Red, Green and Blue: Bush’s Turn-Around on Global Warming
Photo Credit: Whitehouse.gov
Jimmy: Well… since President Bush is SOARING in the polls with his approval rating hovering in the 30% range I thought it might be interesting to take a look at his environmental record and his perceived Turn-Around on the environment, particularly on climate change.
As I have noted before Bush doesn’t always earn the enmity the environmental community harbors against him. One personal anecdote that would be funny if it wasn’t sad is this walk-the-walk vs. a talk-the-talk comparison of residence between George Bush and uber-conservationist Al Gore. Now Big Al has since made amends and is LEEDing the way by giving his place an environmental make-over… but it sometimes makes me wonder where his heart really is.
Bush does live somewhat conservatively to the extent any president can but what about Bush’s policy? I find it hard to cut through the rhetoric with the environmental community attacking every policy as not enough and Bush seemingly unwilling to aggressively defend his policy for fear it might hurt his street cred as an evil capitalist.
I guess some research is in order.Though some will dismiss Whitehouse.gov as biased tripe, I do encourage you to visit the site here and look at the many accomplishments we have made during the Bush administration. It’s a vast contrast to what you will read anywhere else where only controversy and strife make seem to make the news.
Anyway, I’ve made the case before that economics are tremendously important to the environment and I’ve defended Bush on these grounds. The purpose of this thread though is to debate actual actions and accomplishments so I open up the comments and invite you to share your perceptions of how good or bad Bush is doing and I’ll again try to defend the seemingly indefensible: Bush’s record on the environment.
Tags: Activism, Climate Change, climate+change, Conservation, Education, George+Bush, global+warming, Political News, politics, Red, Green and Blue, Taxes, washington+dc
- Uncategorized
June 12th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Awww, Jimmy. You make it sound as if Bush were really just a loveable, granola-eating hippie disguised in a dark-blue suit and power tie. But his actions overall — not just what he does on his ranch at vacation-time — speak louder than his rhetoric.
So Bush's lifestyle might be greener than Gore's? Nice, but one's personal actions don't always reflect one's larger political accomplishments, good or bad. To go pop culture for a moment, Tony Soprano doted on his daughter Meadow, but that didn't mean he wasn't also a violent thug and a misogynist.
Just because W's suddenly deigned to let the words "global warming" cross his lips in public — decades after his employees at NASA started ringing alarm bells — doesn't spell turnaround to me. I think it's more a case of a MadTV-like episode of "Lowered Expectations." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gkZ8k_l-hw)
Of course Australia and China were pleased with Bush's proposals — they've been as reluctant to move on global warming as the U.S. And while bringing formerly intransigent players to the greenhouse-gas-reduction table sounds nice on paper, when the offer enticing them there is a plan to draft "aspirational goals" over the next 18 months (i.e., no teeth) to reduce emissions 50 percent by 2050 belies a greater interest in continuing "business as usual." Even if they make those numbers stick, James Hansen will tell you that's not good enough. ("With another decade of 'business-as-usual' it becomes impractical to achieve the 'alternative scenario' (i.e., averting disaster on global scale) because of the energy infrastructure that would be in place," he says.) (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070530/)
As for the Bush record on the environment in general, I'd argue that an administration in which states (http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3845) and eco-groups (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/press/bay-area-pesticides-05-30-2007.html) have to take the EPA to court to get it to enforce its own rules isn't that hot on the environment. Other evidence to that effect: China already has CAFE standards higher than anything Bush is ready to consider over the next decade(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/319078_mcfeatters10.html), the administration has actually made plans to drastically scale back its satellite observation system for tracking climate trends (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/05/america/climate.php), and NASA's mission to "understand and protect our home planet" was removed from its mission statement last year (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/53562/) at the behest of NASA administrator Michael Griffin, the same one who's recently found himself in hot water for saying maybe we're arrogant to think global warming is a bad thing. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10571499)
Not so hot, I'll argue (though hot for the planet).
June 12th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Shirley, your critics seem to be in the ‘not enough’ category I mentioned above.
The President has, however, been in the Climate Change Game since early in his administration. Here’s just one example of his policy from early in his first term.
The perception is that he has ignored the issue but in truth he has been on it; but has simply pursued a policy of economic balance and one that would not subjugate the interests of the US to the world at large. We actually are arguing means where his critics suggest that an America following the demands of the world are a better course than America leading on the issue and bringing our own methods and the resources of a capital rich society to the fight. Bush has had the same goals as his critics all along but was economically mature enough to know not to bury U.S. industry under U.N./Kyoto non-sense.
Again, the perception is what is of interest here. Who knew that Bush was on this since ‘01? You certainly wouldn’t have gathered that from the reports in the media.
http://rationalenvironmentalist.com
June 12th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I think you hit the nail on the head with this statement, Jimmy: “(Bush) has simply pursued a policy … that would not subjugate the interests of the US to the world at large.”
Therein lies the problem: climate change IS inherently a challenge affecting the world at large, and cherry-picking solutions based on parochial interests is simply not good enough. The science behind it (and we can talk plenty about how this administration has tried to silence the science — a strategy that’s affected far more than just global warming) makes this clear.
This is one instance where “not enough” is a legitimate critique: Bush’s so-called solution is simply not adequate for the challenge at hand. It’s like saying you’re going to start eating a healthier diet by giving up deep-fried pizza (I actually know someone who’s eaten that!) and chocolate-chip cookie dough ice-cream without addressing the fact that you’re still not getting your daily minimum servings of fresh fruits and vegetables.
June 12th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
It’s your opinion, Shirley, that the world environmental movement is the best means to accomplish environmental well being; but as police will champion law enforcement and teachers will champion education, the world climate scientists see their heart-driven calling as the most important challenge to the world today.
You mentioned that Bush has tried to ‘silence the science’… this however is only true to the extent that you believe that esoteric elements of our bureaucracy with myopic interests should have the power to trump the policy of our elected officials who are trusted to look at the overall picture and offer balanced policy in the interest of our country and its citizens.
Do we want a country run by the loudest and most powerful unelected bureaucrats leveraging an unelected and unaccountable media megaphone?
June 12th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
"Do we want a country run by the loudest and most powerful unelected bureaucrats leveraging an unelected and unaccountable media megaphone?"
After this administration, the answer might just be yes. It would be a challenge to do anything worse in 8 years.
June 12th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Glad to have your input, Michael. Care to elaborate?
June 12th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
LOL, Michael!
Jimmy, you say, "You mentioned that Bush has tried to 'silence the science- — this however is only true to the extent that you believe that esoteric elements of our bureaucracy with myopic interests should have the power to trump the policy of our elected officials who are trusted to look at the overall picture and offer balanced policy in the interest of our country and its citizens."
That's not at all what I believe. What I DO believe, however, is that good science will always hold up under close and careful examination, but that policy-makers without access to the full scope of good science don't have the information they need to make good decisions. Fine, leave the decisions up to Congress and state legislators … but only after they are ensured free and full access to the facts.
And that, my friend, is what decision-makers in D.C. have been denied on a consistent basis. Following, for example, is just a partial list of instances of muzzled and/or disregarded science from 2007 alone (You can find a complete list including examples from previous years here: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/scientific-integrity-in-the-news.html#Most_recent_press):
May 10: "Experts: Politics trumped science" (Casper Star-Tribune) (http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/05/12/news/wyoming/6ac7039813158e2c872572d600839bcc.txt)
May 9: "Lawmakers Fault Interior Dept. on Endangered Species" (NPR) (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10098225)
May 7: "Just Say No—To Bad Science" (Newsweek) (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18368217/site/newsweek/)
May 6: "Prepare for new smoke screens on global warming" (Sacramento Bee) (http//www.sacbee.com/110/story/168037.html)
May 2: "Interior Dept. Official Facing Scrutiny Resigns" (Washington Post) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/01/AR2007050101920.html)
April 25: "Science agencies' media policy draws fire" (Government Executive) (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0407/042507m1.htm)
April 3: "Federal judge: Administration suppressed scientists’ views on forest plan" (Salem Statesman-Journal) (http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006304030004)
March 29: "Report Says Interior Official Overrode Work of Scientists" (New York Times) (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/washington/29environ.html?ex=1181793600&en=51c108d3181e6cc6&ei=5070)
March 27: "Report Charges Broad White House Efforts to Stifle Climate Research" (ABC News) (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/exclusive_repor_1.html)
March 4: "FDA Rules Override Warnings About Drug" (Washington Post) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030301311.html)
Jan 30: "Survey: Bush Advisers Interfered in Climate Reports" (U.S. News and World Report) (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070130/30climate.htm)
June 12th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
What you are suggesting is that policy be left in the hands of the bureaucrats.
Of course the Bush administration had hand in influencing these reports on policy matter. It is what they are elected to do… set policy.
I’m sure that these scientist felt slighted to have their work balanced against economic and other concerns but that is the administration’s job.
Seldom a day goes by when various workers in my company don’t criticize decisions of management and the executive staff calling us idiots but they are simply often unaware of other factors affecting and driving our decisions.
You see a conspiracy of sorts where I see adults in charge keeping one group’s interest from suboptimizing over the whole.
June 12th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Some great conversation here. Does anyone else think that Laura Bush looks like Jack Nicholson in Batman in that picture?
June 12th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
"Hey Laura… heheheh… make that face like you did when I kissed Condi…"