Agreed. They play games with any issue and pick and choose their fixes. I do not believe any government has the ability to objectively fix an issue, except maybe the asteroid thing, and that is just to cover their own butts.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone impacted by rising sea levels. The exception could be islanders who have lived there for eons. It is part of a natural order, so it is like having an earthquake. We do not go crazy blaming people for putting big buildings on a volatile area, and thus establish causality. I have seen houses on east coast boardwalks with their dunes getting eaten, and they scream and yell for help. Yet they refuse to use a less volatile method such as a rock barrier which would break up the wave action and limit damage because it would spoil the view. There is a lot of issues where you need to "what if" things where people do not. Not my problem.

Dale, in their current incarnation yes, in that it is like most forms of power, abused. The fundamental idea of taking care of the environment (you poop in my yard you clean it up) I think is valid and moral.It is the total lack of a moral framework regarding responsible manufacturing and production, that is the root cause, IMHO.

My personal leanings are that someone who impacts others with their activity should be responsible for their damage. Unfortunately, there is no honor code we have that makes it inherent behavhior, so business will do whatever it can get away with. That leads to these huge openings for an Imperialist administration to "pick and choose" who is punished. It is the abuse of that power I find disturbing. They have harassed individuals and allow companies to be ignored, if hey do the right things. So either side is just as bad as the other. Look at Fukashims: Had they listened to the several scientists who said they could have a tsunami up to 20 meters, instead of what they wanted to do, they would not have been damaged at all. Yet they took the cheap way out, and that has resulted in an unmitigated disaster for years to come.Are they liable? In my opinion, yes. Deliberate stupidity should be punished.

Congress is irrelevant to obummer. He will just do it by executive order.

There you go with your progressive pap again. -1

How can you support something that you do not understand. That sounds more like religion than objectivism.

Environmentalists are EVIL

How about a constitutional amendment that simply forbids the government from taking from one to give to another. The founding fathers just left that off the original constitution document.

I think the people who would be impacted by rising ocean levels should take the lead and move themselves to more hospitable locations. Global temperature fluctuations have been going on for centuries caused by many factors, and I am missing the part about how I should try and control the weather for THEM.

Obama and the climate control zealots see AGW not as a problem but as an opportunity to increase government control over the economy and industry. The reality of AGW is irrelevant what is important is that it be feared. In this way it can be used as a political tool. Even if we accept the dire predictions of the AGW supporters must we conclude that politicians can provide appropriate solutions? It is axiomatic that politicians make the worst scientists because they base their decisions and positions on ideology not on objectivity. Political solutions to scientific problems will invariably make matters worse rather than better.

"take money from others"
You could make them revenue neutral.

"form of economic punishment"
It has nothing to do with that. We want people to pay for the harm they cause others. In the case of pollution, our economy runs on burning stuff and burning stuff is creating huge costs. It's not possible to have a court case to make everyone pay for the tiny bit of damage their activities cause to farmers and people in coastal regions. Since we already have taxes (although I love experimental notions of funding gov't through voluntary contributions), it makes sense to tax activities that cost others rather than taxing work or general spending. It makes everyone whole, obviates the need for some complicated court process, and it makes business models unprofitable if they just steal from others in the future without creating net value.

i am not in favor of using taxes for political purpose. Ones view of climate stuff should not be justification to take money from others, especially as a form of economic punishment to force people to bend to their will.

I do not understand the details of these measures, but I strongly support some sort taxing methane emissions consistent with their harm to the environment. I do not support quantity limits on any pollutants, though, because maybe someone invents a processor/business model where the emissions are over the limit, but it creates enormous value, more than the damage to the environment. I think people should be free to make a mess as long as they clean it up.

So I support that they're doing something about the problem, but I think the something should not involve hard limits.

More hot air from the ass-hat-in-chief.