Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Bush's Global Warming Foot-Dragging

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted June 7, 2007.


Bush snared front-page attention for his supposed shift on global warming, but comments from his NASA chief that a hotter planet might actually be beneficial continue to reflect Bush's long-held doubts about the urgency of the problem.
Advertisement

George W. Bush snared front-page attention for his supposed shift on global warming, but the President's tepid "aspirational goals" -- and comments from his NASA chief that a hotter planet might actually be beneficial -- continue to reflect Bush's long-held doubts about the urgency of the problem.

Since running for the presidency in 2000, Bush has justified his foot-dragging on the issue, in part, through reliance on coal-industry-financed research embracing the same notion expressed by Bush's NASA administrator Michael Griffin, that global warming may turn out to be a good thing.

For instance, in a major energy policy address on September 29, 2000, candidate Bush turned to research from the Greening Earth Society, a think tank financed by the Western Fuels Association, a cooperative owned by seven coal-burning utilities.

In the speech, Bush offered the surprising assessment that technological breakthroughs, such as the Internet, were draining the nation's electrical grid and required construction of many new power plants, including coal-fired generators.

"Today, the equipment needed to power the Internet consumes 8 percent of all the electricity produced in the United States," Bush declared, an assertion that drew little press attention but astounded many energy experts who consider the Internet and similar advances, on balance, a way to improve productivity and reduce energy demands.

But there was another level to Bush's Internet claim, a peculiar relationship between Bush and the Greening Earth Society, which produced the dubious data and endorses the view that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere -- and the global warming it would produce -- are good for the earth.

Bush's Internet energy figure could be traced to a 1999 study entitled "The Internet Begins with Coal," written by Mark Mills, president of Mills McCarthy & Associates Inc. Based on Mills's calculations, the study stated, "The electricity appetite of the equipment on the Internet has grown from essentially nothing 10 years ago to 8 percent of the total U.S. electricity consumption today."

Though Bush cited Mills's 8 percent figure as fact, the estimate was vigorously challenged by many energy experts who put the Internet's demand at only about 1 percent of U.S. electricity, even before considering energy savings from such altered habits as shoppers buying online.

According to a summary of Mills's report, his Internet project grew "out of an inquiry by Greening Earth Society president Fred Palmer." Mills also was listed as a scientific adviser to the Greening Earth Society.

Loving Carbon Dioxide

In a report entitled "The CO2 Issue," the Greening Earth Society painted a rosy picture of the global warming brought about by greenhouse gases: "Evidence of very modest nighttime winter warming, robust plant growth, rejuvenating forests and ample harvests abounds."

Greening Earth Society president Palmer also was chief executive of the Western Fuels Association, a cooperative which delivered 22.7 million tons of coal to member utilities in 1999, according to its annual report.

In its 2000 annual report, Western Fuels condemned the "anti-coal activities" of the Clinton-Gore administration. The report also criticized efforts to address the problem of global warming through the international agreement, reached in Kyoto, Japan, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

While the national press corps took little note of where the Republican presidential candidate was getting his data, environmentalists were alarmed because Bush seemed to be embracing the coal industry's propaganda.

Environmentalists consider coal a major polluter of the land, water and air -- as well as a principal source of greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Energy Department estimated that burning coal then released 36 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bush, global warming

Robert Parry's new book is Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq."

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

Advertisement
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:
carefull about global warming
Posted by: richholland on Jun 9, 2007 2:36 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
living in a country which area is 60% surface below sealevel and having a ministry of watercontrol for more than 1000 years most dutchmen who saw the AL Gores horrorfantasyshow ĂŻndependent truth"" are shocked by the nivo of American Presidents candidates.

pollution is one thing, but global warming is another thing...
soon big corporations will sell antiglobal warming pills to put in your arshhole.
then thousands of leftprotesters will drive thousands of miles in their cars to protest against pollution.

Extra taxes will be raised to protect Icebears and lesbian dodos.
Awake and read a book.

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

» RE: careful about global warming Posted by: mkeeling@jam.rr.com
That sneaky West Texas cowboy...
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 9, 2007 4:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Man, is Bush shrewd! What better way to muster opposition to global warming theorists than by supporting them.

Based on his record of dishonest hypocritical behavior, people who think logically and believe science, not religion, should be used to solve worldly problems, have to assume Dub-ya is lying. Therefore, global climate change will not seriously impact human beings in the future. Or so he wishes.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of the nonprofit website, King-George.biz -- the only one with hardcopy proof of White House corruption, made especially entertaining with 60 Bushwhacking cartoons, photos and other illustrations.

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

US corporate media spin goes hand in hand with Bushspeak
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 9, 2007 9:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ABC News: Bush Calls for Global Emissions Goals by End of 2008 - positive spin galore.

CBS News: Bush Calls For Global Emissions Pact - and more of the same.

MSNBC Bush unveils new climate strategy - laying it on thick.

CNN Bush urges 15 nations to set global emissions goal - and on and on and on...

The New York Times: Europe and U.S. Move Toward Climate Deal - a bland piece with a misleading headline that contains no references to Bush's repeated attempts to sabotage climate action ever since he got into office.

The Associated Press: G8 Said to Agree on Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions - picked up by FOX News.

Compare this to some of the foreign press coverage:

The Guardian UK: Bush kills off hopes for G8 climate change plan

Telegraph.co UK: G8 must produce results, not hot air, and also Too much grandstanding, too little progress

Bush is in bed with the Saudis and Prince Bandar - that's the guy who got a $2 billion dollar bribe from a British weapons manufacturer - and action on global warming means that oil and coal will be replaced by renewables, and then there goes the Saudi's cash flow. ABC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CBS, etc., are all controlled by corporate interests with ties to oil, coal and energy corporations - they don't want to see action on climate any more than Bush does.

Even the post-G8 coverage is spun to avoid blaming Bush - "G8 fails to make progress", etc. It's nothing but straight up, shameless propaganda from the corporate press.

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

Worse Than Doing Nothing At All!
Posted by: sofla100 on Jun 9, 2007 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would have been better regards tackling global warming if Bush had done nothing. What he is proposing is voluntary caps as a substitute for a new Kyoto Protocal, as that agreement had called for mandatory emission caps.

This is no progress at all and a step-backwards. It is only made worse by the naievete of the news media. The fact that Bush was able to receive the traction in the press he received is unbelievable and pathetic. Appearently, with no shortage of negative stories about Bush and the USA, the media will jump on anything at all it can spin up for "domestic consumption." Ridiculous.

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

8% might be a little high, but not unrealistic.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jun 9, 2007 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though Bush cited Mills's 8 percent figure as fact, the estimate was vigorously challenged by many energy experts who put the Internet's demand at only about 1 percent of U.S. electricity, even before considering energy savings from such altered habits as shoppers buying online.

Not to nitpick, but that study is close to having its ten year birthday, and Moore's law has a way of making decade-ago computer studies look laughablein today's light.

A for-instance with home pc's: at the end of the nineties, an average power supply unit for a home pc was 100-150W. Now when I want to get my MMORPG fix, I fire (not quite literally) up a pc with a graphics card that can dissipate 115W...by its lonesome, under load. The power supply itself is rated at 650W, supplying 110W to the dual-core CPU, and 150W or so to the rest of the system, in addition to that ridiculous nasty-hot graphics card that brings me to pixelated nirvana when the odd opportunity to goof off, do jack-nilly, and absolutely waste my life with some selfish me-timefor a little while presents itself.

But that's a very, very minor consideration. The rise of teh googles, the expansion of Micro$oft, the floudering of yahoo, the rise and fall of the joke called aol, the new applications for bioinformatics, dedicated streaming video sites...these are all built in massive buildings full of servers, churning away constantly to keep the data, mine the data, backup the data, make the data accessible, always faster.

Of course, the contributions of these individual groups are a drop in the bucket compared to the vast amounts of energy that goes into the totality of government, academic, and corporate computing.

An unqualified '8% of U.S. electrical consumption powering chez internets' does seem a tad high. But maybe just a tad. Nonetheless, I have to credit the author on just sticking with Bush's inconsistencies. Many Enviro-centric writers begin with our fact-challenged president, and then use that as an illogical segue into proposing that we invent artificial economies to "trade carbon" as a potential political solution to address a poorly understood environmental problem. Sticking to the relatively *cough, cough* known knowns lends credibility to this author, potentially distancing him from the chorus of carbon traders who the the Environmentalism Industry sends out to flog their goods.

I'll make it a point to read his next piece when I have spare time, unless I'm hunting trolls.

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

» Are you hunting yourself, widdle wabbit? Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Another Publicity Stunt
Posted by: mgloraine on Jun 9, 2007 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So headlines world-wide were devoted to little George's platitudes for a while. Mission accomplished.

Declaring his leadership from a position a decade behind, he says it's time to start thinking and talking about it. That is all nonsense of course, since the rest of the world has been thinking and talking about it for quite some time, and taking actions as well. The US is clearly NOT in the lead and the declaration to the contrary is arrogant and offensive to those already making the difficult choices our "leaders" have refused to confront.

Little George is merely stating what we have already known: that his administration plans to make no substantive commitments and take no action on global warming because his sponsors (oil, coal, etc.) refuse to let the specter of mass extinction interfere with their profiteering. The lives and well-being of the rest of humanity don't matter as long as BushCo and affiliates can live out their lives in bloated, corpulent gluttony. That philosophy is reflected in every move BushCo makes and doesn't make.

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

He didn't fool too many people this time, did he?
Posted by: willymack on Jun 9, 2007 11:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems nearly unanimous; every time bush opens his mealy mouth, the lies come fast and furious. One has to wonder why he even bothers to comment on ANYTHING any more, since hardly anyone here believes him and NOBODY in the rest of the world does. If the bushies are seeking to salvage some semblence of credibility with our people, they're going about it in their usual half-assed fashion. A more chilling thought is they simply don't CARE about what anyone thinks as they have dispensed with all pretense of being in accord with our Constitution.

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

SOL on GCC
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Jun 9, 2007 2:00 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hopefully Alexander Cockburn is correct in that the claim that humans are responsable for global warming is a hoax (perpetuated by amoung others, the nuclear lobby)...

The 80 to 90 per cent cuts in C02 that George Manbiot keeps calling for would, if actually implimented, finish off capitalism. All of this carbon trading nonsense is bogas (a sales gimmick); we have to drastically reduce production and transportation. A capitalist economy can't funtion; either it would lead to a global depression or we would have to find an alternative economy.

My conclusion is Bush's feet-dragging doesn't mean very much--there ain't a lot that can be done in the current framework anyway, and at least he isn't hypocritical they way Clinton/Gore were. He admits strait-up that he doesn't give a toss.

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

» RE: SOL on GCC Posted by: particle
» How could Cockburn not know this? Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» You're a Christian, Aren't You Posted by: LeaderofMen
Solar Panels
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on Jun 9, 2007 2:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when the electricity market restructuring was passed, many of us in cali were skeptical, though relieved. by picking providers, many of us saved money--i immediately switched from SDG&E (San Diego Gouge & Extort) to an online company called utility.com.

it was fab--my bills dropped through the floor. however, those who followed SB 1890, knew that capping retail and letting wholesale fluctuate was gonna cause a piper to demand payment.

sure enough, between corporate greed and typical bureaucratic bungling in the market, we were worse than from where we started by 2000.

seeing the writing on the wall, i took advantage of a little used cali tax credit for installing solar ot my house. at this point, the panels ahve paid for themselves--even with ridiculous gov't over regulation that dictates wheni can and cannot sell juice back to the grid.

as a network contractor, my home is my office. i have servers and routers that run 24/7 365. implementing panels has done wonders for my costs, and as an extension of my own best interests, helped the environment.

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

» Screw selling energy back. Why should we care. Posted by: common intelligence
» Agreed... Posted by: omnivore
Announcements and the Media
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Jun 10, 2007 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"George W. Bush snared front-page attention for his supposed shift on global warming..."

Ever notice how when a controversy gets to be just a little too heated that he makes a major announcement? This is what the Bush admin consistently does. Once a topic becomes too-discussed he'll make a major announcement to the media. That announcement will be a reversal of his single-minded policy. It's a total and abject lie, but it stops the momentum just long enough for people to look at each other, place a finger on their chin and wonder, 'Did he actually make a correct decision for a change?'.

But it always, and without fail, is simply a reason to stop the negative momentum. Bush is not capable of changing his mind on ANY topic. Name one topic where he had reversed his opinion or even MODIFIED it. You can find not a single instance anywhere in the public record.

Thus, you can be assured that whenever you think you hear Bush caving to a particular topic that he's utterly wrong on, take a breath and realize it's Rove's mastermind working in the background. He merely wants to stop the ball rolling long enough for people to shut up about whatever the controversy is.

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

A Real Danger to America
Posted by: sofla100 on Jun 10, 2007 7:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America will sing a different tune after another major hurricane comes along but this time "takes out" a chunk of the East Coast or of Florida. Weather experts have linked global warming to these storms becoming more intense, as well as the melting glaciers that threaten to raise sea water levels and flood out much of the East Coast. You saw what Katrina did, a rinky dink level 2 storm that side-swiped New Orleans, that was nothing as to what could be coming. We need to take global warming very seriously.

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

The Indy's special climate change issue
Posted by: BBaumer on Jun 11, 2007 11:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can read The Indypendent's special global climate change issue online at

www.indypendent.org

The Indypendent is NYC's Indymedia's newspaper and this special issue includes Howard Zinn, John Bellamy Foster and many others.

[« 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 4:24 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 REVIEW
Volume 26 Numbers Three and Four, 1993

Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger?

Emissions from burning coal include uranium and other
nuclear materials—potential hazards and resources.

{Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed
to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear
power plants that meet government regulations.}

Over the past few decades, the American public has
become increasingly wary of nuclear power because of
concern about radiation releases from normal plant
operations, plant accidents, and nuclear waste. Except for
Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents, releases have been
found to be almost undetectable in comparison with natural
background radiation. Another concern has been the cost of
producing electricity at nuclear plants. It has increased
largely for two reasons: compliance with stringent
government regulations that restrict releases of radioactive
substances from nuclear facilities into the environment and
construction delays as a result of public opposition. Partly
because of these concerns about radioactivity and the cost
of containing it, the American public and electric utilities
have preferred coal combustion as a power source. Today
52% of the capacity for generating electricity in the United
States is fueled by coal, compared with 14.8% for nuclear
energy. Although there are economic justifications for this
preference, it is surprising for two reasons. First, coal
combustion produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases that are suspected to cause climatic warming, and it is
a source of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, which are
harmful to human health and may be largely responsible for
acid rain. Second, although not as well known, releases
from coal combustion contain naturally occurring
radioactive materials mainly, uranium and thorium. Former
ORNL researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P.
Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco made this point in their
article "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal
and Nuclear Plants" in the December 8, 1978, issue of
Science magazine. They concluded that Americans living
near coal fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation
doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet
government regulations. This ironic situation remains true
today and is addressed in this article.

The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world
are the major sources of radioactive materials released to
the environment has several implications. It suggests that
coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear
power and that it adds to the background radiation burden
even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if
radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their
capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-
fired power less economically competitive.

Finally, radioactive elements released in coal ash and
exhaust produced by coal combustion contain fissionable
fuels and much larger quantities of fertile materials that can
be bred into fuels by absorption of neutrons, including those
generated in the air by bombardment of oxygen, nitrogen,
and other nuclei with cosmic rays; such fissionable and
fertile materials can be recovered from coal ash using
known technologies. These nuclear materials .....original continues

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