Road to Nowhere: Bush's Latest Global Warming Stall

President Bush's Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change, set to begin today, is nothing more than fig leaf diplomacy. The president called for this meeting last June before the G-8 Summit as part of his effort to block the G-8 nations' call for a 50 percent reduction in global warming pollution by 2050. His Major Economies Meeting proposal made it easier to stop the endorsement of real reductions at the G-8 Summit because he could hide behind this offer for more talks.

The Major Economies Meeting is unlikely to produce anything but more hot air and carbon dioxide pollution. When the meeting was announced in June, Bush administration officials said that it would address greenhouse gas reduction "aspirations" rather than binding reductions. This is nothing more than fait- based pollution control -- let's hope other nations reduce pollution.

Last week the Administration reportedly told meeting participants that every issue was on the table except for concrete greenhouse gas reductions and an international "cap and trade" system to accomplish this goal. That's like a doctor telling a patient that he will treat a serious disease with everything except surgery and medicine.

The administration may also use sleight of hand over the next two days by proposing to reduce "emission intensity" that would lower the rate of greenhouse gas emissions or energy use on a per capita or per dollar of Gross Domestic Product basis. Such a proposal will do little to slow global warming. It is the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and not the rate that we add to the problem, which will determine our future.

The administration may use the meeting to remind the world that China and India must also agree to reduce their fast growing contributions to global warming. While emissions from both countries continue to increase, the United States has contributed more of the total atmospheric load of carbon dioxide -- 29 percent -- than any other nation. China contributed only 8 percent and India emitted slightly more than 2percent. Since the U.S. is responsible for a major part of the problem, it has a responsibility to undertake a major part of the clean up. Once its reductions are underway, the U.S. can work with these two nations to help them reduce their pollution.

While the Bush administration stalls, our allies in the European Union remain committed to at least a 20 percent reduction in global warming pollution by 2020. Great Britain plans to reduce its global warming pollution by over 23 percent in 2010 compared to 1990. Germany may adopt a 40 percent reduction by 2020. Even China has one-third more efficient fuel motor vehicle standards than the U.S.2

During the Bush Administration's six plus years of obstruction, U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have increased by over 168 million metric tons -- equivalent to adding 26 million new cars. It would have been higher if not for unseasonably mild weather in 2006. Meanwhile, the planet moves closer to a human made catastrophe of biblical proportion.

Our allies' pleas for action add to the voices of many big corporations such as Dow, Shell, General Electric, and General Motors. These and other Fortune 500 companies are part of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, and endorsed a 60 percent to 80 percent reduction in global warming pollution by 2050. Scientists believe that these are the reductions necessary to stave off the worst impacts of global warming. Unfortunately, these appeals from President Bush's foreign and corporate allies continue to fall on his deaf ears.

States are trying to fill the leadership vacuum. California adopted standards to reduce CO2 emissions via an increase in fuel economy. Fourteen other states plan to adopt California's standard, though the Bush Administration has yet to approve California's two year old request to do so.

Two dozen states adopted renewable electricity standards that would require their utilities to provide more power from clean alternative technologies, such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that these standards will reduce annual greenhouse gas pollution by 108 million metric tons by 2020 -- equivalent to removing over 17 million cars from the road.

Congressional leaders also took charge while President Bush was A. W. O. L.-- Absent With Out Leadership. Significant CO2 reductions are possible if Congress's final energy bill combines the best energy efficiency and renewable energy measures for vehicles, power plants, buildings, and appliances. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy estimates that such a bill could reduce global warming pollution by nearly 20percent by 2030 compared to business and usual.

Evidence mounts that global warming is here and already disrupting Earth and its inhabitants. As the Bush administration fiddles with the Major Economies Meeting, temperatures rise, glaciers melt, forests burn, and hurricanes blow. Similar to the Iraq war, the Bush administration may run out the clock on this looming global warming disaster and leave it to his successor to clean up the mess. Hopefully, there will still be time.

Comments

[renewableenergy2]

Global Warming – Man Made or Natures Cycle R5

The debate: Is the observed global warming natural or man made?
Global Warming or natural climatic rhythm?
Global Warming Man made or natural cycle?

Compiled by Yehuda Draiman, Energy Analyst

There are numerous pros and cons as to the cause of Global Warming.
After some study and research I share with you the various opinions.

This consensus in this on-line article represents the views of some researchers and forecasters, but does not necessarily represent the views of all scientists. It was not the intention of this article to discount the presence of a human-induced global warming element or to attempt to claim that such an element is not present. There is a robust, on-going discussion on climate change within the scientific community.

It takes a certain kind of gumption to stand up to the status quo.
Folks who challenge the mainstream media and popular culture are subjected to some of the nastiest insults and character assassinations. And such retribution is nowhere more severe than for those who take issue with popular views about global warming.
There are a number of very bright climatologists and meteorologists out there who believe that this century’s warming trend is neither critical nor man made. Now you can agree or disagree with these folks. But you can’t pretend that these folks are crazies or ill informed or just in it for the money. They believe that the models used by the “We’re all going to die!” global warming worriers are far too severe and fail to take enough natural factors into consideration in their climate models. For their audacity to take on the status quo, they have been censured, excoriated and labeled as lackeys for the oil companies.
One degree. On a thermometer, it doesn't seem like much at all. But that degree has sparked intense debate among experts who monitor the temperature on Earth.
In a new report issued by a leading group of scientists and meteorologists, research shows the planet has warmed one degree during the last 100 years.

[dobermanmacleod]

"A voluntary approach to reducing greenhouse gases is hardly likely to be more effective than voluntary speed limits on the roads."

It is unrealistic to expect mankind to cut their greenhouse gas emissions so fast and so drastically that abrupt climate change and runaway global warming is avoided.

Briefly, soon some ecosystems are going to be quickly destroyed by rising temperatures, causing abrupt climate change.

Furthermore, carbon sinks become carbon emitters in a warming world, slowly at first, but then faster in a feedback loop.

No feasible plan for planetary rescue can be without a method of removing some of the excess CO2 from the air. I suggest the low cost and highly scalable method called "biosequestration."

I suggest seeding an extensively tested GMO into the ocean. In fact, I believe it is a Stark Choice between seeding a GMO into the ocean, or going back to the hothouse of 55 million years ago (and most life dying).

[OckhamsElectricRazor]

Bush will NEVER backpedal on global warming. That would mean conceding the point by Gore in the 2000 debates. Yes he is THAT petty; and yes he IS that stubborn.

[dictatortot]

Great username, Razor...

Bush has transparently put money before Nature, oil before health, privilege before responsibility. Global warming is the greatest moral issue we've ever faced, IMO. My evidence: Limbaugh says it's NOT a moral issue at all, and he's as amoral as it gets.

http://www.prestoncoleman.com/oinkyboinky.htm

[rockymountainhigh]

"Evidence mounts that global warming is here and already disrupting Earth and its inhabitants."

Hmmmm....so this evidence is that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere lead to global warming, correct? I have seen evidence based off of ice core samples that say the opposite.
Is the globe warming? Yes. Will the globe cool? Yes. Is the science that drives those who think we must act now sound? Not in the least.
Why do I say that you ask? It is simple. Much of the predictions of what will happen are based off of computer models. One thing that the studies that use said computer models don't like to say is there is no computer model that can accurately measure the effect of cloud cover and how it cools the earth. Since there is no effective model that they can fold into their research, they choose to ignore it. What that tells me is that those computer models are accurate, if, and only if there are no clouds. Fat chance of that happening.
In simple terms, based on my understanding of how weather works.....warmer temps = more evaporation. More evaporation = more water vapor in the air. More water vapor in the air = more clouds. More clouds ultimately = a cooling of the earth.
I take public transit, recycle, drive a fuel efficient car, and have planted several trees on my property. How many have you planted ever? Do you even have the ability to get off of your ass and go dig a hole in which to plant a tree?
Open your minds people. Don't let Al Gore tell you what to think. Look at ALL of the facts, from both sides, as the truth is usuall somewhere in the middle. Speaking of Al, didn't he tell you all to think that we would have more and more hurricanes each year? This year we've had an active season, yes. But it fits right in with the cyclical patterns that history has demonstrated we should expect. Just like hurricane cycles, there are tempature cycles. Plain and simple.

[GoodwithWood]

So, how much is the oil/coal industry paying you?

[realpolitic]

This administration is the most backward in our history, the most incompetent, and the worst.

It seems like for a great country, we deserve better leaders than this. Let's elect someone with an active interest in the world at large. Someone not governed by ideology.

[waitng]

What really gets me is Kindaloosely Rice's comment I saw on msnbc's take on this 'summit'. In this paragraph is the crux of the w & dick team's agenda:
Rice said the challenge of global climate change cannot be dealt with entirely as an environmental question, but "in a way that does not starve economies of the energy that they need to grow."
For 1 thing, w & dick don't want any growth unless their version of the USA is sucking all the resources from a country at bargain basement prices and at w & dick's control of that country(look for another military base even if there are 1 or several already in that country; our needs to increase the w & dick USA empire)politically and religiously.
The other thing about growth is putting more and more humans on this planet like there ain't enough humans for the elite's special purposes. That in its self has the analogy of humans being the cancer of the planet. This is where the tumor just grows and grows and grows until the host is wasted away.
Already there are not enough resources to go around with the 6.5+ billion people on this planet and with the faux free enterprise system that does NOT allow for access to resources for everyone this whole world is on a fast train downhill to disaster and it will be ugly.

[seawolf77]

Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of a cancer cell.

[GoodwithWood]

I'm gona take that one and use it as my own. Thanx

[Colmore]

Well, in Washington they used to say "Barbara is a BITCH, and Georgie IS her son" SOB.

[iwonder]

Isn't Bush staging a climate change conference similar to Ahmadinejad hosting a Holocaust conference?

[Hoelder]

There seems to be a myth invading people's minds. A wizard will come and make everything more efficient so we can continue wasting energy. No matter how you spin and shake it, conservation has to be a major ingredient if you we want to see a peaceful century. Even if we had the production capacity to switch all our electric needs from coal, gas and nuclear to wind, wave and sun, always remember that the production of these renewal energy harvest machines need energy to be produced and some of the production methods involve chemicals that you do not want to eat with your fish. The real change of mind has to be to focus on what we really need: Water, Air and clean food. Global warming will redirect a lot of energy to get to these resources and with warming oceans the land mass to obtain our essentials will grow smaller. Even if we stop producing CO2, our children and grand children will still pay for the reckless use of energy. Ethanol though more efficient (Did you know that originally that was the fuel of choice, but then the discovered Oil was cheaper) will cut into the food supply and currently production is expensive considering the energy necessary to seed, maintain and fertilize the corn crop ( 7/8 gallon of oil is required to produce a gallon of ethanol energy.) In the end when you crunch all the numbers, any way you want, we have to cut our consumption considerably now. Otherwise the pickup you drive might as well drive over your grand children.

[Judd16]

By all means, let us change our whole economic system due to 1 degree celcius increase in temperature and a possible 18 inches in ocean level in the next 50 years. (per UN)

Until a credible group of scientists can prove what the optimal temperature is and exactly how or if we can get there, I would rather keep my money and my lifestyle.

[LarryRiedman]

A federal judge in California ruled in August (as reported in the Washington Post) that the Bush Administration had violated the Global Change Research Act of 1990 by failing to issue a mandated study on the impact of climate change. The study in question is already two years overdue, and – despite a legal requirement that such a study be issued every four years – the Bush Administration has never produced one.
This failure epitomizes the Administration’s wholesale embrace of the energy industry’s disinformation campaign to challenge proof of global warming. That systematic campaign has been thoroughly documented recently in a cover article in Newsweek and in an hour-long documentary on PBS’s “Frontline” program.
The Bush Administration’s steady refusal even to study global climate change exposes a yawning contradiction in its approach to risk management.
In the face of the destruction that might be caused by terrorists armed with WMDs, the Administration adopted the so-called “one percent doctrine,” whereby it would take early, vigorous, preventive action if there were even a one percent likelihood that information describing such a threat was reliable. In contrast, when facing the far greater potential damage from global warming, the Administration effectively has applied a “100 percent doctrine” that conditions action upon unanimity among scientists. Then, the Administration declines even to study the matter. (An analogous policy in the war on terror would be to require a “smoking gun” prior to preventive action – then to eliminate intelligence gathering!)
For terrorists, preventive action is to be taken despite substantial doubts; for global warming, any shred of doubt has been paralyzing. Evidently, the Bush Administration wanted to invade Iraq and to please the energy industry, regardless of potential damage or amount of proof.
Mr. Bush often has said that the success or failure of his Iraq initiative will only be clear several decades from now. By then, another thing that may also be clear – to the great regret of future generations – is that Mr. Bush wasted eight crucial years obsessing over a lesser hazard while willfully, steadfastly, perversely ignoring a greater one.

[only1Demvoter]

Mr. Weiss : Inquiring minds really want to know...

Is GW's thinking that ' his ' are immune due to entitlement ?
So clueless as to NOT think of his children's future ?
That those pinko librul intellectual scientists is all wrong ?
That paraguay / Dubai is immune / escapism ?
It's someone else's problem ( AGAIN with the clueless, already ! ) ?
ALL of the above ??

More to follow. -ralph

[mgloraine]

It should be evident to us all by now that Bush and Cheney are intent upon the destruction of this planet and the end of humanity. They are not just slow to take action, they are deliberately doing everything in their power to increase the problem and hasten the cataclysm.

And in case they can't destroy the environment quickly enough, they've got a nuclear war ready to go any minute. When Cheney nukes Iran today or tomorrow, it will be the start of World War III as Russia and China unleash massive retaliation upon the US mainland.

This is the flip-side of creationism: DESTRUCTIONISM! Total annihilation is the price we will pay for Bush and Cheney and their fanatical, apocalyptic Christianism. They are busily stamping out any last vestiges of hope for our survival, right this minute, while our idiot Congress sits and pretends to debate trivial meaningless nonsense.

[TJTelecaster]

It's those Liberal Satellites causing all the trouble those damn liberal satellites..!

;-)

[atelram]

We have the most distructive person in our white house. PEOPLE MUST WAKE UP. I guess Bush doesn't plan on having grandchildren so he doesn't care if the world implodes. I am begining to believe there is something wrong with his brain because most of this is stubborness.
True son of Barbra.