Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: In seeking carbon reductions, Obama administration barrels ahead without compromise

Comments

Return To Article
  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 4, 2014 12:25 a.m.

    "Once again, drastic decisions are being taken without commensurate efforts to achieve a workable consensus in Congress on carbon reductions. "

    First, consensus with and within the congress is not possible because Republicans do not believe climate warming is occurring. Do any in the Utah Republican delegation believe such is happening? No. So they are not going to agree to ANY CO2 reduction targets, and the president has to proceed on his own.

    Second, the president's plan is NOT drastic - 30% reduction by 2030? Wimpy. This will not do. We have to proceed faster, much faster.

    Third, the president should include a component in the EPA plan to produce much more nuclear power. As a practical matter this is necessary, and as a political matter it would make the CO2 targets an easier sell to Republicans, and to the rest of the world.

    Fourth, such is the hatred for Obama among many Republicans (equal to the hatred for Hitler during WWII) it is doubtful these extremists will do anything to cooperate with the president on anything. Your encouragement to the president to seek consensus falls on deaf ears, and it should.

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    June 4, 2014 3:33 a.m.

    Unfit to lead is probably the best way to describe Obama, does he not realize that the next Administration can undo his actions as quickly as he did them, does he not realize the more alone he goes the crazier it seems to make him, does he not realize that the very people he says he assisting are the very people he is hurting the worst.
    Going at things alone has never been a popular way of governing and one can see why with this President. He will have a very tough time blaming this on someone else and therefore his legacy wii be will not be positive. What a strange way to act.

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    June 4, 2014 5:13 a.m.

    Thank You Mr. President!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 4, 2014 5:40 a.m.

    This bas been a known administration objective now for over 5 years..... and congress.... both sides..... has failed to act. With their inaction, there is not platform for compromise. Perhaps this now is catalyst for a legislative "compromise" to codify something palatable for all sides.

    You can't compromise if the other side doesn't show up to the table.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 4, 2014 6:06 a.m.

    What can you say? The Republican party has been the party of *NO* and won't do anything to govern because Obama is the President. If the other party only obstructs, then you have to do what you have to do.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    June 4, 2014 6:21 a.m.

    "We are troubled, however, by the approach that is increasingly emblematic of the way the Obama administration approaches controversial subjects: avoid Congress and charge full stream ahead."

    I am troubled by that also. But I am more troubled that roughly half of Congress will oppose anything and everything (controversial or not) that Obama proposes, and for purely partisan reasons.

    No two wrongs don't make it right, but, hey, at least be honest enough to identify both sides of the problem.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    June 4, 2014 6:37 a.m.

    The current Congress has proven time and time again that it is incapable of being a productive part of the process. Until this changes, what do you expect a President - any President - to do?

    The American voter still has the power to do something about this (in theory anyway). We must return to sending to Congress people who know what "compromise" means, believe it is an acceptable practice, and know how to achieve it in a way that moves the ball FORWARD.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    June 4, 2014 7:08 a.m.

    If there has ever been an imperial presidency, this president makes all others look like rank amateurs.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    June 4, 2014 7:28 a.m.

    American's spend $74,000,000,000.00 each year on soft drinks.

    I don't think that spending 1/8th of that amount to curb the effects of global warming will be quite as catastrophic as the right is predicting!

    The history of belly aching over taking responsibility for unsafe business practices is a long one, Henry Ford ll predicted that if seat belt laws were passed Ford Motors would "have to close down".

    Similar dire predictions were made about laws banning lead in gasoline, eliminating asbestos in building materials, and cleaning up our air and water.

    None of the cataclysmic predictions panned out.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 4, 2014 7:53 a.m.

    The Supreme Court has twice ruled that the EPA has the power to regulate carbon emissions. They're just doing their job here.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    June 4, 2014 7:59 a.m.

    I am a research engineer for a fortune 50 company. I know something about science. I make my living with it.

    Greenhouse gases don't create heat any more than a greenhouse does.
    Greenhouse gases hold heat in.

    Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas on the planet. Humid climates don't cool off at night in the summer. Dry climates do. Barstow, Calif. my home town, has humidity levels in the 6% to 10% range. The low temperature in the summer can be up to 35 or 40 degrees below the high in July. Atlanta, Georgia on a hot humid day may only see a 6 degree drop.

    The difference between the high and low temperature (temperature differential) is the key indicator for the presents of greenhouse gases. As greenhouse gases increase, the temperature differential will decrease. This is the only piece of data you have to look at. This is the canary in the coal mine.

    Having reviewed the temperature differential in Barstow from 1975 to 2010 in 5 year increments, I have concluded that greenhouse gases are not an issue there. All I was was expected random variation. No trend. A similar review of other locations produced the same result.

    Global Warming is a fraud.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    June 4, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    Maybe the legislature will invite all coal burning plants to seek immunity in Salt Lake Valley.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    June 4, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    Isn't it amazing how the chief executive of our land can take unilateral/ tyrannical action and it is all the fault of the Republicans in Congress? Such an attitude, as expressed so regularly by the contributors of these types of comments, is beyond reason (and appears to be organized to obfuscate the facts). Man-made global warming is not a scientific consensus, because it is not based upon true science. The theory is based upon an agenda - an agenda that says that humans are the only problem with this planet (see "Noah," the recent Hollywood production). This is an agenda that has gone on for years, with different issues - overpopulation of the earth, global-cooling, global-warming, climate-change, unequal distribution of resources and wealth.
    The issue here is the unilateral action of an executive to "fundamentally change" a system and government that has functioned remarkably well for a couple of hundred years. The agenda is to u-turn the system within this tyrant's elected term. The side-effect will be an impoverished and enslaved people. Smirk all you want - the facts are there.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    June 4, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    Also, in case you Democrats have forgotten. The Dems controlled Congress for the first two years of this imperialistic presidency and still control the majority of the Senate. Why don't we elect Republicans to control both houses, so we can see who the real imperialist is. Get off the blame the Conservatives band wagon. The sign on the roadway reads "no outlet."

  • Invisible Hand Provo, UT
    June 4, 2014 8:11 a.m.

    It sounds like all of you people who applaud the president because Congress won't act on this think that presidents should do whatever he wants. Why even have a congress? Will you be just as happy when a Republican president takes office and reverses all of Obama's mandates, also without consulting Congress? It sounds like you want a dictator, not a president.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 4, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    Barrel ahead? Are you kidding me? This was way beyond overdue. How much evidence do we need? How much deterioration of our environment must occur? At last, the President showed some courage, took action. If the change is a little painful for some, so be it. Any move forward can have a degree of discomfort. I'm glad the President acted, because Congress certainly won't, particularly as they are owned and controlled, literally, by special interests, including the carbon industry. More needs to be done, and I am eager to see it happen after waiting for way too long for Washington to act.

    @ Invisible Hand, your question "Why even have a congress?" made me literally laugh! That's a great question. Congress does virtually nothing, even on stuff they agree on, because they are more concerned that those in the other party might get an edge. Spare me from complaints about Executive authority. I know for a fact (time in Washington) that the GOP believes in a strong executive authority. Their tune will change once they regain the White House. Congress. What a joke.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    June 4, 2014 8:36 a.m.

    Huffington Post: 04/2013 "In a stunning development today, the community of global climate scientists announced that the problem of global warming is actually one of global cooling, overturning decades of previously accepted, peer-reviewed science. "We're very embarrassed," said Dr. Melissa Tonnennsen, a climate scientist with NASA, "but we must admit that errors do occasionally occur. We normally discover them, but this one slipped by us for over a century. The climate is still changing -- we got that right -- it's just that everything is going in the other direction."
    Told you global warming was a hoax!

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 4, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    Repubs are now complaining about the President not compromising?

    Wow.

    Maybe the repubs deserve a taste of their own medicine? After all, Obama couldn't have had better teachers of stubborn non-compromizers than those from the right in Congress!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 4, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    Re: ". . . the approach that is increasingly emblematic of the way the Obama administration approaches controversial subjects . . . ."

    Why compromise? He has the media, the snarky liberal commentators, the international "hate America first" crowd, the know-nothing vote, and a pandering liberal Congress on his side.

    Real people just don't count.

    Not to Obama. Not to the media. Not to liberal commentators and international haters. Not to a Congress dedicated, above all else, to preserving its lifetime lock on an American political nobility.

    Least of all, to Obama and his cohort of doctrinaire liberal true believers in monarchical, freedom-sapping, trickle-down politics.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 4, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    This Barker.... you forgot to include the following from the same article... "Policy makers are struggling to adjust to the new information. If burning fossil fuels removes greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, the planet is still threatened with severe climate change -- just a global cooling and ice age -- and efforts to cut the use of these fuels are still critical."

    Problem is, we do have evidence that things are changing. By step brother who is a merchant marine for the UK this last summer sailed across a northern passage that has not been open to shipping in recent memory. The ice cap had receded far enough for his ship to leverage this short cut. We also know the antarctic sheet is breaking up.... problem is we don't know why exactly.

    But global warming silliness aside, we know dumping pollutants into the air has impact. Whether it be mercury found in water supplies, acid rain, heavy ozone days... it is real. I am not worried about conditions 30 years down the road... we need to clean up todays messes....today.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    June 4, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    So those tea-party Republicans are willing to compromise, right?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 4, 2014 9:18 a.m.

    @Thid Barker:

    "Huffington Post: 04/2013 "In a stunning development today, the community of global climate scientists announced that the problem of global warming is actually one of global cooling, overturning decades of previously accepted, peer-reviewed science."

    I did a search. One little problem. The date should read "04/01/2013" as in April 1st, April Fools Day. I wish you were right.

    I am sceptical that Pres. Obama made the right decision. Action needs to be taken, but it has to be the right action. Obamacare didn't end up working like he had intended. It hurts. This may not help either. Unintended consequences.

  • Invisible Hand Provo, UT
    June 4, 2014 9:20 a.m.

    So Esquire and like minded people really do think we shouldn't have a congress. Good, let's get that out in the open. You prefer that we rip up the constitution and have a democratically elected dictator. Is that what I'm reading? If congress doesn't agree with you, just get rid of it? There are a lot of parallels here to the fall of the Roman Republic. Populist leaders took absolute power using the excuse that it was necessary to protect the people. I am happy to have a constitution to protect us from power hungry despots, from either left or right. I suspect if the shoe were on the other foot Esquire would also see it my way.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    June 4, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    On a daily basis... DN readers find reporting that verifies a fact.

    It does not matter what the POTUS does...

    Republicans will vilify every decision...parse every statement.

    The DN will continue with this policy whenever the next Republican is in The White House?

    Right?

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    June 4, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    Uh oh. Obama did something about cleaning up the air. What an outrage.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    June 4, 2014 9:53 a.m.

    @ Tekakaromatagi. Go back and read the article again and don't over look all the numerous graphs and charts! Its no April fools joke except on "scientists".

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    June 4, 2014 9:53 a.m.

    @Esquire - I want a much stronger Congress. The Executive Branch has no business pushing a legislative agenda to the exclusion of Constitutionally enumerated duties.

    It is obvious that Pres. Obama has charged his cabinet with finding any means (legal or not) to force his objectives. He rules by despotic fiat, and there are no checks and balances to stop him.

    Meanwhile, Congress is atrophying due to neglect. The House is blocked by the Senate, and the Senate's sole purpose is to keep Pres. Obama from being removed from office.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    June 4, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    Thid Barker - I sure hope you're joking. Ever notice the date on that article? April Fools - with such investigative prowess, I am beginning to understand why conservatives don't "believe" in science.

    To the more general point, I am certainly not an Obama fan and, to marxist's point, this is not enough but the DesNews needs to get real. Obama has been pushing for this since he ran for the presidency in 2007; if anything, this has come at a snail's pace.

    Further, conservative politicians have repeatedly refused to act like adults in this conversation so the time has come to literally leave them behind and move forward on our own. Conservatives should be precluded from this arena of governing because they have demonstrated a proclivity to harm, not help. This issue spans the topics from individual health to national security to economic stability - the day has come wherein conservatives are literally irrelevant on the subject matter.

  • Social Mod Fiscal Con West Jordan, UT
    June 4, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    @marxist, @embarrassed Utahn!, @RanchHand, @Karen R, @liberal larry, @Esquire

    The US Constitution was created with checks and balances for 2 reasons.

    1. So there would be control on the actions of government. Each branch's power was checked by the other two.

    2. So that getting major changes implemented would be difficult. Slow changes, negotiated over time, with the consent of the governed were how the framers felt we could avoid the chaos of vacillating political opinions.

    If you support the President side-stepping those principles (and the Constitution itself), you support some form of despotism. Better a "Party of No", than a one-man dictatorship.

  • Henderson Orem, UT
    June 4, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    Oh No!

    What a villain!

    How dare the President of the United States clean up our environment! Who wants that? Oh, the majority of Americans, you say? Oh...

    So who doesn't want that? The Koch Bros? Oh. I see.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    June 4, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    "The American system was designed to avoid concentrations of power and compel even chief executives to sit down and talk to those with whom they disagree. But the administration seems to be looking for every possible way to dodge that process."

    The American system was made to prevent tyrants from running and ruining the country. Obama's administration does an end run around the system at every opportunity.

    The economy was diminished last quarter, not only no growth, but it shrank. Obama's response? Drop an anvil on the economy. I hope 2016 is soon enough to stop the bleeding before we run out of blood.

    Is he really that economically clueless, or is he trying to destroy our county?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 4, 2014 10:29 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi... that is soooo funny. April 1. Gesh!

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 4, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    @Thid Barker
    In the article that yes is an April Fools' Day joke, it says this...

    "Apparently, a few weeks ago, a graduate student at the University of California discovered, through the mistaken introduction of an erroneous "minus" sign into all climate data sets back in 1882, that all data suggesting growing concentrations of greenhouse gases, rising temperatures, increasing sea level, disappearing ice, and other changes were actually completely backward."

    Do you really think that's real? Those charts are all the real data reversed.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    June 4, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    VST,

    Now YOUR argument has merit. One can make a reasoned and logical argument based on your post.

    Unfortunately, the GOP is generally all over the map.

    Climate Change is not happening
    or
    Climate is always changing
    or
    It is changing but not because of mans activity
    or
    CO2 is good for the environment
    or
    It may be changing but there is nothing we can do about it
    or, the latest
    I am not a scientist.

    The GOP tact seems to be "lets frame our belief system around the fact the we dont want to have to change anything.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 4, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    @ VST

    So what's wrong with America leading the way?

    Did we wait until the rest of the world had a space program before we tried to go into space?

    What's wrong with America leading the way? Setting the example? Doing the what it can to cut carbon emissions and develop green energy?

    I'm so tired of the denialists and the Debbie downers. It's so un-American!

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 4, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    @Thid Barker – “Go back and read the article again and don't over look all the numerous graphs and charts! Its no April fools joke except on "scientists".”

    Quote from article - “Apparently, a few weeks ago, a graduate student at the University of California discovered, through the mistaken introduction of an erroneous "minus" sign into all climate data sets back in 1882…”

    Oh this is hilarious!

    Conservatives are now quoting April Fools pranks (as the above quote from the article makes abundantly clear) in support of their denialism. I love it!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 4, 2014 10:57 a.m.

    @Howard Beal

    Re: "So those tea-party Republicans are willing to compromise, right"...

    Contrary to the constant drum beat you get from the politicos... tea party Republicans HAVE compromised on a lot of things since the gov shutdown.

    Pay attention to the news (not just the rhetoric) you would know that Congress (including tea party Republicans) compromised on a LOT of things recently.

    They increased the debt limit (no brinkmanship from either side... just found compromise, and passed it).

    They also passed a new budget (no brinkmanship, just found compromise and Republicans even helped Democrats get the votes needed to pass it).

    I guess without the usual political brinkmanship... politicos don't even know about it!

    ======

    Google "Murray - Ryan budget"

    Paul Ryan appeared on Meet the Press after the agreement and said the secret was... Day ONE they agreed to not even bring up the few things you KNOW the other side won't give on (ObamaCare for Democrats, Defund the military for Repubs)... and focus on everything else.

    Pretty common-sense approach from a "tea party person"...

    It's also key to keep Harry Reid and John Bohner out of it. They are showmen... not Statesmen.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 4, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    Re: The Rock "Global Warming is a fraud."

    First, props to you for doing some of your own science. That's neat.

    But, getting to your statement above, why then is sea level rising? I've pointed out what is happening in the naval port town Norfolk VA. Flooding is a major issue there now, unlike the past. It is just one example. So, The Rock, what in your view is going on?

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    June 4, 2014 11:48 a.m.

    @marxist

    Yes, sea level is rising at a rate of 7" per century. Has maintained this rate for at least 4 centuries.

    The earths temperature was so warm 1000 years ago that the Vikings had farming communities in Greenland (yea, it was green then). England and Scotland had a wine industry. It is too cold for that today.

    Temperatures cooled from 1000 AD to about 1500 during the little ice age. It has been warming ever since.

    Sun spot activity is a good indicator of over all temperatures. The more the warmer. We have data on sun spots going back centuries. There is a one to one correlation of sun spots to temperatures. We had lots of sun spots in the warmer periods and almost none in the little ice age.

    Only governments fund climate research, and governments only fun scientists who give them the answer they want. Scientists know this. If they don't produce reports that support the global warming cult, they will not be working. Little wonder that after 10 years all climate researchers agree.

    It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 4, 2014 11:58 a.m.

    act first - think about it later ...if at all. The Obama model.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 4, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    marxist,
    If sea level is rising... it would be rising everywhere in the world (not just Norfolk VA). They don't have a different sea level in Norfolk.

    Gravitational pull will cause sea level to be different in different areas at different times (thus the tides). But "sea level" doesn't change in one city.

    ====

    If new flooding is happening in this town... Maybe the town is sinking. It happens. Geology changes over time. Some areas lift, others sink a little.

    Jakarta has experienced flooding it didn't in the past... but geological surveys indicate that area is sinking (geologically, not sea level rising). New Orleans is gradually sinking... Venice is sinking (becoming geologically lower... it's been measured, they are sinking).

    Areas in Japan sunk significantly after the recent earth quake and tsunami. Some areas grow higher every year (ie Himalayas). Others experience the opposite.

    ====

    Global warming isn't the answer to everything...

    That's one possible view of what's going on... not saying it's correct (don't know Norfolk's specific situation).

    But if Sea Level is rising... it would be easily measurable in absolutely every part of the ocean (not just Norfolk VA).

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 4, 2014 1:02 p.m.

    So what is Obama's solution once we have coal plants closing down because they cannot afford to upgrade their plants? Is he going to fast track some nuclear power plants or some gas plants? What does he plan on doing for the poor and elderly that now will have to pay more for power?

    To "JoeBlow" no conservative or anybody with common sense has said that climate change isn't real. The question is the cause. Is the global climate changing because of CO2 or is it because of natural fluctuations that we have yet to be able to model.

    If the whole thing is natural, what can we do to change it, and how do we know that our changes will actually work?

    The problem that your ilk has is that they are making decisions based on faulty models and a very limited understanding of the atmosphere.

    I am a scientist, and have yet to see anything that points to CO2 being the source. Even the IPCC (if read carefully) shows that CO2 is not a driver.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 4, 2014 1:18 p.m.

    @ Thid Barker, you of all people "quoting" the Huffington Post. I think you once ripped me for doing the same. LOL!!

    @ Invisible Hand, is it a conservative tactic to deliberately misrepresent the other side? I never said we shouldn't have a Congress. I said Congress is a joke because it doesn't act. Nada. Not even on things on which they agree. Get Congress to act on something significant, and then come back to discuss their appropriate role. And to those of you wringing your hands over separation of powers, let me say two things. One, Congress can act, but they don't. If the Legislative branch is weak, it is because they are acting weak. Simple. Two, Obama acted within his legislatively granted mandate to execute the laws passed by Congress. He is actually doing what he is supposed to do. That's what executive orders do. They are not chits in right wing conspiracy theories when you don't like what the Executive does to carry out the laws passed by Congress. But even more, having experienced it first hand, Republican legal theorists love, and believe in, a strong executive. They are getting exactly what they want.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 4, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    @The Rock
    "There is a one to one correlation of sun spots to temperatures."

    I think the better term to use is solar irradiance rather than sun spots (the latter influences the former). There's a decent correlation between solar irradiance and temperature... except from the 1970s onward where the former has declined slightly and the latter went up significantly. We're currently in the weakest solar cycle in a century while temperatures are just flat at their warmest decade in modern record levels.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    June 4, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    The times are a changing as long as the earth will keep turning. Look at the ring of an old tree, good times and bad times happened. Never assume anything.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 4, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    Those who think that Obama has been given the right to rule by dictate seem to forget that by extending that power to Obama, they are also extending that power to all presidents. Are they certain that they want to give that power to those with whom they disagree?

    This nation was founded on the principle that the people rule and that the elected officials are servants of the people. In addition to that, the duties assigned to government by the people are clearly described in the Constitution. Only Congress has the power to legislate. That grates against Obama. He craves the power to legislate and the power to enforce those laws that he alone has legislated and then to rule as the final authority on whether he has that power.

    He does not have that authority. We, the people, have not given him that power. We are represented by the House. The States are represented by the Senate. The duty of the President is to enforce the laws passed by Congress unless the Court has invalidated those laws.

    Obama is clearly assuming authority that he does not have. It's time for impeachment and a trial.

  • Mark from Montana Davis County, UT
    June 4, 2014 2:09 p.m.

    Others have already said it, but it is important enough to bear repeating again. Congress has shown their inability to negotiate on anything. Both the Republican lead House and Democratic lead Senate refuse to negotiate on any aspect of any subject. Both sides are wrong. There is a word that, if things do not change, should be removed from the dictionary; Statesmanship. Neither side even understands what it means. Poverty, communism, drugs, terrorism...none of these are the enemy any more. The only enemy each side has sits across the isle. Our country will never return to greatness until both sides are willing to negotiate and recognize that the other is not the enemy.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 4, 2014 2:53 p.m.

    @Mark from Montana,
    Re: "Congress has shown their inability to negotiate on anything"...

    But what about the bipartisan budget they just passed? Little drama, lots of compromise. 8 Republicans even joined with Democrats to give it the votes needed to pass (note: not one Democrat crossed over).

    Google "Senate passes bipartisan budget agreement"... (The Washington Post)

    ====

    What about the bipartisan debt-limit increase they just passed? No drama for the news media... so you don't even know about it!

    Google "A summary of the debt ceiling compromise" (CBS News)...

    ===

    You "Tea party can't compromise"... "Congress can't do anything", people need watch what's really happening, and not the politico-spin-guys you've been watching. Get back in touch with reality.

    There's been LOTS of compromise since the gov shutdown (one good thing that came out of everything coming to a head during the gov shutdown). BOTH sides have been more willing to compromise since then.

    Probably not what they intended.... but it's been a pretty nice unintended-consequence of the gov shutdown standoff...

  • Invisible Hand Provo, UT
    June 4, 2014 4:26 p.m.

    @Esquire: Thank you for clarifying your position. Some posters here are probably in favor of tearing up the constitution, but you at least say you aren't. On the other hand, allowing presidents to do what they want just because Congress doesn't act, is in effect tearing up the constitution. If Congress doesn't act it's because there's a lack of consensus in the country. Maybe we will achieve some consensus in the next election cycle. If not then it is perfectly appropriate to continue to not act, even though both sides may feel frustrated. This is not an excuse to expand executive power that will undoubtedly come back to bite us in the end.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 4, 2014 5:06 p.m.

    There's no longer compromise to be had on any issue. So to get anything done means one of two things; total outrage or total concession from republicans. Well, sorry about their luck.

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    June 4, 2014 5:35 p.m.

    Extremely troubling. EXTREMELY bad precedent set here.
    Obama needs to be held to a reckoning. Our Democrats leaders need to do a better job reining in the defacto leader of their party.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    June 4, 2014 5:53 p.m.

    When people compare America's envriromental policies to China's its a very weak argument.

    To have any moral authority on carbon emissions America must make the first move.

    In addition the technology we develop will be a valuable asset to import to other countries.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 4, 2014 9:26 p.m.

    Re: "To have any moral authority on carbon emissions America must make the first move."

    And the second. And the third, fourth, fifth, etc., etc., etc.

    No developing nation has the slightest incentive to, or interest in reducing carbon emissions. No foreign "moral authority" could induce them to abandon self interest and bankrupt their already fragile economies.

    This American "moral authority" that liberals love to blather about is either a callow true believer's pipe dream, or a cynical socialist's propaganda ploy. Nothing more.

    Every gram of carbon footprint Americans abandon will be quickly snapped up by our economic competitors in the Third World. And, since that will assuredly produce more, not less pollution across the face of "Mother Earth," you'd think tree huggers would wake up and smell the coffee.

    They don't because their primary concern has more to do with destroying America, than with saving the Earth.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    June 5, 2014 5:59 a.m.

    Cheney gave us alternatives to coal. It is the natural gas from fracking that is replacing coal. Cheney, who is now from Wyoming, is supportive of clean coal because Wyoming has the cleanest coal in America. Wyoming has legislated hard for clean coal.

    Obama simply raised the bar on cleaner air? Now everyone is mad?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 5, 2014 7:01 a.m.

    "Those who think that Obama has been given the right to rule by dictate seem to forget that by extending that power to Obama, they are also extending that power to all presidents. Are they certain that they want to give that power to those with whom they disagree?"

    Am I worried that Obama is executing the power granted to the office of the president through the Clean Air Act.....um..... no. The same power was granted to Bush, and will be granted to who ever is the next president.

    Am I worried that there are those who think the powers of the president should be a variable determined by his or her party, gender, race, religion, or what ever else..... yes.

    The Clean Air Act is the authorizing power behind these actions. What Utah puts into the air impacts states east - this falls under interstate commerce.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    June 5, 2014 7:35 a.m.

    Meanwhile --

    We have Reagan and Bush as "leading" this country by passing the most "Executive Orders".

    People who live in glass houses should not throw stones...

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 5, 2014 9:52 a.m.

    ask a liberal about his/her iPhone or Facebook or Titter or iPads or even electric cars. They are all for them!!! Ask a liberal where the power comes from to power their device or the internet and ...your usually get a blank stare and then they tell you that the government controls all of that stuff. Long story short - they have no clue how electricty is produced. Obama has his own private stash I heard one clueless Obama supporter say ...no kidding. Maybe the sun provides all the power we need?? How many gigawatts does it take to run a major city? What's a gigawatt? So America has finally become what many feared it would one day and when the wall outlet doesn't work they stand there and stare and scream for the government to fix it. Welcome to AmeriKa.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    June 5, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    Since most of what Obama is doing is being done with executive order, it hopefully will be undone with a Republican Presidents executive order. This job killing, energy killing, and economy killing policy will need to be reversed and fast.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    June 5, 2014 12:42 p.m.

    Thank you, Mr. Obama for doing what Congress does not have the political will to do. For all our benefit!

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 5, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    @ Invisible Hand, the tug between the Executive and the Legislative branches is as old as the nation. I assure you that Republican legal theorists believe in a stronger executive. I've seen it in action. I've been involved in the middle of it personally. I've been involved in court cases on the very issue. Trust me, those Republicans arguing against the executive actions of President Obama will sing a completely different tune if a Republican gains the White House.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    June 7, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    If Obama can with a stroke (without Congress passing a law) establish carbon rules. What is to prevent some future president from getting rid of or severely diminishing these rules?

  • RP888 Layton, UT
    June 8, 2014 8:19 a.m.

    The real issue is whether it is important or not to control CO2. We all can't do the research. So who are you listening to about this? There are many voices as you would expect. There is a lot at stake including money. Who is saying what and what stake to they have in the outcome. Here are a couple you could think about.

    "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climatechange observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes."
    American Geophysical Union

    "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
    American Physical Society

  • benbookworm Fresno, CA
    June 8, 2014 10:00 p.m.

    I cannot exhort everyone enough to read Freakonomics, and especially its sequel Super Freakonomics, where the author raises a critical eye at all sides of the global warming debate. Water vapor is the real culprit, and if only 2% of current sulfur emissions were emitted into the stratosphere rather than the near atmosphere, it would be enough to counter any damage done by the water vapor. All the extra carbon emissions actually helps trees grow better, and they require less water when in a carbon-rich environment.