Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Calling Bush's Bluff on Global Warming

By Kelpie Wilson, TruthOut.org. Posted June 5, 2007.


Bush now says global warming is a danger but his actions don't reflect that acknowledgment. Here's how we can call the president's bluff and force meaningful action.
Advertisement

So G.W. Bush has had his conversion. He now believes global warming is a danger and we ought to do something about it. Call him Global Warming Bush.

The reaction of world leaders and environmentalists to Bush's announcement last week that he has a global warming plan (with no targets and no timelines) was mostly skeptical. Until now, the president has been the "Denier-in-Chief," concerned mostly with deleting climate concerns from the scientific reports and action agendas of federal agencies and doing his utmost to derail international efforts to tackle global warming, like the upcoming G-8 meeting this week.

In fact, the shift was so sudden that one of his appointees, NASA chief Michael Griffin, seemed to have missed the course correction. Griffin said on NPR that he was not sure that global warming was "a problem we should wrestle with." Imagine the reaction if the NASA chief had made a comment like that about an impending asteroid strike.

Of all the analogies and metaphors that have been offered to explain the threat of global warming, the one clearest to me is that global warming is like an asteroid, or perhaps a swarm of asteroids. We are already getting hit by some of the smaller ones that are showing up as hotter weather, more violent storms and mega-droughts, but there is a really big one out there headed our way.

Until now, George Bush has barely acknowledged that the asteroid exists. As of Thursday's announcement, the asteroid now exists and it is a danger, but any attempts to head it off must be voluntary and can only be deployed if they will not hurt economic growth.

It is obvious that Bush does not really believe in the asteroid. His announcement is an attempt to subvert the global effort to fight climate change. Nancy Pelosi, returning from a trip to Greenland, where she observed the rapid melting of the ice sheet, said: "The president continues to be in denial. He says now he believes that global warming is happening, and he accepts the science that it is. But if that were so, if he truly understood that, he could not have come up with a proposal that is 'aspirational.' He would have to come up with a commitment that is real."

Still, some leaders and some environmentalists feel that the president has given ground on the issue just by admitting that it exists. What we need to do now is call the president's bluff. For world leaders, that means sticking to their guns on hard targets and timelines and not allowing Bush to divert their energy to another round of meaningless talks.

From statements made this weekend by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, there is hope that European leaders will stay the course. In an interview with Der Spiegel, Merkel said "One thing is clear. We must agree on a successor to the Kyoto protocol, which expires in 2012, as part of a process led by the United Nations. ... There will certainly be other meetings and initiatives before then. ... They can even be helpful. What matters is that they all eventually merge into the UN process. This is non-negotiable."

Domestically, the Democrats need to seize this opening and pass veto-proof legislation to combat global warming as soon as possible, but it should not look like the bill that Senate Energy Committee Chair Jeff Bingaman is drafting. Bingaman's bill, which he plans to introduce in June, includes an economic "safety valve" that puts a limit on how high carbon prices can go.

The safety valve is there to make it easier for Bush to sign the bill, but according to the Environmental Defense Fund, the safety valve could "undercut the development of the very technologies that some high emitting-industries will need in the future to meet their emissions targets."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bush, global warming, climage change

Kelpie Wilson is Truthout's environment editor. Trained as a mechanical engineer, she embarked on a career as a forest protection activist, then returned to engineering as a technical writer for the solar power industry. She is the author of Primal Tears, an eco-thriller about a hybrid human-bonobo girl.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The technology and knowledge is already there
Posted by: Ames on Jun 6, 2007 12:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without wanting to portray the issue as simplistic, basically we just need the willpower, commitment and accountability to take action. Global warming sceptics the world over are acknowledging global warming because they see it as a way to promote 'new' technologies which do nothing to help stop emissions and pollution and do everything to keep lining the pockets of their buddies in coal, oil and nuclear.

Is it any wonder geo-sequestration (putting coal emissions underground) and nuclear power (umm, emissions expended to mine the uranium, water to cool, and radioactive waste for thousands of years aren't a problem?) are touted as the solutions by global warming's johnny-come-latelys.

For Bush and his ilk around the world to acknowlede global warming exists is no victory. They've just identified a means by which to promote their own and their mate's greed while acquiring some cred. All this while denouncing existing technology such as wind and solar power as insufficient and unreliable.

One can only hope electorates the world over can see through these lies and clumsy facades, and vote the bastards out. Power to the people.

Peace out.

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

» RE: It's in the wind! Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Try PBRs Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» Some Credibility? Posted by: Cathyc
If his lips are moving...
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 6, 2007 12:48 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before Americans or anyone else in the world believes what George W. says about global warming, they should first consider the following list of transgressions, distortions and outright lies that shows the Bush administration to be the most corrupt in U.S. history:

So-called Iraqi WMDs.
"Immediate" threats.
Yellow-cake uranium.
Aluminum tubes.
Mobile biological weapons labs.
Ties to Al Qaeda.
A 9/11 connection.
The Valerie Plame/CIA leak case.
Scooter Libby’s conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice.
Secret overseas prisons.
Torture.
Warrantless wiretaps of United States citizens.
Phony Al Qaeda plots.
False claims that America is safer now from terrorism than before 9/11.
Concealing the real cost of Gulf War 2.
Understating Iraqi civilian casualties.
Embellishing U.S. successes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Misrepresenting the only wartime tax cut in American history.
Economically betraying senior citizens, the middle class and working poor.
Downplaying global climate change.
Bush going on vacation during Hurricane Katrina while fellow Americans drowned in New Orleans.
Claiming wounded GIs got the best treatment possible at Walter Reed.
Preventing the coffins of returning GIs from being seen by the public.
Hiding injured Iraq veterans from the press after landing stateside.
Declassifying intelligence information for political purposes.
Firing U.S. attorneys for the same reason.

Add to the list the falsified presidential biography I found on a State Department website in 2004 and reported to the Boston Globe. Impressed, it ran the story the next morning, on 02/28/04, under the headline, “Bush Bio on Web Inflates Guard Service,” and gave me credit as the source.

You can learn about the “Bogus Bush Bio Caper” on my nonprofit website, King-George.biz -- the only one with hardcopy proof of White House corruption (Shrub’s fabricated military service).

Global warming, the troop surge in Iraq -- whatever the subject at hand -- never forget the person Bush really is. If his lips are moving, he’s lying.

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

Show Me the Tax or Move On
Posted by: edith on Jun 6, 2007 1:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this author begins by criticism of Bingaman and the Democrats for limitations on carbon taxation and prices. She then advocates a subsidy program for solar power and for greater energy efficiency without, it seems, limits on carbon. Without limits on carbon use, with a hard ceiling or by a tax, people will continue to drive with abandon and utilities will use the cheapest power source now around, i.e., coal.

So what is the author for and what is she against (besides Bush, which is obvious)? If the Democrats don't have a super majority to push through pricing carbon so high that the consumptioi-crazy American public will finally demand alternatives, then they should move on to more productive matters like health care (which along with social security and Medicare will require the revenues from the Bush tax program the author wants to use to subsidize solar and "efficency"). Or the Congress could productivley cut the handout to aerospace for the fumbling, bumbling missile 'defense' system, which might require phonies like Ted Kennedy to vote against the defense industry in their home states.

People like their cars and utilities like coal. Unless you are willing to be a taxer, and tax these options out of reach of practically every consumer, you are just reciting a numbing mantra of more efficiency, more efficiency, etc. etc.

The public will fall asleep and the carbon dioxide levels will keep rising. Let's cut the bull and openly state that a whopping tax hike is the fastest way to slow down carbon dioxide emissions. Platitudes about efficiency won't get suburban moms out of their vans or commuters out of their single occupancy vehicles.

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

» RE: Show Me the Tax or Move On Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Show Me the Tax or Move On Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
What happened to the Glacier?
Posted by: kbest on Jun 6, 2007 10:30 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back before fossil fuels were even invented, there was a glacier a mile thick located where I live now, in the upper mid-west.

Tell me what was it that made it disappear. It wasn't global warming caused by man.

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

» RE: What happened to the Glacier? Posted by: apophenia_monkey
It is a very good start!
Posted by: Swedish liberal on Jun 6, 2007 1:08 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a very good thing that GWB now acknowledge that Global Warming is a problem. This does not mean that he has to accept all the policies of the extreme left or the extreme Greens.

I have yet to see how much of the human carbon emissions are behind global warming. I together with most humans on this planet am not as most ecologist willing to sacrifice my lifestyle. It is not a viable way, personally I believe that a combination of development and curbing emissions.

Without the G8 countries accepting Global Warming nothing will happen. So therefore it is now very fortuitous that GWB is accepting this.

I firmly believe that nuclear power in the short run is a very good solution for the western world. Finland is now building new reactors on a massive scale as well as a Fourth Generation reactor. In the long run I believe fusion power and fuel cells will be the solution.

In Sweden they set of 1 % of the GDP to research and I think that it is necessary for the entire world to do the same thing.

Sweden also is giving 1 % of the GDP in aid to third world countries. Recent studies have shown that all that monies have had no or little effect on mitigating world poverty. On the contrary it has conserved poverty and supported totalitarian regimes in Africa. The new Swedish government has therefore imposed a new rule that most of the aid to third world countries is to end by the year 2030 and instead economic support will go to building free market economies and democracy. It has through research been shown that aid does not cut poverty only democracy and a free market society gets the economy going and becoming self supporting. The clearest example of this in the third world is when you compare Asia with Africa. 40 years ago both were equally poor now poverty is almost made extinct in Asia. In Africa the situation is still as bad in most places.

So I believe that the cut in aid to third world countries should be funnelled into research on bio fuels and nuclear and fusion power.

Sweden is on the right track. Help to self help is the only way forward, catastrophe help should of course be given as before.

The World will survive and so will humanity!

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

» RE: It is a very good start! Posted by: peacefullaim
It's time to put gluttonous energy consumers on a diet
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 6, 2007 2:13 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, there is no longer any doubt that human use of fossil fuels and deforestation are responsible for global warming and climate destabilization. The breakdown in the increase in greenhouse gas emissions is something like 80% fossil fuel use, 20% deforestation.

Yes, there are uncertainties - but only with respect to how fast the climate will destabilize. Will sea level rise by 3 feet, or by 12 feet, over the next century? Already we're seeing severe droughts, vanishing glaciers, melting ice sheets, and more intense hurricanes.

So, what are the solutions to the problem? First is getting off oil and coal - and the first thing to do is to strip the massive government subsidies for coal and oil production, and transfer them to solar and wind generation. If you then add a tax onto all fossil fuels, you'll see investors put their money into truly renewable and efficient energy strategies.

The second thing to do is to get off the industrial fossil fuel agricultural system, as well as the deforestation-based colonial agricultural system that is prevalent in the tropics - cutting down forests to make room for palm oil plantations for biofuel production is absolutely ridiculous. Before you can even start to think about sustainable biofuels, you need sustainable, renewable energy-powered agriculture. (One exception is using algae to produce biofuels - they don't use arable land, and have the highest yield).

The third, and perhaps most important step, is to counter all the propaganda, public relations, and 'educational' efforts of the fossil fuel, agribusiness, and nuclear industries, all of whom are tied at the hip via finance and interlocking corporate boards. Nuclear technology is a dead end, as is coal and oil.

The biggest lie of these industries is that renewables and conservation can't meet global energy needs - that without coal and oil, and a huge expansion of nuclear power, the world will be starved for energy. It's the classic "Big Lie" strategy - see Edwin Black's "Internal Combustion" for the details on the fossil fuel industry's war on renewable energy (He was also the author of the notable "IBM and the Holocaust.)

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

Re: Its a Start
Posted by: snedunuri on Jun 6, 2007 2:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And here I was thinking that all the warming deniers and loonies were in the US! OK, that's a bit unfair. The rest of your post is actually quite sensible. But your claim that you have yet to see how much of human emissions are behind global warming shows that you *have* been sipping some of the Repugnican cool-aid. I mean c'mon man. Seriously, if you want to read the science its all there for you to see. Try gristmill's FAQ for starters www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here (Its even in Swedish!). OK, onto your other statement: "I together with most humans on this planet am not as most ecologist willing to sacrifice my lifestyle". If you understand and accept the science, this statement makes about as much sense as a fat bastard who puts away a couple of Big Macs and large fries a day saying he's unwilling to change his lifestyle. What do you consider a sacrifice? Is driving a fuel efficient car a sacrifice? Is choosing to buy locally a sacrifice? And what do you consider enough of a threat to want to change it? Are rising sea levels, mass starvation in africa, and increased pestilence enough of a threat for you?

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

THE DAYS, MONTHS AND YEARS ROLL BY WHILE THE BUSH SLAUGHTER CONTINUES
Posted by: SALLY EVANS on Jun 6, 2007 2:46 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WHY HASN'T GEORGE W. BUSH BEEN INDICTED AND IMPRISONED ALONG WITH CHENEY AND RICE? WHY ARE PEOPLE TRYING TO COMMUNICATE WITH A LUNATIC?

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

At the risk of sounding like a Nazi...
Posted by: tommytime on Jun 6, 2007 6:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to think for ourselves, rather than trust people like Gore and Bush and Blair and all the others who are telling us that CO2 is responsible for global warming.

Please don't shout at me yet... Please listen for a minute...

We have a problem here.

Gore says that a rise in CO2 causes global warming. I used to believe that until recently.

There IS a link between global warming and CO2. However, according to the data that Gore uses (ice core data collected in the Antarctic), global warming CAUSES the rise in CO2.

In fact, CO2 starts to rise approximately 800 years AFTER the global temperature rises.

This is not disputed, even by climate scientists who believe in global warming).

Take a look at the 'Great Global Warming Swindle' documentary on google video: Just go to Google, click on video and type in 'Global Warming Swindle' - you'll find it.

I don't agree with everything they say in this film, but it does make some astonishing points. Especially about Gore's 'Scientific Proof'.

I do believe we need to start holding corporations to task for pollution and protect our remaining fresh water supplies. I believe it is possible that the Global Warming theory is just a distraction from these important issues.

I would like to see us researching the reasons behind global warming further.

Okay, you can shout at me know.

Seriously... I'd love to hear what other people think - even if you think I AM a Nazi ;)

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

Griffin NSA NPR "What's Hot and What's Not"
Posted by: cognitorex on Jun 7, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Griffin NSA NPR "What's Hot and What's Not"
.
Michael Griffin, NSA Director and Bush apologist, in his statement to NPR on the subject of global warming said,"Who are we to opine on what the correct temperature for earth should be?"
Look for this tag line to become the GOP' corporatism' enablers next argument for doing nothing.
Gee whiz, our life is the result of an "Intelligent Design", so who are we to meddle as seas rise, deserts form, water becomes scarce, thousands of earth's species disappear and millions die?

--craig johnson--

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

Not Helpful
Posted by: Erik1968 on Jun 7, 2007 9:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you know what I don't think helps move the debate? Laundry lists of legislation from fantasyland. I mean, now that Bush admits there's global warming, all the Democrats have to do is repeal the bush tax cuts and spend the money on slowing global warming?

Really? Anything else you'd like? Magic cars that get a million miles to the gallon? Elf-wings to replace jets?

I dare anyone to pass any global warming legislation, and make bush veto it. The Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and presidency from 1993-4, and they didn't pass a DAMN THING. Al Gore ran for president on virtually the same tax cuts Bush (and congressional dems) passed.

Seriously. Let the dems pass ONE bill, "veto-proof" or not, before we start repealing tax cuts...

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

If you want to know the truth about climate
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 11, 2007 9:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Subscribe to www.realclimate.org

A new entry titled 'G8 summit declaration' has been posted to
RealClimate.org.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=452

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

extinction
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 11, 2007 9:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
The last paragraph of the article says:
"The so-called thermal extinction at the end of the
Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under
1,000 parts per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic,
CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today with CO2 around
385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with atmospheric
carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to
accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the
end of the next century, and conditions that bring about the
beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That
is something our society should never find out."

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

uranium in coal
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 11, 2007 9:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Download from:
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-
34/text/coalmain.html
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million
tons of coal in the United States and 12,580 million tons
worldwide during the year 2040, cumulative releases for the
100 years of coal combustion following 1937 are predicted
to be:
U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons [of
coal]):
Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of
uranium-235)

Thorium: 357,491 tons

Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million
tons [of coal]):

Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of
uranium-235)

Thorium: 2,039,709 tons

Radioactivity from Coal Combustion

The main sources of radiation released from coal
combustion include not only uranium and thorium but also
daughter products produced by the decay of these isotopes,
such as radium, radon, polonium, bismuth, and lead.
Although not a decay product, naturally occurring
radioactive potassium 40 is also a significant contributor.
According to the National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements (NCRP), the average radioactivity per
short ton of coal is 17,100 millicuries /4,000,000 tons, or
0.00427 millicuries/ton. This figure can be used to calculate
the average expected radioactivity release from coal
combustion. For 1982 the total release of radioactivity from
154 typical coal plants in the United States was, therefore,
2,630,230 millicuries. Thus, by combining U.S. coal
combustion from 1937 (440 million tons) through 1987
(661 million tons) with an estimated total in the year 2040
(2516 million tons), the total expected U.S. radioactivity
release to the environment by 2040 can be determined.
That total comes from the expected combustion of 111,716
million tons of coal with the release of 477,027,320
millicuries in the United States. Global releases of
radioactivity from the predicted combustion of 637,409
million tons of coal would be 2,721,736,430 millicuries. For
comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No.
95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe
nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-
rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear
plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from
coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. For the
complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor
operation to waste disposal, the radiation dose is cited as
136 person rem/year; the equivalent dose for coal use, from
mining to power plant operation to waste disposal, is not
listed in this report and is probably unknown.

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