To Mike Bloomberg A Vote For Obama, Whom He Just Endorsed, Is A Vote For Climate Change

Tyler Durden's picture

First, The Economist, now the man who owns the terminal that global finance uses each day to chat with one another, and occasionally to check the real time price of ESZ2 (if certainly not quite as much this year, and last, as desired). Mike Bloomberg's driving catalyst to chose the way he did? Climate change. Because to some it is the economy, to others: the number of cloudless sunny days in St Barts. The question for employees of Bain now: do they immediately disconnect their BBG terminals, or wait until next Wednesday.

Bloomberg's Op-Ed (posted first in BBG):

A Vote for a President to Lead on Climate Change

The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York City and much of the Northeast -- in lost lives, lost homes and lost business -- brought the stakes of Tuesday’s presidential election into sharp relief.

The floods and fires that swept through our city left a path of destruction that will require years of recovery and rebuilding work. And in the short term, our subway system remains partially shut down, and many city residents and businesses still have no power. In just 14 months, two hurricanes have forced us to evacuate neighborhoods -- something our city government had never done before. If this is a trend, it is simply not sustainable.

Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be -- given this week’s devastation -- should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.

Here in New York, our comprehensive sustainability plan -- PlaNYC -- has helped allow us to cut our carbon footprint by 16 percent in just five years, which is the equivalent of eliminating the carbon footprint of a city twice the size of Seattle. Through the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group -- a partnership among many of the world’s largest cities -- local governments are taking action where national governments are not.

Leadership Needed

But we can’t do it alone. We need leadership from the White House -- and over the past four years, President Barack Obama has taken major steps to reduce our carbon consumption, including setting higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. His administration also has adopted tighter controls on mercury emissions, which will help to close the dirtiest coal power plants (an effort I have supported through my philanthropy), which are estimated to kill 13,000 Americans a year.

Mitt Romney, too, has a history of tackling climate change. As governor of Massachusetts, he signed on to a regional cap- and-trade plan designed to reduce carbon emissions 10 percent below 1990 levels. “The benefits (of that plan) will be long- lasting and enormous -- benefits to our health, our economy, our quality of life, our very landscape. These are actions we can and must take now, if we are to have ‘no regrets’ when we transfer our temporary stewardship of this Earth to the next generation,” he wrote at the time.

He couldn’t have been more right. But since then, he has reversed course, abandoning the very cap-and-trade program he once supported. This issue is too important. We need determined leadership at the national level to move the nation and the world forward.

I believe Mitt Romney is a good and decent man, and he would bring valuable business experience to the Oval Office. He understands that America was built on the promise of equal opportunity, not equal results. In the past he has also taken sensible positions on immigration, illegal guns, abortion rights and health care. But he has reversed course on all of them, and is even running against the health-care model he signed into law in Massachusetts.

If the 1994 or 2003 version of Mitt Romney were running for president, I may well have voted for him because, like so many other independents, I have found the past four years to be, in a word, disappointing.

In 2008, Obama ran as a pragmatic problem-solver and consensus-builder. But as president, he devoted little time and effort to developing and sustaining a coalition of centrists, which doomed hope for any real progress on illegal guns, immigration, tax reform, job creation and deficit reduction. And rather than uniting the country around a message of shared sacrifice, he engaged in partisan attacks and has embraced a divisive populist agenda focused more on redistributing income than creating it.

Important Victories

Nevertheless, the president has achieved some important victories on issues that will help define our future. His Race to the Top education program -- much of which was opposed by the teachers’ unions, a traditional Democratic Party constituency -- has helped drive badly needed reform across the country, giving local districts leverage to strengthen accountability in the classroom and expand charter schools. His health-care law -- for all its flaws -- will provide insurance coverage to people who need it most and save lives.

When I step into the voting booth, I think about the world I want to leave my two daughters, and the values that are required to guide us there. The two parties’ nominees for president offer different visions of where they want to lead America.

One believes a woman’s right to choose should be protected for future generations; one does not. That difference, given the likelihood of Supreme Court vacancies, weighs heavily on my decision.

One recognizes marriage equality as consistent with America’s march of freedom; one does not. I want our president to be on the right side of history.

One sees climate change as an urgent problem that threatens our planet; one does not. I want our president to place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics.

Of course, neither candidate has specified what hard decisions he will make to get our economy back on track while also balancing the budget. But in the end, what matters most isn’t the shape of any particular proposal; it’s the work that must be done to bring members of Congress together to achieve bipartisan solutions.

Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan both found success while their parties were out of power in Congress -- and President Obama can, too. If he listens to people on both sides of the aisle, and builds the trust of moderates, he can fulfill the hope he inspired four years ago and lead our country toward a better future for my children and yours. And that’s why I will be voting for him.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
francis_sawyer's picture

Hope & [Climate] Change bitchez...

Kitler's picture

We need a change in the Economic Climate even more.

Colombian Gringo's picture

We also need political climate change if the economy is to improve. The scum Bloomberg will not miss any opportunity to push fraudulent AGW science as an excuse to tax your right to breathe. As a good politician, he will never miss an opportunity to exploit a crisis, other peoples misery, for his shabby gain. Fuck you Bloomberg.

Zer0head's picture

one day Bloomberg will be America's last president

kaiserhoff's picture

Bloomberg, kiss my grits.

Colombian Gringo's picture

Until Billlionaire Bloomberg leads by example and gets rid of his jet and helicopter, anything he has to say is nothing more than the words of an oppportunistic hypocrity, exploiting the misfortunes of others for his political gain.

Zer0head's picture

Mikes Carbon Neutral Bermuda Weekend Cottage

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Mikes+Carbon+Neutral+Weekend+Getway+Cottag...

An American technology wizard and frequent visitor to Bermuda with a vast home overlooking the ocean in Tucker's Town, he founded a global financial company - Bloomberg - in his own name, more than 75% of which he still owns. 69 years old (in November 2010) he is the wealthiest divorced man, with 2 daughters in New York City, with an estimated US$18.1 billion in assets in  February 2011. His Bermuda home was recently extensively re-worked at a reported cost of $10.5 million. His neighbors there include Hugh Lowenstein, billionaire Ross Perot and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. His other homes are two in New York's Westchester County, Armonk, a townhouse at 17 E. 79th Street in Manhattan, a 20-acre farm in North Salem, a London apartment in Cadogan Square and a condominium in Vail, Colorado. His financial information and news services are widely used locally. He was a 2001 Republican mayoral candidate for New York City, won the election and became Mayor after November 6, 2001 (still in office in 2011). He has a fleet of aircraft at his disposal. A licensed pilot, he owns a high-performance single-engine plane for quick jaunts. It is a Mooney Bravo M20M, seats four, flies high and goes fast. On February 21, 2006 the New York Daily News reported that Mayor Bloomberg's presence in Bermuda was about to get a whole lot bigger. His daughters, Emma and Georgina, filed an application with the Bermuda Minister of Home Affairs to buy The Jungle, a 1.7-acre property next to their dad's $10.5 million mansion. The ultra-exclusive property is owned by Hugh Lowenstein, one of Bloomberg's oldest friends and a member of his company's board of directors. A Bermuda real estate agency described The Jungle as an "exquisite property" and "magnificent house" with a large galleried living room, replete with a cedar railing balcony leading to the bedrooms. There's an outdoor pool in a beautiful garden setting with a sloping lawn heading to a large dock. The house has four bedrooms, five bathrooms and a fireplace in the living room.

http://www.bermuda-online.org/intexecs.htm

macholatte's picture

 

 

 

whoever has the best hackers will win !!!!!
 
 

It only takes $26 to hack a voting machine

 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44706301/ns/technology_and_science-security/t/it-only-takes-hack-voting-machine/

Kitler's picture

Researchers from the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois have developed a hack that, for about $26 and an 8th-grade science education, can remotely manipulate the electronic voting machines used by millions of voters all across the U.S.

 

The researchers, Salon reported, performed their proof-of-concept hack on a Diebold Accuvote TS electronic voting machine, a type of touchscreen Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting system that is widely used for government elections.

 

The electronic hacking tool consists of a $1.29 microprocessor and a circuit board that costs about $8. Together with the $15 remote control, which enabled the researchers to modify votes from up to a half-mile away, the whole hack runs about $26.

Time to stop teaching the kids science after grade 7.

pods's picture

That is not shocking in the least bit, it is the normal progression of a police state.

And I would say that this is not soley a function of who is in the White House.

pods

Uber Vandal's picture

No wonder why an 8th grade education was so important in the past...

 

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Martin Hoerling, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said Sandy wasn’t boosted by global warming -- the storm merely revealed natural forces at work. “Great events can have little causes,” he told the New York Times. “In this case, the immediate cause is most likely little more that the coincidental alignment of a tropical storm with an extratropical storm.”

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/dems-try-to-push-climate-chan...

nmewn's picture

And the 1938 hurricane was a little before all the "manmade global warming" horseshit and it scored a direct hit on NYC...as a Cat 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_England_Hurricane_of_1938

Probably related to all the horse methane being released up there by Bloombergs great-grandfather...lol.

Lumberjack's picture

Now that is quite a catch... +1000 and thank you.

MiguelitoRaton's picture

The earth has gone through at least 5 ice ages and therefore 5 melts...what caused those "climate changes"? Could man even have any impact? And if so, at what expense? And isn't warming good for food supply? Oh and BTW, what has Obama done to stop climate change? 1o or so bankrupt solar investments???

bobnoxy's picture

Yeah, that's right. You sound like you've done some serious research on global warming. Care to tell us where?

97% of the world's actual climate scientists think we have a serious man made problem with global warming. What do you know that they don't?

MiguelitoRaton's picture

Bonoxy, (a) your 97% is a false claim; (b) consensus is for politics, not science. When Hitler trotted out 100 scientists who claimed Einstein was wrong, Einstein replied "It doesn't take 100 scientists to tell me I'm wrong, it only takes 1 to prove it; (c) 99% of economists said that housing wasn't a bubble...and yet it was; (d) you didn't answer one of my questions; (e) you are a bomb-throwing fool with talking points and no facts. Don't make me go all scientific on your dumb ass because I'll throw around things like katabatic winds, pacific decadal oscillator, antlantic conveyor, ice core samples, greenland glacier history, middle age warm period, pre-historic CO2 levels and much more.

Precious's picture

Bonoxious.  Go look up Ignaz Semmelweis and Barry Marshall you stupid liberal dipshit fuck.

Poor Grogman's picture

"97% of the world's actual climate scientists think we have a serious man made problem with global warming. What do you know that they don't?"

Most of the worlds actual economists tell us that Keynesian economics works.

Give me one credible voice over 100 "qualified" voices anytime.

Enough said.

nmewn's picture

They're still trying to refine their theories...lol.

But in the mean time, theory is acted on as fact by morons and psychophants...with the resultant consequences for all.

Consensus can be illustrated simply as 51-49 and the 51 being completely wrong. It means less than nothing.

Arnold's picture

Funding. The right attitude on climate change gets you money. Just as a high job creation number gets you tax breaks and consideration as a small business.

 

Matt's picture

I don't know, you tell me, is acid rain good for the food supply? 

Has the climate gone through hot and cold cycles in the past? Sure. Is that what is happening now? Probably.

The bigger concerns I have are: A) are the changes happening faster due to human activity? B) will the change be more extreme than previously?

As for Obama, I doubt the primary concern with any of the big-wigs is climate change; many of them, as I see it, see this as an opportunity for more control, concentration of wealth, etc.

Even the ones with altruistic goals are misguided: Cap and Trade is a wealth re-distribution scheme to take money from a developed area that produces greenhouse gases, and transfer that money for industrial developement in developing/underdeveloped nations. 

EDIT: and for brokers to make money trading the credits back and forth on an exchange.

MiguelitoRaton's picture

Wow more scientific ignorance Matt: Acid rain is caused by sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, NOT CO2. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good story. You are correct that Climate change is a mechanism for exerting more central statist control and redistributing wealth. But it also stiffles the developing countries, unless, like China you say: "Yeah let's stop global climate change, US crack down on that so we can move all manufacturing to China where we pollute more and don't care about these silly ideas."

Matt's picture

You are certain that increased carbon dioxide in the air will not result in lower pH of rainwater? I admit, I was wrong in that rain being acidic does not make it "Acid Rain", which you correctly stated is a term to refer to acidic rain from sulfer or nitrogen oxides. What I meant was that the average pH of rainfall may decrease due to increased carbon dioxide in the air, similar to how the oceans are becoming more acidic.

Lore's picture

People are sick of Al Qaeda and financial terrorism, and the seasonal virus scare seems to have fizzled, so the War on Global Warming is a handy alternate pre-electoral distraction that sounds better than "We continue to betray the American people by serving the long term interests of the great global-tax United Nations AGENDA 21 SCAM."

http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/what-is-un-agenda-21.html

Innocent Bystander's picture

BBG & Christie - clearing all hurdles to for their own run in 2016.. RomneyRyan being the biggest ..

concerns about global warming.. hmmm

El Oregonian's picture

"one day Bloomberg will be America's last president"

"One day that bastard will die" There, fixed it for you...

The Gooch's picture

One day, Bloombergs private plane will be stuck on the tarmac without fuel- his minions and private army long gone to look after their own...

 

piceridu's picture

Prosecuting Bankers that pulled off the greatest heist in the history of the world is not his concern, but getting rid of the Second Amendment, 32 ounce sodas and instituting gay marriage are top priorities...Blooberg creates a Super-Pac:  http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mayor-bloomberg-creates-own-super-pac-185609766.html

LMAOLORI's picture

 

 

Indeed and look who they want to pay for the damage everyone including those who don't live there

New York state asks Washington to cover all storm costs

http://news.yahoo.com/york-governor-ask-federal-government-cover-sandy-storm-200420294.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CaGXJJQjHEAdIbQtDMD

DosZap's picture

Climate change is a way to enrich the 1%.

The earths patterns are cyclical.

The average temperatures for the last 10 yrs, have no deviation.

Just because you have two major weather events where there usually are none, is NOT even remotely due to change,it's cyclical.

Compare the events of the 50's to that area, and the last two years off the Libtard Eastern seaboards is child's play.It was FAR worse then........

The Antarctic ice cap is larger than at anytime in recorded history.

These people cannot get used to the fact that our earth, is fully capable of self regulation, and changing to meet conditions, and repeating cycles and patterns.

It's just a way to FEED the Uber  wealthy more.

Al Gore has made himself a MULTI millionaire of the backs of the  earths natural cycles.The EPA wants to tax carbon, the US wants a Global Climate Tax, it just keeps on keeping on.

These morons think that what is happening now,has NEVER ever happened before.The Atlantic was warmer than the Pacific in the 50's cycles, and vice versa,with the Pacific.

The ozone issue has been worn out...........so it's on to something new.

HiLARIOUS,if it weren't so stupid.

LongSoupLine's picture

none of this would have happened if we just stuck with 12 oz. drinks!

Zer0head's picture

exactly, the carbon emitted from just one Big Gulp is the equivalent of 10 cow farts or the fuel from Mike's G550 as it taxis just 2 inches en route to his Bermuda weekend hideaway

not fat not stupid's picture

I can't say climate change is real but I'd be as stupid as a rock to insist it isnt real.

Colombian Gringo's picture

Climate change exists, its called spring, summer, fall and winter. Further, we have had at least 6 ice ages, no doubt caused by too many cavemen riding their dinosaurs. If you want to pay carbon taxes, go ahead and knock yourself out. The notion that we will stop climate change by paying money to bloomberg, al gore and the UN is laughable. I suggest buying yourself an african rain maker rattle and dancing outside will be just as effective, and cost much less.

Water Is Wet's picture

"Further, we have had at least 6 ice ages, no doubt caused by too many cavemen riding their dinosaurs."

+7 billion, lol

Kitler's picture

Please don't forget that the worst hurricane storm surges in the NYC area took place in the 1630's.

Of course why bother with science when religion will suffice...

http://www.geo.brown.edu/georesearch/esh/QE/Publications/GSAB2001/JDonne...

jcaz's picture

Shush-  actual facts like that will kill these Chicken Littles.....

They're so happy on their own little clouds.....

John_Coltrane's picture

And speaking of clouds, that's what determines average global surface temperatures due to scattering of incoming radiation or trapping of outgoing radiation.  So, you'd think climate "scientists" would focus on H2O not CO2 since that's what makes up cloudsl.  But that's much too hard a problem as our current inability to predict next weeks average temperature (much less next centuries) demonstrates week after week.  Modeling cloud formation as a function of time of day, latitude and longitude is the only thing that matters in net radiation forcing and thus surface T. 

Matt's picture

Where did those hurricanes in the 1630s make landfall? Half a meter is not a huge difference, give it some time, that record will probably get broken soon enough.

SmallerGovNow2's picture

Go to amazon and buy the book "watermelon".  it will tell you all you need to know about man made climate change or global warming hoax.  climate changers use junk science.  they have been caught in their lies yet they still continue the bullshit story.  all they want is to tax and control your ass.  they don't like "people" because it is all about their precious "planet".

GCT's picture

This storm is the result of the Atlantic ocean being warmer then the Pacific. This happened before in the 1950's.  But then the elitist jerks want to sell the people the air they breathe now. 

bobnoxy's picture

This subject aways brings out the biggest dopes in here. And there you are, leading the pack. And your climate science credentials are what? Or are you just talking out of your ass like the rest of the deniers? There's your global warming source right there.

Poor Grogman's picture

"And your climate science credentials are what"

Answer:

Common sense and the ability to smell bullshit from a safe distance.

Question:

What are yours?

John_Coltrane's picture

As a real research scientist let me say that "denier" is a term only used in religion where faith plays a major role.  Religion, or as I call it, organized superstition, has no business in any models of physcial reality.  It plays a huge role in so-called climate science because of economic considerations and the lack of the most basic controls on measurements and calibration.  Skeptisicm is the most important characteristic of all good scientists.  Theories can never be proved only falsified.    This is the essence of the scientific method.