Executive Order -- Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...climate-change

This got no play on the news that I have seen.

Anyway its long but the major points are as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The impacts of climate change -- including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise -- are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies, and public health across the Nation. These impacts are often most significant for communities that already face economic or health-related challenges, and for species and habitats that are already facing other pressures. Managing these risks requires deliberate preparation, close cooperation, and coordinated planning by the Federal Government, as well as by stakeholders, to facilitate Federal, State, local, tribal, private-sector, and nonprofit-sector efforts to improve climate preparedness and resilience; help safeguard our economy, infrastructure, environment, and natural resources; and provide for the continuity of executive department and agency (agency) operations, services, and programs.

Sec. 2. Modernizing Federal Programs to Support Climate Resilient Investment. (a) To support the efforts of regions, States, local communities, and tribes, all agencies, consistent with their missions and in coordination with the Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience (Council) established in section 6 of this order, shall:

(i) identify and seek to remove or reform barriers that discourage investments or other actions to increase the Nation's resilience to climate change while ensuring continued protection of public health and the environment;

(ii) reform policies and Federal funding programs that may, perhaps unintentionally, increase the vulnerability of natural or built systems, economic sectors, natural resources, or communities to climate change related risks;

(iii) identify opportunities to support and encourage smarter, more climate-resilient investments by States, local communities, and tribes, including by providing incentives through agency guidance, grants, technical assistance, performance measures, safety considerations, and other programs, including in the context of infrastructure development as reflected in Executive Order 12893 of January 26, 1994 (Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments), my memorandum of August 31, 2011 (Speeding Infrastructure Development through More Efficient and Effective Permitting and Environmental Review), Executive Order 13604 of March 22, 2012 (Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects), and my memorandum of May 17, 2013 (Modernizing Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and Procedures); and

Sec. 3. Managing Lands and Waters for Climate Preparedness and Resilience. Within 9 months of the date of this order and in coordination with the efforts described in section 2 of this order, the heads of the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies as recommended by the Council established in section 6 of this order shall work with the Chair of CEQ and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to complete an inventory and assessment of proposed and completed changes to their land- and water-related policies, programs, and regulations necessary to make the Nation's watersheds, natural resources, and ecosystems, and the communities and economies that depend on them, more resilient in the face of a changing climate. Further, recognizing the many benefits the Nation's natural infrastructure provides, agencies shall, where possible, focus on program and policy adjustments that promote the dual goals of greater climate resilience and carbon sequestration, or other reductions to the sources of climate change. The assessment shall include a timeline and plan for making changes to policies, programs, and regulations. Agencies shall build on efforts already completed or underway as outlined in agencies' Adaptation Plans, as discussed in section 5 of this order, as well as recent interagency climate adaptation strategies such as the National Action Plan: Priorities for Managing Freshwater Resources in a Changing Climate, released October 28, 2011; the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy, released March 26, 2013; and the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan, released April 16, 2013.

Sec. 4. Providing Information, Data, and Tools for Climate Change Preparedness and Resilience. (a) In support of Federal, regional, State, local, tribal, private-sector and nonprofit-sector efforts to prepare for the impacts of climate change, the Departments of Defense, the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and any other agencies as recommended by the Council established in section 6 of this order, shall, supported by USGCRP, work together to develop and provide authoritative, easily accessible, usable, and timely data, information, and decision-support tools on climate preparedness and resilience.

Sec. 5. Federal Agency Planning for Climate Change Related Risk. (a) Consistent with Executive Order 13514, agencies have developed Agency Adaptation Plans and provided them to CEQ and OMB. These plans evaluate the most significant climate change related risks to, and vulnerabilities in, agency operations and missions in both the short and long term, and outline actions that agencies will take to manage these risks and vulnerabilities. Building on these efforts, each agency shall develop or continue to develop, implement, and update comprehensive plans that integrate consideration of climate change into agency operations and overall mission objectives and submit those plans to CEQ and OMB for review. Each Agency Adaptation Plan shall include:

Sec. 6. Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience.

(a) Establishment. There is established an interagency Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience (Council).

(b) Membership. The Council shall be co-chaired by the Chair of CEQ, the Director of OSTP, and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. In addition, the Council shall include senior officials (Deputy Secretary or equivalent officer) from:

[Jacob1983]

[boutons_deux]

the corporations that finance scientists and other shills to deny AGW are definitely, if secretly, looking how AGW affects or will affect their profits, and the US military/MIC also is looking at how AGW will affect their mission.

then there are are the corporations, capitalists, and others who welcome AGW and resource exhaustion, the sooner the better, since they are positioned to profit immensely.

[boobie4three]

the corporations that finance scientists and other shills to deny AGW are definitely, if secretly, looking how AGW affects or will affect their profits, and the US military/MIC also is looking at how AGW will affect their mission.

then there are are the corporations, capitalists, and others who welcome AGW and resource exhaustion, the sooner the better, since they are positioned to profit immensely.

On the other side there are scientist who need to eat, so they'll present junk science in order to collect a check from people that have a vested interest in convincing the masses that any warming is human-induced.

[boutons_deux]

On the other side there are scientist who need to eat, so they'll present junk science in order to collect a check from people that have a vested interest in convincing the masses that any warming is human-induced.

ah, right-wing "balance", false equivalence always destroys the scientific consensus.

[TDMVPDPOY]

nobody gives a about climate change

even if the USA cleans up its act, there still be other countries polluting or increasing green house gasses output aka developing nations or industrialize clowns

theres a reason why countries that have the new carbon tax or any taxes that targets climate change is nothing more than another tax revenue scheme, even if you collect all the taxes doesnt do , u cant stop climate change or limit it...

the sooner our species destroy the earth, the better the universe would be without us

[FuzzyLumpkins]

On the other side there are scientist who need to eat, so they'll present junk science in order to collect a check from people that have a vested interest in convincing the masses that any warming is human-induced.

They get funding despite their conclusions either way. All you are doing is indicating your ignorance as to how NSF and the like award grants.

Compare and contrast that to how Koch and Exxon determine their 'grants.'

[boutons_deux]

Top Climate Scientists Appeal to Enviros to Support Nuclear Power

Some of the world's top climate scientists say wind and solar energy won't be enough to head off extreme global warming, and they're asking environmentalists to support the development of safer nuclear power as one way to cut fossil fuel pollution.

Four scientists who have played a key role in alerting the public to the dangers of climate change sent letters Sunday to leading environmental groups and politicians around the world. The letter, an advance copy of which was given to The Associated Press, urges a crucial discussion on the role of nuclear power in fighting climate change.

Environmentalists agree that global warming is a threat to ecosystems and humans, but many oppose nuclear power and believe that new forms of renewable energy will be able to power the world within the next few decades.

That isn't realistic, the letter said.

"Those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough" to deliver the amount of cheap and reliable power the world needs, and "with the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology" that has the potential to reduce greenhouse gases.

The letter signers are James Hansen, a former top NASA scientist; Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Ins ution; Kerry Emanuel, of the Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology; and Tom Wigley, of the University of Adelaide in Australia.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/to...-nuclear-power

Nuclear won't work. The financial sector won't lend the money since the return is much lower the financial casino, and the insurance, after Fukushima, will be very expensive. Uranium will also be very expensive to produce.

"Optimistic predictions claim that the supply is far more than demand and do not predict peak uranium. Also, they do not report changes in the production rate of uranium. Peak uranium is not about running out of uranium, but the peaking and subsequent decline of the production rate of uranium.

Uranium depletion is the result of extracting and consuming uranium, a non-renewable resource. The availability of high-grade uranium ore will deplete over time meaning the fuel will become more environmentally and economically expensive to extract."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

Civilization has some huge decisions to make, we can be sure vested corporate/capital interests will buy the wrong decision for the 99% and the planet, but self-protecting/self-enriching for the 1%.

[Wild Cobra]

So...

These to scientists are following the path of Margaret Thatcher...

[boutons_deux]

So...

These to scientists are following the path of Margaret Thatcher...

Thatcher's privatization of electricity allows the BigSix to do what cartels and local monopolies always do: extract wealth from customers with exorbitant rates. Thatcher, like St Ronnie, was a disaster for UK.

[AntiChrist]

Coming soon to Showtime -- a terrifying miniseries by James Cameron

Be very afraid

[boutons_deux]

Thatcher's privatization of electricity allows the BigSix to do what cartels and local monopolies always do: extract wealth from customers with exorbitant rates. Thatcher, like St Ronnie, was a disaster for UK.

What’s The Average Price Of Electricity In...




http://cleantechnica.com/2013/09/30/average-electricity-prices-around-world/

[boutons_deux]

Are Mini-Reactors The Future Of Nuclear Power?



The U.S. government is investing millions of dollars in what it considers a promising new industry for American manufacturing: nuclear reactors. The plan is to build hundreds of mini-reactors, dot them around the U.S. and export them overseas.

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/04/170482...-nuclear-power

[AntiChrist]

Are Mini-Reactors The Future Of Nuclear Power?



The U.S. government is investing millions of dollars in what it considers a promising new industry for American manufacturing: nuclear reactors. The plan is to build hundreds of mini-reactors, dot them around the U.S. and export them overseas.

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/04/170482...-nuclear-power

[Winehole23]

The U.S. Department of Energy and the Army Corps of Engineers could not carry out policies related to climate change and climate science under an amendment proposed by Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va., and passed Thursday night by the U.S. House of Representatives.
McKinley’s amendment, which passed with almost exclusively Republican votes, would prohibit the two agencies from using funds “to design, implement, administer or carry out specified assessments regarding climate change.”

Those “specified assessments” include the two most comprehensive reports on climate change, the U.S. government’s National Climate Assessment, five years in the making, and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The amendment would prohibit the agencies from participating in future versions of those reports and also prohibit them from acting on any of the recommendations contained in those reports.

- See more at: http://www.wvgazette.com/article/201....3MkXydPg.dpuf

[Wild Cobra]

- See more at: http://www.wvgazette.com/article/201....3MkXydPg.dpuf

Well, we know it likely won't make it past the senate. They obstruct most things the house comes up with.

I wish the article would specify the amendment and to which bill. Was the journalist lazy, or fear people would find the truth? Took me some time to find it.

The amendment passed 229 to 188 with 5 democrat votes for, 1 republican vote against.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2014/h397

On page H6084 of the house record:

At the end of the bill (before the short le), insert the following:

Sec. 508. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to design, implement, administer, or carry out the United States Global Climate Research Program National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation's Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, the May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, or the July 2014 Sustainable Development Solutions Network and Ins ute for Sustainable Development and International Relations' pathways to deep decarbonization report .

I like what is said before this point on that page record:

Now, with regard to the gentlewoman's claim that programs and projects already in progress would be stopped, well, that is absolute nonsense because those deals have been signed. That money has already been committed.

What we are talking about is stopping any new projects. Again, I would emphasize here that, if these projects made sense--whether it is renewable or nonrenewable, whether it is carbon-based or noncarbon-based, there is plenty of capital out there to lend. There are a lot of people who want to make money on energy. There are a lot of people who have made money on energy.

The reason why there isn't a private market out there primarily is because the government has displaced that private market; and number two, in many cases, when the question is asked--in fact, the President of the United States--why is the government lending this money?

His answer was: well, because you can't get it from the private market and private investors. Why? Because it is a dumb idea. They will never get their money back.

So why in the world do we want to let the taxpayer money go down the tubes when other people, who are a heck of a lot smarter than we are, see that it is unfit for lending and for capital production?

Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

C-Span video:

House Session 7/10/14

This starts at a time index of 6:27:43 This is where I think a rounded knowledge would be gained. However, the talk if the amendment in question starts at 6:32:42.