President Bush "In The Process Of Solving" Global Warming
Published July 07, 2006
In a fluffy interview in People magazine, President Bush was asked an assortment of questions about turning 60 and getting older. The president talked about his new obsession with mountain biking, life with Laura with the kids off to college, and the kinds of boring birthday gifts (bland ties, dreary sweaters) that birthday dads the world round must by definition endure.
When the topic turned to politics, things got more interesting. A well phrased, nearly screwball question ("Do you think Gore is right on global warming?") elicited a perhaps illuminating answer. "I think we have a problem on global warming," the president began. This in itself underscores how much the debate on global warming and environmentalism has shifted in the United States.
Until recently, it was very easy for public leaders to at least give a nod and wink to Rush Limbaugh's and other conservative pundits' open criticism of the environmental movement, with their cries of "hysterics" and "pseudo-science." Those who cared about the environment could be easily ignored. And those who advocated policy change were passed off as tree-huggers or worse, and were branded as being against progress and the American Way.
In 2001, President Bush chose to walk away from the Kyoto Treaty, which mandates that industrialized nations cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, which scientists believe are a leading factor in causing global warming.
Now the president believes that there is a problem, and that there is a "debate." Bush went on to tell People, "I think there is a debate about whether it's caused by mankind or whether it's caused naturally, but it's a worthy debate."
But that's not all. President Bush is, in his own words, in the process of solving that debate. "It's a debate, actually, that I'm in the process of solving by advancing new technologies, burning coal cleanly in electric plants, or promoting hydrogen-powered automobiles, or advancing ethanol as an alternative to gasoline."
Beyond the president's new interest in environmental policy and regardless of his policy alternatives, there are several clear ironies here.
Al Gore is now being widely credited for raising the specter of global warming in the public eye, thanks to his documentary and book, both called An Inconvenient Truth. A longtime and passionate environmentalist, Gore was criticized during the 2000 presidential campaign for stifling his views on the environment out of fear that it would alienate swing voters. It is possible, of course, that a handful of disaffected environmentalists in Florida may have changed the course of modern American history by voting for Ralph Nader and therefore swinging the election to the current president.
Another favorite criticism and caricature of Mr. Gore is that he is wooden and pompous. The latter assessment is based in part on his sometimes professorial speaking style and in part on the mischaracterization that he claimed to have "invented the Internet."
Six years into his presidency, isn't it ironic that George W. Bush now claims to be solving the global warming debate?
Eric Berlin is the Executive Producer of Blogcritics.org and publisher of Online Media Cultist. He's also prone to referring to himself in the third person in author bios in an attempt to make it look like someone Less Important wrote it for him.
Contact: dumpsterbust@gmail.com
- President Bush "In The Process Of Solving" Global Warming
- Published: July 07, 2006
- Type: News
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: Energy and Environment, Politics: Policy, Politics: U.S.
- Part of a feature: What's Breaking
- Writer: Eric Berlin
- Eric Berlin's BC Writer page
- Eric Berlin's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
No, I quoted the relevant parts of his statement -- the presideent went into no further details than that.
I haven't seen any real legislation pass on improving mileage standards -- maybe I'm missing something?
No, I quoted the relevant parts of his statement -- the presideent went into no further details than that.
Well, that's not terribly informative. I just he just wanted us to know that he 'cares'.
I haven't seen any real legislation pass on improving mileage standards -- maybe I'm missing something?
Indeed you are. Bush has actually raised the CAFE standards twice and is pushing for a third increase. I believe the auto industry is actually suing the administration over the last increase. The increase approved in march of this year will raise the standard for light trucks and SUVs to 24mpg. You can read the DOT press release.
Dave
The Bush administration has shown a depressing tendency to be really good at politics and rhetoric and rather short on the actual business of responsible leadership. From The Financial Times, July 5:
But like several other initiatives since the January speech, the tightening of the so-called Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in March was more smoke than fire. The slight increase in the average fuel economy required for popular sport utility vehicles and light trucks - to 24 miles per gallon beginning in 2011, up from 21.6 mpg - was largely offset by the continuation of loopholes aimed at keeping Detroit carmakers happy.
The pattern is one that has repeated itself even as rising petrol prices and the possibility of confrontation with Iran have pushed energy security to the top of the administration's agenda.
I'd say a 11% increase for the most popular cars on the market is fairly significant. As Maneta points out in that press release, it would save a hell of a lot of oil.
Plus, if you read the CAFE rules which are linked to in that article you will see that it's Bush who raised the standard to 21.6 in 2003 from a standard of 20.7 set in 1995, which was the first time the CAFE standard had actually been applied to light trucks since they were exempted from the restrictions originally applied in 1979 during the Reagan administration. So that means Bush has been responsible for a total increase of 16%, which is not bad considering Congress blocked any increase in the standards for almost 20 years.
What surprised me in reading up on this is that there are massive penalties for not meeting the CAFE standards. Apparently since 1986 US manufacturers have paid half a billion dollars in penalties for being below the standards. Most manufacturers still pay several million dollars a year. And BTW, under Bush the penalty rate has also been increased 10%.
Of course I'm not sure that just raising the CAFE standards with 'solve' global warming. But remember, Bush has also been very aggressive in promoting incentives for alternative fuel and alternative energy technology development.
Dave
Read the quote; he didn't say he's in the process of solving global warming, he said he's in the process of solving the debate. And the Bush Doctrine (goes back to Bush 41) for "solving" a debate is to throw a bunch of meaningless rhetoric and bullshit promises into it. Why address the underlying issue? That problem is genuinely difficult, and it's only the public's perception of the problem that immediately threatens him politically.
Interesting article, EB. There is not a lot of action likely to take place in the next two years but laying the groundwork for more research, proposals, and debate would be a good thing.
Domestic automobile manufacturers get subsidized in all kinds of ways, so wouldn't that be where the massive loopholes come in.
JR -- I would tend to agree.
Yes, DJR, I hope we get some real debate over environmental issues in the next presidential debate.
Every administration for the past 20 years have toyed with CAFE standards - those standards may have been raised, but along with it the target dates for meeting those standards has been moved further and further into the future. The initial goal of Title V of the Energy Policy Conservation Act, passed in 1975, was to double fuel efficiency by 1985. The standards set during Bush's administration were programmed in by legislation passed by Congress. In the history of the CAFE standards, the goals set for specific years have never been met, because they have been relaxed repeatedly.
Why shouldn't he "solve" the debate on whether global warming is manmade or not? He invented it in the first place! Every scientist seems pretty convinced that it is man made, they just aren't quite sure what we did that caused it.
He won't be "solving" global warming itself any time soon, or even pretending to. Look what he advocates! More coal, and the mythical hydrogen economy (with no discussion of where the hydrogen comes from, but my bet is that it comes from electricity generated by coal/oil).
Isn't it even more ironic that Al EEEEEE Gore now claims to be doing something about global warming when during his entire politcal career all he did was talk about it...just like he his now ,,,as James Brown would say "he talks a lot but dont say much"
No, I think it's more ironic that the President of the United States claims to be solving the debate over global warming.
Gore is doing extraordinary good right now -- perhaps the best and most lasting work of his career.
Well he obviously knows what he's talking about...all that education....
Every scientist seems pretty convinced that it is man made, they just aren't quite sure what we did that caused it.
I think we can all agree that the issue of global warming is man made. If scientists hadn't decided that a normal cyclic warming pattern was magically caused by humans - starting well before the industrial age, mind you - then there wouldn't be a controversy.
dave
If it's anything like the way he's "in the process of" finding Bin Laden, I'm not impressed. One. Bit.
Albert (He aint no Albert Einstein) A Gore invented the internet and global warming. Dr Draueviu of the Institute of Meteordogy and Hydrology stated that global warming is a HOAX.
Mr. Berlin. Dr. Draueviu also stated we will be entering a new ice age within five years and NY could be gripped within ice for deckades. Florida will see tempatures 20 degrees colder then normal and Florida oranges will be a thing of the past. The west coast according to Dr. Draueviu will suffer the worst and SF will longer have habitants. Not a very pretty picture I would think.
Nobody can predict the local weather more than five days out with any accuracy, but all these scientists are telling us what will happen 5-100 years from now.
I wonder if any of them are the same ones who told us back in the 70s that the earth was cooling??
There is an estimated 400 billion tons of methane trapped in permafrost ice.
An estimated 50% of surface permafrost will melt by 2050, and 90% by 2100.
Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2-the sudden release of just 35 billion tons of methane would be like doubling the CO2 in the air.
Massive amounts of methane from melting permafrost ice will soon flood the air-far outpacing human greenhouse gas pollution.
The effect of methane flooding the air is runaway global warming-this disastrous positive feedback loop has occurred before.
Ocean bottom ice will start to melt-releasing some of the estimated 10,000 billion tons of methane trapped in it.
A potential bottleneck for mankind-an existential threat to nations.
The only solution is biological sequestration-removing the CO2 from the air after it is emitted.
"... Dr Draueviu of the Institute of Meteordogy and Hydrology stated that global warming is a HOAX."
Citation, please. I googled the Dr. and the Institute (correcting your misspellings as necessary) and ended up in some bulgarian bureaucracy.
Where did you get this?
Bliffle,
I think the good Dr. is himself a haox...
It's interesting that Bush has any time to deal with Global Warming. After all, his administration is busy covering up the Zionist's plans for a Global government... ask yourself: Do you REALLY think that Arabs with box cutters caused 9/11?
Yes, with lots of planning and money and training thanks to Al Qaeda, and thanks to a massive intelligence failure on the part of the US.
Re #25:
No, it was actually a bunch of pinheaded anti-semitic conspiracy theorists, who did it to gain support for their sicko ideas.
Clavos, that would be funnier had those pinheaded anti-semitic conspiracy theorists not actually blown up the Murrow building in OKC.
Dave
Point taken, Dave. Didn't really intend for it to be funny (aside from the sarcasm), and didn't consider OKC.
You started with sarcasm and I matched it with irony. When dealing with these reactionary buffoons we have to find humor where we can.
dave
Right on!
Dear Presdent Bush.
I want to thank you for the great job you are doing.but you should greatly Think about putting the BIBLE back in the schools.Also
let parents disiplin there children.[properly]
and a lot of the problums would be solved.When you take JESUS out sin abounds.I know God [Jesus]
put you there.
God bless you
Gladys Free
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/50107)
I didn't get out of this article any hint of the substance of how Bush plans to solve global warming. I realize that he's passed more clean air regulation and done more to reduce emissions and improve automobile gas mileage than any president since the 1970s, but surely there's more to his plan than that. Did he go into any details.
And BTW the rejection of Kyoto had little to do with the environment and everything to do with politics. Kyoto was framed in a way which selected targets for political reasons rather than the actual environmental threat which they posed, and any sensible nation should have passed on it in hopes of something better.
Dave