ENVIRONMENT  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 4

Bush Makes Empty Climate Change Pledge

Bush issued a last ditch -- and almost certainly unsuccessful -- bid to fend off international criticism of his climate change policies.
June 4, 2007  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
In a last ditch -- and almost certainly unsuccessful -- bid to fend off international criticism of his climate change policies, President George Bush has called on 15 of the world's biggest polluting countries, including China and India, to agree on a target for reducing greenhouse gases by the end of 2008.

But the White House once again rejected a global carbon-trading programme permitting countries to buy and sell carbon credits. US officials also ruled out specific energy efficiency targets, arguing that "one size fits all" standards would be unworkable.

Nor did it embrace the German suggestion of a "two-degree" strategy, whereby the rise in world temperatures would be slowed to 2C this century by cutting emissions.

Experts say that in practice, that target would require a global halving of 1990 emission levels by 2050. A leaked memo last week spoke of Washington's "fundamental opposition" to such a scheme.

Instead, in an important address here a week before the G8 summit in Germany at which global warming will top the agenda, Mr Bush urged a series of meetings starting this autumn. These would bring together countries identified as the main emitters of the gasses blamed for global warming. They would include the US, China and India (all of them either opposed to, or exempted from, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol) as well as Japan and major European countries. Washington refused to ratify Kyoto ostensibly because the absence of big emerging economies such as China and India made it meaningless.

A decade later, it is again at odds with the EU. And Mr Bush's vague promise yesterday to work with other countries for "a new framework for greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012" will do nothing to satisfy critics.

The American plan places its faith in free-market mechanisms and technology to solve the problem. "The world is on the verge of great breakthroughs that will help us become better stewards of the environment," Mr Bush declared. Under his scheme, individual countries would establish "midterm management targets and programmes that reflect their own mix of energy sources and future energy needs".

But for critics, Mr Bush's proposals were simply more of the same -- a transparent attempt to create the impression that the US was not dragging its heels.

The speech was proof that the administration had a "do-nothing" approach to global warming, said Daniel Weiss, the climate strategy director at the Centre for American Progress think-tank. The European and Japanese pleas for action "add to the voices of corporations such as Dow, Shell, General Electric and General Motors". But they were falling on deaf ears, he added.

But Tony Blair hailed Mr Bush's remarks as a step forward. "Without America and China, the rest of the world frankly can agree whatever it wants but it's not going to have the effect of improving the environment," the Prime Minister said during his visit to South Africa. "The important thing is, for the first time America is saying it wants to be part of a global deal."

In fact, the White House has become marginalised in the domestic debate over climate change. The Democrat-controlled Congress is pressing ahead with legislation, while the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, last week led a congressional delegation for talks in Germany on the issue.

And what he really meant ...

From the President's speech in Washington yesterday:

'In recent years, science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it.'

Translation: In recent years, my refusal to acknowledge the reality and seriousness of global warming has turned me into a laughing-stock and contributed to my record low poll ratings. So now I have to look interested.

'The United States takes this issue seriously.'

Translation: Al Gore takes this issue seriously, his movie was a hit, and it's causing me no end of grief.

'By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term goal for reducing greenhouse gases.'

Translation: By the end of next year, I'll be weeks away from the end of my presidency and this can be someone else's problem.

'To develop this goal, the United States will convene a series of meetings of nations that produce the most greenhouse gasses, including nations with rapidly growing economies such as India and China.'

Translation: We will look as busy as we can without doing anything.

'The new initiative I am outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany.'

Translation: The new initiative will put the brakes on the much more robust proposal the Germans are putting forward. As long as dialogue continues, we won't have to abide by any decisions

'Each country would establish midterm management targets and programmes that reflect their own mix of energy sources and needs.'

Translation: Nobody will be obliged to take any painful decisions.

'Over the past six years, my administration has spent, along with the Congress, more than $12bn in research on clean energy technology.'

Translation: But we've spent a lot more mollycoddling the oil and gas industries. We're the world's leader in figuring out ways to power our economy while looking after the environment.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: bush, global warming, climate change, kyoto


Comments are closed-

Did you know about the uranium in coal?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 4, 2007 8:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you know that enough URANIUM goes up the
smokestack of a coal-fired power plant to Fully fuel a
nuclear power plant with the same output? See:
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-
34/text/coalmain.html
If breeding of thorium into uranium and using plutonium as
fuel are allowed, enough uranium and thorium go up the
smokestack of one coal-fired power plant to fully fuel 500
nuclear power plants of the same size. And that isn't all
that goes up the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants.
Arsenic and lead are also among the 73 elements in coal
smoke, and the quantities are worthy of commercial
production. Did you know that you get 100 times as much
radiation from a coal-fired power plant as from a nuclear
power plant?
Have you ever heard of background radiation? The
natural background radiation that has been there since the
beginning of time is 1000 times what you get from a
nuclear power plant or 10 times what you get from a coal-
fired power plant. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
or
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Nuclear power is the SAFEST kind
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 4, 2007 8:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why a Nuclear Power plant CAN NOT Explode like a
Nuclear Bomb:
Bombs are completely different from reactors. There is
nothing similar about them except that they both need fissile
materials. But they need DIFFERENT fissile materials and
they use them very differently.
A nuclear bomb "compresses" pure or nearly pure fissile
material into a small space. There is no other material in
the volume containing the nuclear explosive. The fissile
material is either the uranium isotope 235 or plutonium. If
it is uranium, it is at least 90% uranium 235 and 10% or less
uranium 238. There is no isotope separation problem if the
fissile material is plutonium. These fissile materials are
metals and very difficult to compress. Because they are
difficult to compress, a high explosive [high speed
explosive] is required to compress them. Pieces of the
fissile material have to slam into each other hard for the
nuclear reactions to take place.

A nuclear reactor, such as the ones used for power
generation, does not have any pure fissile material. The
fuel may be 2% to 8% uranium 235 mixed with uranium
238. A mixture of 2% or 8% uranium 235 mixed with
uranium 238 cannot be made to explode no matter how
hard you try. A small amount of plutonium mixed in with
the uranium can not change this. Reactor fuel still cannot
be made to explode like a nuclear bomb no matter how
hard you try. There has never been a nuclear explosion in
a reactor and there never will be. [Uranium and plutonium
are flammable, but a fire isn't an explosion.] The fuel is
further diluted by being divided and sealed into many small
steel capsules. The fuel is further diluted by the need for
coolant to flow around the capsules and through the core so
that heat can be transported to a place where heat energy
can be converted to electrical energy. A reactor does not
contain any high speed [or any other speed] chemical
explosive as a bomb must have. A reactor does not have
any explosive materials at all.

As is obvious from the above descriptions, there is no
possible way that a reactor could ever explode like a
nuclear bomb. Reactors and bombs are very different.
Reactors and bombs are really not even related to each
other.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Powering the Third World
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 4, 2007 8:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Chernobyl accident put as much radiation
into the environment as an equally-sized coal-fired power
plant does in 7 years and 5 months. The Chernobyl
reactor was an extremely obsolete design that hasn't been
built in the West since 1944. Modern Western nuclear
power is safer than coal-fired power and other sources of
electric power and it just got safer. See the December
2005 issue of Scientific American article on a new type of
nuclear reactor that consumes the nuclear "waste" as fuel.
Recommendation: Convert all coal-fired power plants to
nuclear As Soon As Possible.
Third world countries including China, India and others
have no excuse for going thruough the entire 18th, 19th and
20th century process of technology development that we
went thruough. Russia no longer has an excuse to build
obsolete reactors. The technology has already been
invented and developed by us. They are free to purchase
super-safe nuclear technology and other 21st century
technology from us and they should do so. Nobody has a
right to cause our extinction by global warming "because
they need to catch up". By the way, Chinese industrial
grade coal contains so much arsenic that people who steal it
to heat their food, die of arsenic poisoning.
The above information is a powerful persuader. If you tell
every American, it should eliminate the ignorance-based
paranoia about nuclear power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Extinction of Homo Sapiens
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 4, 2007 9:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/52222/
"Carbon Emissions Exceed Highest Assumptions Used in
Climate Change Studies"
By Peter N. Spotts, Christian Science Monitor. Posted May
22, 2007."

Reference the Scientific American article "Impact from the
Deep", in the October 2006 issue on pages 65 to 71. The
article says: If the warming trend from whatever cause
continues for 200 years [or now less than 200 years] we
will go extinct. The cause of the extinction of Homo
Sapiens will be hydrogen sulfide bubbling out of the hot
oceans.
We have to stop the warming or die. THIS HAS
HAPPENED BEFORE. There was a similar minor
extinction 54 Million years ago. The cause of global
warming was not intelligent creatures burning coal, but it
was global warming none the less. The End Permian
extinction 251 million years ago had the same cause, global
warming. The cause of the global warming for the End
Permian extinction event was super volcanoes covering
Siberia. The Siberian volcanoes were no ordinary
volcanoes. They built Siberia, a huge land mass. Global
warming is global warming. The End Permian extinction
was the worst extinction event ever. Adaptation means
death and extinction. It took evolution longer than the
usual 20 million years to recover species diversity to the
normal level after the End Permian mass extinction.
Not going extinct requires that we get control of the
climate. "Who did it, us or Nature" doesn't matter. It
doesn't make sense to quibble over the cause. We have
only one lever we can get our hands on immediately to stop
the global warming. That lever is the carbon dioxide we are
putting into our atmosphere.
Adaptation is 99.99% death and extinction. When people
say: "We will adapt", what they are really saying is: "We
will willingly die and go extinct."
We have to say NO to George W. Bush and the
corporations he represents, no matter what action he
threatens, because to allow him to continue another day on
his destructive path brings us just one day closer to our
own demise.
It is OUR DEMISE as a species that is at issue here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Did you know about the uranium in coal?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 4, 2007 8:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did you know that enough URANIUM goes up the
smokestack of a coal-fired power plant to Fully fuel a
nuclear power plant with the same output? See:
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-
34/text/coalmain.html
If breeding of thorium into uranium and using plutonium as
fuel are allowed, enough uranium and thorium go up the
smokestack of one coal-fired power plant to fully fuel 500
nuclear power plants of the same size. And that isn't all
that goes up the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants.
Arsenic and lead are also among the 73 elements in coal
smoke, and the quantities are worthy of commercial
production. Did you know that you get 100 times as much
radiation from a coal-fired power plant as from a nuclear
power plant?
Have you ever heard of background radiation? The
natural background radiation that has been there since the
beginning of time is 1000 times what you get from a
nuclear power plant or 10 times what you get from a coal-
fired power plant. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
or
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Nuclear power is the SAFEST kind
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 4, 2007 8:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why a Nuclear Power plant CAN NOT Explode like a
Nuclear Bomb:
Bombs are completely different from reactors. There is
nothing similar about them except that they both need fissile
materials. But they need DIFFERENT fissile materials and
they use them very differently.
A nuclear bomb "compresses" pure or nearly pure fissile
material into a small space. There is no other material in
the volume containing the nuclear explosive. The fissile
material is either the uranium isotope 235 or plutonium. If
it is uranium, it is at least 90% uranium 235 and 10% or less
uranium 238. There is no isotope separation problem if the
fissile material is plutonium. These fissile materials are
metals and very difficult to compress. Because they are
difficult to compress, a high explosive [high speed
explosive] is required to compress them. Pieces of the
fissile material have to slam into each other hard for the
nuclear reactions to take place.

A nuclear reactor, such as the ones used for power
generation, does not have any pure fissile material. The
fuel may be 2% to 8% uranium 235 mixed with uranium
238. A mixture of 2% or 8% uranium 235 mixed with
uranium 238 cannot be made to explode no matter how
hard you try. A small amount of plutonium mixed in with
the uranium can not change this. Reactor fuel still cannot
be made to explode like a nuclear bomb no matter how
hard you try. There has never been a nuclear explosion in
a reactor and there never will be. [Uranium and plutonium
are flammable, but a fire isn't an explosion.] The fuel is
further diluted by being divided and sealed into many small
steel capsules. The fuel is further diluted by the need for
coolant to flow around the capsules and through the core so
that heat can be transported to a place where heat energy
can be converted to electrical energy. A reactor does not
contain any high speed [or any other speed] chemical
explosive as a bomb must have. A reactor does not have
any explosive materials at all.

As is obvious from the above descriptions, there is no
possible way that a reactor could ever explode like a
nuclear bomb. Reactors and bombs are very different.
Reactors and bombs are really not even related to each
other.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Powering the Third World
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 4, 2007 8:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Chernobyl accident put as much radiation
into the environment as an equally-sized coal-fired power
plant does in 7 years and 5 months. The Chernobyl
reactor was an extremely obsolete design that hasn't been
built in the West since 1944. Modern Western nuclear
power is safer than coal-fired power and other sources of
electric power and it just got safer. See the December
2005 issue of Scientific American article on a new type of
nuclear reactor that consumes the nuclear "waste" as fuel.
Recommendation: Convert all coal-fired power plants to
nuclear As Soon As Possible.
Third world countries including China, India and others
have no excuse for going thruough the entire 18th, 19th and
20th century process of technology development that we
went thruough. Russia no longer has an excuse to build
obsolete reactors. The technology has already been
invented and developed by us. They are free to purchase
super-safe nuclear technology and other 21st century
technology from us and they should do so. Nobody has a
right to cause our extinction by global warming "because
they need to catch up". By the way, Chinese industrial
grade coal contains so much arsenic that people who steal it
to heat their food, die of arsenic poisoning.
The above information is a powerful persuader. If you tell
every American, it should eliminate the ignorance-based
paranoia about nuclear power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Extinction of Homo Sapiens
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 4, 2007 9:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/52222/
"Carbon Emissions Exceed Highest Assumptions Used in
Climate Change Studies"
By Peter N. Spotts, Christian Science Monitor. Posted May
22, 2007."

Reference the Scientific American article "Impact from the
Deep", in the October 2006 issue on pages 65 to 71. The
article says: If the warming trend from whatever cause
continues for 200 years [or now less than 200 years] we
will go extinct. The cause of the extinction of Homo
Sapiens will be hydrogen sulfide bubbling out of the hot
oceans.
We have to stop the warming or die. THIS HAS
HAPPENED BEFORE. There was a similar minor
extinction 54 Million years ago. The cause of global
warming was not intelligent creatures burning coal, but it
was global warming none the less. The End Permian
extinction 251 million years ago had the same cause, global
warming. The cause of the global warming for the End
Permian extinction event was super volcanoes covering
Siberia. The Siberian volcanoes were no ordinary
volcanoes. They built Siberia, a huge land mass. Global
warming is global warming. The End Permian extinction
was the worst extinction event ever. Adaptation means
death and extinction. It took evolution longer than the
usual 20 million years to recover species diversity to the
normal level after the End Permian mass extinction.
Not going extinct requires that we get control of the
climate. "Who did it, us or Nature" doesn't matter. It
doesn't make sense to quibble over the cause. We have
only one lever we can get our hands on immediately to stop
the global warming. That lever is the carbon dioxide we are
putting into our atmosphere.
Adaptation is 99.99% death and extinction. When people
say: "We will adapt", what they are really saying is: "We
will willingly die and go extinct."
We have to say NO to George W. Bush and the
corporations he represents, no matter what action he
threatens, because to allow him to continue another day on
his destructive path brings us just one day closer to our
own demise.
It is OUR DEMISE as a species that is at issue here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS