John Kasich: 'I Believe There Is A Problem' With Climate Change

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) acknowledged that climate change is a "problem" last week at a GOP fundraiser.

"This isn’t popular to always say, but I believe there is a problem with climates, climate change in the atmosphere," he said Thursday, according to the Columbus Dispatch. "I believe it. I don’t know how much there is, but I also know the good Lord wants us to be good stewards of his creation. And so, at the end of the day, if we can find these breakthroughs to help us have a cleaner environment, I’m all for it."

Kasich was speaking about his energy policy. According to the Chillicothe Gazette, Kasich also said that he wants to bring hydraulic fracturing to Ohio with adequate regulation, and lobbied President Obama on shale gas drilling in March.

Kasich, however, has placed a moratorium on the deep injection of drilling wastes for disposal within five miles of a well site -- a process separate from fracking.

His comments put him apart from some in the GOP who have denied the reality of climate change even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. The entire Republican House Energy and Commerce Committee declined to vote in March 2011 in favor of amendments acknowledging the scientific findings supporting climate change science.

Former GOP candidate Rick Santorum, who was previously the party's strongest challenge to presumptive front-runner Mitt Romney before he dropped out on Tuesday, has called global warming a "hoax" and quipped, "the dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is."

Mitt Romney's position, however, is that climate change is real and human activity contributes to it, though he says he doesn't know to what extent.

Earlier on HuffPost:

Comments

[Javani]

06:43 PM on 05/01/2012

Would it be useless here to notice that natural gas industry always supports CO2 schemes because the schemes weigh on competing oil and coal interests? Also, his arguments about fracking are to mean that even if the gas extraction has side effects, they aren't "global warming" bad, therefore the lesser of evils.

And what is it with American "progressives" in the media and their fascination with Republicans who agree with their prejudices? The progressives treat this as proof of their own correctness, rather than the obvious concern that maybe they should take another look at their own prejudices if this guy agrees with them too. (he's just touting standard gas-industry words).

[TheEmptyMonty]

12:58 PM on 04/30/2012

Meanwhile, Ohio's leading an exodus from even the most moderate national clean air organizations. Talking the talk, walking a different walk.

[Sebb]

04:16 PM on 04/27/2012

What in god's name is climate change doing under "politics". Want to put medicine under politics too?

[drdneuro]

10:38 AM on 04/27/2012

Wow, this is amazing. Next thing you know some Republicans might admit that evolution is true. The question is, even if some Republicans actually get on board with recongnizing that global warming exists and is a threat, will they actually get on board with doing something about it instead of being obstructionists? That'll be the day.

[OldCowboy]

04:15 PM on 04/26/2012

It is unfortunate that God's Own Party has decided to deny climate change and man's contribution to it. Of course, when you're bought by mega-millions from the Koch Brothers, it is smart, from a political standpoint, to stay bought. The real conversation should not be about whether climate change is real (it is), or whether there is a man-made component (there is), but rather what are we going to do about it. Reducing carbon emissions is going to be an expensive proposition, and we need an honest conversation about what, if anything, we are going to do about them. Putting our collective political head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away won't help. Hope is not a solution.

[Daniel Hicks]

02:58 PM on 04/26/2012

"Santorum... quipped, 'the dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is.'"

OK, Rick, let's just say for a second your logic here is flawless, because plants require CO2 to live. Now, I'm going to incredulously blurt "The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to an ANIMAL, how dangerous carbon dioxide is."

See what I did there? CO2 is a metabolic poison for us that competes with oxygen, and will certainly kill you in high enough concentrations. Why should we care about the plants Rick, when CO2 is a poison to us and our animal brethren? Don't you "value" life anymore?

[greenalva]

09:32 PM on 04/29/2012

good point, well said.

[mamacat]

05:38 AM on 04/26/2012

"Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources." -- Ronald Reagan

Needless to say, Pres. Reagan was not a scientist.

[Chipher]

05:50 AM on 04/26/2012

Google 'terpenes and isoprenes' next time you're fapping yourself for being a good acolyte.

[Publicola]

01:56 PM on 04/26/2012

Let me guess:

Like Reagan you are not a scientist either, are you.

[Daniel Hicks]

01:59 PM on 04/26/2012

And deniers aren't "acolytes" of their own cause? I'm not trying to say that many people who believe anthropogenic climate change is happening don't believe it without being able to explain their reasoning scientifically. Science is hard, and not everyone has the time or attention to learn that much.

What I AM saying is that practically EVERYONE who denies anthropogenic climate change denies it without being able to explain scientifically. There are no good lines of reasoning based in reputable science that suggest that we are not warming the planet. That's why there are NO scientific bodies of national or international standing that say it isn't happening.

But, feel free to trust the crackpots if it makes you feel better. Just don't call those of us who CAN explain why and how extra carbon emissions trap extra heat "acolytes" when you yourself are almost certainly just following what you've been told. Given appropriate time, instruments and computers, I could prove my point myself.

Long story short: data doesn't lie, but your handlers do, "acolyte."

[Publicola]

02:00 PM on 04/26/2012

Do you have a reference for that, mamacat? A quick qoogle came up empty.

While similar to Reagan's infamous "Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do" quote I hadn't heard that wording before.

[Jean Carcess]

05:21 PM on 04/25/2012

Laurencd?Laurencd? Could somebody please find Laurencd?

[OC Surfer]

04:56 PM on 04/25/2012

Here's a great article on James Lovelock, the inventor of the Gaia theory and apparently a 'climate denier.'
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/24/Global-warming-leader-alarmist

The biggest P.R. campaign/con job in history is ending.

(It's not the problem that's troubling - it's the solution.)

[Publicola]

01:50 PM on 04/26/2012

Apparently, according to climate science "skeptics" lie "OC Surfer" when someone with opinions well outside of the scientific consensus on global warming modifies his extreme positions that somehow invalidates the scientific consensus on global warming.

Climate science "skeptics" are a funny group.

[Jim Milks]

02:24 PM on 04/26/2012

Unfortunately, Lovelock's public pronouncements and predictions haven't followed the actual science for years. Evidence that he still hasn't quite caught up to the science is found in this quote from your link:

"The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that."

The problem? Twelve years isn't sufficient–you need at least 17 years of data, as shown by Santer et al. (2011: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml). Furthermore, Foster and Rahmstorf (2011: http://goo.gl/ErfiQ) showed that the long-term trend in global temperatures hadn't changed, despite multiple cooling influences.

Lovelock was previously far too doom-and-gloom. Now? Far too optimistic.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/23/469749/james-lovelock-finally-walks-back-his-absurd-doomism-but-he-still-doesnt-follow-climate-science/

[KOslo]

08:21 AM on 04/24/2012

It's quite amusing to see all the folks here arguing about climate change as if it's some sort of political debate or belief system, making wild assertions and statements about what they believe to be true and what not. I don't think the same people would venture an opinion on, say, the causes and treatments for congenital heart defects...

Climate change, its causes, its possible effects, possible mitigations are subjects you can't fake proficiency in. Either you're a climatologist with published studies in reputable journals (that have been peer-reviewed), or your just a hack with an opinion none of us should care about. If you're going to make an argument or posit an explanation that differs from current science, then you're on thin ice (pun intended) scientifically speaking, and almost certainly wrong.

[Chipher]

05:57 AM on 04/26/2012

Passion, faith and recognizing religious apostasy are subjects you can't fake proficiency in. Either you're an Inquisition Bishop with allies in the Papal Church and a passing favor with the King and Queen of Green, ...or just another 'hack on the rack', denying wikkery.

"It is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretation." Nietzsche

[KOslo]

08:28 AM on 04/26/2012

Bogus analogy. Climate science is not a matter of faith, political standing or theology. It doesn't matter who you know or how much money you have to spread propanda through Fox News - the seas will rise regardless. But even Martin Luther took the trouble to do his homework, to know what he was talking about and to base his theses on religious texts and principles.

"Martin Luther: professor of theology and iconic figure of the Protestant Reformation. He strongly disputed the claim that freedom from God's punishment for sin could be purchased with money. He confronted indulgence salesman Johann Tetzel with his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517."

[Cayce58]

11:03 AM on 04/26/2012

Deny all you want, It won't save your grandchildren from hell on earth.

[palindrom]

09:19 PM on 04/26/2012

Beautifully stated. Fanned and faved.

Plus, you might even be a Norwegian.

[katied6]

12:56 AM on 04/23/2012

There's no doubt that climate change is happening and we are causing it. There's broad consensus among economists that the cost of addressing it is far less than the cost of not addressing it (http://youtu.be/iba5a6zZGC0). Huge sums spent by fossil fuel industry on lobbists and elections on one side. Doing to right thing for our long-term national security and economic prosperity on the other. Only voters -- either by apathy or by holding politicians accountable and demanding action -- will tip the balance one way or the other.

[Chipher]

06:00 AM on 04/26/2012

"There's broad consensus..." as justification for War in Viet Nam
"There's broad consensus..." as justification for War in Afghanistan
"There's broad consensus..." as justification for War in Iraq
"There's broad consensus..." as justification for Bank Bailouts
"There's broad consensus..." as justification for DHS and TSA

[Jim Milks]

02:29 PM on 04/26/2012

Political consensus isn't the same as scientific consensus, so you're using a false comparison. Political consensus is far too often politicians wanting to win the next election and forms quickly. Scientific consensus usually takes years to form (in the case of anthropogenic climate change, it took around 100 years, as the theory was first proposed in 1896) and doesn't change rapidly.

[Daniel Hicks]

02:36 PM on 04/26/2012

Funny that you've only cited moral issues in your analogy. If you take away the human perspective, there is no logically binding "right" or "wrong" stance on any of those issues. What I'm saying is that the only reason anyone has an opinion on these is because they affect people, so we care.

Science is another beast altogether. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about a scientific proposition: it is true or false regardless of your opinion. The only reason "consensus" is at all required is so that scientists can agree on how to interpret the facts they've observed. A more accurate analogy would be:

"There's broad consensus..." as justification for gravity
"There's broad consensus..." as justification for atoms
"There's broad consensus..." as justification for germ theory of disease
"There's broad consensus..." as justification for evolution by natural selection
"There's broad consensus..." as justification for climate change

One and the same process led to the acceptance of all of these. Reject one, and you must reject all of the others.

[chaotician1]

10:44 AM on 04/22/2012

I just don't get it; what is the benefit to the deniers?? Political power is the only obvious answer; and presumably the oligarchs resist change of any sort on the assumption that all change is challenge to their power, control, and wealth! The question then, is why do the "people" support these politicians, these wealthy scions of privilege, these viral parasites that actively destroy the species and the world in which they must live? Ignore the dire consequences of climate change, why fight regulations and actions that merely strive to provide clean water, healthy air, safe working environments, safe and healthy food, productive uncontaminated soils? Why treat factory farms as some god given right for making a profit no matter the cost? Why oppose business regulation that protects small business and keeps at least some level of fairness for all business? Why support tax breaks and subsidies by government to successful, profitable, BIG businesses...just because they pay for a politicians election? Why support a tax code of thousands of pages, each page filled with exceptions and loopholes for those who pay for politicians? Why waste your money, your lives, your dignity, your honor, and your reputation fighting stupid wars in far off lands to enrich the war profiteers, give the Generals shiny metals and a place to use their toys, and provide the politicians power games to pretend they are important and powerful? "People", if you don't take back your power now....when???

[Chipher]

06:08 AM on 04/26/2012

"Political power is the only obvious answer." Your own words.

The IPCC:ICE Global Carbon Caliphate in Brussels and Chicago have only one goal: mandatory global tithe-taxes on every living human being, no opt out, no 'that's not my belief', no 'I don't live in the USA', no 'I don't drive a car', no one gets out of indenture
to the globalists and eugenicists behind the Climate Change Con.

And what does IPCC:ICE offer us? Strip-mining will CONTINUE, clearcut logging will CONTINUE, oil & gas fracking will CONTINUE, and 3rd world dictators will be made inordinately rich with 'carbon credits, driving campesanos and aboriginals off their freeland forest holdings, clearcutting the old-growth tropical forest, aggregating the slash lands and leasing them to Biofuels Agribusiness as 'carbon volcanoes', to quote Willie Smits.

If you don't realize IPCC:ICE is the greatest power play in human history, how can you call yourself their acolyte, when political science is the most important science of all.

[Cayce58]

11:07 AM on 04/26/2012

The rich think they can buy a seat on the ark.

[sharpatti]

07:11 PM on 04/21/2012

Amazing! A republican actually admitting climate change might exist!! They are a little slow, especially when it comes to understanding science. You think more of them will start to see it...or may

[greenalva]

09:35 PM on 04/29/2012

republican shmublican. all the parties are the same, just different names.

[StephenBP]

08:30 PM on 04/18/2012

The positioning of the fossil fuel elites on the issue of climate change is such that it maximizes their profits. By strengthening corporations, and weakening government controls, the fossil fuel elites, aided by their tea party henchmen, are bent on doing whatever it takes to make money, even if that means attacking those who are merely trying to promote the general welfare. As long as the fossil fuel cartels and their various corporate buddies can saturate the airwaves with promotions for idiotic vehicles, idiotic concepts (e.g., “clean coal”), and idiotic life style choices, we are doomed to have to live in a time when the most basic common sense approaches for living and surviving on a planet with 7 billion other people are largely ignored in favor of whatever is good for keeping the wealthiest and most powerful 1%ers in power.

[Chipher]

06:16 AM on 04/26/2012

I really think if you can't afford a $30,000 solar array on your rooftop, then you should be disconnected from the power grid and live like the monastics with beeswax candles, they didn't waste electricity. I think if you can't afford a $60,000 electric vehicle that only runs on clean electricity from green hydropower dams running from distilled dewdrops, then you should be disconnected from the fuel oils grid and live like the pioneers, they didn't waste fuel oils because they didn't have them. And if you live in some 3W country on $5 a day, and can't afford both rice to feed your family, and gas to drive the rich tourist to the shops that pays for your rice bowl, then you should pick through garbage, because you don't deserve to have cheap gasoline when 'the Earth is dying'. And let's get rid of all the old people and students who aren't working anyway, they're just using up the resources.

'Come with me if you want to Tithe!' Willard the Terminator

[gallon]

07:58 PM on 04/26/2012

Willard is a misfit who hangs around with rats.
There was a movie like that once.

[Sebb]

08:41 AM on 04/28/2012

This is know as the "is / ought" fallacy. Because it IS this way then the big bad other person must be saying this is the way it OUGHT to be. Solar panels cost 30,000 and greens like the idea so necessarily greens think everyone OUGHT to buy them going forwards....and therefore they are mad/wrong/ccommunists etc.
The largest pieces missing from the point are
1) So without solar etc how are YOU going to solve climate change?
2) Americans innovate. Solar power is coming down in price almost as fast as the internet grew in the late 90's.
3) There are more ways to fix this than putting up panels
4) Yes the third world is going to grow - and they are the ones who care more / understand more / and are doing more about climate change than we are - who created the problem. It is the poor who are disproportinately impacted by climate. They want the dignity of health and security and it's the greens that want to make sure they get it.

[eaarth2]

06:51 AM on 04/18/2012

The climate is shot- no question about it. The question that remains at this point- how much worse will it get, over what per to demand policy change. C02 is at a level not seen in millions of years- 396ppm- really mind numbing. C02 over the last 800,000 years through 5 ice ages and 5 interglacials has never varied more then 170-280ppm- the lower figure during an ice age- the higher an interglacial. We Will cross 400ppm in 2-3 years- 450ppm by the early 2030s' a level not seen since the late Eocene 35 million years ago.

[Chipher]

06:19 AM on 04/26/2012

0.000396!!! That's almost 4/100ths of 1%!!! REALLY MIND NUMBING ... INSIGNIFICANCE!

[eaarth2]

06:34 AM on 04/26/2012

really? The difference between the last glacial with C02 at 180ppm- and the current interglacial up to 1800 of 280ppm is 100ppm- this took thousands of years to achieve- but in time the rise in C02 melted the ice shield - the seas rose, and by 9,000 bce agriculture started. Now at 396ppm- we have risen 116ppm from 280 in 1800- that's a huge amount- if rising from 180ppm to 280ppm ended a glacial period- what will this even higher rise cause us? And we are rising at 2ppm a year or more.

Guess what? Before you reply to me on this subject- learn something.

[Daniel Hicks]

02:52 PM on 04/26/2012

Haha, look at how much this denier knows about science! The behavior of a mixture *couldn't possibly* change when you only make that little of a difference!

But, then again, the concentration of hydronium ions in pure water (pH 7) is .0000001 mol/L. Do you know what the concentration of hydronium ions in a concentrated solution of lye (pH 14) is? .00000000000001 mol/L, which is a difference of .00001% overall.

But hey, as long as 4 hundredths of a percent is no big deal, this is even four thousand times less impactful than that! You should go drink some lye, you'll be just fine!

Or maybe, just maybe, you don't understand chemistry as well as you'd like to think you do. Your mind was already numb before you ever loaded this page.