Obama ask for a 1 Billion Climate Change "Resiliency Fund".

Obama launches climate change fund

President Obama announced a new climate change "resiliency fund" in a Friday night speech in drought-struck California.

The fund, which would need to be approved by Congress, is intended to help communities dealing with negative weather like drought, wildfires, and floods that are the result of climate change.

Obama picked the trip to California to announce the fund proposal, which is to be included in his budget. California is experiencing a drought that is threatening its agriculture producers and has led Gov. Jerry Brown to call on people to conserve water.

Obama directly linked the drought to climate change in his comments at a farm near Fresno.

"One thing that is undeniable is that changing temperatures influence drought," Obama said. "We have to be clear a changing climate means that weather related disasters like droughts, wildfires, storms, and floods are potentially going to be costlier and harsher."

The president said this will make political decisions about "water politics" more difficult.

"Water politics in California has always been complicated but scientific evidence shows that a changing climate is going to make them more intense," he said.

The fund is a part of a larger drought response his administration is launching to help devastated areas.

But a majority of the president's speech focused on tying the extreme weather to climate change.
The three ways climate change exacerbates droughts, Obama said, is that more rain falls in extreme downpours, causing water to be lost to runoff; more precipitation in the mountains comes as rain instead of snow, drying up rivers earlier in the year; and soil and reservoirs loose more water to evaporation.
"What does all this mean? Unless and until we do more to combat carbon pollution that causes climate change this trend is going to get worse," Obama said. "We are going to have to stop looking at these disasters as something to wait for and we have got to start looking at these disasters as something to prepare for, to anticipate, to start building infrastructure."
The administration's fund would invest in research to gather data on the impacts of climate change, help communities prepare for them and support innovative technologies and infrastructure to ready the country "in the face of a changing climate."
The new fund — separate from Obama's climate agenda announced in June — will be detailed in the president's 2015 budget, set for release next month.

While Obama has said he will use his executive authority to push his climate agenda and other policies during what he dubbed his "year of action," the president would need approval from Congress for the fund.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/198394-obama-to-announce-1b-climate-change-resilience-fund

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

Yeah, no.

Where's Hokie when you need him.

So basically he wants that money so that he can give more of his friends free money like he did with the stimulus bill. Still a few massive facilities here in California from failed companies of the stimulus that dissipated after a few years along with 500+ million dollars. You can still see them on the way to the bay area from the 101.

Master_Live... The world's first human news feed... >_>

Obama is a joke, he said nothing when the Supreme Court threw out the case against Monsanto and he then signed the protection act/bill keeping them safe from litigation. Now, the Supreme Court flushed Net Neutrality... which I can tell you never existed in the first place, so he's given the government and corporations(one in the same thing) free control over the servers/internet to determine what we 'free citizens' are allowed/forced to be propagandized as 'truth/lies'. So in effect he's just allowed them to maintain control over what we 'free citizens' get to see and it will only get filtered even more from this point onwards. I have nothing against environmentalist movements, but the modern spin is corporate based/Gore etc, he's an elitist eugenicist like Bill Gates and they pose as truth seekers but are deceitful men. HAARP is known to exist in multiple countries now, so climate issues can be artificially modified and used to justify their actions.

Many blame Obama but it's not just Obama it's the entire government in collusion all the way from the Supreme Court down.

uh wtf?

Skimming through the article, he wants to make more money available for natural disasters. What's so wrong with that?

I really hope republicans win 2016's elections.

We need money to fix climate change while at the same time not pushing for renewed interest in the nuclear option. How about Mr. Obama, you push to install new nuclear plants in our country so we can become less dependent on coal and oil if you are so concerned for the environment.

So as someone who actually bothered to at least SKIM through what the proposal means rather than read the title (as some people seem to have done) it doesn't sound like the worst idea in the world. With the insane weather that has been happening it really makes sense to keep money aside to help rebuild after any disasters that happen.

Why?

ugh, why not just call it a disaster relief bill.

now politicians will shyt or go blind in apoplexy to fight it because it has bad words in the title.

Setting money aside to prepare for natural disasters seems to be quite logical, my question is that for something as large scale as climate change why is Obama only requesting such a small percentage of the overall budget (a billion is far less than one percent) go towards dealing with it?

LOL @ the climate change hoax

I weep for this country. Lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking is going to lead us so far behind the rest of the world.

Monsanto protection bill, signed in 2012 by Obama... Supreme court threw out the lawsuit against Monsanto lead by Willie Nelson and the American farmers, the bill protects Monsanto from litigation. We won't get food labeling that differentiates between 'organic' or GMO foods now. So we have no choice unless you spend the time and money to seek out alternative organic foods sources. Bill Gates is not a philanthropist he's a fraud, he only wants to controls more and more of our lives. On stage he talked about vaccines to control population, clearly that can only mean eugenics... you can imagine what he meant can't you? how could vaccines control population growth? Eugenics started in Britain and the US, not Germany. Darwinism was the genesis of modern elitism via DNA based racism, not the Nazi movement in Germany. Bill Gates invests in Monsanto and pushed for GMO/genetically modified foods/government mandated foods. Do you think Bill Gates is for Net Neutrality? it's ironic that my speaking out for the last 13 years on the internet had lead me to realize over a decade ago there is no net neutrality since Microsoft bribed NEWSCORP to delist from Google search engine and only show up via BING, corporate bribes from Microsoft yet again. There is no net neutrality and M$ proved it long ago. They control the servers and all corporate sights, businesses online are held under their financial agenda. When I merely spoke the truth I've been banned from all major news sites, gaming sites, whatever... Gamespot used to ban me temporarily delete my posts, but at least they un ban me eventually. All the other sites have permanently blocked me from posting.

Welcome back man

You go yixingtpot! Stick it to the man.

Well time to borrow more money from china to give to Obama's cronies. Good idea.

@jimkabrhel: I think incompetent newscaster is what's the tc is going for. Maybe a parody

This is very relevent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

lolwhat

Forget it. He can easily come up with the money there wasn't so much unnecessary spending, take it from the stupid military.

I don't think he's that smart to do it satirically. The responses from him are too politically biased.

Translation: Please lets give out some more corporate welfare so they can repay me when my term is up.

You know how it will go from here:
republicans saying nay, Obama insists yay, Obama won't be able to do it or will just do a half assed job like the ACA, Obama is a socialist etc etc.

I want them to seize power because I really want to see how they're going to lead the country and the world at large under current circumstances. I also want to see them putting their ideology and policies to practice.

So you want the US to turn into a reactionary, militaristic, imperialistic mess? That will turn out well.

reactionary is a dumb term, all people react to things. And I don't think the Republican presidents would be "militaristic" or "imperialistic", it seems that both parties follow mostly the same policy in regards to national defense.

First : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary Learn your vocabulary.

Second: Look back at the Bush Presidency. How many wars were taken overseas that were unnecessary? One of them is still on going.

There were 2 wars in the Bush presidency, whether they were unnecessary or not is debatable. But Obama continued the same policy in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and got the U.S. involved in Libya and almost intervened in Syria. Likewise Clinton got the U.S. involved in Rwanda, and in Kosovo and he bombed Iraq numerous times, as well as launching strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan. It was during Clinton's presidency that the U.S. first made the overthrow of the Iraqi regime overt U.S. policy (it had been covert policy since the previous Bush administration).

In any case though I wouldn't consider either the Iraq War or the Afghan War to be "imperialistic". The Afghan war was an act of retaliation and self-defense after 9/11, quite frankly a Democrat would have probably responded the same way. Iraq was also a case of self-defense because the U.S. believed that Iraq had WMDs (they did actually have longer range missiles than were allowed by the cease-fire agreement, so legally the U.S. was able to resume war). To some degree the U.S. was already at war with Iraq anyway, considering that the U.S. enforced two no-fly-zones over Iraq.

I think ML and others are picking up the climate change denier slack.

Anyways, this is what happens when you ignore climate change warnings for decades. Prevention is always cheaper than relief. If we had been researching wind, geothermal, and solar energy for the past forty years since Carter put solar panels on the White House and investing our money in that instead of ripping the solar panels out and funneling more an more money to oil and gas corporations then the overall cost of dealing with the effects of climate change would at least be a hell of a lot less. That's not even to begin to go into the unsustainable water use practices out in the American southwest. We just create these problems for ourselves, ignore the problem when it's getting obviously worse, and then at the very last minute start to deal with the effects. One billion is a drop in the bucket compared to what the cost is going to be in the coming decades, and that's even if we start cleaning up our act and moving to sustainable practices. What's more costly, billions more in the future to further attempt to counteract environmental damage from global warming, or investing in sustainable energy and transportation now so that the cost doesn't continue to balloon?

What the **** are you talking about? When the hell did I denied climate change?

@Master_Live As a mod, shouldn't you set an example by not using curse words?

Just the sense I got from your post. The alternative seems to me to be that you accept that humans are driving climate change, yet you are opposed to spending money to ameliorate the negative effects.

Cursing is allowed under the updated GS community code of conduct. I will use that kind of language when I think it is appropriate and/or necessary.

Don't sense, ask and you shall know.

The article says:

The fund, which would need to be approved by Congress, is intended to help communities dealing with negative weather like drought, wildfires, and floods that are the result of climate change.

How would you objectively decide whether a weather event was caused by climate change and not normal inclement weather?