More on How Bush Found the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions (with bonus Jon Stewart Video)
First, see Dorian de Wind’s piece ; it has a bearing on this.
Did you know that George W. Bush is still president? It’s true. And he’s still got plenty of ways to worsen things before his term is over, leaving us a country discredited in the eyes of our own allies, a more toxic and unstable environment, a military stretched to the breaking point, and an enormous deficit.
He merrily signed off at the G8 by saying his ‘"Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter,’ knowing full well he was going to stave off any progress on climate change to the end of his term. Today’s Washington Post reports:
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to announce today that it will seek months of further public comment on the threat posed by global warming to human health and welfare — a matter that federal climate experts and international scientists have repeatedly said should be urgently addressed.
The Bush Administration discovered a great truth: a bare-faced lie, however it may be discredited, is as good as the truth if you pretend you believe it and act on it anyway. And if you don’t mind being called out as a liar, you can lie with complete impunity so long as there is no person with the authority (or the spine to wield it) to stop you.
As they’ve done many times before, administration employees have selectively altered the agency’s findings to reach a conclusion that better reflects Bush’s wishes.
Check out today’s story in WaPo. According to it, today’s EPA report —an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking —will override its own December 5 finding:
backed up by a lengthy scientific analysis — that global warming is unequivocal, that there is "compelling and robust" evidence that the emissions endanger public welfare and that the EPA administrator is "required by law" to act to protect Americans from future harm. (WaPo; emphasis added)
How could this happen?
It happens because such a finding would trigger a number of measures that Bush doesn’t want triggered on his watch, according to — guess who — that malignant offshoot from the executive branch known as the Cheney Branch. It’s true. Look:
"They argued that this increase in regulation should be on the next president’s record," not Bush’s, said a participant in the lengthy interagency debate, referring principally to officials in the office of Vice President Cheney, on the White House Council on Environmental Quality, on the National Economic Council and in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).(WaPo).
In its unaltered form, the changes heralded by the findings in the report would have had substantial economic as well as environmental benefits. Sadly, those changes would have also have done two things that Cheney isn’t going to let happen on his watch — I mean, Bush’s.
- Trigger ‘sweeping’ regulatory requirements under the Clean Air Act;
- Cost utilities and automakers billions of dollars.
To read the details of how the first set of findings developed (‘after resistance from the Cheney branch) after Bush’s order to the EPA to begin ‘the first steps’ toward regulation, see WaPo here. (This is my favorite detail: ‘Some officials began carrying around copies of Bush’s executive order, waving it while arguing with senior political appointees.’(WaPo)) Read about Cheney’s energy adviser here.
WaPo conscientiously informs us that the full story of what it tactfully calls the ‘sidetracking’ (as opposed to, say, the ‘hijacking’) of the original finding isn’t known. Someone told an ‘EPA deputy associate administrator to withdraw the finding after it was emailed to Susan Dudley, head of the OMB’s regulatory review office. (WaPo). But here’s a clue:
An official said the person involved was "more senior than the head of OMB," but declined to be more precise. (WaPo)
We do know, of course, that in April 2007, the Supreme Court (Massachusetts v. EPA) told the EPA that it needed to get its thumb out and either determine whether greenhouse gases are a threat to humankind or explain why it couldn’t.(WaPo-07) Or, as The Washington Post put it at the time, ‘[It] rebuked the Bush administration yesterday for refusing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, siding with environmentalists in the court’s first examination of the phenomenon of global warming.’
The court ruled 5 to 4 that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by improperly declining to regulate new-vehicle emissions standards to control the pollutants that scientists say contribute to global warming….
"EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. The agency "identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA’s power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants," the opinion continued. (WaPo-07)
According to today’s article, this made an impression on EPA officials..
After the court ruling, in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.,"people were bouncing back and forth into each other’s offices, saying, ‘Can you believe this? Look at this decision; look at the language; this is so strong,’ " recalled one agency official, who like the others asked not to be identified for fear of retribution. "People thought, ‘We are going to move forward and do the right thing.’ "(WaPo; emphasis added)
Right. The White House simply did what any sulky child does when it’s been ‘rebuked’ and told to do what it doesn’t want to do: dragged its feet by…
….editing its officials’ congressional testimony, refusing to read documents prepared by career employees and approved by top appointees, requesting changes in computer models to lower estimates of the benefits of curbing carbon dioxide, and pushing narrowly drafted legislation on fuel-economy standards that officials said was meant to sap public interest in wider regulatory action.(WaPo).
Jon Stewart in this video — ‘be patient; this gets amazing!’ — explains one technique that was apparently used to good effect. Via The Washington Post:
By late November, [EPA Administrator Stephen L.] Johnson had held a meeting with his staff at which he advocated finding a danger to public welfare and praised the agency’s technical supporting document as "excellent." But when [Deputy Associate Administrator Jason] Burnett sent the proposal to the White House, the OMB staff refused to open it, and it sat in limbo for months.(WaPo; links added)
EPA officials, speaking anonymously, say that the Bush administration — as it has before, with other officials — pressured them to make findings that would reflect the Bush administration’s wishes. This aspect of the Bush administration — the willingness of its minions and gremlins to support the distortion of fact — is something I still can’t get my head around. We all know it’s happened before — and I’m not even thinking of the Iraq war. Remember when Surgeon General (2002-2006) Dr. Richard Camorna resigned? Remember him claiming he’d been ‘muzzled‘ and the examples he gave of exactly how?
WaPo concedes that the full story of how Bush’s environmental regulations got ‘sidetracked’ isn’t known. Of course it isn’t. The full story of how the Bush administration managed to bury information that would have proved it was doing what everyone knows it was doing won’t emerge till Bush is out of the White House and officials feel free to accept those book deals.
Here, according to The Washington Post, are some of the distortions that the Bush administration foisted on the public by having its appointees change information in the reports:
EPA determined that global benefits of reducing carbon are worth $40 per ton, but the report will state that this isn’t an official estimate. And their supporting evidence will be omitted.
‘Dozens’ of pages on ‘cost-effective’ ways to reduce greenhouse gases have been cut out.
The benefits of tighter-fuel economy standards (originally estimated to be $2 trillion) have been recalculated based on the assumption that gas in the future will cost $58 per barrel instead of, say, $140, reducing the benefits to between $340 and $830 billion.
Edward Markey (D), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming got off a good one:
"If this administration spent the same effort fighting global warming as they do editing and censoring global warming documents, the planet might not be in such dire straits."(WaPo).
Markey, who is naturally quite frustrated, says his staff was apparently allowed to see a copy of the EPA’s Dec. 5 finding, but not to keep a copy. (WaPo).Well, naturally. There are rules about these things — we don’t want unofficial findings circulating around out there.
So there it is: the Bush Administration finds the way to keep on doing nothing till Bush’s term is over, at least with respect to climate change.
Or — maybe he’s right! As I often say, just because someone habitually lies doesn’t guarantee that they sometimes won’t tell the truth. That’s the hell of the Bush Administration — you can be fairly sure that Bush and his cronies will lie, but you can’t be 100% sure with respect to any particular fact. Maybe the EPA’s first findings were really highly questionable —oh, never mind the scientists — and Bush is just showing laudable caution here.
But would you like to bet the planet on it?
Recommended:
CROSS-POSTED AT BUCK NAKED POLITICS
74 Responses to “More on How Bush Found the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions (with bonus Jon Stewart Video)”
Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions (With Bonus Jon Stewart Video)
by Damozel | Did you know that George W. Bush is still president? It’s true. And he’s still got plenty of ways to worsen things before his term is over, leaving us a country discredited in the eyes of our own allies, a more toxic and unstable environ…
[...] Surprise! Bush Finds the Way to Continue Inaction on Emissions … The Moderate Voice – USA explains one technique that was apparently used to good effect. Via The Washington Post: By late November, [EPA Administrator Stephen L.] Johnson had held a … See all stories on this topic [...]
Worse than the Bush administration's cynical behavior (and why does anyone find it remarkable in 2008?) is the whole “global warming” environmentalist crusade and the often diseased state of activists.
I hope an Obama administration doesn't engage in destructive acts as well as PC lunacy once it takes power. Real air pollution (which the Bush administration also is avoiding action on), fine; by all means, seek cost-effective, practical pollution reduction measures (which includes, for example, replacing coal electrical generation with nuclear, something that exposes activists' idiotic resistance time after time). Political “pollution” and hyped “crisis” [sic], no way. De-industrialization and deliberate regression and retardation of progress to meet a set of political objectives? No.
As surprising as it may seem, there are still folks who continue to be (or perhaps choose to be) misinformed when it comes to global warming. I suppose the reality is perhaps too frightening for them to confront, and so they imagine there is refuge in denial. Here's a great site for those who need to come up to speed:
http://www.realclimate.org/
As for the Bush administration stance on this issue, given their overall record of “governing”, their sorry record when it comes to global warming should come as no surprise.
Some may say this behavior by the administration is supportive of schizophrenia.
freespirit
DLS: I think the EPA found the evidence of global warming to be 'overwhelming.' The EPA. Bush's EPA. And Bush isn't even arguing anymore that it isn't. Instead, he is dragging his feet over taking any action.
Obama's energy plan was endorsed by…wait for it… Al Gore. I think everyone in the world except a few people in denial thinks that the environment is in grave danger. Even if you don't believe in climate change, the rate of species die-off is terrifying. Some of these species are essential to maintaining the eco-web that maintains us. So just looking at it as a 'pollution' issue requires blocking out a huge amount of evidence that something much more serious is going on.
And the risk of being wrong and doing nothing is so overwhelming that it seems to me that a pragmatist will call it in favor of taking necessary action, even if it means we have to live a little differently than we've been doing.
“Obama's energy plan was endorsed by…wait for it… Al Gore”
Yep, someone who has boosted his celebrity status with global warming hype.
“Even if you don't believe in climate change, the rate of species die-off is terrifying”
I believe climate change is possible and that there's a human contribution to it as of the Industrial Revolution (not suddenly as of, say, the 1980s). But I refuse to be a sucker for hype and one of the largest, most ridiculous political fads that has been accompanying this entire global warming (and anti-Western) movement. Too bad so many gung-ho global-warming activists choose to be so ridiculous.
“And the risk of being wrong and doing nothing is so overwhelming”
That, too, is hype (not only the risk itself, but obviously the consequences).
Just be real about it, and not use it as an excuse to commit mayhem, is what I want.
“schizophrenia”
No, and it's not simply a case again of confrontational, oppositionist behavior. It's perfectly rational, and it is another case of acting deliberately and openly on behalf of energy.
That's in addition to whatever coincidental reasonable skepticism they may have toward what is nearly 100% political, not scientific or technical (the “solutions” even more than the “problem,” notably). I don't believe they are even bothering to engage in critical thinking here and they simply are reflexively opposed to doing anything that increases costs to their beloved-and-beholden energy industry.
So let me get this straight. The planet is warming, Ice is melting and…………………
And what?
Someone splain to me what will happen if we let global warming go unchecked. What is the end result or the end of daze results?
My conclusion from reading the comments above is simply this: Science is not everyone's forté. In time even the doubters will learn more about it though, if not by choice, then by necessity. As for those who have chosen an anti stance for political reasons (Gore derangement syndrome or whatever) I think the old adage applies: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink!
There are a million discussions of the likely impacts of global warming, neocon. If you look things up, certainly avoid anything that tries to give a single day or even month's events as the conclusive effects of warming, not because daily events aren't affected by long-term trends, but because there are so many other factors at play that it's hard to attribute them to one specific thing. Instead look for longer effects such as sea-level rise.
My current home, for instance, which is in Waikiki, would be under water with a several foot sea rise. Same goes for portions of most cities located on the ocean — NY, Hong Kong, San Fran, etc. Just how much will depend on the exact geography of the city. It might be possible to build some sort of sea walls to protect various cities, but those walls and their effects all have economic consequences. For instance, my state's second largest industry (first being the military) is tourism. Who's going to come to Hawaii when the beaches sit looking at 15 foot high walls? Of course, one could just let the water rise and rebuild Honolulu 20 feet up (which is about 2 miles from the current shoreline) but rebuilding portions of large cities also costs billions of dollars. Additionally, no one really cares, but there are large numbers of islands in the Pacific and other places, many of which will simply be under water and gone for ever. Their populations will become migrants or minorities in some other land, or just meld into another population and disappear.
In short, I haven't seen anything that says global warming will destroy the world, but due to things like sea level (and many other long-term climate effects I haven't discussed), it will disrupt economies and agricultural cycles to the tunes of many, many billions of dollars — and that ignores the human cost. Yes, the human race will survive (if that's what you mean by “end of daze”, just like it did in the Ice Age, but the costs will be enormous.
And what?
Here you are, complete with … “stretching.”
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/…
“Science is not everyone's forté”
The Left is where emotion is preferred to reason. Take Obama's appeal, for example. Even where you have liberal Democrats who should know better, there are problems. Liberal Democrats who are truly knowledgeable about nuclear energy, whether or not in the nuclear industry, know it makes sense and support it, but so many who should know better do not, for irrational reasons. As for global warming, the hype makes the subject almost 100% political, not scientific or technical. (For many it simply is the latest faddish, well-supported means to familiar ends, and for many more, just the latest excuse for dishonest US or Western “guilt.”) Al Gore's book, which I saw once in St. Louis and declined to buy after going through it, even had a number of big, bold words in it, as if Keyshawn Johnson's ghostwriter (“Just give me the DAMN BALL”) had ghostwritten Gore's book, too. It looked and had the nature of a children's book, fit for more laughs than “Curious George” books (ghost)written by Dubya himself.
Well I was just curious as I was watching a show the other day on discovery channel about dinosaurs and damn if they didnt say that Raquel Welch never ran from Dinosaurs. Im so bummed out now.
But anyways…..they was a saying that when the dinosaurs roamed the earth that the earth was a full of co2 and that it was like the tropics everywhere and thar wasnt any ice on the poles. Most of America was under water and stuff like that. So Im thinking. That wouldnt be too bad would it. I mean we might all own beach front property if we buy in the right places.
So Im just thinking that what goes around comes around. Seems to me we are headed right back to where we were and if a world is not concerened about gasoline prices then why should we be worried about global warming.
So Im a thinking to myself. Why should Bush curtail emmissions when we are going to run out of fossil fuel before anything really happens anyways. I can only conclude its the left wanting to destroy global corporations which stand in the way of socialism and such.
Other then that I cant think of one good reason to be afraid of Global warming.
DLS, I've heard your sort of response from many people and I think it represents the opinion of millions of Americans. They don't want to be duped or taken in. They don't want to fall for hysteria. They don't want to do what that really annoying guy they have a revulsion to says. Understandable, but it sounds to me a little like the following situation:
A pack of scientists study gas emissions and seismic readings near a volcano which suddenly rise compared to a many year trend. Since these are the best indications they have for an eruption, they issue a warning that an eruption is likely soon. They state in the warnings that their prediction has room for error, but everything they know indicates it is very likely. They suggest that people who live near the volcano evacuate. As the residents are considering the evacuation, others start running by screaming. That guy who's always got crackpot theories takes up the call. That teacher who insulted your kid at school gets in on the act. Some people, in your estimation, start acting like idiots. And so the resident decides he's not going to act like those stupid people getting caught up in hype and trying to get some sort of advantage from the situation. “Dammit, I'm not like them and I'm going to stay right here.”
Eventually, the volcano blows up.
Neocon, a warmer world might be a lovely place, but let's just say, “the first step's a doozy.”
It is in fact DLS and people who buy into the things that he cites that make it more political than scientific. In fact the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that the long term trends over the last decades have been warming. They also agree that it is not CO2 from volcanic sources, the current state of the Earth's orbit or increases in energy from the sun causing this warming. It is instead human changes causing it, including adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at an increasing rate that natural sinks that handle natural sources of CO2 can't deal with. There are other things people do, of course, but CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the activity that have captured the most attention. In fact, while DLS and his fellow deniers love to sneer at Al Gore, climatologists asked to review his book and the documentary have found that the science is almost exactly spot on with just a few things they think might not be 100% accurate.
Will global warming destroy the planet? Of course not. Could it destroy our civilization? Possibly.
Actually, I'm aware that we're changing the planet (sometimes for good, often for bad, hopefully when for the worse in exchange for improvement elsewhere that is greater). As I wrote earlier, I'm aware that we have changed our atmosphere in particular since the Industrial Revolution. But it's a leap (beyond logical limits) to believe that anyone who doesn't want to rush to doing what likely is not worthwhile, and too suspiciously and transparently is sought by those who have sought the same things for ages using other excuses, is a Harry Truman near Mt. St. Helens who is also a cranky old Republican who isn't going to listen to a bunch of young, bearded, no doubt liberal and Democratic, earth-interested smart-assed kids. The real issue here is: the hype, the hysteria, the predictable “solutions” we need, and the pathological “guilt” and “shame” and all the rest that is being regurgitated once again as it has off and on since the 1960s.
The real analogy here, aside from global cooling that never got as far (though some of the same people were involved back then, and the same “solutions” of course suggested), would be the closest thing, namely acid precipitation and deposition in the water and on terrestrial locations (“acid rain”). There was a lot of hype about it but some of us could tell the difference between what is real and what is hype (and excuses for crippling industry, et cetera, ad nauseum). Paint damaged on cars and more commonly, defacement of structures like statues and bridges and buildings did not happen spontaneously; it happened from acid rain.
“DLS and his fellow deniers love to sneer at Al Gore”
He deserves it, for engaging in hype, and I sneer at the dupes and hysterics who have made him a celebrity, even to the point of getting a (blatantly political) Nobel Prize. They also have made him quite a thriving capitalist and enormous energy user and far greater contributor to atmospheric change (without any corresponding benefit in exchange in reality, to society or to the planet) than they ever will be.
“Could it destroy our civilization? Possibly.”
Hype. Except perhaps regarding the most extreme goals of the activists.
I know you think there's a lot of hype, DLS. That's loud and clear. But you also have stated twice that you think we are likely changing the climate by human action. My point is that we have to push the hype aside, no matter how stupid and annoying and irresponsible you think it is, and act on what you believe — that we are changing the climate.
Why anyone would choose ignorance over knowledge in order to maintain loyalty to undeserving practitioners of a particular ideology is baffling. But back to Damozel's comments for a moment. This quote in particular:
“The Bush Administration discovered a great truth: a bare-faced lie, however it may be discredited, is as good as the truth if you pretend you believe it and act on it anyway. And if you don’t mind being called out as a liar, you can lie with complete impunity so long as there is no person with the authority (or the spine to wield it) to stop you.”
That so well describes an MO that has been in frequent use with this administration, not just with regard to global warming, but also the lead up to action in Iraq and throughout much of that conflict. It's almost as if they decided to run an experiment to discover just how far out of shape they could beat and stretch the truth and still manage to pass it off as the real deal. The fact that they got away with it as much as they did is a national embarrassment… to say the very least.
Someone once said “Here we go again.” For some honest perspective about the 1970s speculations about global cooling read here. Deniers love to refer to it as though it had the same kind of consensus that climatologists have concerning warming even though that's a complete lie. But then, deniers aren't real big on truth, are they?
Do they admit that the overdose of CO2 going into the oceans is increasing the acidity levels, damaging sea life? Of course they don't. Do they admit that the effect of increased warming on storms of all kinds is likely to not be to our liking? No. Do they admit that the models that they decry as likely to be extreme are in fact conservative in some ways, ignoring factors that we know exist but can't quantify adequately? Of course not.
When it comes to destroying our civilization they ignore many of the effects that warming can cause. It's not now and won't be a nice even warming any time soon. This means droughts, floods, heat waves, cold waves, blizzards, tornados and hurricanes. These are, after all nature's pleasant little ways of evening out temperature and air circulation, or in some cases, the by-products of that balancing act. Much of the world's population lives in coastal areas or islands that aren't that far above sea level. In spite of what deniers try to say it doesn't take that much of an increase in sea levels to have a major effect on the habitability of those areas when you combine that increase with what a storm surge can do with the extra water. When all those people have to relocate, when food supplies and supplies of fresh water get short and these effects hit millions and millions of people it does become questionable how sustainable our civilization will be if we take the DLS recommended course of sitting on our hands and doing nothing.
WEll Im really confused on this……Global warmings not supposed to kick in for 100 years if we continue on the way were going but……….we run out of fossil fuels in about 50 years
By my math that just doesnt add up. I think its a scam by the left to save the owls and punish success.
I started to respond to Neocon's last post….but some things are just so foolish that they just don't merit a serious response.
Amen brother.
Neocon, “I think its a scam by the left to save the owls and punish success.”
And what's wrong with saving the owls? And why is having a clean planet punishing success? I think we would be successful as a civilization if we didn't destroy our world.
If you like barren places then I suggest you move to a desert and try to live there without air conditioning. Really, what sort of life do we want to leave for future generations? The Earth's ecosystem is very fragile and we need to stop messing with it. Humans won't survive long on a planet where most other life is extinct.
pacatrue, you mention the costs of building walls around coastal cities, etc. to be in the billions of dollars. You're really just lowballing the figures. The costs would be in the trillions of dollars- think of building a wall all around FL, or at least the major cities, which would all be “islands”) below sea level. And then if there's an earthquake, hurricane, etc. and a wall for a particular city fails, then it's completely over for that city- remember these place would be below sea-level. New Orleans offers the closest comparison…. and they're still rebuilding it after how many years? And it's not even an “island” below sea level surrounded by walls….
And then all the land that the ocean has claimed would just cause pollution (waste disposal facilities are now underwater, gas stations with their seepage are now under water, toxic waste once on land would be underwater, what about all that asbestos in buildings? All underwater…. all polluting the oceans…. Would we relocate graveyards or will the coffins someday float to the surface after a storm?
Neocon, the hardest part about being a liberal is learning not to give out the evil laugh at inappropriate times. It's hard being nefarious sometimes.
I started to respond to Neocon's last post….but some things are just so foolish that they just don't merit a serious response.
reply
As I suspected the left cannot come up with one good reason to stop drilling or stop what were doing. They have no idea what the end result is going to be and cant figure out how to respond to the fact that we are going to run out of fossil fuels well before the 100 years is up which everyone talks about.
As usual the left offers no solutions to problems. Only a continuous pointing to the problem and asking when you gonna fix it? I probably know more about global warming and its ramifications then most any leftener who claims it as the focal point from which all other things spring.
As I suspected the Democrats have no answer that is rational for the energy crisis today. NOW.
And what's wrong with saving the owls? And why is having a clean planet punishing success? I think we would be successful as a civilization if we didn't destroy our world.
This POST was on Bush snubbing the world by saying were not going to mandate impossible regulation on our industry. To roll back our emmissions in times when the industry that is centered on oil and gasoline is collapsing and falling into disrepair and the left continues to screech about global warming while this country is on the verge of bankruptcy over oil and gasoline prices.
Yes 25 trillion dollars in debt and climbing and borrowing every day to keep up a lifestyle we cannot afford and what does Barak Obama and the left want to do. Change lightbulbs, Save the owl, punish those corporations that give millions and millions of jobs to their own….I mean most of these are Democrats……….
Oh right. My wife whispered in my ear. They must be Hillary Democrats.
This is not personal for me. The world is a better place because of the left who are so wedded to saving the owl. I don't resent them for that until Their advocacy threatens solvency. Which it is now doing. I just want answers to questions and the left cant give them. People say no to drilling cause it wont matter and I can give supporting facts that prove otherwise and if we dont try we will never know who is right will we?
Pacature gave a decent response. Yes polar ice might melt. But the reason we are having problems is that the carbon being sequestered in the lakes and rivers and which has been buried under ice for eons is starting to be released into the atmosphere as the world adjusts itself in the natural balance of things.
The greatest danger to the world is the deforestation of the Rain forest which is happening on the order of 100 sq miles per year. Trees which absorb carbon dioxide are being removed to make way for civilization or to feed civilizations voracious habits.
Carbon dioxide falls into the ocean and makes the water heavy. The water falls and is cooled where it is trapped in the soot and sediment of the ocean floors. If the ocean heats up considerably….4 to 5 degrees then the carbon will rise and be released into the atmosphere. Additionally this is happening in lakes in the north and south pole areas.
So spare me. The greatest threat to the owl is not global warming. Its the razing of their habitat to make room for new housing areas or to feed the voracious appetite of modern civilization. Not Global warming.
Neocon made me laugh, and I'm grateful for that.
What can you expect in a country that can't even handle something like evolution?
Solvency? What kind of solvency would there be if all resouces have to be spent battling the effects of climate change?
Bush is just lovely. Having thrown cold water on his final G8 meeting, and announcing that he plans to do nothng in response to his own EPA report, plus flicking off the SC decision on this matter, I wonder what other farewell bombs he'll detonate in the face of America before he finally leaves.
I listened to Micky Edwards yesterday and was reassured that at least some conservatives can still think rationally. It's unfortuante that there are so few of them these days.
Facts Runasim.
The facts are simple. The Oil and gas industry are melting down. Our economy is about 90 percent tied to them. Hell we cant even produce corn without oil and gas.
So here is the left wanting to impose strict guidelines and regulations on industry already facing massive insolvency because of the prices of oil and gas.
Like you said the other day……..its okay not to balance the budget in an emmergency but its not okay to put off regulation that will further harm and raise prices during an energy crisis.
The democrats have NO solutions. They only have rants and screams of “Foul.” They do indeed want to force this country into the dark ages with Wind power, solar panels and tidal harnesses. They want battery cars which create more greenhouse gases then do gasoline powered vehicles but that does not matter. They just want to punish someone………..anyone. The durn owls must be saved and Hillary Clinton must be punished……..so lets fire her workers first.
AFter all we do know that it was these Michigan Democrats losing their jobs now that voted for Hillary. The hate in the democratic party even for their own runs really deep now.
It should surprise no one that Bush has ignored his own agency's directives, as he is nothing but consistent in one important way. He and Cheney have remained true to the wished of the RNC's big donors. The first big clue that Bush would go back on his campaign promise to cut our carbon output came when Dick Cheney met with the CEO's of Big Oil, and allowed them to write our energy policy, with NO input from environmentalists who had a legal right to be there.
Afterwards, there was a concerted propanda campaign by Bush & Co to deny that global warming existed, even as climactic catastrophes intensified (such as Hugo, Katrina and the tsunami) and pictures of the melting polar ice caps filled the air waves.
This paragraph of Damozel's excellent piece is characteristic of the administration's modus operandi in almost every area of policy-making:
” The Bush Administration discovered a great truth: a bare-faced lie, however it may be discredited, is as good as the truth if you pretend you believe it and act on it anyway. And if you don’t mind being called out as a liar, you can lie with complete impunity so long as there is no person with the authority (or the spine to wield it) to stop you. “
They have colluded with the special interests who put them into office to defeat the will of the people, the will of Congress and even the law of the land— the Constitution. More will come out after they leave office — and I believe if the millions of WH emails had not been destroyed that we would learn of many felonious acts committed in the name of advancing their agenda.
Krit
Every bit of what you wrote might be true. It might not. However what is Obama going to do when he steps in office??
Is he going to punish industry, bring about the collapse of the nation because tree hugging lefties demand it? Remember hes moving to the center and by rationale away from YOU.
Yes the polar ice cap might be melting. Yes their might be hurricanes. Yes everything you say is true………….we are doomed…….but does that mean he is going to bring America into a depression like you seem to want Bush to do?
What is Obama's solution? He wants to cure what ails us by 2030. What about today. What is he going to do……Slap billions of emmission controls on already floundering industry because the tree huggers demand it?
Obama offers no solutions. Only more I will grow more corn, change more lightbulbs and create Green Jobs to replace the Big 3……you know those dorks who didnt vote for me but voted for Hillary instead.
“A pack of scientists study gas emissions and seismic readings near a volcano which suddenly rise compared to a many year trend. [...] Eventually, the volcano blows up.”
I disagree, as I wrote earlier, with this analogy, but I wanted to address another analogy briefly, because as you're one of the few well-behaved lefties on here it's you who should hear it first.
While that analogy is “too big, too quick,” another analogy is also incorrect but I'm surprised global warming activists haven't used it because it involves air pollution (which is real and incontestible, as opposed to the political, the “substance” of so many activists instead, accompanied by poor behavior) as well as harmful effects.
Another analogy to combustion and harmful effects that is incorrect (though I thought about it for a while anyway, as it was interesting and intriguing that the Left hasn't misused it yet) is, of course, smoking. (One reason I'm surprised that the Left hasn't misused this analogy is that it was accompanied by activism and there used to be all kinds of denial by tobacco companies that smoking causes cancer even though the science is indisputable. Many ill-behaved people on the Left are particularly rude and stupid when it comes to addressing whom they call (often dishonestly) “deniers” or “denialists” with the fervor the Wahhabis, for example, have against heretics. (same religious-political fundamentalist concepts at play)
Global warming is not like volcanic activity, or like smoking. Acid rain to me remains the best analogy (based on air pollution, and the object of all kinds of lunatic behavior, best exemplified by Verso Press and Pluto Press books on acid rain and the Evil Corporate Plutocracy and the need for de-industrialization and “green” politically correct alternatives and massive government intervention).
Neocon: I can give supporting facts that prove otherwise and if we dont try we will never know who is right will we?
I presume the “facts” you will present to “prove” otherwise all come from your head with no supporting documentation, is that about right? How do we know you're not just crazy? And didn't you say in an earlier thread that it's not just the Dems, but the Reps and the oil companies that are preventing whatever it is you have in mind. If so, what can be done to fix it?
So here is the left wanting to impose strict guidelines and regulations on industry already facing massive insolvency because of the prices of oil and gas.
The insolvency idea doesn't seem to jibe with the fact that they're raking in record profits. How do you make sense of that?
“He and Cheney have remained true to the wishes of the RNC's big donors.”
I've stated this, too. In this case it's the wishes of the energy industry, which doesn't just happen to be a big donor to the RNC but is the community that includes Bush and Cheney. Of course the energy industry is going to get its way, at least between now and the start of next year. Actually the overreaction to this is especially childish; we grown-ups already know there will be a leadership change and Bush is weak. The obstructionism or confrontational behavior is no surprise, either. Anyone expressing Outrage! [tm] over this is silly as well as childish. Grow up, and don't be so upset you forget to go vote Democratic in November, already.
* * *
“So here is the left wanting to impose strict guidelines and regulations on industry already facing massive insolvency because of the prices of oil and gas.”
Cost-benefit analysis of any new regulations (and of any additional regulation reform) will, I fear, be absent in a Democratic administration. And what will be the effects on oil prices if our next administration is hostile to more drilling, something we should already be doing?
With energy I fear three things with a Dem administration, especially any that threatens to be another Carter administration or a McGovern administration. One is the cost of transportation and even availability of fuels. The second is the cost of heating this winter. Gas is going to be expensive! (Heating oil is still used in the USA, believe it or not; the Northeast is a big consumer of the stuff.) The third is the cost of electricity.
Will we complete development of our Arctic petroleum fields and deep water Gulf of Mexico fields? Will we drill on our continental shelves and on the continent itself? Or will this be opposed, for political reasons? Will heating oil be subsidized? Gas for heating? Gasoline and diesel fuel? Aviation fuels? Will there be price controls, or a Carteresque oil and gas distribution plan, a command economy of petroleum? Windfall profits taxes and more taxes? Will pollution (a valid issue, real pollutants, not politically-polluted “greenhouse gas” emissions) be subject to new regulations forcing their reduction? Will they be sensible or deliberately chosen to punish, reduce, or end the use of coal? If pollution reduction is desired, will the new administration be honest, consistent, and forthright rather than hypocritical, dishonest, and blatantly political, i.e., will they vigorously support new nuclear power plants and replacement of other power plants with nuclear plants? Will they support new hydropower development or oppose it on environmentalist rather than true energy-policy grounds? Will new liquefied natural gas facilities be supported to assist our switching from coal and oil for electricity production to gas for pollution reduction? Will there be new “alternative” (mainly wind but also solar, geothermal, even tidal) energy provision requirements, not only incentives (inducement payments or bribes)? Will there be new taxes on motor vehicle fuels? Absolute amounts or on a fixed percentage basis, or even on a progressive basis (the lesson about which people still don't often comprehend when it comes to taxes on incomes or on property)? Intervention in the automobile market? Fee-bates on vehicle purchases, taxes on engine size or output? Vehicle weight or size? Will we businesses (not only the government, or the government excepted) be required to use special energy-conserving devices or minimum (and increased) energy efficiency appliances of all kinds, not just light bulbs, but air conditioners, refrigerators, appliances like washers and dryers or the commercial and industrial equivalents? Will individuals be subject to such requirements? The list of things a new administration could do to achieve a more politically correct, desireable-to-them USA, but harmful to the economy and antithetical to American culture and often to logic, too, is endless.
By the way, Neocon, Kritter is pretty moderate, maybe too moderate for this so-called “moderate” site but definitely on the same (D) side as the “moderates.”
* * *
“the polar ice cap might be melting”
I'm amused (including when it's at the expense of the shrieksters) at those who are hedging their bets or exploiting this political movement for their own, other ends, who say global warming is a potential or likely good thing. That includes advocates of those who want to open a shipping route across the north of Eurasia. (Some activists are aghast because it might include shipping nuclear cargoes or that it might open the Arctic for more development, including of any new oil discoveries! oooooooooooooooooooo)
“Outrage! [tm]“
For the record, K, I was not accusing you but the more childish people of this.
In your case it's the liberal equivalent of how we non-liberals who are critical of Bush are — we're tired of it. In your case I could also add a few words to the list such as “contempt” and “disgust” (you're long past nausea)
“I wonder what other farewell bombs he'll detonate in the face of America before he finally leaves.”
You could not possibly be shocked or surprised or feel as if a bomb were dropped on us if he were to pardon Scooter Libby. Tell us this doesn't reach “bomb” level.
* * *
“the DLS recommended course of sitting on our hands and doing nothing”
Logic evades you again (you're too clever for this to have been a crude lie). I'm distinguishing between what is real and what isn't, and what are political goals rather than other goals, even if the goals are claimed to be other things. (I'm also disappointed to disgusted at so much of the “We're Cooking the Planet!” “The West is evil” lunacy that includes a lot of regurgitated stuff going back to the 1960s and which has accumulated with global warming as its political power remains strong rather than being brief and fading promptly, as with acid precipitation and deposition. There is no great crisis, no excuse for massive regulation and control and re-engineering of industry, the economy, and society along familiar new lines.)
I've also been on record numerous times as saying air pollution is real (it is a health hazard, among other things) and merits attention (this nation values a clean environment, including clean air, clean water, preservation of the best natural resources, etc., and is nothing like the depiction many would dishonestly make, as if it is still the 1950s or early 1960s). This is distinct from the liberal to radical extremism of claiming “crisis” [sic] yet again, with “desperate” or “drastic” or “transformational” measures being “required” (the details of which are typically not innovative but predictably familiar). Even those things that are inarguably bad require solutions that are cost-effective as well as reasonable and rational (where the Left is often absent!). Sorry, children, but perfection is not instantly attainable for free.
NEOCON: Say that you establish somehow that global warming isn't a proven fact or that it might be less catastrophic than the worst-case scenario.
You mentioned owls. Did you know that species die-off is proceeding at a terrifying rate at this time? And that scientists are worried about the suppression of of, say, bees — which perform a crucial function in pollination and therefore in maintaining plant life— can pose a dire threat to life on the planet? We are dependent in ways that we are really just starting to realize on other species. It's not as simple as being an owl hugger (I am one of those, though).
Trees, for example, produce oxygen (Reagan thought they produced carbon monoxide, but he wasn't right about that either). We need not to destroy great tracts of them.
What I'm trying to say is, as far as the earth goes, we're the cancer. We CAN kill off the host. Climate change need not drown Florida — even small changes due to irresponsibility in handling the environment might spell disasters we can't predict or control. It doesn't even require a catastrophe. It just requires enough interference to destroy the parts of the so-called 'eco-web' that we need to survive ourselves.
DLS: It's not about having a 'clean environment.' It's about recognizing that we are part of something bigger than ourselves and dependent on it. To take another metaphor, imagine a lot of microorganisms living in a drop of water. They don't think of it as a 'drop of water'; they think of it as 'the world' — their world. And they don't think the little bit of waste each emits is going to make a difference. Then they start breeding like crazy and the chemical composition of the water changes so it's no longer fit for those microorganisms to live in.
IN SHORT, The idea that we have dominion over the earth is, I'm afraid, one that is being disproved. We have only so much control and then other forces kick in. Parts of the earth become uninhabitable, the fish die in the ocean, the very nature of the very thin web of plants and animal life alters in some irrevocable fashion and we end up like the species that precede the dinosaurs. It wouldn't take a catastrophic event like an asteroid or nuclear war — just mass starvation, the loss of sufficient potable water, etc. etc.
This is what the tree huggers are trying to explain. It's not about valuing trees more than someone's job because trees are pretty (though according to me, that's a crucial reason too). It's about recognizing that trees collectively perform an essential function thanks to what they breathe out.
DLS: The list of things a new administration could do to achieve a more politically correct, desireable-to-them USA, but harmful to the economy and antithetical to American culture and often to logic, too, is endless.
I'd say that's true. It's also true that the list of things a new administration could do to achieve nothing at all to facilitate a transition to sustainable energy sources, prevent destruction of the environment, or streamline regulations so that energy efficiency can be achieved painlessly and economically is endless too. We're largely seeing that right now. It's what this post is about.
The fact is though, I don't think either one of those things are going to happen regardless of who wins the White House. And if it does it won't be just the President's fault. He can't do anything without the approval of congress, and they can do little without the approval of the President — unless they can muster enough support to overcome a veto. There is also the states, who are already doing some of the things that appear to fill you with terror. Red states as well as blue states.
I am not so naive to think that any administration will be honest, consistent, and forthright rather than hypocritical, dishonest, and blatantly political all the time. That's true of congresscritters, too. On both sides. I heard a good quote the other day. I don't remember who said it but the quote was, “If all politicians were saints we wouldn't need an informed electorate. But they aren't so we do.”
I don't particularly trust anyone in any party, certainly not all the time. But I do believe they can occasionally get things close to right. They're not totally useless. Let's hope not anyway. But I think the issue DAMOZEL wrote about so eloquently in this post is atrocious. Never should a small cadre of individuals be able to stonewall like this. This is beyond the pale. It circumvents the way the system is supposed to work. It shouldn't be allowed, and should be corrected ASAP when it does.
“Cost-benefit analysis of any new regulations (and of any additional regulation reform) will, I fear, be absent in a Democratic administration.”
Well, the Bush administration has never met a fact that it liked…. It has been the Dems who are more fiscally responsible than the GOP in recent years….
Neocon, you mention deforestation as being a threat to the world- and you're right- that's part of what causes global warming and a human action which we should curtail, along with lowering our demand for energy, even if we just begin by changing light bulbs. A penny saved is a penny earned (or in this case, pollution not emitted into the air results in clean air).
DLS: “With energy I fear three things with a Dem administration, especially any that threatens to be another Carter administration or a McGovern administration. One is the cost of transportation and even availability of fuels. The second is the cost of heating this winter. Gas is going to be expensive! (Heating oil is still used in the USA, believe it or not; the Northeast is a big consumer of the stuff.) The third is the cost of electricity.”
Uhh I hate to tell you, but don't we have the Bush administration, their record-profit oil allies (and Bush's failure to do ANYTHING about energy conservation) to blame for increasing energy costs?
If we had heeded warnings years ago (and had leaders who took global warming seriously) then we would not be in the situation we're in. I blame both Dems and Republicans for this, but I particularly blame the Bush administration since he (Cheney) said conservation is a personal virtue and placed energy industry profits before the good of the American people and before the good of the environment. And he rolled back years- decades- of environmental regulations meant to curb pollution.
DLS you mentioned that this is a nation that values a clean environment….
I disagree with you… we have a leadership which cares more about energy indutry profits… and encourages pollution because for the Bushies it's “too expensive” for industry to curtail their polluting activities.
We also have all those Americans who love the SUVs… and now they are trying to get rid of them… not because they're polluting… but because gas is expensive.
There may be some Dems and Republicans who believe in a clean environment, but even on these pages the disdain for “lefty tree huggers” is clearly evident. If folks truly cared about the environment in this country they would recognize that those tree huggers are, on the one hand absolutely correct, but on the other hand do go a bit overboard and the solution to pollution/global warming is to have aggressive goals in developing renewable/alternative energy sources (good for the economy and creates jobs) and conservation.
Unfortunately most people dismiss the “tree-huggers” when they're more “correct” than folks who want to take baby steps… so that no one will be inconvenienced. Except that we are all “inconvenienced” by the rising energy costs…. which will only continue to increase.
Oil was like $25/bbl or so when Bush took office. It is now around $145/bbl. If it rises at the same rate in the next 8 years (which it won't- I hope) it would cripple the economy. Even if it just doubled in the next eight years, which it probably will… and that would be considered a really slow growth rate in the price…. we're looking at $10/gal gas….
Yet most people want action done about it, yet no one wants to be inconvenienced and take responsibility. If the “tree-huggers” so many people disdain were taken more seriously then higher energy costs wouldn't hurt quite as bad.
The insolvency idea doesn't seem to jibe with the fact that they're raking in record profits. How do you make sense of that?
Talking about the big three automakers Rico. Also other industries that must pass rigid EPA standards. But you might try reading up on how the oil industry works if you really want to know how we can increase production today. Overnight with existing infrastructure.
Let me ask you a question. Is OPEC pumping at or near capacity?
No? Well neither is the big 5 and neither are the small cap firms. In addition you have 1000's of capped wells that could be brought to life with subsidies. In addition where in the HELL is congress with mandated energy conservation????
The truth. They want the economy to continue tanking because they believe it favors the Democrats. Im just pointing out that it is the democrats with a majority in both houses that are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
THE DEMOCRATS determine what legislation gets discussed, moved and passed. NOT BUSH and not the GOP.
While Congress Fiddles, America Burns.
“it is the democrats with a majority in both houses that are doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.”
Try watching on C-span what happens when the Democratic Congress tries to do something, Filibuser, obstruct, and more filibuster by the GOP is what happens.
And the Pres. is only too happy to veto anything useful.
This kind of srawman has long ceased to take in anyone who follows how Congress actually functions. Besides, even if the Democrats had veto proof majorties in both Houses, how could they, in 2 years, undo the harm the GOP did in 8?
Try watching on C-span what happens when the Democratic Congress tries to do something, Filibuser, obstruct, and more filibuster by the GOP is what happens.
You mean like these?
McCONNELL LEADS TWO MORE SUCCESSFUL FILIBUSTERS AGAINST RENEWABLE ENERGY(which included a child tax credit or more commonly known as pork) AND A WINDFALL GAS PROFITS TAX.
So here we are in a cruch. Needing more energy not less and the Democrats want to punish the Oil companies that are the only hope out of this mess by taxing the crap outta them.
The Democrats when it comes to energy are just clueless. Jimmy Carters windfall profit tax did nothing but raise gasoline prices.
BUT……..this is a perfect example………GO GREEN>>>>PUNISH THE OIL COMPANIES in the same congressional setting. Now thats leadership.
Your congressman sucks!! Time to vote him out. I know Im voting mine out.
DLS, the point of my apparently poor volcano analogy is that the climate models remain the same no matter who or what is advocating for them. I still can't tell from your comments whether you think the climate models are accurate or made up by nefarious liberals with our nefarious plots to rule the world through home gardening. You stated a couple times that you think we might be changing the environment through human action, but then seem to label any response to the models as political (and I infer you mean therefore not real).
Anyway, again, my failed analogy was simply to point out that climatology is apolitical. Either we are forcing the climate or we are not. Only, the response to those climate models is social and political, and no matter how wise or stupid the response is, the model remains the same. (Sounds like a song.)
It is rather insignificant as to whether climate models are correct or not. Climate change is happening. The only real question is are we causing it? Most likely. Can we fix it? Doubt it. 7 Billion people are pretty demanding.
The infrastructure is in place for a world of needy cancer cells. Somehow the Democrats want to make the patient undergo chemo Therapy in order to rid the world of this nastiness that is being inflicted upon it.
That is a very apt point and it is exactly why this discussion ends going no where. Those who want to fix the problem view us as cancer that must be irradicated.
Neocon: Talking about the big three automakers Rico. Also other industries that must pass rigid EPA standards.
With regard to the automakers, CAFE standards, the pillar of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, passed the Senate by a vote of 86-8 (the House by 314 – 100). I heard Boehner on C-Span the other day applauding his party for helping to pass the bill. McCain did not vote. But he has voted in the past to maintain the existing standards. In fact, back in 2002, he favored mandating a 36-mpg level by 2016. More recently, of course, he wants to modify them. Go figure. In 2007 Frank Luntz (sp?), the CEO of GM said that rather than passing CAFE standards congress should mandate $4/gal gas. That would work just as well. Well, guess what? It sounds like it's a moot point.
As far as EPA standards go, are you saying you want to reduce them or eliminate them? If so, why? And which ones?
But you might try reading up on how the oil industry works if you really want to know how we can increase production today. Overnight with existing infrastructure.
Funny thing is, I have tried rather hard. I can't find anything. And why are you so secretive?
Let me ask you a question. Is OPEC pumping at or near capacity? No? Well neither is the big 5 and neither are the small cap firms. In addition you have 1000's of capped wells that could be brought to life with subsidies. In addition where in the HELL is congress with mandated energy conservation????
See, those are the issues I'd like some documentation for. I can find some talk about it. But it's mostly hearsay, nothing substantive. Kinda like Gull Island. Apparently you know where to find some solid stuff. So again I ask, why are you being so secretive?
My take on OPEC is, I don't think anyone's really sure. Bush has tried now on several occasions with little success. Finally the Saudis recently announced they'd increase production by 500,000/day. That doesn't sound like much (although it's at least half of what the EIA estimated production of ANWR would ever be even under their most optimistic estimate). And apparently the announcement didn't make much of a splash. Gas prices have risen more than $10/gal since.
Now, if you think the American Big 5 (and others) are suppressing production, then I presume you're in favor of calls for those companies to be investigated, right? Funny thing is, my impression is the Dems are for it, the Reps against it. The Dems also appear to be far more in favor of energy conservation measures than the Reps.
The truth. They want the economy to continue tanking because they believe it favors the Democrats.… the Democrats want to punish the Oil companies that are the only hope out of this mess
I had no idea the oil companies were so masochistic.
Quite frankly Neocon, I don't think you're making much sense. You seem to be talking in circles.