Interesting Old News That's New to Me But I'm Not Surprised

[13]

Global Storming: Having Nixed Kyoto, Bush Stifles Discussion
Source: Copyright 2004, Boulder Daily Camera
Date: December 22, 2004
Byline: Editorial
Original URL



President Bush rejected an international treaty outlining limits on greenhouse gases, leaving other industrialized nations to address the looming problem without the help of the United States, the world's fattest gas hog.

But somehow, that wasn't enough. Not only does the president refuse to help other nations address what they — and the emerging scientific consensus — see as a dire worldwide threat. Bush also wants to keep them from taking action as mild as getting together and issuing a report.

Last weekend in Buenos Aires, a U.N.-brokered conference addressed the Kyoto protocol on global warming. The Kyoto pact, signed by 132 countries (but not the United States), goes into effect on Feb. 16. The protocol requires signatory nations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to below 1990 levels by 2012.

The meeting in Argentina was designed to help signatory nations assess their progress in reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other gases known to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere. The increase in such gases has coincided with a gradual rise in world temperatures.

Global warming is a scientifically verifiable fact. The human contribution to that trend has been questioned. But more and more data show that human-generated greenhouse gases are, in fact, helping to change the world's climate. And we ignore these trends at our peril.

Just last month, for instance, researchers commissioned by the United States and seven other nations released the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. The report, based on the work of 300 scientists, noted that the Arctic is experiencing "some of the most rapid and severe climate change on Earth." Ice caps are receding, threatening the environment of the Arctic and elsewhere.

"Strong near-term action to reduce emissions is required in order to alter the future path of human-induced warming," the report concluded.

Yet last week in Buenos Aires, Paula Dobriansky, U.S. undersecretary of state for global affairs, reflected no such alarm. "Science tells us that we cannot say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided."

Meanwhile, Dobriansky repeated the Bush administration's pledge to reduce "greenhouse-gas intensity," which is per-capita emissions divided by the gross domestic product. Reducing the greenhouse "intensity" does not reduce actual emissions. On the contrary, the United States will emit more greenhouse gases under the Bush plan that it would have emitted by simply enforcing the Clean Air Act.

Once again, the president proposes to do one thing (increase emissions) while pretending to do the opposite (reduce greenhouse "intensity").

In Buenos Aires, the president added injury to this insult. The meeting ended with only a meek, weak vow among nations to start informal discussions on global warming. Members of the European Union, which produces a small fraction of the per-capita emissions of the United States, had hoped that U.N. members could arrange seminars and produce reports on global warming.

But the United States insisted that "there shall be no written or oral report" from any international seminar organized under the U.N. Convention on Climate Change.

This is another hallmark tactic of the president. It's not just that the Bush team sets the world's agenda; it also stifles dissenting views.

[Medios]

I am not surprised that the media is reporting this as all President Bush's fault. If America only has one vote in the U.N. and the U.N. is constantly against us, how in the hell is the president running anyhing. Whenever the war in Iraq started President Bush sure didnt have this much pull. If the countries are having a meek and weak time passing this stuff then I have to ask whats up with the other 119 votes or whatever. The United States cant force them to do anything they dont want. Everyone needs to realize that big business controls the politicians. You think oil companies and chemical companies want these laws to pass. GW has become the scapegoat for everything from global warming to homosexuality. What do you think is really going on, thats being distracted from by everyones hatred for Bush. I have come to realize that both sides are fighting for the same goals, and eventually by tricking us into believing they work for us they will strip everything we have.

Fight the Power

Mike

[13]

I just thought it was interesting. No question about big business being in charge. Money is mighty.

[Zukt]

But it is easy to do. Just ban all future coal power and streamline nuclear power licensing and you'll get emission reductions even if you ignore all other parts of the industry.

But politicians, Bush especially, is beholden to the coal lobby, and on the other side of the political fence there is still (though dwindling) opposition to nuclear power because of the misinformation campaigns of sierra club and pals in the 70's.

Kyoto was a bad treaty sure, but an easy one to comply to if you streamline nuclear licensing.

[Avatar]

"According to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, oil company ExxonMobil 'has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.' The report compares the tactics employed by the oil giant to those used by the tobacco industry in previous decades, and identifies key individuals who have worked on both campaigns. Would a 'global warming controversy' exist without the millions of dollars spent by fossil fuel companies to discredit scientific conclusions?"

http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/ ... 7216.shtml