Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama announces government greenhouse gas emissions targets

Updated 12:21 p.m.
By Juliet Eilperin and Anne E. Kornblut
President Obama set greenhouse gas emissions targets for the federal government, announcing Friday that it would aim to reduce its emissions by 28 percent in 2020.

"As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient," Obama said in a statement.  "Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy."

The White House estimated a savings of $8 billion to $11 billion in energy costs, and Nancy Sutley, who chairs the White House Council on Environmental Quality, estimated that it would amount to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 88 million metric tons by 2020 -- equivalent to taking 17 million cars off the road for one year

The initiative, Sutley told reporters, "will hold the federal government accountable for leading by example."

But it is not as sweeping as it could have been: It does not, for instance, include emissions that stem from the actiivity of federal suppliers, or from federal employees' commutes. And while the Defense Department pledged Friday to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in non-combat areas 34 percent by 2020, this pledge does not include combat operations, which account for 62 percent of the department's carbon footprint.

"That would not be responsible," said Dorothy Robyn, deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment at the Pentagon.

Still, environmentalists and Democrats in Congress praised the move.

"I am very pleased that President Obama has set aggressive, but realistic, targets for reducing energy use by federal agencies," said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), who chairs the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security.

And Frances Beinecke, president of the advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council, called the initiative "a great deal for the American taxpayers and a great example for the rest of the country."

Obama's announcement came hours after his administration delivered a non-binding pledge to other countries that the United States would cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

The Obama administration submitted its reduction target to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat under the Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding deal brokered by the United States last month at the U.N.-sponsored climate talks. Under the deal President Obama helped secure in Copenhagen, major emitters of greenhouse gases are expected to "inscribe" their reduction targets by Jan. 31.

The international commitment states that the United States will cut its emissions "in the range of 17 percent, in conformity with anticipated U.S. energy and climate legislation, recognizing that the final target will be reported to the Secretariat in light of enacted legislation." It remains unclear if Congress will pass a comprehensive climate bill this year.

Several key developing nations, such as China and India, have not yet indicated what they will commit to under the agreement.

By Anne E. Kornblut  |  January 29, 2010; 9:39 AM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Divided Democrats shift strategy
Next: Senate ethics panel has four probes underway

Comments

First, I AM STAGGERED - if indeed it is true - that the Fed is the single "largest energy user" entity, er, sorry "GHG emitter" in the country. THAT IS THE real problem right there!

Second, by all means cut the Fed energy bill that causes all these so-called GHG emissions, and in the process dismantle and FIRE whomsoever it takes to meet the goal.

Do 'em now! Get there by 2012.

Posted by: yklktk | January 29, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

A good start would be reducing the length of his speeches by 28 per cent, and sending Joe Biden to a monastery where everyone takes a vow of silence.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | January 29, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Woolman, we were all worried and angered by $4.00 gas at the time... especailly when the whole thing was manufactured by the democrats in congress. All that is beside the point that real science shows cutting "greenhouse gasses" will no nothing to change the climate.

The suns activity and our 365 day oval trip around that sun is what changes our climate.... WE have nothing to do with it.

I am all for controlling air pollution. I remember when all cities had a visable dark haze over it. As a kid I could see Dallas 100 miles before we got there. But we tackled real smogg and used catilit converters that converted most of the tail pipe gasses to Co2 and water vapor, two nessesary atmosphiric gasses.

Co2 us bit a polutant no matter what a Marxist EPA says. Their dicision was pure politics not based in science or reality.

Do not ignore the science, which is never has Co2 caused the temperature of earth to rise when the sun was less active... every time the sun spot activity was less active the earth cooled... regardless of the level of Co2. That s the science. Co2 does not raise the temperature of the earth.

Lets not tax ourselves into poverty for nothing.

Respectfully,

Mark

Posted by: markandbeth92 | January 29, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Osama talks the talk and Obama walks the walk...scary.

Posted by: JCM-51 | January 29, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Bad timing considering Osama Bin Laden just got into the climate business.

Posted by: AMQ1 | January 29, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

How many ways can you screw up the economy...Obama says, I'll show you and you can count the ways"

AGW is a hoax, Green jobs are killing other economies...impractical crap, especially at this time...

The worst president, the worst congress, the dumbest electorate has come together at the same time in history to produce the Obamination of America. The terrorists have to be happy that someone else is doing their work for them.

Posted by: sophic | January 29, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

What a bunch of screaming idiots! All upset because President Obama is trying to come up with new ideas that can arrest our downward economic spiral. What a terrible thing to try to stop global warming, even though a few stalwart morons and Fox News swears it isn't happening. None of the indignant posters here were in the least bit worried as oil topped $4 gallon under Bush, the deficit spiraled out of control under Bush, the housing bubble expanded and exploded under Bush, and the economy careened toward certain disaster under Bush. That was alright with these sanctimonious, self-righteous, right-wing nut jobs that think the solution to everything that is wrong with this country is not enough Tax Cuts! These right-wingers are so threatened by a president who actually thinks about problems and tries to devise innovative solutions that they call him everything but a child of God. It is scary to think that we all have to live in a country populated by these small-minded, self-interested knuckle-draggers that have ABSOLUTELY no ability to think creatively. I mean really . . . the gods on Olympus for these guys are Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney and Bill O'Reilly. Wow. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Posted by: woolman2010 | January 29, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

How many ways can you screw up the economy...Obama says, I'll show you and you can count the ways"

AGW is a hoax, Green jobs are killing other economies...impractical crap, especially at this time...

The worst president, the worst congress, the dumbest electorate has come together at the same time in history to produce the Obamination of America. The terrorists have to be happy that someone else is doing their work for them.

Posted by: sophic | January 29, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

This commitment of 28% over ten years, or 2.8%/year is pretty much a joke. The CO2 standards for vehicles sold in the US call for about 4%/year reduction over the same period. Furthermore, to meet the CO2 goals called for in UN sponsored reports, a 4%/year reduction would be needed.

The US government will be able to meet the 2.8%/year reduction simply by replacing it's vehicle fleet over the 10 year period in accordance with their current schedule and by bring up it's buildings to LEEDS "silver" over the same period. BTW, that is somewhat less than the goal set by GSA over the same period.

So, this is another case of the Obama Administration saying they are making a great change while in reality they are doing nothing different that what the Bush Administration would have done.

Posted by: RKozak | January 29, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Climate change has always occured, this is what made the old Egyption empire collapse, when the rains in Etheopia ceased for a generation, so preventing the yearly cycle of Nile flooding some 4000 years ago.This led to crop and fishery failures and starvation and the final end to the Egyption empire, within a generation.The Sahara desert also formed at this time an area which was once fertile and was mainly due to the north atlantic current.Sure lets try and clean up inofficient industries and cut down on carbon output but climate change will occur whether we do more or less its the speed that it may happen,taxing users more and more in my view will not prevent climate change its just another tax, this will happen as a matter of course,whether we use coal fired power stations or not.It happened in old Egypt over a generation there wasn,t very much carbon pumped into the atmosphere then.

Posted by: judyterry | January 29, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Climate change has always occured, this is what made the old Egyption empire collapse, when the rains in Etheopia ceased for a generation, so preventing the yearly cycle of Nile flooding some 4000 years ago.This led to crop and fishery failures and starvation and the final end to the Egyption empire, within a generation.The Sahara desert also formed at this time an area which was once fertile and was mainly due to the north atlantic current.Sure lets try and clean up inofficient industries and cut down on carbon output but climate change will occur whether we do more or less its the speed that it may happen,taxing users more and more in my view will not prevent climate change its just another tax, this will happen as a matter of course,whether we use coal fired power stations or not.It happened in old Egypt over a generation there wasn,t very much carbon pumped into the atmosphere then.

Posted by: judyterry | January 29, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I have the solution to reduce the federal government's emmissions by 50% before the summer of 2010. Fire 50% of all non-elected federal employees, make them get a productive job that creates wealth and increases the GDP, consolidate all federal working space and fleets to maximize used working space. Sell or Rent out empty space to private enterprise. Sell unused Fixtures, Furnishings, and Equipment to private enterprise at a price to re-coop the expenditures on the FF&E spent by the taxpayers, pay down the debt with revenue from downsizing. Oh yeah, and send the power in DC back to the states and the people.

Posted by: 50Eagle | January 29, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Let's reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the source in 2010 and throw every single Democrat in Congress the hell out of office.

Posted by: Extempraneous | January 29, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Were there any journalists present at the event described in the article? Or just note-takers, copying down what the politicians and lobbyists had to say, not bothering to ask the questions that those of us who couldn't be there would like answered?

Posted by: JBaustian | January 29, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

It's very reassuring to know that Obama and Osama are on the very same page.

Posted by: robtay12003 | January 29, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

By increesing regulations on energy, energy will cost more. We have no viable alternative to fosil fuel right now that this President and this congress are willing to embrace. Wind at it's best is unreliabel and can only meat about 8% of the energy needs. Solar is way expensive and meats less of our needs than wind. Nuclear is a good choice but this administration does not like it and will not use it.

Why are we doing this in the first place??? Just because Benlauden says man caused global warming doesnt make it so.

The sun, and the sun only caused the earth to either cool or warm. Proof of this is the cycles of the sun directly reflect cooling and warming regardless of the amount of C02 in the atmosphier. Never has there been a time in history when Co2 was hight but the sun was less active and warming happened. Everytime the earth has warmed the sun was more active. Every time the earth has cooled the sun was less active. That is a fact.

Co2 has not changed that equasion .... ever.

Man made global warming is a religious belief by those who choose to ignore the facts that do not back up their belief.

Posted by: markandbeth92 | January 29, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

If we could put corks in the orifices of Senators and Members of Congress, the reduction in greenhouse gases would approach 75%.

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | January 29, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

The government spending less money on fuel will *cost* jobs? Perhaps in Venezuela or Saudia Arabia, but not here.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 29, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama has got to be out of his mind. If he thinks unemployment is bad now, wait until this plan produces more unemployment, oh, wait, that is what he wants. In this manner, he can have more people dependent upon the government.

Posted by: walterndebby | January 29, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

In the spirit of most of the comments so far, I would like to add the following additional insights that I hope will help move the discussion forward:

"Really?" "Bloviating a bit are you?" And, finally, I offer something that has not been said yet "and so's your Moma"

Posted by: jwh3 | January 29, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

pamsux1 says:
"The government, just like the rest of us, gets the overwhelming majority of the "energy" it uses from coal, nuclear, hydro, natural gas, etc. Oil is basically only used in powering vehicles. A significant but still very small proportion of overall energy use. This type of pandering claptrap is an insult to our intelligence."

-----

Do you really believe that burning coal and natural gas is cleaner than burning oil?

Posted by: TomCamfield | January 29, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Natural gas harnessing shall save America from recession & shall lead to job creation.Retreat from Afhganistan & Iraq is primary.

Posted by: ambutt13 | January 29, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama is determined to improve the country's general health one way or another. But, of course, Republicans will be fighting this in pretty much the same way they are opposing the health care reform bill--because it is not in the best interests of Big Business, in this instance mainly Big Oil.

Posted by: TomCamfield | January 29, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

If it truly saves money, that's great, but I am suspicious that we're not hearing the complete story. Do the WH figures include the cost of subsidies to green energy? Do they include amortization of physical plant changes to government buildings? How exactly, will the government achieve these savings?

Posted by: FadingFast | January 29, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

To all supporters of Pres. Oreo: You have my sincere pity. I will never live in the world he is trying to build. He shall not succeed.

Posted by: OdinsAcolyte | January 29, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

This is too easy. Reduce Feds until the 28% emission reduction is met. It is efficatous. It is simple. It will work. Let's make them do it!!!!

Posted by: OdinsAcolyte | January 29, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

How many ways can you screw up the economy...Obama says, I'll show you and you can count the ways"

AGW is a hoax, Green jobs are killing other economies...impractical crap, especially at this time...

The worst president, the worst congress, the dumbest electorate has come together at the same time in history to produce the Obamination of America. The terrorists have to be happy that someone else is doing their work for them.


Posted by: sophic | January 29, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

How do these numbers compare to what Reagan vacated in 1981? Republicans always always always claim cleaning up the environment will hurt the economy. However, the economic data from the late 1970s showed otherwise. Even Republicans told Reagan - rememebr the guy who tried bringing back the robber baron 1890s and roaring twenties? He succeeded sending us all to the bring of the next Great Depression. - his ideas went against science. What an idiot worshipped by more idiots.

Posted by: BigTrees | January 29, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Does this mean no more hot air from the White House. That would be a positive move -- and a change we could live with.

Posted by: johne37179 | January 29, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Vince33x: raising the CAFE standards (which is already planned, per administrative moves by Bush and the energy act passed by congress in late 2007) will reduce CO2 emissions from vehicles. We can have the same number of vehicles with reduced emissions - it's not either/or. No need to go back to the "horse and buggy" or create a false choice between emissions reductions and driving.

It's not the courts that declared CO2 is a pollutant - it's the EPA. And no, it's not pure theatre - the science behind global warming is pretty solid. The EPA did not say that CO2 is hazardous to breathe; it's not a pollutant in the traditional sense. But high levels of CO2 do threaten to destabilize the climate in many ways.

The CO2 that we breathe is considered "carbon neutral" because it was captured from the air by plants within the past growing season. When we burn fossil fuels, however, we release CO2 that was captured by plants 200+ million years ago - that's why burning fossil fuels raises atmospheric CO2 levels.

Anyone who wants to comment on this topic should first study a basic tutorial of the global carbon cycle: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle2.php and http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9r.html

Posted by: ausemj | January 29, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Whoever said "And when the courts say CO2 is a pollutant, we might as well attach catalytic converters to our mouths and noses." has to go to school and take science. Making statements like that one betrays the ignorance of the topic that makes one susceptible to emotional manipulation by Corporate America. We don't have catalytic converters to chemically change carbon dioxide.

Even the "Good for plants" argument for the increasing CO2 levels is fallacious. We find that increases of carbon dioxide depresses tree growth because of its diffusion into the soil, causing problems with the roots.

Those without education in the field, running on political prejudice, do their cause no service.

Posted by: gkam | January 29, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

If we built American high speed passenger and freight trains up and down the West Coast and East Coast - in the populated areas - we could cut our oil imports from al-Qaeda-financing nations like Saudi Arabia.

Why not, as these lines are built, we require anyone on federal business (other than military) to use them?

That would help reduce global warming impacts dramatically.

ACTIONS - now.

Posted by: WillSeattle | January 29, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I not only cheerfully voted for- & am still a hopeful supporter of President Obama (what else after th 8 years of Bush/GOP mis-rule that virtually destroyed the A.Dream for so many- while lining the pockets of the few?!) but I part ways very firmly with 'Move-on' over the nuclear energy matter & support the President!! To protect our future WE MUST have an increase in safely designed & operated nuclear plants to supply much of our national grid. The French wisely put such a system in place some years ago- (as they did a national health plan!) When coupled to all the various sources that we can muster for a''green energy systems green jobs' drive that the President -also wisely, just spoke of --then we can -as the French successfully have, eliminate our dangerous dependence on foreign oil or any other fossil fuel not effectively converted to 'clean burning' ! What makes better good sense than that?
Why do we always think we have nothing to learn from other nations? In fact we are behind much of the Europe & parts of Asia now in so many ways --to the brink of finding ourselves with a crumbling third world infra-structure! Our education standards & results of recent years (the Pres is also right to emphasize) have a long way to go to sufficiently correct our slowed development & get us back to where we should be. Of course -this is hardly surprising after we suffered 8 long years of mis-guided self-serving GOP 'trickle down' claptrap & status quo. Despite recent setbacks--THAT should be remembered come Nov elections!" In any case-build those plants!! neilo1

Posted by: neilo1 | January 29, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

The fact that Americans own 246 million motor vehicles - that's 2.2 per household - is proof of their tacit approval and willingness to live with a certain level of emissions - actions speak louder than words aka, talk is cheap. And when the courts say CO2 is a pollutant, we might as well attach catalytic converters to our mouths and noses. Declaring CO2 a pollutant is pure theatre and absolutely meaningless.
We ought to consider our nation without the auto. How many more millions of horses (and horse feces) would we be dealing with? You ought to read Dickens' accounts of the sights and smells of mid-19th century London. And, of course there are the attendant pathogens associated w/millions of tons of horse feces on the streets of our cities plus dead draught horses awaiting removal! Oh! But I didn't think...That's right, you didn't think! That's why we have this idiot in the Whitehouse! When idiots are allowed to vote, idiots get elected!!!

Posted by: vince33x | January 29, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

He should cut the government payroll be 28% do away with the 12 to 20% government increase in budgets they got, then do the FREEZE for 3 years. That would be BIG bucks saved. Remember he up the budget more than any of us would receive if any raises at all and if there was one you probably got a big 3%.
Natural Gas now this would be a great thing to promote. CLEAN, CHEAP and you could fill your tank at home. Natural gas is abundant and just about every where in America you could go to fill up you vehicle.
I have nothing against keeping our planet but don't shove it down our throats now and destroy jobs by doing it. We will get there but will take time. FIGURE it this way CONGRESS should of started this issue 50 years ago. Big business should of helped these ideas along 50 years ago. The BIG THREE and the OIL company's were as one so that answers why the car industry never wanted to advance.
So yesterday is gone and today is here. We must clean up but not in a radical way and at the expense of we Americans. We have always been the blame at things we do including being there at every disaster and war to help or shed our blood. We need to look after us also...

Posted by: drdavisdr | January 29, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

The current leader in global carbon emissions is China and Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Posted by: NinjaForce | January 29, 2010 10:42 AM
____________________________
Look again, you lying sack of crap... USA us number two under China - 21.2% of world production.... Why did you leave that little nugget of info out? Trying out for a spot on Faux News?

Posted by: phorse | January 29, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

jonweiss1 says "It appears that once again, Obamas "reality/truth" is relative to the audience he his attempting to con."
---------------------------------------------------

Really? Found them old WMD yet? Got Osama bin Laden? Made America respected in the world, did you conservatives? Got us a great economy? Showed us an honest administration, did you?

I hope you weren't one of those fooled, suckered, into letting two draft-dodgers send our sons and daughters to kill the sons and daughters (and fathers and mothers and children and babies) of others, are you? Did you got taken by the Lifetime Failure, the frat-boy in the Captain Codpiece flightsuit?

Just wondering.

Posted by: gkam | January 29, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama is currently lying out his behind once again.

I am watching him on CSPAN and he just made the statement that "No one has been a bigger supporter of coal production than I have."

I wonder.... considering that the major part of electricity in the U.S. is coal produced, how does this contrast with his comment during the election that "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

It appears that once again, Obamas "reality/truth" is relative to the audience he his attempting to con.

Posted by: jonweiss1 | January 29, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

The president was mocked for his pointing out during the campaign that just inflating car tires properly would reduce oil consuption for vhicles by 8%. Turns ou that this is ture. And cuting gas use by 8% means cutting greenhouse gas emmisions by a similar percentage. Putting in new windows, insulating the roof, caulking cracks, weatherstripping the front door, putting on a screen door. ALL of these would have immediate impacts with almost no effort, but collectively save plenty of greenhouse emissions while generating jobs. Same with something as simple as mandating CFBs to replace incandescents. Australia did it 7 or 8 years ago and they did not go bankrupt. NOT doing it is like throwing money into the toilet. It does not add jobs and it does no one any god and it harms the environment.

So why is it that conservatives hate doing things like this exactly? Is it that they hate clean air and water? Do they favor asthma and emphasyma? Are they in favor of fewer jobs? Or is it a burning desire to waste money on oil? Or is it that they realy love giving our money to countries who use it to fund the very terrorist groups who attack America?

Posted by: John1263 | January 29, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

It all turns out to water vapour, after all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7101004/Water-vapour-is-a-major-cause-of-global-warming-and-cooling-find-scientists.html
In addition to carbon trading, can we expect vapour trading? After all, the manmade climate change people have only a few years left to make their fortunes before the scam is finally exposed.

Posted by: AnnLePain | January 29, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

I waer that those posts about communism have to be some Obama suporters just rying to make the loonies on theright seem even sillier. Communism?? Socialism?? Really? What is this 1951? Here is a website: dictionary.com. You can use it to look up big wrds you don't understand. If you are seriously conjuring up the boogeymen of our great grandparens generation you seriously need help.

And BTW -- the economy grew at 5.7 % last quarter. All those capitalists making money must be communism........

Posted by: John1263 | January 29, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Something we would not be worriying about if that reeeetard reagan had followed the energy path laid out by James Carter. We would be solar/sind powered and out of the ME decades ago, and global warming would be a computer model theory instead of a threat to all humanity. Still, better now than later. If we did an "Interstate highway" type infrastructure project nationally wecould tell the ME to peess off in a decade. Our domestic oil output would be in line with out needs and we would be able to generate he rest of the power we need from alternative renewable sources.

Next time you are in an airplane imagine every rooftop you see as a solar panel, and do a little mental math about how little energy we would require beyond that simple change.

And then imagine how much nicer it would be to be in a high speed train instead of that same plane.

Posted by: John1263 | January 29, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

We need to cut back considerably on the emission of bullets and hellfire missiles.

Posted by: Wildthing1 | January 29, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama could reduce that 28% by 75% if he were to reduce his speeches by 50%.

Posted by: HughJassPhD

--------------------------------------------------------

Is that really your name? Sorry, but the temptation is to write it HughJ ass, PhD, and I wonder if that was your intent. No matter, I don't mean to be snarky here, I really want to know what you know about Climate Science, and if your political prejudice has swayed you in any way.

Those us us who have studied the complexities of it all come away with a different view than those who go in with political prejudice.

How about if I tore down whatever field you had your education in, using silly nonsense and outright lies, in the name of politics? That is what we face in this debate.

You can at least look at it professionally, unless your PhD is not in any science, but in Econ or religion, or something else we just made up.

Posted by: gkam | January 29, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama could reduce that 28% by 75% if he were to reduce his speeches by 50%.

Posted by: HughJassPhD | January 29, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps when the Federal Government does what the private market refuses to do - reduce emissions and save money - we will see how useless the private sector is in working for the public good. The sad thing that most of the posters miss is that this is easy to accomplish through increased efficiency.Money will be saved, jobs created, resources preserved for future generations, money kept from flowing overseas.

Posted by: athuronyi | January 29, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Please, everyone, don't worry anymore. Nothing Obama says from here on out means anything! He's toast! His leftist/communist/socialist (fill in the blanks) agenda will be dismantled in November. (I do understand, however, that Putin is very interested in Obama's helping him return the Soviet Union to its greatness!)

Posted by: georges2 | January 29, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Please, everyone, don't worry anymore. Nothing Obama says from here on out means anything! He's toast! His leftist/communist/socialist (fill in the blanks) agenda will be dismantled in November. (I do understand, however, that Putin is ver interested in Obama's helping him return the Soviet Union to its greatness!)

Posted by: georges2 | January 29, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

An Third Generation Idiot born by Idiots

Posted by: springco1 | January 29, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Why should we listen to them ever again?
Posted by: gkam
----------
And why should anyone listen to YOU? Are you more than a bloviating left wing ideologue?
---------------------------------------------------------

Yeah. I am a Vietnam War vet who learned the lessons of naked aggression and mass murder of civilians, and opposed the conservative Bush Wars. I have a Master of Science in Environmental Management and the integration of Alternative Energy technologies into existing systems. I was a Senior Engineer for the biggest power company on Earth, and helped them change into one of the cleanest and most efficient.

And how about YOU, silencedogoodreturns? What are your technical and educational and professional qualifications to make such decisions? Political prejudice does not count.

Posted by: gkam | January 29, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

How does he propose the Federal Government achieve this? The alleged savings is "net" of the $$ the administration is printing to sustain "green jobs?" Once again, this is prophecy delivered as "fact."

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | January 29, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Just look at the superficial nonsense that passes for serious discussion here:
"Obama thinks he's the Wizard of Oz.
Click your heels three times and say "I want to create jobs and kill the economy...I want to create jobs and kill the economy...I want to create jobs and kill the economy.""

Is that silly nonsense the conservative equivalent of education?

These are serious considerations but those who find it politically uncomfortable to be found wrong again will do anything to stop us from saving the Earth for our kids.

Those of you with the silly comments would do better to get an education in the Sciences.


Posted by: gkam | January 29, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Why should we listen to them ever again?
Posted by: gkam
----------
And why should anyone listen to YOU? Are you more than a bloviating left wing ideologue?

Posted by: silencedogoodreturns | January 29, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

277 days until Election Day

See you at the polls Dims.

Posted by: screwjob11 | January 29, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Yeah and Obama going to reduce nuclear arms too.......really? Please read the FACTS:

"'Nobel Peace Prize-winner Barack Obama ups spending on nuclear weapons to even more than George Bush'By Carol Driver

Last updated at 2:17 PM on 29th January 2010

Barack Obama has allocated £4.3billion to spend on maintaining the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile - £370million more than what was budgeted by George Bush.

The budget will also be increased by more than £3.1billion over the next five years.

The announcement comes despite the American President declaring nuclear weapons were the ‘greatest danger’ to U.S. people during in his State of the Union address on Wednesday.

And it flies in the face of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to him in October for ‘his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples’.

The Nobel committee was attacked at the time for bestowing the accolade on a new president whose initiatives are yet to bear fruit – which included reducing the world stock of nuclear arms."

........Who knew?

We wonder why the liberal/progressives hold-up at the Washington POST aren't making this "news" available to Americans.

....We all know why don't we? corruption at every level of the Democrat Party and the institutions that support him, like the POST...........sad.

Posted by: allenridge | January 29, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Obama thinks he's the Wizard of Oz.

Click your heels three times and say "I want to create jobs and kill the economy...I want to create jobs and kill the economy...I want to create jobs and kill the economy."

We certainly aren't in Kansas anymore, are we?

Posted by: InTheMiddle | January 29, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Obama thinks he's the Wizard of Oz.

Click your heels three times and say "I want to create jobs and kill the economy...I want to create jobs and kill the economy...I want to create jobs and kill the economy."

We certainly aren't in Kansas anymore, are we?

Posted by: InTheMiddle | January 29, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Given that the President advised the world on Jan. 27/2010, that he would explore the possibility of drilling for oil offshore, and the construction of nuclear power plants, one must wonder if either this promise was "just words", or whether the emission targets are "just words", or probably destined to give an advantage to some special interest (s). It seems doubtful that one can be certain with President Obama.

I certainly believe that man's activities do contribute to an increase in the warming of the planet, beyond the normal warming that the earth has continually experienced. However, while reducing emissions is needed, the setting of goals for future years is a very inexact science, until one can determine the level of increased warming as a result of man's activities and examine the contribution over time. One must recall too that U.S. emissions affect the entire world just as emissions all over the world affect the U.S. We have but one integrated environment for our entire world.

Global warming appears to be misunderstood, by many, to result in increased temperatures over the entire earth at the same time. The effects of global warming are uncertain, but it is believed that it would result in unpredictable weather patterns in many areas of the world. For instance, while the U.S. is currently experiencing a terrible winter in some areas, in Canada, Vancouver is experiencing a problem with snow for the winter olympics and people in Ontario, are living with the absence of snow, so far, that would have tremendous implications for farming later on this year. This could be a result of global warming, but no one knows for certain.

Posted by: CalP | January 29, 2010 11:42 AM | Report abuse


The comments here from frustrated conservatives are just silly blabs of political prejudice, the kind usually spray-painted on the walls of other folk.

Most of those commenting have NO education in the Environmental Sciences, yet they assume that their ideas have equal weight with those of us with graduate degrees in the field.


Put away your political prejudice, your unending hate, and realize that those who are warning you are the professionals. Those who tell you what you want to believe are politicians and corporate crooks.

We could have done this decades ago, as Jimmy Carter started us on the most comprehensive set of programs for energy efficiency and conservation and the development of new energy technologies and supplies. It was all stopped by Reagan, who squandered our chance for progress to build new nuclear weapons. We built the nukes, then tore them down immediately, but the damage was done, the money wasted, the opportunity gone.

We could have had relief from energy prices and supplies, clean technologies, and the world by the short hairs, selling them our technology instead of buying their oil, if the conservatives had not stopped it all.

Why should we listen to them ever again?

Posted by: gkam | January 29, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Obama says:
"Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy."

Political nonsense.

The government, just like the rest of us, gets the overwhelming majority of the "energy" it uses from coal, nuclear, hydro, natural gas, etc.

Oil is basically only used in powering vehicles. A significant but still very small proportion of overall energy use.

This type of pandering claptrap is an insult to our intelligence.

Posted by: spamsux1 | January 29, 2010 11:40 AM | Report abuse

i love whitehouse estimates - they make me laugh.

Posted by: infantry11b4faus | January 29, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Good grief Eilperin, you're at it again. You need to check into a de-programming clinic. Your worshipping of the annointed one, combined with your blind faith in Albore when it comes to Gorebal Whinnning is annoying.

Why don't you take sabbatical, go and take some chemistry and physics classes, and perhaps even some geology classes as well. You'll learn that the nonsense that Albore has programmed you with is just that: Nonsense. Open your eyes and ears, use that little brain that God gave you, and learn the truth that the whole Albore Gorebal Whinning Climate Change scam is an attempt to turn our country from a democratic republic to a left wing elitist oligarchy. Wake up and smell the coffee!!!

VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!

Posted by: A1965bigdog | January 29, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Consider the Connection to:
The Economic Pyramid
.................CONSUMER
...............RECREATION
.............COMMUNICATION
...........TRANSPORTATION
.........BUSINESS
.......INDUSTRY
.....AGRICULTURE
|SOIL|MINERALS|FOREST|WATER|WILDLIFE|SOLAR|
|WIND|BIODIESAL|FUEL CELL|GEOTHERMAL|OTHER|
Our economy rest on a base of natural resources.
We CAN NOT remove the top from the base.
Clean energy is needed at all levels of the
Economic Pyramid.

Google Search 4 me: CTC123GREEN
& Greenhouse Effect

Posted by: jerry_mayeux | January 29, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Consider the Connection to:
The Economic Pyramid
.................CONSUMER
...............RECREATION
.............COMMUNICATION
...........TRANSPORTATION
.........BUSINESS
.......INDUSTRY
.....AGRICULTURE
|SOIL|MINERALS|FOREST|WATER|WILDLIFE|SOLAR|
|WIND|BIODIESAL|FUEL CELL|GEOTHERMAL|OTHER|
Our economy rest on a base of natural resources.
We CAN NOT remove the top from the base.
Clean energy is needed at all levels of the
Economic Pyramid.

Google Search 4 me: CTC123GREEN
& Greenhouse Effect

Posted by: jerry_mayeux | January 29, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Tri5: Do you really think that's a scientifically legitimate complaint? You need a basic lesson in the carbon cycle. Nobody has proposed reducing CO2 levels below pre-industrial levels, nor could they hope to accomplish that goal. Of course CO2 is needed for plant growth, but it does not follow that therefore more CO2 is better. Reducing the growth of CO2 emissions will not harm plant growth, and in fact, reductions plans are banking on trees absorbing much of the excess CO2.

Another point that seems to have been missed by most commmenters is that the proposed emmissions reductions announced today afect only the activities of the federal government. The idea is that federal agencies show leadership by investing in energy efficiency and alternative fuels, which will reduce CO2 emissions associated with governmental agencies. The reason that they are projecting cost savings is that the easiest way to reduce CO2 emissions is to improve efficiency (better equipment, insulation, building materials, etc). These actions also translate into electricity and fuel savings. It's a win-win situation.

Posted by: ausemj | January 29, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Consider the Connection to:
The Economic Pyramid
.................CONSUMER
...............RECREATION
.............COMMUNICATION
...........TRANSPORTATION
.........BUSINESS
.......INDUSTRY
.....AGRICULTURE
|SOIL|MINERALS|FOREST|WATER|WILDLIFE|SOLAR|
|WIND|BIODIESAL|FUEL CELL|GEOTHERMAL|OTHER|
Our economy rest on a base of natural resources.
We CAN NOT remove the top from the base.
Clean energy is needed at all levels of the
Economic Pyramid.

Google Search 4 me: CTC123GREEN
& Greenhouse Effect

Posted by: jerry_mayeux | January 29, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Consider the Connection to:
The Economic Pyramid
.................CONSUMER
...............RECREATION
.............COMMUNICATION
...........TRANSPORTATION
.........BUSINESS
.......INDUSTRY
.....AGRICULTURE
|SOIL|MINERALS|FOREST|WATER|WILDLIFE|SOLAR|
|WIND|BIODIESAL|FUEL CELL|GEOTHERMAL|OTHER|
Our economy rest on a base of natural resources.
We CAN NOT remove the top from the base.
Clean energy is needed at all levels of the
Economic Pyramid.

Google Search 4 me: CTC123GREEN
& Greenhouse Effect

Posted by: jerry_mayeux | January 29, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Another load of B.S. from B.O.

Posted by: CaseClosed | January 29, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

there is no man made global warming and this is just a waste of money and time.

Posted by: infantry11b4faus | January 29, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

What a magnificent goal!! Place a marker on the field for all to see, then wave goodbye in four or eight years. It becomes somebody else's "inheritance". OK.
But what is to be measured? What is the total usage today by the Fed? How does one even begin to measure the baseline? Our military alone uses huge amounys of energy - planes, ships, tanks and subs. Who gets charged with the energy required in the productions of those? Are they part of the equation? "Excuse us, Osama bomb Laden, but we will execute no more attackes this month. We have exceeded our energy quotas."
Before shouting out a number, we need to know where the number is coming from and the implications of unintended consequences. Is this even achievable? And I certainly do not want a report in 2020 saying "We have changed all the light bulbs in the White House, thus achieved the goal."

Posted by: Omnius | January 29, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Wonderful that should help business produce jobs. Maybe he will hire people to remove all the dead trees he kill after he eliminates their primary food source from the planet Carbon dioxide. Obama is a lunatic without and substance or understanding of reality. If he really wants to do something how about cut taxes (personal, capital gains, and employee taxes) then cut all of the government spending of parties, plains, travel, parole that he has increased since coming to office. Those items are a liability which for the economic illiterate is cost. Reducing taxes would be an asset it would free business to expand and hire people who intern would pay more taxes and then everyone would be happy. But no not liberals they want all the money in their hands to party with.

Posted by: tri5 | January 29, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Dear Juliet Eilperin,

Why are you so biased in your reporting on the theory of Man-caused Global Warming? Can you remember the actual moment in your life when you decided to become an activist instead of a journalist? How can you stand behind and support such a Hoax? I know you work for the “Planet Panel” (?) and probably wouldn’t have a job writing for the post if you reported objectively. But In the last couple of days two major stories broke about Climate Change and you just ignored them.


Gene J. Koprowski from Foxnews.com also reported yesterday that A United Nations report on climate change that has been lambasted for its faulty research is under a new attack for yet another instance of what critics say is sloppy science -- guiding global warming policy based on a study of forest fires. The assertion in the 2007 IPCC Report to the UN was discredited this week when it emerged that the findings were based on numbers from a study by the World Wildlife Federation that had nothing to do with the issue of global warming -- and that was written by a freelance journalist and green activist.


A week ago, Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press reported that Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the world's most authoritative report on global warming, forcing the Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists who wrote it to issue an apology. The errors are in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-affiliated body. All the mistakes appear in a subsection that suggests glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by the year 2035 — hundreds of years earlier than the data actually indicates.


As a reader of the Post (and your articles in particular), I am very disappointed with your journalism. Please help restore my confidence in people and start reporting objectively on this issue. People’s jobs at power plants and electrical companies are in jeopardy. Thousands of families could be left in the dark if all of the facts and opposing views are not presented to the American People. I leave you with one question… Are you an activist or a Journalist?

Good day

Posted by: Senator_Salesman | January 29, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Okay....I have tried to be diplomatic toward the president and his policies which have been abrasive toward American traditions and common sense, but this unrealistic globalist agenda of somehow hyper-weaning our country off of oil and going totally green, have prompted me now to say: It is time for him to make other plans after his first term.
We can not all afford green cars and green houses. He is now dealing with a nation of mostly poor and middle class citizens. We can't retrofit our 10 year old vehicles with solar panels, and fiberglass fenders. He and his party have circumvented the will of the people; we have spoken loudly: "Domestic Oil!". Domestic oil and natural gas has to be a crucial part of his plans. Resisting this reality heightens the determination of voters to send him and his
"co-conspirators" home.

Posted by: teddyb1 | January 29, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

This a fine pledge, but it means nothing without energy legislation. And there is no way Obama will push for that or that Dems will do it on their own in this political climate.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | January 29, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

The current leader in global carbon emissions is China and Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Posted by: NinjaForce | January 29, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

It would be great if you could post a link if there's an EO, or cite where/when the President said this.

Great comments, everybody! You are all very witty.

Posted by: TheBoreaucrat | January 29, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Now wait a minute.. I just heard our president a few nights ago (remember) say he wanted to revive oil drilling? Maybe his TelePrompTer failed him again and had him say some more false statements.

Posted by: yokohlman | January 29, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Obama is STILL pursuing the global warming hoax?

This guy is truly committed, brain-dead left wing radical. Let's hope he is gone before the country is ruined.

Posted by: pgr88 | January 29, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Another lie and scam! Obama is on record saying he want to force us all to pay significantly more for energy. There's no real "savings" here, only higher costs. Follow the money and see who benefits. With the massive fraud of ClimateGate and AGW, the despots just keep lying and pushing their socialist/communist agenda.

Posted by: Bearbank | January 29, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

The White House is FOS.
----
"The White House estimated a savings of $8-11 billion in energy costs"

--------------------

What B.S. You can not reduce greenhouse emissions and reduce the cost at the same time.

Obama lies!

Posted by: mike85 | January 29, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

I was searching the web to see how you could even monitor and keep track of the current emission rates so as to establish a target. www.boreal-laser.com builds a laser detector that's much faster and more accurate than the chemical or chemistry sensors. There are some competitors in the sector as well but TDL detection seems like the way to go.

Posted by: happykok | January 29, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if Barry and Osama tweet each other on a regular basis? Sure looks that way, since Osama still wants to destroy the American economy and Barry is following his advice in lockstep fashion. I guess it's more important to listen to Osama than the American People. I guess even Liberals would want Barry's records unsealed now, ya think?

Posted by: apberusdisvet | January 29, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Like the Indian said to the mermaid: "How"

Either it is the New Dark Ages or absolute rubbish.

Large objects resist changes in direction and velosity, especially when required to do so in a short time period. The US Economy is the largest and the EU has not made a goal yet.

Posted by: Detonate | January 29, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Wow! This will be good for economy! Obama and the EPA will drive up energy prices (via regulatory fiat) to achieve this ridiculous goal. I remember how good it was when gas was $4/gallon.

The problem with Obama and the Dems is not that they want to make us independent of middle east oil, but that they want to make us independent of oil period.

Posted by: hartwr1 | January 29, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

What is Obama's real goal? I seems like he is trying to destroy us to me, and trying to end the free market and individual freedom in America. Everything he does is counter produtive and places heavy burdens on tax payers. I think he real goal is to have everyone on the government tit and therefore total control of every aspect of our lives... not unlike what liberal policies have already done to the American Black family, they destroyed them ... if you believe differently you need to wake the heck up... at what point do you have so many on government income that it tips the scales and we go into dept over our eye balls??? 15T, 20T when is it all over? I think we are there but no one is talking about it....

Posted by: Texican911 | January 29, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

What next years SOTU speech will only be ten minutes?

Posted by: FLvet | January 29, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Any chance Pres. Obama could tap Richie Cheney as a vast source of natural gas? It would save a lot of national forests. Just get Cheney on "Meet the Press" and have some gas extraction engineers on standby there, and you'd get millions of cc.'s of natural gas in only half an hour!

Posted by: MickNamVet | January 29, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

The White House is FOS.
----
"The White House estimated a savings of $8-11 billion in energy costs"

Posted by: dgb100 | January 29, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

The White House if FOS.
----
"The White House estimated a savings of $8-11 billion in energy costs"

Posted by: dgb100 | January 29, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

And just today Barack Obama received the blessing and full support of his compatriot Osama Bin Liden.

Posted by: Jerzy | January 29, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company