So, let me get this straight, the Bush administration, as conservative on the environment as it gets, admits that... 1. Within this century, New York City will be under water up to Wall Street and New Orleans will need dams to keep the water out. 2. Temperatures THIS CENTURY will rise 5 to 9 degrees and oceans will rise 19 INCHES. 3. "Highly sensitive ecosystems, such as Rocky Mountain meadows and coastal barrier islands, will likely disappear." 4. The US is the cause of the majority of greenhouse gas emissions in the world and those emissions will increase by <b>43 percent</b> over the next 20 years. <b><i>BUT...</i></b> They refuse to do anything about it because it is too expensive!!! So, saving money today is worth destruction of our environment tomorrow? Aye! God, help me. <i>Bush Administration Blames Humans for Global Warming By Tom Doggett and Chris Baltimore WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time in a new report that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will increase significantly over the next two decades due mostly to human activities, but again rejected an international treaty to slow global warming (news - web sites). The report released by the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) was a surprising endorsement of what many scientists and weather experts have long argued -- that human activities such as oil refining, power plants and automobile emissions are important causes of global warming. The White House had previously said there was not enough scientific evidence to blame industrial emissions for global warming. "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global mean surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise," the administration said in its report. That position puts the Bush administration at odds with its supporters in the U.S. auto, oil and electricity industries, which contend that more research is needed to determine if the changes are naturally occurring or caused by industry. In the report sent Friday to the United Nations (news - web sites), the administration forecast that total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will increase 43 percent between 2000 and 2020. On the same day, all 15 European Union (news - web sites) nations ratified the Kyoto pact -- the only global framework for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and soot. The United States is the world's largest emitter of so- called greenhouse gases, mostly from utilities and factories. Last year, the Bush administration triggered international outrage when it announced the United States would not participate in the Kyoto Treaty, a U.N.-backed attempt to limit greenhouse gas emissions by industrial countries. At the time, President Bush (news - web sites) said the Kyoto Treaty's goal of reducing U.S. emissions by about 7 percent from 1990 levels during 2008-2012 would be too costly to the American economy. Environmental groups said the new U.S. report was a major reversal by Bush administration on the link between global warming and human activity. "(The report) undercuts everything the president has said about global warming since he took office," said Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. The Environmental Protection Agency posted the report on its Webs site, but EPA officials refused to comment on its contents and referred inquires to the State Department, which submitted the report to the United Nations. ALPINE MEADOWS, ISLANDS AT RISK The administration warned that increased emissions and rising temperatures will have a greater impact on certain regions of the United States. The report said average temperatures in the contiguous United States will rise 5 degrees to 9 degrees Fahrenheit during this century. Some highly sensitive ecosystems, such as Rocky Mountain meadows and coastal barrier islands, will likely disappear, the report said. Forest regions in the Southeastern United States could see "major species shifts," or major changes in growth patterns. The report also raises the possibility of drought conditions and changing snowfall patterns in the West, Pacific Northwest and Alaska. Average sea level rises of 19 inches from global warming could threaten buildings, roads, power lines and other infrastructure in climate-sensitive areas, the report said. "With higher sea level, coastal regions could be subject to increased wind and flood damage, even if tropical storms do not change in intensity," it said. Though not referenced in the report, the impacts spell significant dangers for coastal cities like New York City and New Orleans, Clapp said. With sea level rises referenced in the report, Manhattan would be underwater up to Wall Street and New Orleans would have to undertake a major dike-building effort to hold back the waters, Clapp said. "The United States needs to take aggressive action now to develop a program to reduce emissions," he said. VOLUNTARY MEASURES The administration repeated in the report that voluntary measures to control emissions taken by polluting U.S. companies are the best way to slow the growth of emissions that are believed to cause the earth's atmosphere and oceans to warm. A voluntary approach is "expected to achieve emission reductions comparable to the average reductions prescribed by the Kyoto agreement, but without the threats to economic growth that rigid national emission limits would bring," the report said. The White House reiterated its commitment to fighting global warming and touted its plan to reduce the amount of emissions per unit of U.S. gross domestic product by 18 percent over the next decade through a combination of voluntary, incentive-based and mandatory measures. The administration also pointed out that the United States had led the world in investment in climate change science and since 1990 has spent over $18 billion on such research. A global summit in Johannesburg is planned for August with 60,000 delegates and 100 heads of state to discuss sustainable development, with climate change issues slated for discussion. The United States is expected to face heavy criticism at the meeting, especially from the European Union, for not doing more to fight global warming.</i>
you mean Global Warming exists? really? golly.... Let's drill in Alaska, we're going to hell in a handbasket anyway... while your at it, let's cut down some redwoods, a few more bazillion acres of rain forest, pollute a few more lakes and streams and dump some toxic waste in a mountain in Nevada!
Ok, lets start terraforming Mars, already. Once we use this place up, we'll need somewhere else to go...
I am kind of in the middle on this one. We can't just flip the economy on its head to go green, but the big polluters have had long enough to get their act together. Something has to be phased in, with no grandfather clauses and drastic fines for non-compliance. Mass transit must be implemented instead of expanding freeways as much as I hate to say it. The scientist say one thing, then thay say another. I thing the scientist that are downplaying global warming are being funded by big business. I don't think it is normal that all of these large chunks of ice are breaking off from Antartica (even though the shelf itself is thickening). This will not become a huge issue until we have acid rain that eats our clothes off, melts the antennas off of our roofs and gives our fishes three eyers like the Simpsons. But I don't want to put everyone out of jobs, I would even be in favor of using my tax money to help companies comply, or at least give them more tax breaks. We need to get our act together, but not Al Gore style, something realistic.
That ****s scary... real scary... *pulls out prayer rug and starts praying to Allah over and over again...*
It would be so easy for us to change the way we do things and find alternatives. The only one that loses money are the big companies causing pollution. The reason the government won't do anythign about it is because the big companies are the one's keeping them in office.
Sorry but Im kind of bitter on this issue.... Republicans couldn't give 2 sh!ts about the environment. Its a shame because their grandchildren are the ones that are going to be suffering. Taking away our freedom to breathe is just plain wrong!!!! Those lazy bastards care about 2 things: lowering taxes for the rich, and increasing our military spending. ok im done.
I watched a doco hosted by Sam Neil called 'Space'. According to scientists, the atmosphere on Mars would kill us, if we breathed in any of the air. BUT.....there are theories saying that if we polluted Mars enough, another atmosphere would form, making it quite breathable for us to survive in. I'm not sure about why/how this would happen, but it's pretty interesting.
Do you really believe that, or does it just make you feel better to reinforce your world view by spouting off cliches from "Politics for Dummies"...?
The prevailing wisdom is that you do this by creating greenhouse gasses, which will trap heat in the atmosphere. You then start growing things like litchens, which are really hardy to convert the thin carbon dioxide into oxygen. The heat generated by the greenhouse gasses will cause the recently discovered layer of ice under most of the surface to start to melt and add to the thickness of the atmosphere. As the planet becomes more 'earthlike' you then start to grow plants that aren't quite so hardy in order to broaden the conversion of carbon dioxide. Also, you could concievably accelerate the process early in the game by blowing up a bunch of nukes, or even diverting some icy comet so that it crashes into the planet.
Admittedly, Drewdog's statement was a sweeping generalization, but it does often SEEM like that to people who are worried about the direction our environment is heading. The Bush administration has made it clear that the interests of business and the economy come before the environment in many instances. Brian, do you have some examples of Republicans who are working FOR the environment? I'm not being sarcastic here -- I'm kind of depressed over this issue and it would cheer me up to hear examples of people in power who are working to make it better.
Here's the report: http://www.epa.gov/oppeoee1/globalwarming/publications/actions/us_position/bush_ccpol_061101.pdf I did a "find" for "alpine," "New Orleans," and "Wall Street." Strangely, their were no occurances of these words anywhere within the documents. Since there is no such thing as a liberal media, I must assume the Reuters authors made a simple mistake.
Additionally, I searched the EPA's entire Global Warming website for an occurance of the words "Wall Street." The search engine returned 7 results. I then searched each of the articles, and not once was the words "Wall Street" used in the context of what the Reuters author's suggested. Quite the contrary. Perhaps they confused www.epa.gov with www.wackypinkoliberalpropaganda.org ...or something.
BTW....no disrespect meant towards Jeff; I'd estimate that he's probably the finest human being who posts here. Also, environmental concerns are an area where I lean more to the left on. Nevertheless, I'd like to see any battles won on a level playing field, and I'll never cut the media any slack.
As a counter to much of the knee-jerking in this thread, may I present the following: ============================================== W. THE ENVIRONMENTALIST Health Nut by Gregg Easterbrook Post date 04.19.01 | Issue date 04.30.01 Here's a front-page story from the Alternate Universe Tribune: "BUSH ADMINISTRATION MAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EARLY THEME." Ridiculous, right? We all know the new administration is engaged in "the most alarming rollbacks in environmental efforts that we have ever seen" (Richard Gephardt). Or, as Hearst newspaper columnist Helen Thomas "asked" at Bush's most recent press conference: "[Y]ou have rolled back health and safety and environmental measures. This has been widely interpreted as a payback time to your corporate donors. Are they more important than the American people's health and safety?" Yet the Alternate Universe Tribune has it right. On almost every environmental issue, Bush has upheld the Clinton-Gore position. The new president is guilty of a few missteps, which are getting reams of attention, and has accomplished important advances, which are being ignored. Journalists and liberal commentators have had so much success in recent years pillorying conservatives as foes of the environment that it's become a kind of reflex. But this time the evidence isn't there. First, take Bush's much-mocked decision to postpone a reduction in the maximum allowable arsenic in drinking water. This was indeed a mistake, as the scientific case for tighter rules is strong. But Bush has not acted to "allow more arsenic in drinking water," as commentary has erroneously asserted, nor to force Americans to consume "poisoned drinking water," as a New York Times editorial claimed. All he's done is delay the date on which trace levels of arsenic are cut. This is precisely what Bill Clinton and Al Gore did for almost eight years--postponing any tightening of the standard until just before leaving the White House, because new rules are stridently opposed by a few localities where arsenic naturally occurs in water, such as Albuquerque, New Mexico, where the mayor is a Democrat. Clinton's delay was unfortunate, as was Bush's, but not catastrophic, since arsenic is not one of America's leading environmental problems. It occurs in drinking water at worrisome levels in only a few areas of the country, and public health estimates show at worst a 1 percent increase in the odds of late-life cancer for someone who consumes such water for decades. Contrast the media furor over Bush's arsenic decision with the near silence regarding his action on diesel-fuel reformulation. One of the president's first actions was to uphold a sweeping, expensive regulation that requires petroleum companies to remove most pollutants from diesel fuel. Unlike the arsenic standards, which would have benefited a tiny percentage of the population, the diesel-fuel rule has broad environmental and public-health consequences. Recent research has shown that the "particulates" in diesel exhaust lead to 20,000 or more premature deaths per year and contribute to the rise of asthma in cities. Bush's strict new diesel rules will spare many lives and reduce urban haze; in fact, they represent the most important anti-air-pollution advance in a decade. The reform will also cost billions of dollars, and it came over the howls of the petroleum industry, whose pocket Bush supposedly is in. Yet W.'s move has received virtually no recognition--after all, the diesel-fuel decision interrupts the doomsday script. Consider another act for which Bush has been damned: his request that Congress suspend for one year the filing of lawsuits demanding that more plants and animals be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). On its front page, The New York Times portrayed this as a horrifying step backward. Yet the Clinton administration did almost exactly the same thing: Last year Clinton suspended the classification of plants and animals as endangered, saying the Fish and Wildlife Service, which administers the ESA, was so snowed under by frivolous or dilatory lawsuits that it couldn't get its work done. The Times account was craftily written to depict the Bush decision as an unprecedented departure, not mentioning Clinton's similar policy until the fourteenth paragraph, and then only obliquely. Bush has also been attacked for merely considering overturning regulations requiring big increases in the energy efficiency of air conditioners, washers, dryers, and other appliances. But when he announced that the appliance standard would be upheld and the air-conditioner standard only mildly loosened, less attention was paid. He's been similarly scolded in the Times and other papers for considering reversing Clinton's eleventh-hour decision to reduce logging in national forests; but when Bush then appointed, as head of the Forest Service, a man instrumental in drawing up the less-logging policy, the Times buried the article on page A15. Bush also won little praise for upholding most of Clinton's eleventh-hour designations of new national wilderness areas, set-asides that were highly unpopular in much of the West. Bush decided this week to keep strict new limits on construction in wetlands--angering developers, another natural Bush constituency, who hate wetlands rules with a white passion--and also to impose strict standards regarding lead emissions. These moves were widely depicted as puzzling departures from form. But it only seemed that way because the media had misconstrued so many of Bush's other decisions. Then there is Bush's abandonment of the Kyoto global-warming treaty, for which he's been hammered as an antediluvian. Yet the president might plausibly have said, "I have decided to continue the Clinton-Gore approach to global warming," since the previous administration took no binding action on Kyoto either. Clinton never submitted the Kyoto agreement to the Senate because he knew it stood no chance of ratification. In a 1997 test ballot, the Senate went on record 95 to zero against a Kyoto resolution; it didn't get a single Democratic vote. In other words, the deal was history well before Bush took office. Any lingering hope ended last fall, when the European Union essentially rejected America's attempt to add to the agreement an international "carbon trading" system, which economists almost unanimously view as the best hope for near-term, affordable greenhouse-gas reduction. Canada's environment minister, David Anderson, has said the European Union rejected carbon trading specifically to make Kyoto fail: "Europe adopted a position they knew would force the United States to pull out." Why? Because Europe didn't want to do anything about the greenhouse effect but wanted the United States to take the blame. American commentators have happily parroted Europe's line. Bush's father harmed himself when he turned from pro-environmental (backer of the 1990 Clean Air Act) to anti-environmental (snarling about spotted owls) as the 1992 campaign began; Newt Gingrich and the 1995 House Republicans saw their popularity sink in part because of their efforts to repeal environmental laws. From these episodes, Democrats, enviros, and reporters seeking an instant-doomsday slant have grown adept at bashing Republicans with preposterous overstatements and phony claims of ecological crises. The White House's inability to see this coming is bad politics. For example, the current legal maximum for arsenic in drinking water is 50 parts per billion; the proposed rule Bush delayed would have made it ten parts per billion, a level some studies suggest is regulatory overkill. Bush could have split the difference and announced a new standard of 25 parts per billion, saying he was making the rule twice as strict. But bad p.r. and bad policy aren't the same thing. With the exception of oil exploration in Alaska, so far there are no meaningful differences between Bush's environmental goals and those of Clinton and Gore. This is surprising and to Bush's credit. It's time the press started giving him some. http://www.thenewrepublic.com/043001/easterbrook043001.html
Jeff's Old Lady: the Sierra Club, which is slightly to the right of the Communist Worker's Party, endorses four Republicans for election to the House this fall. Their names escape me except for Christopher Shays. As for specific examples of what they've done to save us from the impending ecological disaster that's been right around the corner for 32 years now, I don't know. But if the Sierra Club says putting/keeping them in office is good, they must be doing something right. Er, left.
