Obama at M.I.T.: ‘Pessimism’ Holding Country Back From Addressing Climate Change
EmailABC News' Rachel Martin and Jordyn Phelps report:
President Obama paid a visit to one of the country's top research universities today to highlight his clean energy agenda. He toured the M.I.T. campus in Cambridge, Mass. and got a first-hand look at two research laboratories working on cutting edge energy technology and personal explanations from some of the school's top scientists.
After seeing a demonstration of a biological battery created without chemicals, the president turned to reporters and said, "Goodness, this is remarkable stuff!"
After the tour, President Obama addressed a crowd of about 750 students, staff and faculty in the Kresge Auditorium. He used the address to praise the stimulus bill passed last spring which he said created the largest investment in clean energy and research and development in American history. And he talked about the need for the country to distinguish itself as the leading developer of global energy solutions.
"From China to India, from Japan to Germany, nations everywhere are racing to develop new ways to producing and use energy," the president told the crowd. "The nation that wins this competition will be the nation that leads the global economy. I am convinced of that. And I want America to be that nation."
That investment, he said, is funding innovation at M.I.T. on clean energy — including the development of a new testing facility for wind turbines, slated to open in the next couple weeks.
"For the first time, researchers in the United States will be able to test the world's newest and largest wind turbine blades — blades roughly the length of a football field — and that, in turn, will make it possible for American businesses to develop more efficient and effective turbines, and to lead a market estimated at more than $2 trillion over the next two decades," President Obama said.
Development of clean energy sources like wind and solar are crucial for America's independence from oil, said the president. While there's widespread agreement on that goal, the president pointed out that there are decidedly different opinions in Washington about how to get there.
"There may be plenty of room for debate as to how we transition from fossil fuels to renewable fuels; we all understand there's no silver bullet to do it,” President Obama said. “There's going to be a lot of debate about how we move from an economy that's importing oil to one that's exporting clean energy technology; how we harness the innovative potential on display here at M.I.T. to create millions of new jobs; and how we will lead the world to prevent the worst consequences of climate change."
The president praised the House passage of a climate change bill and said the Senate is getting closer.
"And all of this must culminate in the passage of comprehensive legislation that will finally make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in America,” the president said.
He pointed to Republicans who are playing a role.
“We're now seeing prominent Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham joining forces with longtime leaders [such as Democratic Sen.] John Kerry on this issue to swiftly pass a bill through the Senate, as well," the president said.
He also warned that "pessimism" about America's ability to take on challenges and innovate global solutions is standing in the way of progress on climate change.
"There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy — when it's the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs,” Obama said. “There are going to be those who … make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary."
The president’s speech was not all policy-driven. There was laughter among the audience when the President joked about the brainy reputation of M.I.T.
“This tells you something about M.I.T.: Everybody hands out periodic tables,” the president joked. “What's up with that?”
From the M.I.T. event, the president moved on to a downtown Boston hotel where he spoke at two separate fundraising events for Democratic Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. Tickets for the first event cost $6,000 each. Despite the presidential headliner, the event hall was only half full. About 150 people attended.
A couple dozen protesters gathered outside the hotel where the event was taking place. Most carried signs calling for equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians. Others demanded that U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan come home.
From M.I.T., the president was planning to travel to Connecticut where he'll continue stumping for Democratic allies — this time for Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., at an event in Stamford, Conn.
–Rachel Martin and Jordyn Phelps
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Could be pessimism. Could be economic reality. And it could be the utter insanity of the whole man-caused nonsense, coupled with the past decade of cooling.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 23, 2009, 9:58 pm 9:58 pm
The global warming hoax is running out of steam.There has always been change in climate, but there is no evidence that the previous warming trend was anything more than natural variation. As we enter a cooling trend it will be difficult to keep explaning away the fact that none of Al Gore’s or James Hansen’s predictions have come true. What ever happened to Gore’s claim that we would have more (and more violent) hurricanes?It just never happened.
Posted by: Nephron | October 23, 2009, 10:08 pm 10:08 pm
‘Pessimism’ is the new reality for many. Climate change is the least of their worries, whether man has much to do with it or not.
Posted by: Huh | October 23, 2009, 10:24 pm 10:24 pm
Hmmm…
Let’s see how this feckless dolt is wowing them in Cambridge:
“President Obama blows into the bluest state today facing a cold shoulder from once true-blue admirers, as gay rights activists, anti-war protesters and vexed environmentalists vow to picket a fund-raiser he’s headlining for Gov. Deval Patrick – a marquee event that hasn’t even sold out.
“As of last night, liberals who once braved frigid temperatures to behold Obama were shunning tickets to the fund-raiser at the posh Westin Copley Place featuring the president, sources told the Herald. And despite campaign denials, Patrick operatives reportedly were pushing the ducats – between $500 and $6,000 – by e-mail up to the last minute.”
Remember the Hope? Remember “Yes We Can?” Now it’s “yes we can what?”
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 23, 2009, 10:59 pm 10:59 pm
Ah, the rantings of those who probably own a lot of oil stock never end.
I am so glad we are investing in new technology to make our country less dependent on polluting, finite-supply oil. Renewable energy like solar and wind has come such a long way. I just saw an ad for awesome solar panels that looked just like normal roofing materials.
Posted by: Lydia | October 24, 2009, 12:21 am 12:21 am
MIT people CANT be swayed by this nonscientific mindless idiot. It’s all about government control. I STILL can’t believe this fraud is occupying OUR White House.
Posted by: Martifr | October 24, 2009, 12:54 am 12:54 am
I actually disagree with Obama. It doesn’t sound like pessimism, it sounds like a combination of denial (ignore the ice caps and glaciers melting at unprecedented rates, higher ocean temps and unusual drought patterns) greed, (oil companies hiring ‘experts’ to give misleading info), and Faux News giving false impressions along with loud commentary from uninformed pundits.
Remember folks, news organizations give fact-based news reports and they do not organize protests against our government. On the other hand, Faux News…
Posted by: Lydia | October 24, 2009, 1:21 am 1:21 am
Reality is stopping this nonsense. The reality is that now that careful attention is being paid to how the data is collected it’s not showing that any manmade global warming is real. In fact, the Earth is cooling in spite of the rise of CO2 levels.
The really funny thing is that CO2 levels has risen and fallen cyclically on their own for hundreds of thousands of years without man! Go figure!
Posted by: drjohn | October 24, 2009, 8:27 am 8:27 am
Does anyone else remember when “climate change” used to be called “seasons.”
Do any of you warming nuts ever wonder why the name of this issue was changed to “climate change” from “global warming”?
Yeah, I thought not.
Posted by: drjohn | October 24, 2009, 8:29 am 8:29 am
FYI: China and India have said no to this as well.
That leaves only Obama as the one who will continue to try to unilaterally hamstring his country’s economy.
Posted by: drjohn | October 24, 2009, 8:39 am 8:39 am
NO! The fact that the temperatures have DROPPED since 1998 has, but what would Obama know… that he didn’t read off of a TeLePROMPTeR??? What’s that thing that’s causing all the heat… could it be THE SUN!!! No sunspots, no cosmic radiation… No heat! Don’t believe me, just look it up on NASA’s own site…
Posted by: jafo | October 24, 2009, 9:53 am 9:53 am
I actually disagree with Obama. It doesn’t sound like pessimism, it sounds like a combination of denial (ignore the ice caps and glaciers melting at unprecedented rates, higher ocean temps and unusual drought patterns) greed, (oil companies hiring ‘experts’ to give misleading info), and Faux News giving false impressions along with loud commentary from uninformed pundits….
Posted by: Lydia | Oct 24, 2009 1:21:24 AM
***
Nice post. Denialese, greed and misinformation are all alive and well.
The funny thing is that there are real benefits that come alongside investing in clean, renewable alternate energy technologies whether you’re a GW skeptic or not (and I’m not). We need to do something in the name of clean air and national security anyway.
Posted by: Alyson | October 24, 2009, 10:25 am 10:25 am
The funny thing is that there are real benefits that come alongside investing in clean, renewable alternate energy technologies whether you’re a GW skeptic or not
=========
I agree with that.
However, the government can’t “invest” without taking money from people or increasing deficit spending. Both are a problem.
Also, there’s no evidence the government knows what to “invest” in. How do they determine the best sources of renewable energy?
I just fear the government putting all of our money into the next big 8-track, not realizing the cassette or CD are out there waiting for funding.
Posted by: MayBee | October 24, 2009, 12:27 pm 12:27 pm
Here’s a breakdown of the sources of energy in the United States:
•Oil 40%
•Natural gas 22%
•Coal 23%
•Nuclear 8%
•Renewable Engery 7%
Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2006.
Just like Obama’s GITMO plan, close it first before you have a plan where to send people. The Cap and Trade bill wants to tax Coal, Oil, and Gas electricty plants, 85% of our production without any plan to replace that 85% with something else. Of the renewable energy, most comes from hydroelectric. You can’t replace that many Coal, Oil, and Gas plants in a few short years. Ever notice how the only way Wind and Solar can compete with existing sources is with subsidies?
Posted by: 56fle | October 24, 2009, 1:28 pm 1:28 pm
It was revealing that many of the republican candidates for president during a debate last year said they didn’t believe in evolution.
It should not be surprising to anyone that a majority of republicans echo those sentiments, and deny global warming/climate change as well as the ‘Swine Flu’ dangers.
Recent events demonstrate what Republicans put their ‘faith’ in, G.W. Bush/Cheney revisionism, pre-emptive wars, ‘birthers’, ‘deathers’ and a steady stream of lies.
Only 20% of americans are will to admit that they’re republican, and, citizen confidence in republicans is at a 25 year low.
Posted by: Oh Yeah | October 24, 2009, 2:29 pm 2:29 pm
“climate change” from “global warming”?
Posted by: drjohn
sure, because the term ‘global warming’ is a bit of a misnomer, the effects of ‘climate change’ are not restricted to warming events.
that wasn’t so hard now was it..
Posted by: Oh Yeah | October 24, 2009, 2:32 pm 2:32 pm
I always find it amusing to read the comments of the global warming zealots,most of whom have no backround in science and continue to spout nonsense.No, the polar bear is not going extinct;no, the polar icecaps are not disappearing; no, there haven’t been more (or more violent) hurricanes. Most of these folks have never taken a college-level chemistry class;most have no knowledge about recent ice ages and the extreme natural variability in climate that has marked the North American continent.If these folks are serious about alternative energy sources, why do thy ignore the only two practical alternatives to fossil fuels- nuclear and hydroelectric?They do not require a storage system, which is required by solar,wind and other noncontinuous sources of energy.Who are you going to believe-Al Gore or your lying eyes?
Posted by: Nephron | October 24, 2009, 3:29 pm 3:29 pm
I always find it amusing to read the comments of the global warming zealots….
And I always find it amusing to read the comments of global warming deniers,most of whom have no background in science–not even a college chemistry course– and continue to spout nonsense.
Man lived with dinosaurs anyone? The earth is flat
There is a difference between skeptics who see the benefit of taking steps to increase our energy independence, monitor pollution and develop alternate energy sources, but aren’t persuaded by current theories, after all they are just theories (with compelling evidence accumulated over a century but we’ll put that aside for now) and those who just naysay while refusing to take the time to display some grasp of the theory and refute it with evidence and scientific data of their own. Particularly when those naysayers are also ghosters. LOL.
As Oh Yeah pointed out it was, indeed, revealing that many of the republican candidates for president during a debate last year said they didn’t believe in evolution. Hence, it isn’t it isn’t the least bit surprising that a majority of republicans echo those sentiments, and deny global warming/climate change as well as the ‘Swine Flu’ dangers. Have you seen that thread yet?
Can you “prove” your assertions using scientific data and credible research?Or is more fun– and a whole lot easier– to simply keep pounding your chest about Al Gore and talking about your eyes. (Nevermind those blinders.)
Posted by: GwenTenn | October 24, 2009, 4:53 pm 4:53 pm
GwenTenn, can you show me any study that confirms any increase in mean ocean temperatures for the last 10 years?Can you show me any polar bear population data that demonstrates a decline from population levels of 1960?Can you show me any data confirming an increase above statistical variation in the number of named Atlantic hurricanes since Hurricane Katrina?Can you quote any ice core data that shows any significant rise in CO2 levels that precede an associated temperature rise? Can you show me any evidence that any of the predictions of James Hansen have actually happened? Yes I can prove that it was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today-at least in the Northern Hemisphere.At that time it was warm enough in Greenland to practice animal husbandry; it was warm enough in England to grow non-hybridized vinifera grapes in many church vineyards (See the Domesday Book);it was warm enough to grow labrusca grapes as far north as Newfoundland. The rational way to lessen our dependency on fossil fuels is to pursue practical alternatives. I have yet to hear any but marginal mention of nuclear or hydroelectric power among most Global Warming enthusiasts.Do you support nuclear power?
Posted by: Nephron | October 24, 2009, 7:02 pm 7:02 pm
“Pessimism” is holding the country back from addressing climate change? It’s more like “reality” is holding the country back!
Americans have real concerns about jobs, food, clothing, heat, you know, real world issues. It’s no wonder “climate change” ranked dead last once again in a recent Pew survey of Americans when asked to rank national issues. Throw in the shoddy science to date and the intense politicization of the narrative and people aren’t buying what the alarmists are selling, plain and simple.
Posted by: Woody | October 24, 2009, 7:29 pm 7:29 pm
I always find it amusing that the rightwing is populated with those who deny science, want to see ‘intelligent design’ taught in public schools, believe the earth is 6k years old, that men rode dinosaurs like the Flintstones and that evolution is bogus…… even more funny is that many of the republican ‘holier than thou’ religious types who get caught with their pants down, bribing, and other forms of corruption and graft are the ones who promoting the anti-science agenda.
Posted by: Oh Yeah | October 25, 2009, 12:28 am 12:28 am
Posted by: Nephron | Oct 24, 2009 7:02:00 PM
Somehow I missed the well-reasoned rebuttal pointing to scientific data from well respected scientific organizations in your post. Instead it looks like you want others to do your lifting. No thanks. Rather, I urge others to look at information available at NOAA, NASA and just about any scientific organization that has anything to do with climate.
The bottom line is this: If you ask an actual scientist how much more CO2 do you think we should add to the atmosphere,willingly and without caution, the answer is going to be none. Find me a scientist who says differently, and I’ll make a wager with you that he or she will turn out to be someone not well respected by the scientific community.
Skepticism is healthy and I can understand it– there have always been those who are cautious or slow to accept scientific findings and
typically they’re conservative– but only up to a certain point.
For most of us, who wouldn’t necessarily describe ourselves as “zealots” it comes down to something like this: if we take precautions to forestall damage by switching to and investing in alternative and renewable fuels, which, by most accounts of intelligent people we will have to do at some point anyway for national security and other reasons, we stand to gain much and lose relatively little. If, on the other hand, we refuse to take precautions, we gain very little and stand to lose a lot.
Posted by: GwenTenn | October 25, 2009, 1:41 am 1:41 am
The time for debate is over. The earth is cooling. Prepare for next ice age!!!!
Posted by: Al Gore | October 25, 2009, 4:09 pm 4:09 pm
For those who lament about the prospects of “subsidizing” renewal energy, get a grip on reality: this country has been subsidizing fossil fuels and nuclear energy since they began. Subsidies or Selective Tax Breaks or Energy Taxes…they are all a result of political influence and/or a genuine desire to take the country toward a particular energy policy that is deemed in the “public interest” at the time. Damming more rivers for hydroelectric energy isn’t likely to be popular, economically feasible or environmentally friendly, although I do believe we should retrofit current hydro facilities with more efficient turbines. Current nuclear energy and fossil fuel costs do not take into account the externalized costs, such as waste storage, liability (now subsidized by the government), additional global warming gases released into the atmosphere, or national security costs. It is in our national interest to promote renewable energy, whether it’s through subsidies or tax breaks and when those costs are comparable, I see no need to spend money on expensive and susidized nuclear energy or fossil fuels. And lets get beyond this argument that we can’t “afford” to hurt the current polluting industries in an economic downturn. Seems to me we can’t afford to wait.
Posted by: Chris | October 25, 2009, 7:04 pm 7:04 pm
Yes, I understand you. In it something is also thought excellent, I support.
Posted by: Issac Maez | November 23, 2011, 11:58 am 11:58 am