SoylentNews

Obama Uses Correspondents' Dinner to Finally Blast Climate Deniers

posted by mrcoolbp on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:09AM   
from the very-cool-when-he's-hot-under-the-collar dept.

"gewg_" writes:

The Center for American Progress reports:

Obama is famously low key. That's why on the hit Comedy Central show "Key & Peele", Keegan-Michael Key plays "Luther, President Obama's anger translator". The [annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner], however, is a rare place where the President can cut loose--as long as he uses humor.

In a hilarious admission that he has been too low key to convey the moral outrage justified by humanity's myopic march toward self-destruction--and by the brazen denial of climate science by many conservatives--Obama brought out "Luther" to express that outrage. And then, in an ingenious twist, Obama became so outraged that he didn't need Luther and in fact Luther himself couldn't take the genuinely angry Obama, who says of denial, "What kind of stupid, shortsighted, irresponsible, bull-"

Here's a video of the event.

• Re:It won't work. Re:It won't work. (Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:25AM

  by wantkitteh (3362) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:25AM (#176016) Homepage Journal

  That's an invalid comparison. No-one pops to work on a bulk cargo freighter and stops off at an out-of-town supermarket on the way home to pick up milk and bread, just like no company would shift 50,000 units of widgets from the manufacturer to the retail store by shuttling cars back and forth to China.

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		2

• Re:It won't work. Re:It won't work. (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:46AM

  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:46AM (#176020)

  It's true you cannot draw a direct comparison. The issue is that the ships are producing more pollution per kilo carried than road vehicles. Car emissions are heavily regulated because governments have control over their construction and use. The engines and fuel of container ships aren't subject to the same restrictions.

  It's easy for governments to score eco points by restricting domestic behaviour. It's of course much harder and less attractive for them to restrict global industry, but that has a bigger impact on the climate.

  A shift back to local manufacturing would help.

  Parent

  • Re:It won't work. Re:It won't work. (Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday April 28 2015, @12:38PM

    by c0lo (156) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @12:38PM (#176028) Journal

    The issue is that the ships are producing more pollution per kilo carried than road vehicles.

    Almost wrong [timeforchange.org]:

    The following table shows the amount of CO2 (in grams) emitted per metric ton of freight and per km of transportation:

    • Air plane (air cargo), average Cargo B747 - 500 g
    • Modern lorry or truck - 60 to 150 g
    • Modern train - 30 to 100 g
    • Modern ship (sea freight) - 10 to 40 g

    Also, in regards with CO2, shipping by sea amounts to 4.5% of total world's emission [theguardian.com], coming in the 5th place after cars, housing, agriculture and industry.

    What is true, however, is the sulphur oxides emission, where ships are leading [theguardian.com] (better said... sulphuring?)

    Car emissions are heavily regulated because governments have control over their construction and use.

    (devil's advocate) Ships burn the heavies fraction of the oil - when cold, you can walk on it. If not for the ships, what would you like to be done with this fraction: bury it back into the extraction wells? Or would you like better to have it burnt into your friendly neighbourhood power plant?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford

    Parent

    • Re:It won't work. (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @01:51PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @01:51PM (#176056)

      Interesting figures, thanks. It just goes to show that identifying the biggest greenhouse gas contributors isn't a clear cut task and probably anything making a significant contribution should be scrutinized.

      Parent

    • Re:It won't work. (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday April 28 2015, @02:21PM

      by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @02:21PM (#176068) Journal

      The economics is quite interesting, because there's a big incentive to buy more efficient ships (even a 1% saving on fuel is a big amount of money), but ships also last a very long time. New ship designs are starting to emerge with solar and wind generators and a diesel-electric drivetrain to the propellers, because the weight of the panels and wind turbines is more than offset by their generated power. If they can save a few percent of fuel overall (and, don't forget that fuel that you carry for weeks adds to your weight), then that lowers your operating costs and makes it worth buying a more efficient ship, but the costs of refitting a ship are such that it generally isn't worth adding these features to existing vessels.

      --
      sudo mod me up

      Parent

    • Re:It won't work. (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @03:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @03:54PM (#176123)

      per KM needs to be as the crow flies for the petrol usage to be useful. I can't speak Deutch, can anyone confirm from http://fluglaerm.de/hamburg/klima.htm [fluglaerm.de] ?

      Parent