It’s hard to find the right phrase to group those who advocate for policies to mitigate/prevent climate change.

How about something like “those who advocate for policies to mitigate/prevent climate change?”

 I also think there are regional differences

This appears to be a reference to coal state Democrats.  The war on coal is not very popular in many blue states (Obama lost WV handily).  The problem is that if you were to institute the shiny sounding “revenue neutral” carbon tax, the coal states still look to lose big time.  Are all the solar panels, windmills, and car battery plants going to open up in former coal states, where typically the local economy significantly lags an already suffering national GDP?

In the end, nobody has ever been serious about crafting a climate plan that would appeal to the right.  Nuclear?  It is sufficient politically to blame the right for lack of progress (this is actually a badge of honor for those on the right). When the NGO’s wake up some day and realize they need actual popular support, and the secret plan to back door the effort through the EPA and the courts isn’t going to work, then a viable plan might start making the rounds.  Don’t hold your breath.

I respect Obama for basically slapping down the greens with a “don’t bring me hopeless plans full of punitive tax measures” message.  That needed to be said out loud.  

After the oncoming war on the fiscal cliff which will likely include tax increases and spending cuts, it is unlikely anyone will have an appetite for more tax increases anytime soon.  

Climate is simply not a priority.  Mysteriously Sandy wasn’t the silver bullet to make it so.  Anybody surprised?

In the US the CAFE standard is set to increase to 54 MPG by 2025…lot’s of whining about that from various sectors but the regulation stands.

EPA set an emission standard for new fossil fired plants which makes building anything that emits more CO2 then a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine pretty close to impossible. Lot’s of whining on that but so far the regulation looks like it will stand.

EPA has set rules on mercury etc etc for coal fired plants that will cause about 25% of US coal fired capacity to close in the next 5 years.

Natural gas is cheaper then coal in many US markets. Economics is driving down the utilization rates of coal fired plants.

Given all of that…what ‘additional policy’ does our current glorious leader need to reduce CO2 emissions?

About 60% of US  coal fired capacity was built between 1960 and 1980…that put’s the retirement timeframe between 2020 and 2040.

Most of US DOE’s efforts are focused on post 2020 electricity generation options, because that is when normal replacement will occur. Anything US DOE is doing prior to 2020 is for demonstration purposes.

Carbon trading was supposed to be a simple mechanism to reduce emissions. In the end the carbon trading schemes all ended up looking like Rube Goldberg contraptions. In the US we have a combination of R&D, regulation,subsidy and market forces which are currently reducing CO2 emissions at a much faster pace then was anticipated by the Rube Goldberg/Waxman-Makey Contraption…Why change course?

You’re reading into the language. 

When you use expressions like ‘the climate concerned community’ in close conjunction with ‘those that trumpet the urgency of climate change’, some readers will infer barely suppressed derision.

China already emits more than the US and EU combined.