Boston Globe Says Bush Will "Worry About Global Warming Tomorrow"
No kidding, I thought, when I read that: Same old story. Global Warming...Bush...his signature 'later for that' mentality.
Then I read a little deeper into the story summary on-line, with the headline "US TO WORRY ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING TOMORROW," and it begins this way:
"Bush administration officials preferred not to talk about global warming this week when they unveiled plans to battle acid rain, smog and toxic emissions."
Right again, I said to myself. Same Bush media-control, science-squashing tactics at work: Say nothing while gearing up to crank out some fake industry-friendly 'clean' air proposal. (Cough, cough)
But here's the kicker - - the story was published on June 14 (Flag Day, by the way) 1989, during the administration of Bush 41, George H. W. Bush.
You know, 41 - - the good Bush, as opposed to Junior, Bush 43, Pawn of Karl Rove and the real President, Dick Cheney.
So there's your proof: Those oil-lovin' Bushies have been practicing global warming denial since the 1980's. No wonder the glaciers are melting.
Here's the entire on-line entry. I didn't buy the full story from the Globe's paid archives, cuz' I'm betting I got all I needed to know from the summary, which says:
"Published on June 14, 1989
Author(s): Larry Tye, Globe Staff
Bush administration officials preferred not to talk about global warming this week when they unveiled plans to battle acid rain, smog and toxic emissions.
In fact, analysts say, the White House plan for revising the Clean Air Act is at best neutral when it comes to the dangerous warming of the planet -- and at worst, it could speed warming, they say. That is because the acid rain cleanup does nothing to remove the carbon dioxide emissions from coal and oil plants that trap heat radiated from..."
One last thing: catch that one phrase - - "the dangerous warming of the planet..." Sorta puts into a depressing context the spate of recent stories, analyses and reports about the rapid rate of climate change.
Imagine where we'd be today if we'd faced up to those inconvenient truths two decades ago.
Why is Bush squashing science? There are numerous scientists that disagree with Global Warming, why arent they being heard? Why is it, if you agree with global warming it is akin to saying that the holocaust never existed. It seems like the global warming people only want one side of the debate heard. What about the video, "the great global warming debate swindle" How come school children are not being forced to watch that movie, like they are the Al Gore scientist fiction movie? Give me a break. I will believe in global warming, when INDEPENDENT scientists, with no political or funding affiliations states it. I thought true scientists were supposed to be skeptics. There are too many questions regarding global warming for it to be a fact.
That's a question to direct right at the talk radio climate change deniers, from Limbaugh on down to our local squawkers. They have carried out a huge disinformation program to a) serve GOP leaders, including Bush and Cheney, and b) to further serve certain corporate interests - - the oil and gas people who had one of their own lobbyists editing government scientists' warnings about warming.
It has been hard for real science to be seen, heard and valued during this administration.
I believe that global warming is happening, but I have not heard any practical solutions on what should be done, the costs and what affect the solutions would have. For example, I have heard support increasing the CAFE standard for SUV's/Trucks. I think this is a good thing, however, does the technology exist to increase fuel economy for these vehicles, without limiting the reasons why people want these vehicles (towing capacity over 3,500 lbs, payload capacity, etc)? From my reading, the technology does not exist yet. This is just one example. I think what needs to be done, before the Goverment goes half cocked making all kind of mandates, is to get an understanding on what can be done practically at this point in time, and provide R&D necessary to improve on existing technology. It seems to me that some of the environmental groups wants this to be fixed now. Which will not happen. We need a realistic plan, that does not take away peoples freedom, to choose what kind of cars or trucks they buy or increase peoples energy costs dramatically. I also do not agree with all of the doomsday predictions that Al Gore tends to support. I think we need to get past the partisian poltics of this issue and come up with some good recomendations. People want to be environmentally friendly, but they want to be able to live their lives also.
What disinformation? The New York Times ran an article indicating that Al Gore's positions on global warming are too extreme. There are many scientists, not affilied with the GOP or the Oil and gas industry that are skeptical about global warming. Even some of the so-called scientists refereed to in the UN report are saying they did not agree with all that was said. The debate on global warming is not over. Why do the people on the left always want to make this a Bush issue, it is not. All sides of the debate should be heard, but it seems to me, most of the public only hears the side for global warming. I do not listen to Rush, or any of the local radio stations, and I have my doubts regarding global warming. I am not going to take what the UN says seriously, they are a complete waste of time.
This is about Bush because his administration has been stalling and deflecting on the entire range of issues: remember Cheney saying that conservation was a personal virtue - - so it hasn't been a public and administration policy.
It's silly to bash the UN studies. Many of the lead scientists involved are Americans, including a leading UW-Madison expert.
These are scientists, worldwide, reaching identical conclusions, with yes, a few nay-sayers, but the overwhelming consensus is on the side that warming is happening, that change is underway, and that more aggressive responses are in order.
Google Jonathan Patz, a UW scientist and major contributor to the UN report. He's been making this case for years.
Wasnt there overwhelming consens that global cooling was happening in the 1970's? Again, I am not denying that it is not happening, but all voices are not being heard. Again, what are the solution? It is easy to say we need to cut emissions by 90% of 1990 levels. What does that mean in terms of what needs to be changed in a practical sence? Do we ban all cars/trucks that do not get at least 40mpg? People cannot have boats, snowmobiles, horses (need to trailer them) What are answers, given todays technology?
How about some really toughened CAFE standards? How about broader tax credits for hybrid purchasers? How about a Marshall-plan mentality to acknowledge the situation and address it? How about a cabinet-level, no BS, White House initiative? Schwartzenegger can do it: why not Bush?
My point is that this administration hasn't even started. It's not their priority. They have dawdled away valuable time.
A marshall-plan mentallity? Good luck with that. You live in Wisconsin and think people are going to give up their boats, snowmobiles and trucks? Nothing that extreme will get passed in the US. Good luck
To Anonymous: I expected more than that wimpy defeatism.
And there are reasonable warming scenarios that will impact directly and negatively on people who like to snowmobile and boat: if warming makes snowfalls less predictable, and rivers and lake levels lower, outdoors lovers will be among the unhappiest.
I am not a defeatest. I want practical solutions, not extreme ones. Also, the US can mandate all it wants, and it will not do a darn thing, if India and China do not follow suit. Also isnt China, now emitting more than the United States now. Also, I read that Sen Inofe of Oklahoma is comming out with a report of all the Scientists that are refuting global warming being caused by man. This report will name names and have quotes. Many of these scientists were on the UN report and none have received any monies from the Oil and Gas industries.
Also, I would love to hear live televised debate among scientists that believe in global warming being caused by man and those that do not.
Inhofe is not a realiable source. Trust me on this.
And China will soon pass the US on C02 emmissions; maybe then some people will get on the anti-emission bandwagon when it's another country being the offender.
It will take China a long time to emit more than we have, since we have had a headstart.
But because China is becoming a big offender isn't reason to lay off working for change here. This is where we have influence.
Again, I think their should be changes made. I wish this county would invest in more nuclear power plants like France has. Their should be no new coal power plants built, all existing ones should be retro-fitted with the latest emissions equipment. Only engergy-efficient light-blubs should be sold, and people should be given tax breaks for buying them. However, increasing CAFE standards, would hurt consumer choice. The automakers have said that if CAFE standards increase too fast, they would have to make design modifications to trucks that would severly hurt their ability to performs their intended purpose, tow and haul. CAFE standards should be raised to a doable level. Do you agree with this?
Also it is not just Sen Inhofe that is producing this report.
The US automakers have a long and self-destructive history of objecting to improvements that consumers actually wanted, like seat belts and front seat air bags, now side curtain and more.
If the US automakers were smart they'd have embraced green technology and used it as a marketing too, since surveys always show people want environmentally-friendly things.
But the Big 3, or is it 2, now (?) just cant make the transition, so Honda and Toyota own the hybrid market, and though Ford has a few models, the US manufacturers lost an opportunity.
And, of course, the Bush administration has done virtually nothing, except that tax break for Hummer-size vehicles of a few years ago.
Post a Comment