Biden warns people 'can't deny' climate change, 'wrath' of Mother Nature: 'Whole generation is damned'
By: Kristine Parks (Fox News)
When in doubt, ratchet up the fear machine. Everything else is turning to crap so let's talk about climate change and a dystopian future.
Hey, Joe, we're all traveling to Disneyland. No time to worry about existential threats, we'll miss the flight.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Biden said young people motivated him to act on climate change describing their future in dire terms on 'The Daily Show.'
President Biden gave a dire warning about the future while talking about climate change in a new interview.
While a guest on "The Daily Show," Biden told former Obama aide Kal Penn that young people between 18 and 35 years old motivated him to sign off on the Inflation Reduction Act.
"They had enough of it," Biden recalled, suggesting they "showed up" to vote in the last two elections out of concerns over the environment.
President Biden warned "a whole generation is damned" when it comes to climate change.(Screenshot/"The Daily Show")
Biden argued that "Mother Nature" was angry at how humans have treated the earth, saying he's seen more extreme weather and forest fires since he took office.
"What happened was Mother Nature let her wrath be seen in the last two years," he said. "So people can't deny it anymore."
The president warned younger generations would have no future to look forward to if we didn't act on climate change.
"If we don't keep the temperature from going above 1.5 degrees Celsius, raised, then we're in real trouble. That whole generation is damned. That's not hyperbole. Really truly in trouble," he claimed.
President Biden warned young people their generation was "damned" if we didn't act on climate change.(Oliver Contreras/Sipa/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Earlier this year, the Democratic president said climate change was a bigger threat to humanity than nuclear war.
"If we don't stay under 1.5 degrees Celsius, we're going to have a real problem. It's the single-most existential threat to humanity we've ever faced, including nuclear weapons," Biden said during a Democratic National Committee fundraiser.
Biden touted how he had urged automakers to go electric as part of his climate change plan. "Within five weeks [of our meeting] all of them agreed they were going to go electric," he told Penn.
In 2021, Biden signed an executive order requiring half of all new auto sales in 2030 be electric vehicles.
Fox News first reported on Monday that a leaked memo from the Biden administration admitted charging fossil fuel companies less to drill would provide the country "greater energy security."
Despite this, the White House still planned to raise royalty fees for an oil and gas lease sale off the coast of Alaska as part of Biden's climate change agenda.
Fox News' Thomas Catenacci contributed to this report.
Tags
Who is online
102 visitors
The global rule-based system of interdependence cannot exist without cheap, abundant fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a requirement for free trade. A service based economy collapses without fossil fuels that make travelling to Disneyland possible.
If we're serious about climate change then it becomes necessary to end civilization as we know it. Spewing hot air about dystopian futures won't save civilization as we know it; that only kicks the can. Climate change isn't being caused by gas ranges and washing machines. And heat pumps won't be enough to allow us to continue travelling to Disneyland.
That's rather dystopian, how about monetizing the Dominatrix of all Invention, necessity itself instead?
Hasn't necessity already been monetized? Aren't we basking in the glow of commercial extravagance?
Disneyland?
If Ark Encounter is moved to Florida, y'all be able to row there.
Solar powered magic and make believe.
Why did DeSantis declare war on Disney?
Isn't this the real MAGA Hatter Disneyland?
Politicians on both left and right are scared to address overpopulation.
Up here in the Great White North they are scared to address underpopulation.
You can have all of our illegal immigrants. A couple a million a year plus should fix your population problems.
Maybe all these Democrat septic tanks that declared themselves Sanctuary Cities can help. Oh wait, they shipped the illegals off to be somebody elses problem.
They got jobs at Carolina pig processors!
You mean the ones that are regularly visited by ICE?
The ones hiring those with refugee status.
The 'left' is not, what are you talking about?
The fear mongering and scare tactics the climate change zealots have employed in recent years have failed to work, and they never will.
The fools who practice this faith have yet to educate the public in a believable way. Instead, they keep trying the Chicken Little approach to no avail.
It is a shame that people who are too lazy to do research make decisions based on the fact that there are AGW lunatics (e.g. Gore in the past) out there making exaggerated (and wrong) claims. Instead of doing research and considering serious scientific findings to realize that this is indeed a problem that is not going to go away on its own, they contribute to the band of ignorance that impedes progress towards net-zero emissions.
Seriously Tig....do you really believe that net-zero emissions is an realistic or attainable goal?
It doesn't take too much "research" to come to the conclusion our way of life and a sustainable economy here in the US, and globally, depends on sources of reliable energy at prices people can afford.
Currently that source is mostly fossil fuels that are still abundant. Solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal can supplement that supply today. Nuclear and other sources are currently limited in scope, and are likely remain so. As I was mocked in another article for suggesting that we need to find ways to deal with climate change rather fruitlessly look for novel ways of stopping or reversing it....which don't seem likely given our current of knowledge and research.
Much of today's hysteria about global warming is based on computer models that may, or may not, be given the correct data. AGW advocates are not crazy, but they are taking the wrong approach in how to educate the public about it. I am not a climate change denier, I just remain unconvinced due to the lack of real scientific evidence based up current observations that this is the most pressing and urgent issue of out time.
I think that more research and preparation should also be given to possibility of future asteroid impacts, CME, EMP, and GRB
Yes. The question is a matter of when and how.
That is just a talking point. There is no question that the our planet's temperature has risen 1.1 °C in the past 100 years and is on track to hit the net 1.5°C mark in 20 years and 2°C mark by 2050. The effects of this warming are extreme weather patterns (droughts and floods), acidification of the ocean, rise of the ocean level, and then the consequence of these changes on life.
The thing we need to keep in mind is that our planet (our greater environment) is based on an equilibrium and it does not take much to cause ripple effects which to human beings and other forms of life could be devastating. Just consider the ripple effects of the pandemic to see how easily our environment (and our lives) can be affected.
I encourage everyone who is curious about why someone would make a statement yours to do original research. Nobody who listens to talking heads and holds a view that AGW or even GW is a hoax (or mere hysteria) or that the planet will just make it all better will be influenced by posts on a social media forum. One needs to seriously and objectively learn what science has found, what data is used, how the data is acquired and importantly why climate scientists issue warnings.
We are currently at 440 ppm of CO 2 (937.2 GtC). (One ppm of CO 2 = 2.13 GtC.) What is considered safe is 350ppm (745.5 GtC).
To rid ourselves of this excess C, we need to further reduce our emissions (or find some means to accelerate the natural process). Let's say we are modest and attempt to go from net zero to net -1GtC per year. That means we have to reduce our emissions to 44.4% of where they are today.
The materials are plentiful, one need only the will to learn and consider.
The position that hinders progress on this issue.
And that's a question that needs better thought behind it IMO. China is the worlds leading contributor to greenhouse emissions, emitting twice what the US emits. China is starting up a new coal fired electric plant every 10-14 days. China is increasing the volume of emissions and India is also growing in emissions as well. Yet the US leadership gives the appearance that they would rather hamstring the US economy in a misguided attempt to cover the emissions that China puts out. This is a world-wide issue and one country cannot fix the world all by itself, yet in trying our leadership is forcing economic problems on it's citizens. People are already hurting economically and this adds on top of it. Once again the poorer people are being hurt the most.
Are these numbers global or just for the US?
Changing things to reduce our carbon output is a worthwhile goal, but do we have to sacrifice the 38 million people living in poverty today because they cannot afford this move to green energy?
Worldwide climate scientists and associated engineers are working on this daily. What is clear is that we are two or three decades away from the point where even the worst deniers will realize the problem. It would be much better if they would do research instead of simply listening to talking heads who contribute to their confirmation bias.
Global. The climate is global.
Sacrifice? Here is what we need to do first. We need to stop denying the findings of climate science (credible science, not talking heads like Gore). That would be a major accomplishment that would help us innovate at a faster pace. In the meantime, we continue to reduce our emissions through conservation and renewables while working on practical solutions to capture emissions at the source and also in the atmosphere.
The transition from our uber dependence on fossil fuel will necessarily take many years. There is no working around that. We best start the transition now. And that does not mean forcing all poor people to buy electric vehicles, install solar panels, etc. There are many actions (already in progress) that societies can take that do not involve putting undo pressure on those who live paycheck to paycheck. So, for example, I am not in favor of an oppressive gasoline tax to to 'force' people to EVs. But I am in favor of building an EV infrastructure to enable a quicker transition to EVs for those who opt for them and to make it easier for businesses and government to change their fleets to EV.
And I agree that it's better for them to be working on it now. The problem as I see it is there is too much politics involved, and too many people with big egos who are making a lot of money around talking about the problem and pushing fear. If those people would just shut up and let the science work it would be better IMO.
Thanks. That's what I thought but it's better to be sure.
So the Inflation Reduction Act (which spends more on climate issues than inflation) is a good thing as a big portion is on clean energy and building a clean energy economy then? It spends money on building more recharging stations for EV's. Yeah, I would rather see more money spent to build up that side of the infrastructure and encourage more innovation into better and cheaper clean energy systems.
But Gov Newsom's mandate to stop selling gas powered cars by 2035 is the wrong approach as it forces people to move to an EV. Encourage the industry so that people naturally move over for economic reasons. IMO Newsom would be better served by working to beef up his electric grid as what they have is not sufficient for today's needs, much less the demand that will grow as more and more people move to clean energy devices for their homes and offices.
The problem I have always had with the inflation reduction act is that it was a slimy trick to mislabel it to get naive approval from the masses. Politicians do this all the time; the deceit is sickening.
What I like in the act is building infrastructure.
And I agree with the approach of encouraging the move rather than attempting to force people to endure economic hardships. There will be a cost for everyone initially because any large change takes time and money, but it should not be forced and oppressive such as a large tax on gasoline / diesel fuel.
And then there are other views....like tinkering with Nature might have unintended consequences.