"Utter Irresponsibility" Marks Bush Climate Policy - Louisville C-J (!)

[hatrack]

The utter irresponsibility of the Bush administration's policy of deny, delay and do nothing regarding global warming has become as obvious as the utter irresponsibilty of its shoot first, plan later rush into Iraq. It's become so obvious and so irresponsible, in fact, that the top environmental officials of three previous Republican administrations (yes, even card-carrying Reaganites) are speaking out.

And they aren't mincing any words while doing it, as the comments of five of them and one, lone Democrat at a panel discussion last week showed. "To sit back and push this away and deal with it sometime down the road is dishonest and self-destructive," said Russell Train, who served as EPA administrator under Richard Nixon.

"We've got to start on this action. We can't wait," said Lee M. Thomas, who served under Ronald Reagan.

EDIT

Global warming is real. The effects are already being felt. The consequences could be dire. And allowing humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases to continue growing is courting almost certain disaster. With environmentally conscious Republicans and major business leaders now calling for controls, the President's willful refusal to lead is unconscionable.

EDIT/END

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060124/OPINION01/601240337

[aquart]

1. If they can't steal it, they ignore it.

You can't steal weather.

[georgemason]

2. at least we are doing much better

Have you seen the latest report on global warming? For most of the countries that sign up for Kyoto, they all failed, and I mean completely fail. It turns out US is doing a lot better than most of them. So I would say other countries should follow our model. A side node: At this point I am still not sure if human activities cause global warming. Reason: not a single person can tell me how the earth got out of the ice ages (I said ages - means more than once)

[hatrack]

3. Tell me, what is "the latest report on global warming"? Is there a link?

I'm sure you'll post it here for us.

[hatrack]

4. Yeah, that's what I thought . . .

:eyes:

[maddezmom]

5. welcome to DU, georgemason

do you have a link to the latest report? I'd love to take a look.

[Lisa]

7. someone forgot to tell Germany, Sweden, the UK, and Luxembourg

They're on track to meet (or even exceed) their Kyoto targets.

As for the US -- how much of the emissions decrease has been due to a slowing economy and outsourcing of industrial activities? My guess is that if you include the operations of the factories etc. which have moved their jobs overseas, America's CO2 emissions would jump substantially. The Bush "voluntary" cutbacks program didn't help in Texas, and nationwide only 50 companies have signed up (and of course the heavy polluters are ignoring it). Only a fraction of those 50 are doing something about greenhouse gases.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/01/tech/main591086.shtml


And the state and local jurisdictions (like Seattle) which are trying to reduce their emissions could really use some guidance and support from the feds ... and they aren't getting it.

Re: "not a single person can tell" how ice ages end -- there are actually a bunch of researchers who have some pretty solid theories. And as you said yourself, there have been several ice ages, so there are a bunch of possibilities -- changes in atmospheric composition and biogeochemical processes, Milankovitch cycling, the shifting position of land masses and ice caps due to continental drift, ocean circulation changes. If you think that's too dodgy, try asking any group of experts (say, economists or historians) to agree on one single answer for anything! Climatologists couldn't even agree on what caused hothouses to stay warm, until fairly recently (it's the physical confinement of the air inside, not the trapping of outgoing infrared radiation).

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/chill.html

[hatrack]

8. Little things like the closing of the Panama Isthmus,

The draining of Glacial Lake Missoula, etc., etc.

He didn't come back with the latest article, did he?

:eyes:

[rfkrfk]

9. those countries stacked the deck, in favor of themselves

by {having the convention choose} choosing 1990 as the baseline year.

These countries have done next to nothing to reduce emissions,
except things they would have done anyway,
such as closing old industry.

[Lisa]

10. that still beats rolling back emission standards

for old fossil-fuel fired power stations, for example (as some jurisdictions in North America have done).

If countries want to meet their pledges by speeding up the phase-out of less-efficient technology -- or setting aside sinks (as they should be doing anyway, e.g. by increasing the number of protected areas) -- that's fine by me. I also think it's okay to piggyback greenhouse gas reduction on top of other measures, to protect the ozone layer or improve air quality -- or just become more energy-efficient. These sorts of things work better, and will gather more long-term support, if there is more than one reason behind them.

p.s. while I agree with you that the choice of 1990 (not solely made by those particular countries) as the baseline did help some people and put others at a disadvantage, that would have been the case for any other year -- they could have gone with 1988 (the original recommendation by the earlier Toronto meeting) and there still would have been issues.

[rfkrfk]

11. the problem with, a windfall for some, and a burden for others,

is that some will justly refuse to cooperate

the fact that the people who supposedly want it the most,
won't lift a finger towards the effort,

is an indication of how the Europeans view the seriousness of the issue

[Lisa]

12. Europe's done more on this issue than other ratifiers

Admittedly, my own country (Canada) hasn't done much in the way of policy and encouraging more efficient technology -- let alone making long-term changes in community planning. Next to the UK and Germany, Canada's "One Tonne Challenge" looks pretty lame by comparison.
http://www.bmu.de/english/climate/current/doc/35129.php
http://www.britischebotschaft.de/en/embassy/environment/climate_change_policy.htm

Some EU members have better records than others -- but North American states and provinces show that pattern too. Some of the people who want it badly enough are actually putting some effort into this. Likewise, I've been arguing to non-Americans that just because the White House isn't taking part doesn't mean that all Americans are refusing to lift a finger (to borrow your phrase).

[Lorien]

13. I did see it. The US wasn't even in the top 20

New Zealand was #1.

[roseBudd]

6. Clicked through to register a page view for site traffic n/t