It’s been almost two months since President Obama talked about going to Alaska, where he melted a glacier with his heat vision or whatever, so we were about due for another climate talk. He started out this week’s address by talking about how blessed Americans are to have “some of the most beautiful God-given landscapes in the world.” I can’t disagree with him about that. I’m fascinated with nature, and I enjoy being in it as much as I can. Obama then said we have to protect these treasures for future generations like past generations protected them for the present generation.
Not his exact words, but yes, yes, thank you for the tired cliché, we get it already. For the children.
Since taking office, I’ve set aside more than 260 million acres of public lands and waters – more than any President in history.
260 million acres is greater than the area of Texas, Missouri, and Wisconsin combined. Isn’t it great that Obama seized more territory from Americans than any president before him? We should be happy he made history again, you guys.
As it stands to the best of my findings, the federal government owns 28 percent of American land, or 640 million acres–including about half of the American West. That amount is taken from a 2012 Congressional Research Service report, so it has to be higher than that now. His administration grabbed about a million more acres back in July with three areas in Texas, California, and Nevada.
One part of that acquisition was made to protect some guy’s over 40-year-long, one-and-a-half-mile-long art project in the Nevada desert called “City,” along with another 700,000 acres around it. Now those awful development planners, even those who might’ve wanted to use the land for solar and wind energy, will never be able to disturb it. Senator Harry Reid, who visited “City” and its artist in 2007 and pushed to get the land federally protected, can deny that he convinced the United States Government into taking ownership of a piece of land larger than Rhode Island because some special grain of sand’s been building some goofy cement structures in a desolate middle of nothing…but that’s what he did. Nobody ever goes there to disturb it; therefore, the government should own it so that nobody ever goes there to disturb it. That makes sense.
Though the land is now a national monument, “City” is still closed to the public.
***
The president then declared in his address that “we” did another very special thing:
Last month, we announced that 11 states had come together with ranchers and industry groups to protect a threatened species – the sage grouse – without jeopardizing local economies.
The what-what now? The sage grouse. A bird. Looks a little like a chicken-eagle-turkey hybrid. Environmentalists have been trying to get it on the endangered species list for over a decade. The sage grouse roams a vast range of 165 million acres over 11 western states. The government held up the approval of drilling permits as it looked into the accuracy of claims that the bird was on its way to extinction.
Then the sage grouse population rebounded. In what seemed like a victory for those who opposed more restrictions and land seizures by the government, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided not to designate the sage grouse an endangered species.
But that decision came with a number of onerous land-use restrictions. Now groups of folks from politicians to the oil and gas industry to the greenies are all crying fowl. (I swear the pun was just sitting there waiting for me, yeronner.) The Governor and state legislature of Idaho, the Nevada Attorney General (in defiance of Gov. Sandoval), a number of counties in Nevada, and several mining interests have filed lawsuits against the federal government. The assorted plaintiffs are saying that the amended land use rules are worse than what would have happened if the sage grouse was given endangered status. They’re frustrated that they cooperated with the administration to avoid the “draconian” measures that would have come with the bird’s endangered listing only to face these restrictions that the Interior Department devised with other groups behind closed doors.
Along with those dissatisfied customers, some green activist groups are complaining that they wanted the endangered status put in place, accusing the Obama Administration of colluding with Big Dirty, Filthy Energy. One activist called it “an epic conservation failure.”
And contrary to Obama’s claim that ranchers are on board with the deal, the Idaho Cattle Association, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and other ranchers are definitely not on board. They say that the Interior Department’s plans interfere with the successful efforts that ranchers, localities, and states already have in place.
As for the assertion that the land-use restrictions won’t affect local economies, the Western Energy Alliance predicts that restrictions “could cost as many as 31,000 jobs and $5.6 billion in lost annual economic activity.”
So while the President gives the impression that everyone involved thinks this is a win, a lot of them are telling him to go cluck himself.
***
Next, Obama talked up a pair of water-grabs.
Two weeks ago, we announced that we’re creating one new marine sanctuary on the Potomac River in Maryland and another along Lake Michigan in Wisconsin – part of unprecedented efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes.
These two marine sanctuary designations would be the first since 2000, making sixteen U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries and Monuments in total.
In the first “unprecedented” effort, “we” plan to take Mallows Bay, a 14-square-mile section of the Potomac River between Chesapeake Bay and the Washington Navy Shipyard. The area is known for having the largest concentration of shipwrecks in the Western Hemisphere. Many of the ships are there as a result of a bungled World War I-era federal initiative in which the government contracted the construction of hundreds of shoddy wooden steamships that would take whatever was needed for the war effort across the Atlantic, traversing through waters teeming with German submarines. However, those ships went unused, so over 150 of them were taken to Mallows Bay to rot. The remains have since been overtaken by the environment, and now the entire environment’s been taken over by the federal government. The adjoining land was already designated a Natural Resource Management Area by the state’s Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management.
Soon the waters of Mallows Bay may have full National Marine Sanctuary status, which gives the federal government authority to exercise greater restrictions:
While each danctuary [sic] has its own unique set of regulations, there are some regulatory prohibitions that are typical for many sanctuaries:
1. Discharging material or other matter into the sanctuary;
2. Disturbance of, construction on or alteration of the seabed;
3. Disturbance of cultural resources; and
4. Exploring for, developing or producing oil, gas or minerals (with a grandfather clause for preexisting operations).
In addition, some sanctuaries prohibit other activities, such as the disturbance of marine mammals, seabirds and sea turtles, operation of aircraft in certain zones, use of personal watercraft, mineral mining and anchoring of vessels.
Enforcing these restrictions will take more federal tax dollars to implement, especially in the case of the planned National Marine Sanctuary along the eastern Wisconsin shoreline between Green Bay and Milwaukee.
The proposed Wisconsin – Lake Michigan sanctuary is an 875-square-mile area of water immediately off the coast of the state that stretches from Port Washington north to Two Rivers, Wisconsin, covering the distance of almost three counties. Fifteen shipwrecks that lie on the lakebed within the proposed boundaries are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and receiving sanctuary status would give the federal government the ability to protect them. Governor Scott Walker submitted the designation proposal last year.
While this may sound dandy and fine, one has to wonder what effects this will have on various industries in the area. There might be some appeal to divers who want to see underwater shipwrecks that are still in excellent condition, but I doubt it will have much of an economic impact for local businesses. I would think that maintenance and regulatory enforcement costs will offset any monetary benefits in the broader scheme. It’s not as if people can go swimming in those waters all year round. The lake surface freezes during the winter months. That water is cold! Though perhaps if I worked my global warming magic a bit harder…
Not only that, but the lake itself has a lot of activity. The proposed sanctuary is home to a commercial fishing industry. Shipping routes with large ships coming from all parts of the world go straight through that zone. A long-running car ferry called the S.S. Badger leaves port from within those waters. There’s plenty of people with sailboats, motorboats, and fishing boats who utilize the lake, too. What sort of impact would declaring that section of Lake Michigan a protected area have on those activities? Considering the streams and rivers that feed into the lake, where would the federal boundaries end and the state’s begin, and would there be new rules that would affect those who fish by those boundaries? Similar questions could be asked of the Potomac River/Mallows Bay site, as well.
Over the next few weeks, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will be taking input from the public at several meetings in Maryland and Wisconsin near these proposed sites. They’re also taking email and snail mail comments, as well as taking comments on the federal regulations website for the Mallows Bay and Lake Michigan proposals.
Obama added:
We also joined a coalition of countries cracking down on illegal fishing that threatens jobs and food security around the globe.
I wonder how much work we’ll have to do and money we’ll have to spend compared to the rest of the international coalition, and how effective will the coalition be in shutting down illegal fishing operations?
***
Then, of course, Obama started on about climate change. We gotta do something before it’s too late, that sort of stuff. He pointed out how a plethora of America’s biggest corporations tasted the rainbow drinked the drank signed away their souls signed commitments in which they pledged to reduce their carbon feetprints. These companies include…
(takes a deep, deep breath)
…ABENGOA BIOENERGY US, AEMETIS, ALCOA, AMERICAN EXPRESS, APPLE, AT&T, AUTODESK, BANK OF AMERICA, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ENERGY, BEST BUY, BIOGEN, BLOOMBERG, CARGILL, CA TECHNOLOGIES, CALPINE, CAMPOS BROTHERS FARMS, COCA-COLA, COX ENTERPRISES, DELL, DSM NORTH AMERICA, EMC, ENERGY OPTIMIZERS, ENER-G RUDOX, FACEBOOK, FULCRUM BIOENERGY, GE, GENERAL MILLS, GENERAL MOTORS, GOLDMAN SACHS, GOOGLE, HERSHEY’S, HEWLETT PACKARD, IBERDROLA USA, IBM, IKEA USA, INGERSOLL RAND, INTERNATIONAL PAPER, INTEL, INTEX SOLUTIONS INC., INVENERGY, JOHNSON AND JOHNSON, JOHNSON CONTROLS, KELLOGG’S, KINGSPAN INSULATED PANELS INC., LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS, LAM RESEARCH, LEVI STRAUSS & CO., L’OREAL USA, MARS, McDONALD’S CORPORATION, MICROSOFT, MONSANTO, NIKE, NESTLE, NOVOZYMES, ONE3LED, PACIFIC ETHANOL, PEPSI-CO, PG&E, POET, PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC, PwC US, PROCTER & GAMBLE, QUALCOMM, RICOH USA, SALESFORCE.COM, SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, SIEMENS CORPORATION, SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, STARBUCKS, SYNGENTA/QCCP, TARGET, TRI-GLOBAL ENERGY, UNILEVER, UPS, WALMART, WALT DISNEY COMPANY, and XEROX CORPORATION.
That’s a lot of big names with high hopes on that list. They told the White House they intend to achieve such lofty goals like reducing their emissions by half, reducing their water usage by 80 percent, sending no garbage to the landfill, going all the way with 100 percent renewable energy, and not using any vendors unless they have “zero net deforestation” policies. Obama says the businesses have taken the pledge “not just because it’s good for the planet, but because it’s good for their bottom line.”
Translation: Obama bought them all gold-plated, diamond-encrusted backscratchers.
So when the price of your…just about everything goes up…I don’t know what to tell you. My namesake product will always be free of charge. I ain’t signin’ none of that climate-preserving nonsense, no matter how much the dude wants me to.
BO goes on to say,
[B]ecause America is leading by example, 150 countries, representing over 85% of global emissions, have now laid out plans to reduce their levels of the harmful carbon pollution that warms our planet. And it gives us great momentum going into Paris this December, where the world needs to come together and build on these individual commitments with an ambitious, long-term agreement to protect this Earth for our kids.
There’s the old standby, slightly variated. Those little brats are going to ruin us, I swear.
That list of countries, by the way, is as follows:
(takes another deep, deep breath)
…no. I almost had you going for a second, though, didn’t I?
Hello? Don’t go. You’ve made it this far. I think I’m almost done.
Fairly certain, anyway.
So Obama claims he’s getting climate-saving commitments from other countries, including India and Chinachinachina. Will Mother Gaia care? If you listen to some people, it’s already too late. So why should anyone bother to put on their climate promise rings?
***
Obama went from rave to rant by bringing up those dastardly Republicans–again–who “shut down something called the Land and Water Conservation Fund,” saying it as if only the smart kids know it exists.
In case you’re not in the know, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is the fund that Big Dirty, Filthy Energy is ordered to pay into, the monies of which the feds use to snatch all that land away from private owners. The fund has been in place since 1965. It pays for the acquisition of land and water, but it also helps pay for projects on public lands (including the aforementioned maritime sanctuaries). However, the present chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee Rob Bishop (R-UT) explained why the LWCF was allowed to lapse at the end of September:
Fifty years ago, Congress created the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The intent of the law was to “preserve, develop and ensure access to outdoor recreation facilities to strengthen the health of U.S. citizens.” Funding for LWCF is split primarily between two programs: one that funds state and local projects through matching grants (State Assistance, or, the “Stateside” Program, as it is frequently called) and one that solely funds federal land acquisition. Originally, 60 percent of the funds in the program were specifically set aside for the Stateside Program. Over the years, intense lobbying from national environmental special interest groups has shifted federal land acquisition to become the lion’s share of LWCF. Despite far greater returns in fulfilling the intent of the 1965 law, in 2013, Stateside received just 16 percent of LWCF funds.
In other words, a system that was designed to allow mostly state and local control over the way the funding they received was spent has now been taken over by the federal government. (Hmm, that sounds familiar.) Now states have to go through the unnecessary red tape of Washington in order to get what they need to get done on public land.
Everyone knows how slow Washington works. According to Rep. Bishop, there’s a $30 billion backlog of maintenance projects. And with the added land that the government continues to buy through the LWCF, the backlog grows. Bishop intends the program’s expiration to serve as an initiative for Congress to reform and repair what’s broken, namely by giving state and local governments more control to utilize the money quicker and clear the backlog.
For now, the $2.5 million a day from the oil and gas companies that would have gone into the fund is going directly to the U.S. Treasury’s general coffers. Pro-LWCFers are trying to get people to freak out over it, saying that the fund isn’t doling out any money and that there’s no money left in it, oh em gee exclamation exclamation exclamation.
However, $20 billion remains in the LWCF’s “bank,” and $300 million in continuing appropriations is keeping the LWCF going. It could use up to $900 million, but the government hasn’t appropriated it. There is some dispute over whether that money truly exists because the money could be spent already and the U.S. Government has tricky accounting techniques, as anyone who looks at the rising debt clock is well aware.
But if what Rep. Bishop says about the fund not being used as designed is true, Congress should take this opportunity to reform the system so that the funding gets to those who need it. That way, those nasty Rethugs can get the program running again, and the money the government takes from the Big Dirty, Filthy Energy companies that helps raise the price on everything can go to the right place.
Obama ended his address by giving a shout-out to Pope Francis, saying how we need to leave this planet–a gift from God–in better shape than we found it. For “our kids,” naturally, again.
That’s it for another installment of “The CO2 Response.” As usual, I took up a bit of virtual territory with this one…but nowhere near the amount of real territory that this administration has.
***
Update:
The Week has a new article here that relates to the upcoming global climate conference in Paris.
The article points out that China and India are taking serious issue with a redrafted world climate pledge because it omits text they agreed on earlier that addressed how poorer nations would be financed in order to comply with new environmental standards. The new text also leaves out how to hold wealthier countries accountable if they don’t comply with the legally-binding standards the attendees plan to implement at the conference.
This passage from the article caught my attention:
[F]ighting climate change is a particularly vexing problem because the individual cost to each country, especially Third World ones, will be immediate and huge — and the benefits distant and uncertain. The notion that emission cuts can pay for themselves through increased energy efficiency is at best fanciful and, at worst, a lie.
The article also notes that citizens of India use 15 times less energy per capita than Americans do. It adds that India would have to expand its emissions output tremendously in order to lift its people out of poverty. Does this mean Americans should be more like India and use 15 times less energy? How far will our government go to try to make that a reality?
The writer of the article hypothesizes that this could lead to Western countries using military force on Third World countries to get them to comply with new climate standards while those living in Western countries continue to use more “dirty” energy than Third World citizens do.
Will the effort to “save” us from extinction be the cause our demise? I would not be surprised. The eco-zealots have engineered enough of our society as it is.
(Via the Drudge Report)
