Doesn't Obama sound prudent and smart on AGW ideas?

At his summit yesterday with cross-section of USA CEOs:
"The science is overwhelming. This is a real problem. It will have severe economic consequences, as well as political and national security and environmental consequences. I understand that this will be a difficult transition for many businesses to make, and that’s why this budget does not account for such a cap until 2012 — a time when this economy should be on the road to recovery.

Under the cap proposal that we have, it wouldn’t even start until 2012, where we’re going to be out of this recession — or you’ll have somebody else speaking to you in 2013. But if we don’t start now, if we wait until — to have the debate in 2012, and then suddenly it turns out that oil is at $150 a barrel again, and we say, oh, why is it that we didn’t start thinking about this and making some steps now to figure this out. Well, that’s what Washington does. You guys could not run your business that way. And so the notion that we are doing some long-term planning now and trying to get this town to think long term, that somehow that’s a distraction just defies every sound management practice that I’ve ever heard of".

Dana19812009-03-13T21:55:03Z

Favorite Answer

I think prudent is a very good description. He realizes what a critical issue global warming is, but he's also got the economic crisis in mind. He knows it's critical to limit our carbon emissions, but he doesn't want to make our economic situation worse in doing so. That's very practical and prudent.

ccseg20062009-03-14T14:49:59Z

There is no such thing as global warming ... it is called Climatic Change ..... and it is a natural phenomena .... the planet has been in a warming cycle since the end of the last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago ... try as we might it is unstoppable ... until nature stops it.... then the tide will turn and we will begin cooling and sea levels will begin to fall .... despite what Al Gore and all the other nonscientific political types think ...

?2016-10-17T07:56:39Z

How lots harm can mccain do with a democratic congress to maintain him in verify and vice versa yet obama can do alot of harm. Obama is conceited and his marketing campaign has performed the sufferer card too many circumstances and hillary supporters do unlike him they are no longer throwing their votes away because of the fact mccain is the main coach bipartisan of the three with hillary being next, obama has completed no longer something with republicans different than oppose them with the liberal rubbish you point out above ohh and in case you will say issues like mccain needs to do away with worker funded healthcare attempt no longer go away out the section the place he mentioned he grew to become into going to supply an excellent tax harm for people to purchase their very own coverage you're the two misinformed or intentionally distorting the info in basic terms like your boy obama while he is going around mendacity asserting mccain needs to maintain us in iraq a hundred years while mccain mentioned he did no longer care if people have been there a hundred years as long as THEY weren't BEING INJURED OR KILLED! tell the fact!

Anonymous2009-03-13T18:11:47Z

Obama is not prudent, he's rushing everything too fast. He's not smart enough to realize that his policies are going to kill off more industries than his bailouts are supposed to save.

Power companies are not just going to absorb the extra costs of cap and trade, whatever that means. They're going to pass the costs on to the consumer, and for some reason this is what the people wanted.

Some businesses are going to stop functioning and others are going to fold because it will simply cost too much to produce anything.

The problem is, this is Obama's idea to regulate the supply and costs of energy and have it all under his control. And this global warming is all based on lies. Some people are going to get rich on this, and I really don't know why AGW scientists and Uncle Al are not arrested for fraud.

G_U_C2009-03-13T18:13:50Z

I don't have a problem with taking action to prevent the economic stresses caused by $150 oil. Let's just not pretend that AGW is the reason. To blame the wrong cause will send us toward the wrong solutions.

Sorry, but no, he doesn't sound "prudent and smart".

Show more answers (4)