -- in the fight against climate change.   

This plan builds on progress that we've already made.  Last year, I took office -- the year that I took office, my administration pledged to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions by about 17 percent from their 2005 levels by the end of this decade.  And we rolled up our sleeves and we got to work. We doubled the electricity we generated from wind and the sun.  We doubled the mileage our cars will get on a gallon of gas by the middle of the next decade.  (Applause.)  

President Obama during his speech detailing his climate action plan for the U.S.

Here at Georgetown, I unveiled my strategy for a secure energy future.  And thanks to the ingenuity of our businesses, we're starting to produce much more of our own energy.  We're building the first nuclear power plants in more than three decades -- in Georgia and South Carolina.  For the first time in 18 years, America is poised to produce more of our own oil than we buy from other nations.  And today, we produce more natural gas than anybody else.  So we're producing energy.  And these advances have grown our economy, they've created new jobs, they can't be shipped overseas -- and, by the way, they've also helped drive our carbon pollution to its lowest levels in nearly 20 years.  Since 2006, no country on Earth has reduced its total carbon pollution by as much as the United States of America.  (Applause.)  

So it's a good start.  But the reason we're all here in the heat today is because we know we've got more to do.  

In my State of the Union address, I urged Congress to come up with a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one that Republican and Democratic senators worked on together a few years ago.  And I still want to see that happen.  I'm willing to work with anyone to make that happen.  

But this is a challenge that does not pause for partisan gridlock.  It demands our attention now.  And this is my plan to meet it -- a plan to cut carbon pollution; a plan to protect our country from the impacts of climate change; and a plan to lead the world in a coordinated assault on a changing climate.  (Applause.)  

This plan begins with cutting carbon pollution by changing the way we use energy -- using less dirty energy, using more clean energy, wasting less energy throughout our economy. 

Forty-three years ago, Congress passed a law called the Clean Air Act of 1970.  (Applause.)  It was a good law.  The reasoning behind it was simple:  New technology can protect our health by protecting the air we breathe from harmful pollution.  And that law passed the Senate unanimously.  Think about that -- it passed the Senate unanimously.  It passed the House of Representatives 375 to 1.  I don’t know who the one guy was -- I haven’t looked that up.  (Laughter.)  You can barely get that many votes to name a post office these days.  (Laughter.)   

It was signed into law by a Republican President.  It was later strengthened by another Republican President.  This used to be a bipartisan issue. 

Six years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants covered by that same Clean Air Act.  (Applause.)  And they required the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, to determine whether they’re a threat to our health and welfare. In 2009, the EPA determined that they are a threat to both our health and our welfare in many different ways -- from dirtier air to more common heat waves -- and, therefore, subject to regulation. 

Today, about 40 percent of America’s carbon pollution comes from our power plants.  But here’s the thing:  Right now, there are no federal limits to the amount of carbon pollution that those plants can pump into our air.  None.  Zero.  We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury and sulfur and arsenic in our air or our water, but power plants can still dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air for free.  That’s not right, that’s not safe, and it needs to stop.  (Applause.) 

So today, for the sake of our children, and the health and safety of all Americans, I’m directing the Environmental Protection Agency to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from our power plants, and complete new pollution standards for both new and existing power plants.  (Applause.)  

I’m also directing the EPA to develop these standards in an open and transparent way, to provide flexibility to different states with different needs, and build on the leadership that many states, and cities, and companies have already shown.  In fact, many power companies have already begun modernizing their plants, and creating new jobs in the process.  Others have shifted to burning cleaner natural gas instead of dirtier fuel sources.  

Nearly a dozen states have already implemented or are implementing their own market-based programs to reduce carbon pollution.  More than 25 have set energy efficiency targets.  More than 35 have set renewable energy targets.  Over 1,000 mayors have signed agreements to cut carbon pollution.  So the idea of setting higher pollution standards for our power plants is not new.  It’s just time for Washington to catch up with the rest of the country.  And that's what we intend to do.  (Applause.) 

Now, what you’ll hear from the special interests and their allies in Congress is that this will kill jobs and crush the economy, and basically end American free enterprise as we know it.  And the reason I know you'll hear those things is because that's what they said every time America sets clear rules and better standards for our air and our water and our children’s health.  And every time, they've been wrong. 

For example, in 1970, when we decided through the Clean Air Act to do something about the smog that was choking our cities -- and, by the way, most young people here aren't old enough to remember what it was like, but when I was going to school in 1979-1980 in Los Angeles, there were days where folks couldn't go outside.  And the sunsets were spectacular because of all the pollution in the air.   

But at the time when we passed the Clean Air Act to try to get rid of some of this smog, some of the same doomsayers were saying new pollution standards will decimate the auto industry.  Guess what -- it didn’t happen.  Our air got cleaner. 

In 1990, when we decided to do something about acid rain, they said our electricity bills would go up, the lights would go off, businesses around the country would suffer -- I quote -- “a quiet death.”  None of it happened, except we cut acid rain dramatically. 

See, the problem with all these tired excuses for inaction is that it suggests a fundamental lack of faith in American business and American ingenuity.  (Applause.)  These critics seem to think that when we ask our businesses to innovate and reduce pollution and lead, they can't or they won't do it.  They'll just kind of give up and quit.  But in America, we know that’s not true.  Look at our history.  

When we restricted cancer-causing chemicals in plastics and leaded fuel in our cars, it didn’t end the plastics industry or the oil industry.  American chemists came up with better substitutes.  When we phased out CFCs -- the gases that were depleting the ozone layer -- it didn’t kill off refrigerators or air-conditioners or deodorant.  (Laughter.)  American workers and businesses figured out how to do it better without harming the environment as much.  

The fuel standards that we put in place just a few years ago didn’t cripple automakers.  The American auto industry retooled, and today, our automakers are selling the best cars in the world at a faster rate than they have in five years -- with more hybrid, more plug-in, more fuel-efficient cars for everybody to choose from.  (Applause.)  

So the point is, if you look at our history, don’t bet against American industry.  Don’t bet against American workers.  Don’t tell folks that we have to choose between the health of our children or the health of our economy.  (Applause.)  

The old rules may say we can’t protect our environment and promote economic growth at the same time, but in America, we’ve always used new technologies -- we’ve used science; we’ve used research and development and discovery to make the old rules obsolete.  

Today, we use more clean energy –- more renewables and natural gas -– which is supporting hundreds of thousands of good jobs.  We waste less energy, which saves you money at the pump and in your pocketbooks.  And guess what -- our economy is 60 percent bigger than it was 20 years ago, while our carbon emissions are roughly back to where they were 20 years ago.  

So, obviously, we can figure this out.  It’s not an either/or; it’s a both/and.  We’ve got to look after our children; we have to look after our future; and we have to grow the economy and create jobs.  We can do all of that as long as we don’t fear the future; instead we seize it.  (Applause.) 

And, by the way, don’t take my word for it -- recently, more than 500 businesses, including giants like GM and Nike, issued a Climate Declaration, calling action on climate change “one of the great economic opportunities of the 21st century.”  Walmart is working to cut its carbon pollution by 20 percent and transition completely to renewable energy.  (Applause.)  Walmart deserves a cheer for that.  (Applause.)  But think about it.  Would the biggest company, the biggest retailer in America -- would they really do that if it weren’t good for business, if it weren’t good for their shareholders?  

A low-carbon, clean energy economy can be an engine of growth for decades to come.  And I want America to build that engine.  I want America to build that future -- right here in the United States of America.  That’s our task.  (Applause.)  

Now, one thing I want to make sure everybody understands -- this does not mean that we’re going to suddenly stop producing fossil fuels.  Our economy wouldn’t run very well if it did.  And transitioning to a clean energy economy takes time.  But when the doomsayers trot out the old warnings that these ambitions will somehow hurt our energy supply, just remind them that America produced more oil than we have in 15 years.  What is true is that we can’t just drill our way out of the energy and climate challenge that we face.  (Applause.)  That’s not possible.  

I put forward in the past an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but our energy strategy must be about more than just producing more oil.  And, by the way, it’s certainly got to be about more than just building one pipeline.  (Applause.)  

Now, I know there’s been, for example, a lot of controversy surrounding the proposal to build a pipeline, the Keystone pipeline, that would carry oil from Canadian tar sands down to refineries in the Gulf.  And the State Department is going through the final stages of evaluating the proposal.  That’s how it’s always been done.  But I do want to be clear:  Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest.  And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.  (Applause.)  The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.  It’s relevant. 

Now, even as we’re producing more domestic oil, we’re also producing more cleaner-burning natural gas than any other country on Earth.  And, again, sometimes there are disputes about natural gas, but let me say this:  We should strengthen our position as the top natural gas producer because, in the medium term at least, it not only can provide safe, cheap power, but it can also help reduce our carbon emissions.  

Federally supported technology has helped our businesses drill more effectively and extract more gas.  And now, we'll keep working with the industry to make drilling safer and cleaner, to make sure that we're not seeing methane emissions, and to put people to work modernizing our natural gas infrastructure so that we can power more homes and businesses with cleaner energy.

The bottom line is natural gas is creating jobs.  It's lowering many families' heat and power bills.  And it's the transition fuel that can power our economy with less carbon pollution even as our businesses work to develop and then deploy more of the technology required for the even cleaner energy economy of the future.  

And that brings me to the second way that we're going to reduce carbon pollution -- by using more clean energy.  Over the past four years, we've doubled the electricity that we generate from zero-carbon wind and solar power.  (Applause.)  And that means jobs -- jobs manufacturing the wind turbines that now generate enough electricity to power nearly 15 million homes; jobs installing the solar panels that now generate more than four times the power at less cost than just a few years ago.  

I know some Republicans in Washington dismiss these jobs, but those who do need to call home -- because 75 percent of all wind energy in this country is generated in Republican districts. (Laughter.)  And that may explain why last year, Republican governors in Kansas and Oklahoma and Iowa -- Iowa, by the way, a state that harnesses almost 25 percent of its electricity from the wind -- helped us in the fight to extend tax credits for wind energy manufacturers and producers.  (Applause.)  Tens of thousands good jobs were on the line, and those jobs were worth the fight.  

And countries like China and Germany are going all in in the race for clean energy.  I believe Americans build things better than anybody else.  I want America to win that race, but we can't win it if we're not in it.  (Applause.)  

So the plan I'm announcing today will help us double again our energy from wind and sun.  Today, I'm directing the Interior Department to green light enough private, renewable energy capacity on public lands to power more than 6 million homes by 2020.  (Applause.)  

The Department of Defense -- the biggest energy consumer in America -- will install 3 gigawatts of renewable power on its bases, generating about the same amount of electricity each year as you'd get from burning 3 million tons of coal.  (Applause.) 

And because billions of your tax dollars continue to still subsidize some of the most profitable corporations in the history of the world, my budget once again calls for Congress to end the tax breaks for big oil companies, and invest in the clean-energy companies that will fuel our future.  (Applause.)  

Now, the third way to reduce carbon pollution is to waste less energy -- in our cars, our homes, our businesses.  The fuel standards we set over the past few years mean that by the middle of the next decade, the cars and trucks we buy will go twice as far on a gallon of gas.  That means you’ll have to fill up half as often; we’ll all reduce carbon pollution.  And we built on that success by setting the first-ever standards for heavy-duty trucks and buses and vans.  And in the coming months, we’ll partner with truck makers to do it again for the next generation of vehicles. 

Meanwhile, the energy we use in our homes and our businesses and our factories, our schools, our hospitals -- that’s responsible for about one-third of our greenhouse gases.  The good news is simple upgrades don’t just cut that pollution; they put people to work -- manufacturing and installing smarter lights and windows and sensors and appliances.  And the savings show up in our electricity bills every month -- forever.  That’s why we’ve set new energy standards for appliances like refrigerators and dishwashers.  And today, our businesses are building better ones that will also cut carbon pollution and cut consumers’ electricity bills by hundreds of billions of dollars. 

That means, by the way, that our federal government also has to lead by example.   I’m proud that federal agencies have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by more than 15 percent since I took office.  But we can do even better than that.  So today, I’m setting a new goal:  Your federal government will consume 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources within the next seven years.  We are going to set that goal.  (Applause.)  

We’ll also encourage private capital to get off the sidelines and get into these energy-saving investments.  And by the end of the next decade, these combined efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings will reduce carbon pollution by at least three billion tons.  That’s an amount equal to what our entire energy sector emits in nearly half a year.  

So I know these standards don’t sound all that sexy, but think of it this way:  That’s the equivalent of planting 7.6 billion trees and letting them grow for 10 years -- all while doing the dishes.  It is a great deal and we need to be doing it. (Applause.) 

So using less dirty energy, transitioning to cleaner sources of energy, wasting less energy through our economy is where we need to go.  And this plan will get us there faster.  But I want to be honest -- this will not get us there overnight.  The hard truth is carbon pollution has built up in our atmosphere for decades now.  And even if we Americans do our part, the planet will slowly keep warming for some time to come.  The seas will slowly keep rising and storms will get more severe, based on the science.  It's like tapping the brakes of a car before you come to a complete stop and then can shift into reverse.  It's going to take time for carbon emissions to stabilize.  

So in the meantime, we're going to need to get prepared.  And that’s why this plan will also protect critical sectors of our economy and prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change that we cannot avoid.  States and cities across the country are already taking it upon themselves to get ready.  Miami Beach is hardening its water supply against seeping saltwater.  We’re partnering with the state of Florida to restore Florida’s natural clean water delivery system -- the Everglades.

The overwhelmingly Republican legislature in Texas voted to spend money on a new water development bank as a long-running drought cost jobs and forced a town to truck in water from the outside.  

New York City is fortifying its 520 miles of coastline as an insurance policy against more frequent and costly storms.  And what we’ve learned from Hurricane Sandy and other disasters is that we’ve got to build smarter, more resilient infrastructure that can protect our homes and businesses, and withstand more powerful storms.  That means stronger seawalls, natural barriers, hardened power grids, hardened water systems, hardened fuel supplies.  

So the budget I sent Congress includes funding to support communities that build these projects, and this plan directs federal agencies to make sure that any new project funded with taxpayer dollars is built to withstand increased flood risks. 

And we’ll partner with communities seeking help to prepare for droughts and floods, reduce the risk of wildfires, protect the dunes and wetlands that pull double duty as green space and as natural storm barriers.  And we'll also open our climate data and NASA climate imagery to the public, to make sure that cities and states assess risk under different climate scenarios, so that we don’t waste money building structures that don’t withstand the next storm. 

So that's what my administration will do to support the work already underway across America, not only to cut carbon pollution, but also to protect ourselves from climate change.  But as I think everybody here understands, no nation can solve this challenge alone -- not even one as powerful as ours.  And that’s why the final part of our plan calls on America to lead -- lead international efforts to combat a changing climate.  (Applause.)   

And make no mistake -- the world still looks to America to lead.  When I spoke to young people in Turkey a few years ago, the first question I got wasn't about the challenges that part of the world faces.  It was about the climate challenge that we all face, and America's role in addressing it.  And it was a fair question, because as the world's largest economy and second-largest carbon emitter, as a country with unsurpassed ability to drive innovation and scientific breakthroughs, as the country that people around the world continue to look to in times of crisis, we've got a vital role to play.  We can't stand on the sidelines.  We've got a unique responsibility.  And the steps that I've outlined today prove that we're willing to meet that responsibility.   

Though all America's carbon pollution fell last year, global carbon pollution rose to a record high.  That’s a problem.  Developing countries are using more and more energy, and tens of millions of people entering a global middle class naturally want to buy cars and air-conditioners of their own, just like us.  Can't blame them for that.  And when you have conversations with poor countries, they'll say, well, you went through these stages of development -- why can't we? 

But what we also have to recognize is these same countries are also more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than we are.  They don’t just have as much to lose, they probably have more to lose.  

Developing nations with some of the fastest-rising levels of carbon pollution are going to have to take action to meet this challenge alongside us.  They're watching what we do, but we've got to make sure that they're stepping up to the plate as well.  We compete for business with them, but we also share a planet.  And we have to all shoulder the responsibility for keeping the planet habitable, or we're going to suffer the consequences -- together. 

So to help more countries transitioning to cleaner sources of energy and to help them do it faster, we're going to partner with our private sector to apply private sector technological know-how in countries that transition to natural gas.  We’ve mobilized billions of dollars in private capital for clean energy projects around the world.  

Today, I'm calling for an end of public financing for new coal plants overseas -- (applause) -- unless they deploy carbon-capture technologies, or there's no other viable way for the poorest countries to generate electricity.  And I urge other countries to join this effort.  

And I'm directing my administration to launch negotiations toward global free trade in environmental goods and services, including clean energy technology, to help more countries skip past the dirty phase of development and join a global low-carbon economy.  They don’t have to repeat all the same mistakes that we made.  (Applause.) 

We've also intensified our climate cooperation with major emerging economies like India and Brazil, and China -- the world’s largest emitter.  So, for example, earlier this month, President Xi of China and I reached an important agreement to jointly phase down our production and consumption of dangerous hydrofluorocarbons, and we intend to take more steps together in the months to come.  It will make a difference.  It’s a significant step in the reduction of carbon emissions.  (Applause.) 

And finally, my administration will redouble our efforts to engage our international partners in reaching a new global agreement to reduce carbon pollution through concrete action.  (Applause.) 

Four years ago, in Copenhagen, every major country agreed, for the first time, to limit carbon pollution by 2020.  Two years ago, we decided to forge a new agreement beyond 2020 that would apply to all countries, not just developed countries.  

What we need is an agreement that’s ambitious -- because that’s what the scale of the challenge demands.  We need an inclusive agreement -– because every country has to play its part.  And we need an agreement that’s flexible -- because different nations have different needs.  And if we can come together and get this right, we can define a sustainable future for your generation.  

So that’s my plan.  (Applause.)  The actions I’ve announced today should send a strong signal to the world that America intends to take bold action to reduce carbon pollution.  We will continue to lead by the power of our example, because that’s what the United States of America has always done. 

I am convinced this is the fight America can, and will, lead in the 21st century.  And I’m convinced this is a fight that America must lead.  But it will require all of us to do our part. We’ll need scientists to design new fuels, and we’ll need farmers to grow new fuels.  We’ll need engineers to devise new technologies, and we’ll need businesses to make and sell those technologies.  We’ll need workers to operate assembly lines that hum with high-tech, zero-carbon components, but we’ll also need builders to hammer into place the foundations for a new clean energy era.  

We’re going to need to give special care to people and communities that are unsettled by this transition -- not just here in the United States but around the world.  And those of us in positions of responsibility, we’ll need to be less concerned with the judgment of special interests and well-connected donors, and more concerned with the judgment of posterity.  (Applause.)  Because you and your children, and your children’s children, will have to live with the consequences of our decisions.  

As I said before, climate change has become a partisan issue, but it hasn’t always been.  It wasn’t that long ago that Republicans led the way on new and innovative policies to tackle these issues.  Richard Nixon opened the EPA.  George H.W. Bush declared -- first U.S. President to declare -- “human activities are changing the atmosphere in unexpected and unprecedented ways.”  Someone who never shies away from a challenge, John McCain, introduced a market-based cap-and-trade bill to slow carbon pollution.  

The woman that I’ve chosen to head up the EPA, Gina McCarthy, she’s worked -- (applause) -- she’s terrific.  Gina has worked for the EPA in my administration, but she’s also worked for five Republican governors.  She’s got a long track record of working with industry and business leaders to forge common-sense solutions.  Unfortunately, she’s being held up in the Senate. She’s been held up for months, forced to jump through hoops no Cabinet nominee should ever have to –- not because she lacks qualifications, but because there are too many in the Republican Party right now who think that the Environmental Protection Agency has no business protecting our environment from carbon pollution.  The Senate should confirm her without any further obstruction or delay.  (Applause.) 

But more broadly, we’ve got to move beyond partisan politics on this issue.  I want to be clear -- I am willing to work with anybody –- Republicans, Democrats, independents, libertarians, greens -– anybody -- to combat this threat on behalf of our kids. I am open to all sorts of new ideas, maybe better ideas, to make sure that we deal with climate change in a way that promotes jobs and growth.  

Nobody has a monopoly on what is a very hard problem, but I don’t have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real.  (Applause.)  We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.  (Applause.)  Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.  And ultimately, we will be judged as a people, and as a society, and as a country on where we go from here.  

Our founders believed that those of us in positions of power are elected not just to serve as custodians of the present, but as caretakers of the future. And they charged us to make decisions with an eye on a longer horizon than the arc of our own political careers.  That’s what the American people expect.  That’s what they deserve. 

And someday, our children, and our children’s children, will look at us in the eye and they'll ask us, did we do all that we could when we had the chance to deal with this problem and leave them a cleaner, safer, more stable world?  And I want to be able to say, yes, we did.  Don’t you want that?  (Applause.)  

Americans are not a people who look backwards; we're a people who look forward.  We're not a people who fear what the future holds; we shape it. What we need in this fight are citizens who will stand up, and speak up, and compel us to do what this moment demands.  

Understand this is not just a job for politicians.  So I'm going to need all of you to educate your classmates, your colleagues, your parents, your friends. Tell them what’s at stake. Speak up at town halls, church groups, PTA meetings.  Push back on misinformation.  Speak up for the facts.  Broaden the circle of those who are willing to stand up for our future.  (Applause.)  

Convince those in power to reduce our carbon pollution.  Push your own communities to adopt smarter practices.  Invest.  Divest.  (Applause.)  Remind folks there's no contradiction between a sound environment and strong economic growth.  And remind everyone who represents you at every level of government that sheltering future generations against the ravages of climate change is a prerequisite for your vote.  Make yourself heard on this issue.  (Applause.) 

I understand the politics will be tough.  The challenge we must accept will not reward us with a clear moment of victory.  There’s no gathering army to defeat.  There's no peace treaty to sign.  When President Kennedy said we’d go to the moon within the decade, we knew we’d build a spaceship and we’d meet the goal.  Our progress here will be measured differently -- in crises averted, in a planet preserved.  But can we imagine a more worthy goal?  For while we may not live to see the full realization of our ambition, we will have the satisfaction of knowing that the world we leave to our children will be better off for what we did.  

“It makes you realize,” that astronaut said all those years ago, “just what you have back there on Earth.”  And that image in the photograph, that bright blue ball rising over the moon’s surface, containing everything we hold dear -- the laughter of children, a quiet sunset, all the hopes and dreams of posterity  -- that’s what’s at stake.  That’s what we’re fighting for.  And if we remember that, I’m absolutely sure we'll succeed.  

Thank you.  God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.) 

Text of President Obama's speech is courtesy of the White House Office of the Press Secretary.
 

Comments

By Eric Peterson (Front Royal, VA 22630)
on June 26th, 2013

” So I’m going to need all of you to educate your classmates, your colleagues, your parents, your friends. Tell them what’s at stake. Speak up at town halls, church groups, PTA meetings.  Push back on misinformation.  Speak up for the facts.”

The fact is that global warming will cause less severe storminess with the possible exception of tropical storms as the polar jet speeds up and wavers less. Contrary to the theory of stronger hurricanes. we are in the longest period on record without a major hurricane hitting the US (which is mostly luck but if the opposite were true it would be 24x7 news).  Strong tornadoes are in a decreasing trend whether looking at the last 50 years or last 100 years.  Sea level is rising 1 inch per decade and not accelerating.  Droughts which start and end naturally can be marginally worse because of warming in theory but are not worse than the 1930’s or early 50’s.

On the positive side energy bills are lower thanks to warming.  Crop yields are higher thanks to CO2 fertilization.  Crops are more drought tolerant as well.  The model projections for sensitivity (total warming from a doubling of CO2) are decreasing; they were about 3C, now they are about 2C.

On the negative side the use of fossil fuels is generally more polluting than the use of renewables.  That happens in various ways from extraction to burning.  But we must also recognize the energy intensity of producing renewables.  It is readily apparent in the prices which reflect energy costs.  It is hard to get payback on solar.  That may change eventually, certainly not by subsidizing rooftop solar now (which just makes it more expensive for unsubsidized people like myself), but by investing in more basic research.  Unfortunately that kind of investment is being dumped in favor of subsidies to companies that are created for not much purpose than taking in subsidies.

Disclosure: I work for a basic research company.  More money for basic research would benefit my employer although not my own employment per se.

Reply to this comment

By bobarl (Holland Patent, NY 13354)
on June 26th, 2013

the writer of the letter above seems as though he must have obtained his information from the Competitive Enterprise Institute or the Heritage Fountation. He apparently has not taken the time to examine any of the volumes of research completed by climatologists on climate change. I have read so many articles and books written by reliable scientists that I truly cannot count them. He must not believe what our National Academy of Science concludes about the warming climate and that we, humans, are causing the changes. He must not believe that continuing to use fossil fuels as humans are will change our world for a long time to come and possibly cause a tipping point to be reached whereby we will be unable to stop run-away climate change. He gives examples like energy bills are lower but forgets that warmer weather means more air conditioning (Fairbanks, Alaska this week suffers from temperatures near 90 degrees and that city is only about 200 miles from the Arctic Circle)..He says crop yeilds are higher but forgets that many plants are not the kind anybody wants like like poison ivy and weeds. He also may not know that warmer weather is causing damaging insects that used to be killed by cold weather to move further north and kill literally millions of valuable trees. There are so many negatives being caused by a warming climate that I could not list them all here.
I was so happy to hear President Obama’s speech yesterday that t must confess that tears came to my eyes.  I’ve been waiting for our governrment to do something so long and realized that nothing would ever be done by tea party members and other conservatives that I thought it was impossible to see any progress. Now I look forward to his plan to becoming a reality.

Reply to this comment

By Eric Peterson (Front Royal, VA 22630)
on June 27th, 2013

bobarl, America as a whole spends about twice as much on heating as for air conditioning so warming is a net benefit in that regard.  Fairbanks got warm recently but on the whole Alaska, including Fairbanks, has been cooling for over a decade, see http://frontierscientists.com/2013/02/alaska-bucks-global-temperature-trend/ for example.

Weeds are interesting to me since I am a weeder for a lot of my free time.  I know that the only long term strategy against weeds is to plant something else to take their place.  Whatever that something else is will grow better in the CO2-enriched air just like the weeds will.  So the balance of power stays the same along with my strategy.

You are correct about damaging insects not being killed by cold winters.  But it also true that their predators are not killed in milder winters and the beetles have to be fought the same way as weeds.  When we are talking about winters cold enough to kill pine bark beetles we are talking about serious cold with many negatives which will penetrate far to the south of beetle territory and cause great damage to crops.  So be careful what you wish for.  I could generate a long list of negatives of cold weather in response to your list for warm weather.

Reply to this comment

By Dave (Basking Ridge, NJ 07920)
on June 27th, 2013

Bobarl,

Of course you are right. Maintaining the status quo by which carbon pollution remains unchecked is one objective of those that say that this is not a manmade problem and that the events seen so far are somehow all or in some cases mostly due to natural cycles and so on. They say that the analyses that show otherwise are wrong and that the multitude of qualified scientists who have and are conducting those studies and analyses are incorrect.

The sheer quantity and breadth of peer reviewed scientific literature on the science of anthropogenic global climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions, principally carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels, is indeed huge. Virtually every major scientific institution world wide has also now confirmed the reality and speaks of the dangers of climate change as an urgent issue. Even the US Pentagon considers climate change to be a serious national security issue. Just listing the journal and report references the support all this would be a major library task. The fundamental mechanisms are without question. The trends predicted so far are indeed also emerging in the known and carefully reported impacts which are now being intensively monitored locally on the ground, from the air and from space as much as possible. Also we have the evidence of our own life experience and see extreme weather events happening all over the world with increasing frequency and often close to home. Sea level is rising and the rate of rise has been seen to accelerate in the past few decades to roughly twice that of the average rate for the 20th century. Sea ice is diminishing in the north in area extent and thickness and the Arctic is the fastest warming place on the planet with large permafrost regions in the NH already melting. Ecological zones world wide are moving polewards at a steady and consistent rate creating adaptive stresses on local ecosystems with a myriad of profound consequences which are as yet not fully realized but are being studied.

Maintaining the status quo is not a safe or responsible option. The risks to future generations are simply too high.

Reply to this comment

By Eric Peterson (Front Royal, VA 22630)
on June 28th, 2013

Dave says “Also we have the evidence of our own life experience and see extreme weather events happening all over the world with increasing frequency and often close to home. Sea level is rising and the rate of rise has been seen to accelerate in the past few decades to roughly twice that of the average rate for the 20th century. Sea ice is diminishing in the north in area extent and thickness and the Arctic is the fastest warming place on the planet with large permafrost regions in the NH already melting.”

Dave, some of your information is too old and some too new.  In the case of extreme weather, the causes are natural and contrary to the climate models.  The models up to the mid 2000’s predicted that polar jet would strengthen and move north thereby causing fewer events like Sandy.  When the opposite started happening, there were new theories put forth about Arctic warming causing a slower polar jet which would then waver more.  Those theories are highly speculative and too new to put much weight on.  Read this paper: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010047842_2001074881.pdf

From the paper:

“...In the troposphere, the lapse rate is positive (temperature altitude), so that molecules emit less radiation than they receive, leading to a net warming. In the stratosphere, the lapse rate is negative, leading to net cooling. Because the height of the tropopause, which separates these two layers, is higher at low latitudes due to vertical mixing, and decreases abruptly poleward of the mid-latitude jet, increasing greenhouse gases will enhance the meridional temperature gradient across the jet core. This gradient, which is largely zonally symmetric, is associated with strengthened westerlies within the jet. The strengthened mid-latitude jet alters the propagation of planetary waves, which can potentially feed back on the jet through eddy forcing.”

Stated another way, the temperature contrast at the top of the troposphere dictates the strength of the jet, not the gradient at the surface where enhanced Arctic warming is indeed decreasing that gradient.  The stronger gradient at the tropopause means a less wavering jet, less blocking, etc.  Your extreme weather theory is too new and too speculative and incomplete for widespread scientific acceptance.

Here’s wikipedia on sea level: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA).png The current acceleration is not much different from past accelerations (e.g. the 1940’s).  Looking at that graph, I would not put too much stock in a statistic like twice the 20th century average.

Your permafrost information is out of date. Siberia has been cooling for about 2 decades and Alaska for over a decade.  The Arctic as a whole is still warm but mostly due to residual heat in the Arctic ocean.  So while you may discount natural cycles, they do exist overlaid on manmade warming.  That means there will be slowing of the effects like permafrost melting and the potential of methane releases, probably for decades, possibly centuries.

Reply to this comment

By Dave (Basking Ridge, NJ 07920)
on June 28th, 2013

Eric: Thanks for quoting me.

Global warming due to increased GHG’s tends to reduce temperature gradients, whether it is geographical, between day and night and between seasons. Although there are of course departures in time and on regional distance scales, these overarching trends are emerging quite clearly. It is not a new or speculative “theory”. It is happening. The same is evident in the well cited example of Venus. Of course that is a much more extreme case since the atmosphere there is very dense and virtually 100% GHG.  But I mention it just to indicate that we have had a heads up on this particular trend for some considerable time.

Hence, the Arctic is indeed the fastest warming place on the planet, while equatorial regions are warming relatively slowly. Commensurate with this there is a significant net loss of land ice from the Arctic as one would naturally expect, with reductions in sea ice also and disturbing increases in surface melting characteristics on the GIS and so on.  Arctic waters these days are much more navigable. One hardly needs any scientific references to prove any of this for this broad purpose. One can almost book a cruise to the North Pole these days…  More alarmingly, energy companies have their eyes on the Arctic since as it warms conditions for access to extracting raw materials are expected to improve to the point of feasibility.

Anyway, Arctic permafrost (subsurface frozen ground) is at risk and large areas are indeed melting. I will include this reference to a video on this topic because of course melting permafrost has other implications. I thought this was a nice low key video and thought that others might too. Courtesy University of Alaska, Fairbanks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j_n7QMKDYc

Sea level rise data has of course been well reported. Satellite altimetry measurements indicate a mean global SLR rate since 1993 of 3.2 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year compared with the 1.7 mm pa average for the 20th century overall. That’s about 2:1 ratio as I had stated. My compliments to Wikipedia but your link on that didn’t seem to work.

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/

Of course you could also look up GRACE gravimetric measurements to confirm mass loss from the Arctic and so on. Then there’s also the worldwide net retreat of mountain glaciers which is another serious concern, especially in those regions fed by melt water from the Himalayas and Andes. For example: http://www.geo.uzh.ch/microsite/wgms/

You had other comments too in detail I know. I’m sorry but I simply don’t have the patience to get into it with you because I am quite certain given your denier status that you would argue every last little point and there would be no point. I once argued with another Republican for something like a month in emails before he grudgingly gave up over some detail when I finally had to lead him line by line through some very basic heat transfer calculations related to the greenhouse effect – and for what. He was a friend of a friend so I sought of had to.  But I never had anything like that problem communicating with an actual technical person before in a professional capacity. So it simply gets irritating and rather tiresome. I am being polite. I hope you appreciate it. If not perhaps others will.

Reply to this comment

By cjorach (Los Angeles Ca)
on June 28th, 2013

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      President Obama and the greens who support his climate policies appears to be on a war path against American Fossil Fuel Industry. The Fossil Fuel Industries are being crucified by costly regulations while the Green Energy Industries are getting off scott free with no oversight by the EPA. The truth is Green Energy Industies (Wind Turbines, Solar and Biofuel) are a den of waste, fraud and corruption . It is is a travesty the main stream media are not looking into this and Congress is not demanding the EPA provide the same regulatory oversight over Green Energy that they apply to fossil fuel. Bottom line Green Energy will never be able to compete with cheap and reliable energy from fossil fuel. That is why President Obama is cruicifying the coal energy with costly regulations. Regulations intended to shut them down and “skyrock” their cost to the consumer so his green energy companies can compete against them.  He is using Climate Change as an excuse to dump more tax payer dollars into subsidizing his crony green capitalist Green Energy producers in the Wind, Solar and Biofuel industry.  See the green corruption web site wind energy subsidies for more information on this if you want to know the truth about the billions wasted on failed green energy projects like Solyndra which is just the tip of the iceberg.
http://greencorruption.blogspot.ca/2013/01/big-wind-energy-subsidies-hurricane-of.html#.UczLxcu9KSM

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/05/29/green-energy-unicorns/

http://www.creativeenergyalternatives.com/wind/how_many_wind_turbines.html

The bottom line is food, shelter, food, medicines, health care, education all require power to support human life and their welfare. Coal is the lowest cost and most efficient form of energy in the world today. It’s use in China and India is growing because of this fact. Despite your anti-coal sentiments that preaches a dogmatic belief in the pretend ability to control the climate as the number one priority above all else for the poor of the world shelter, food, medicines, vaccine, health care, education are the priority. The poor will not suffer green elitist nonsense from within their Western Ivory Towers of Academia that demands they be denied access to cheap and reliable energy from fossil fuel to “save the planet”.

What is most ironic is that by destroying America’s Energy Industry and “skyrocketing” their costs to the consumer businesses will be forced to relocate to China and India to survive. China and India where there is no EPA regulators to constrain them in any way. Thus “Carbon” pollution and real toxic elements will be spewed into the atmosphere making our environment worse. In other words, President Obama’s green dagger to America’s Fossil Fuel Industries will actually create more pollution, not less.

As an aside the Scientific bais of the CO2 Climate Change Theory is falling apart. In his analysis, described so clearly and beautifully in his lecture, Prof. Salby has fully destroyed the entire paradigm of human-caused climate warming through CO2 and other GHGs. He has shown AGW is physically untenable and observationally insupportable.

The IPCC should be disbanded, and about 80% of all climate scientsts should be ushered into retirement. Speaking as an American, the institutional hierarchy at the US NAS, the AGU, the AMS, the APS, and the ACS should be dismissed. And let’s not forget the Royal Society. They have all failed catastrophically in their duty to science.

On a more personal note, there were times in his lecture that Prof. Salby appeared to be restraining himself. The expression on his face when he would pause just before or just after delivering some devastating conclusion, appeared to convey the message that he was feeling highly incredulous that so many physicsts had been, and *remain*, so insistently wrong. You can find Prof. Murry Salbys Hamburg presentation on You tube or look in the No Tricks Zone Web Site. http://notrickszone.com/2013/06/10/murry-salbys-presentation-in-hamburg/ 

Moreover, the false prophecies of the Climate models have laid bare the fact reality does not agree with CO2 Climate Change Theory. Despite the rise in CO2 Temperature have remained flat for 17 years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/

http://notrickszone.com/2013/06/09/grand-tamino-fail-2011-earth-presently-warming-1-7ccentury-today-data-show-no-warming-in-15-years/

Reply to this comment

By bobarl (Holland Patent, NY 13354)
on June 30th, 2013

Mr.Peterson, in your comment about predators of damaging insects that are also not killed in warmer weather, do you mean that since both the troublemaking insect AND it’s predator are not killed, then the bad insects are still kept in check? If that’s what you mean then why are so many trees dying anyway. Seems predators can’t keep up with the “damagers.”
Regarding your statement on replacing weeds with something better. I don’t know about your garden in Virginia but here in Central New York, weeds are growing all over anywhere there is room for them to grow. I see weeds that I have never seen before in places.around my home where I’ve lived for the last 46 years. I might not be getting the gist of what you are meaning but I so far don’t’ see how replacing all the weeds in the area, any area, is going to help keep the weeds down (unless a weed killer is used and I’m not willing to use one problem (weed killer) to take care of the other problem.

Reply to this comment

By bobarl (Holland Patent NY 13354)
on July 1st, 2013

Mr. Peterson, in your June 27th post, you gave me a website for the University of Alaska indicating that Alaska has been cooling rather then warming for the last few years. You were apparently refuting my mention of the fact that Fairbanks Alaska has record-breaking high temperatures lately. I looked at the website you suggested and did learn that Alaska has indeed been cooling, generally in the winter months and might stay that way for possibly 20 years, caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. However the report also stated that almost everywhere else was warming.
It looks to me like people believe what they want to believe. For me, I totally believe what climatologists are saying about the increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases humans are adding to the atmosphere. They know where the gas is originating from—US!!!! Apparently isotopic “finger prints”’ show scientists that the added CO2 comes from fossil fuel use like coal, oil and natural gas. I won’t be able to change your mind. You can believe scientists like Pat Michaels and the few others that believe our CO2 additions to the atmosphere are not enough to cause concern. You can also believe our politicians like Inhofe from Oklahoma who keep saying things like global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. I prefer to believe the 97% of scientists that see serious problems with our fossil fuel use and the rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere.

Reply to this comment

By Eric Peterson (Front Royal, VA 22630)
on July 1st, 2013

bobarl, the bugs are a problem in some cases because really only a full freeze will keep them in check and dry conditions weaken the trees further.  But those are partly natural, for example drought starts and ends naturally, even though global warming can add a bit to the severity.  Weeds are really not a problem.  I use no weedkiller other than occasionally on patches of poison ivy.  It is well worth investing some time studying natural weed control.  There are a huge number of resources, here’s a very short example: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/roadsidesforwildlife/weedcontrol.html

I completely agree that the totality of the rise we see in CO2 in the atmosphere is manmade.  The oceans have turned from a potential net source of CO2 to a very large sink of CO2.  Were it not for the oceans we see double the current rise, completely manmade.  The question is whether those rises lead to positive feedbacks, neutral or no feedback or negative feedback.  There is evidence for all three ongoing, but no consensus on what will dominate.  For example the large oscillations in the jet stream that are claimed to be a result of global warming are a negative feedback.

The most important point I can make is that the 97% agreement is about CO2 causing much or most of the recent rise in temperature.  That rise is roughly 1.3C per century (or more like 1C per century in the last decade).  There is no consensus over whether that rise will continue and if it does, whether that is of concern.  There is certainly no consensus that the rise will accelerate.  That idea went away in the last decade or so with the lull in warming.

Reply to this comment

By R. June Gassaway (vancouver, WA 98663)
on July 20th, 2013

Without clean water/air and food…
We are dead.

I f that happen… we cannot take our checkbooks with us.
  June G.

Reply to this comment

Name (required):
Email (required):
City/State/Zip:
Enter the word "climate" in the box below:

[+] View our comment guidelines.

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until reviewed by Climate Central staff. Thank you for your patience.