Deconstructing Green Bush - Don't Expect Action, Climate Talk Notwithstanding - Salon

[hatrack]

EDIT

President Bush gave a nod to the climate problem in his State of the Union address last month, but the clearest sign that he's feeling the heat is a defensive letter put out by the White House on Wednesday, Feb. 7. "Following last Friday's release of a new report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a number of media reports perpetuated inaccuracies that the president's concern about climate change is new," the letter begins. "In fact, climate change has been a top priority since the president's first year in office. Beginning in June 2001, President Bush has consistently acknowledged climate change is occurring and humans are contributing to the problem." Critics like science journalist Chris Mooney pounced, pointing out that at least three times last year, Bush claimed climate science was up in the air. "There is a debate over whether it's man-made or naturally caused," Bush said in June of 2006.

The administration's open letter also distorts a 2001 Bush statement to make it seem as if he's long believed humans were driving global warming. The letter quotes Bush thusly: "First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming ... There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming ... And the National Academy of Sciences indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity." But those ellipses, well, they elide quite a bit. In the full context of the speech, the human-caused "increase" refers to a rise in greenhouse-gas concentrations -- a non-controversial observation -- not to a rise in global temperatures. The letter goes on to tout Bush's climate-centric spending -- nearly $29 billion since 2001 for "climate-related science, technology, international assistance, and incentive programs," with $9 billion of that dedicated to climate research. "This is far more than any other nation," the letter claims.

EDIT

This is a dramatic and clearly coordinated rhetorical about-face from a long-skeptical administration -- but don't expect real action to follow all the happy talk. Bodman dismissed the notion of mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions: "There is a concern within this administration ... that the imposition of a carbon cap in this country may lead to the transfer of jobs and industry abroad to a country that does not have such a carbon cap. ... You would have the U.S. economy damaged."

Bodman continued, "Even if we were successful in accomplishing some kind of debate and discussion about what caps might be here in the United States, we are a small contributor to the overall, when you look at the rest of the world. And so it's really got to be a global solution."

EDIT

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/02/12/muckraker/

[AlinPA]

1. The slimy bastard Bush** is a dirty liar.

[badgerpup]

2. Last year's SOTU: "We're addicted to foreign oil and that's gotta stop...

...so I'll cut or deny funding for any kind of research and development into green, sustainable or alternate fuels.
I'm not invested in those like I am in foreign oil, so who needs 'em?"

:grr::puke::banghead:

[eppur_se_muova]

3. We weren't expecting much, and we'll get even less. SNAFU. nt

[Moby Grape]

4. why are the unwilling, expected to lead?

meanwhile, the countries with strong
popular support for action,

countries of the EU,
Canada,
Japan,
etc

do nothing.

[Nihil]

5. Because until we turn around the US, everything else is wasted.

The USA consumes 25% of the world's resources.
If the "countries of the EU" etc., reduce their consumption without
managing to persuade the US to do the same then the USA will simply
keep consuming at an ever-increasing rate, negating all the efforts
of the rest of the world.

It's like the glutton at the table, grabbing everything they can find.
This gives no incentive for anyone else to restrain themselves when
they see that the food they left "for the poor" is subsequently
snatched and stuffed into the mouth of the selfish bloat across the table.