Warming emissions increase, administration celebrates.
By on Apr 16th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Warming emissions increase, administration celebrates.
EPA chief Steven Johnson “said Monday the growth of greenhouse gases by less than 1 percent in 2005 shows the administration’s program to address global warming ‘is delivering real results.’ … ‘Things have come to a pretty sad state of affairs when the EPA tries to spin increased greenhouse gas emissions as a victory,’ said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, an environmental advocacy group.” More from O’Donnell HERE.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
They were expected to increase much more, so this is at least some progress.
April 16th, 2007 at 7:34 pmI can’t stop laughing. Classic!!!
“Hey the deficit is only $300 billion this year. That’s way less then we thought it would be. Told you tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would work.”
April 16th, 2007 at 7:35 pmPure Orwellian doublespeak.
April 16th, 2007 at 7:37 pmhahahahahah! that’s the only comment that this bunch of nonsense deserves. Just goes to show you what stupidity resides in this administration of inept cronies and deluded fallguys!
April 16th, 2007 at 7:39 pmWe call it life….
Wankers.
April 16th, 2007 at 7:44 pmEmissions growth of 1% instead of the usual 1.2% a year is surely not progress. I guess there’s a typo in the statement that “Bush’s goal [is] to reduce our nation’s greenhouse gas intensity 18 percent by 2012.” They meant 2120.
April 16th, 2007 at 7:45 pmNot bad, considering that 4 months ago they wouldn’t even admit greenhouse gas emissions had anything to do with global warming, which they also denied existed.
April 16th, 2007 at 7:45 pmDave Johnson did the greenhouse gases test himself . . . in his backyard.
April 16th, 2007 at 7:48 pmOne sample with the barbeque open, and another sample with the lid closed……
April 16th, 2007 at 7:50 pmNice try Jake. But, even posing as a girl you are wrong.
April 16th, 2007 at 7:53 pmHey, I can play this game too:
Commercial beekeepers in the United States have reported that 60% – 70% of their bees have mysteriously vanished without a trace. The largest commercial beekeeper in London just reported that 58% of his bees have disappeared.
The good news: You have 63% less of a chance of receiving a bee sting this year than you did last year.
The bad news: If this mystery is not solved in the next 6 months, you have a 25% chance of having enough food to eat next year. Or, stated another way, you will have a 75% chance of NOT having enough food next year.
April 16th, 2007 at 7:54 pmHey, the chocolate rations are up, guys. All praise to the Dear Leader.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:04 pmI am very concerned about this developement, Fed.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:06 pmAlthough die-offs of bees have occured before, they have not been so widespread.
There are a series of nicotine-based pesticides, which have been banned in the EU, thought to be deadly to the bees. They are not banned in the US. (Hint: nicotine based = tobacco companies)
DDT as well as a host of other banned pesticides are still used extensively in South America.
Okay…If we’re going to go that way fine…
But when the education and healthcare budgets get cut so that they ‘only grow by 3%’ or something… I don’t want to hear any of us crying foul.
It’s gotta be the same for all.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:08 pmIs the cup half empty or half full?
Politics is politics.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:16 pm#13 Raven,
Prior to a recent German study (and this isn’t junk science) that is investigating a possible connection with the radiation put off by cell phones, the most common theories have been pesticides, global warming, or some parasite. However, the stumbling block for these theories is that there are no corpses, no dead bees, they are just vanishing.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:16 pmThat’s ok. I have come to believe this Earth place is a stop along a larger continuum. We stay here until we are ready for the next evolved level. This level is supposed to be about the basic instincts of survival: fear, love, power, control. Our physical “vessels” if you will may die, but your spirit lives on, and returns to this place when not evolved enough to move on. I am ready for the next level, I think.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:19 pmHello, non-sequiter…
April 16th, 2007 at 8:20 pmWhat is your connection between greenhouse gas emission percentages, and education and health care budget percentages?
Other than the word percentage, please.
What else would you expect from President Shit-For-Brains and his colon-blow cabinet and sphincter-blast publicists? The only other term I can think of is Destroyer of Worlds.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:21 pmOr I’m just baked, you decide.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:21 pm#17,
I suspect that there are a substantial number of Iraqis on that “other side” who may have a say as to whether or not any American would qualify for “ascension”. Just a thought.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:25 pmThanks for sharing that, For Truth.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:27 pmI hold much the same view.
I also believe the evolution of consciousness is a collective effort, and that the human consciousness needs to evolve and transcend together.
It’s tough when so much of our so-called advanced culture can’t accept biological evolution, let alone intellectual evolution.
Comment by Fed the Fcuk Up!
Very interesting thought indeed.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:27 pmSadly, we sentient beings are still burdened with the animal level instinctive behavior which allows one creature to take away anothers food (and oil, and water, and natural resources…)
April 16th, 2007 at 8:30 pm(And, oh, I came here from the neighborhood of Orion… you?….:)
Comment by Raven
Not a problem. Jist lettin’ da stuff flow.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:32 pmI don’t even know where I friken came from. I’m still trying to get Andromeda in the crappy telescope.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:33 pmI’ll leave you with those thoughts. I’m off for an altitude adjustment…
April 16th, 2007 at 8:33 pmSee if you can spot Fed the F-up out there, for truth…………
April 16th, 2007 at 8:36 pmOr I’m just baked, you decide.
Comment by ForTruth
F*ck you.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:38 pmAlrighty, time for batting practice. Later.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:40 pmuh oh, the night trolls are out….
April 16th, 2007 at 8:41 pmThey were expected to increase much more, so this is at least some progress.
Comment by Elizabeth — April 16, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
Right. Did you read the article? This lesser than expected increase is attributed to Katrina!
This “progress” is nature, working to restore balance.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:41 pmNow, I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t recall any initiatives on the part of the Bush Administration designed to slow down or reverse global warming in 2005. All I remember is the Administration’s attempts at denying global warming. But that didn’t really start in earnest until Gore came out with his movie.
So, is the EPA saying that their denials of global warming had an effect on reducing greenhouse gasses?
April 16th, 2007 at 8:44 pmI did read the article, BnF, I agree with your observation.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:45 pm7,260,000,000 (7.26b) metric tons of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases were released by US sources in 2005.
Greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing an average of 1.2%/year since 1990, according to the Energy Department, and the smaller increase in 2005 may have had little to do with Bush’s climate policy.
“The slow growth in emissions from 2004 to 2005 can be attributed mainly to higher energy prices that suppressed demand, low or negative growth in several energy-intensive industries, and weather-related disruptions,” the Energy Department said in a separate report on greenhouse gas emissions.
The key here is AVERAGE of 1.2% – which means that in some years since 1990 it was higher then a 1.2% and some years lower then 1.2%
April 16th, 2007 at 8:46 pmTo say one year is only 0.8% is statiscally useless. It needs to be part of a trend.
The 2006 figures could be higher, say a 1.4% increase, thus making this years figure part of the overall trend of increase.
Exactly!
April 16th, 2007 at 8:46 pmThey have done nothing!
They have no policy!
Up till a few months ago they were publically in complete denial.
I have extrapolated the percentage increase of carbon dioxide going back to 1990 based on an average of 1.2% increase per year.
1990: 6,081,987,414 (6.08Billion) metric tons
2005: 7,260,000,000 (7.26Billion) metric tons
A 19.2% Increase in yearly emissions
Since 1990 the US has belched out an amazing total of 106,669,702,918 (106.67Billion) metric tons on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.
April 16th, 2007 at 8:54 pmSteven Johnson, not “Dave”
April 16th, 2007 at 9:27 pm#18.
The Education and Healthcare budgets (perhaps of all presidential budgets in recent memory) were criticized as being ’slashed’ by some, though the actual dollar amounts increased from year to year….but by a lesser percent of increase from the year previous (hence about the only way to declare it a cut). The US budget increases by perhaps as much as 8% a year (in apparently any administration)…so any budget item that doesn’t increase in tow, is labelled a ‘cut’ by those who want to see more money spent there.
Now here’s the connection (as I stated earlier)… When you decry the supposed ‘cut’ of greenhouse gases by pointing out the increase in actual numbers from the year before (though would be accurate)… You had better be on the same side of statistical manipulation in every case, or else you just suffer under political preference (as most of us do).
A ‘cut’ in greenhouse gases is as a ‘cut’ in healthcare spending, and the increases work the same way. How does that not make statistical sense?
April 16th, 2007 at 9:31 pmHello….
“You had better be on the side of statistical manipulation in every case,………”
thanks for your reply,
(I’ll not join either of your sides, which in actuality are one and the same, that of manipulation)
I hear Alberto Gonzales may be needing a lawyer, maybe you could help the little fellow out………..
April 16th, 2007 at 10:11 pmHello? hello? anybody there?
April 16th, 2007 at 10:24 pmThis level is supposed to be about the basic instincts of survival: fear, love, power, control. Our physical “vessels†if you will may die, but your spirit lives on, and returns to this place when not evolved enough to move on. I am ready for the next level, I think.
Comment by ForTruth
You do not move to the next level until you learn to remove hate and materialism and put humanity before yourself in this level. You need to have above all else pure compassion for life.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:38 pmHello? hello? anybody there?
Comment by Raven
Hello Raven =)
April 16th, 2007 at 10:43 pmNobody gets out of here until the fat lady sings!
April 16th, 2007 at 11:18 pm#40
Talk about non-sequitur
…If talking lawyerly…I must say “I rest my case”
April 16th, 2007 at 11:20 pmTotal amount of Carbon Dioxide Gasses 1990-2004 =
99,409,702,918 (99.41billion) metric tons
Amount added in 2005 =
7,260,000,000 (7.26billion) metric tons of carbon dioxide
Grand total (15 years) = 106,669,702,918 (106.67Billion) metric tons on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses
Almost a 20% increase in 15 years
April 16th, 2007 at 11:37 pmYou do not move to the next level until you learn to remove hate and materialism and put humanity before yourself in this level. You need to have above all else pure compassion for life.
Comment by Zep Tepi
Yes.
April 16th, 2007 at 11:44 pmThe rate of US GHG emissions increased at a greater rate during the 90’s. 1992 the rate of increase was 1.2%, 1993 the rate of increase was 3%, 1994 was 0.7%, 1995 was 1.7%, 1996 was a whopping 3.1%, for a few years less than 1%, and 2000 was 2.5%.
James Hansen called for slower rate of emissions growth in the first quarter of this century do avoid disaster. So far this decade, the GHG rate of growth has decreased significantly compared to the 90’s.
Since Bush took office the rate of growth has averaged less than 1%.
Meanwhile, energy production has increased 55% since 1990.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:48 am…meanwhile, in a country that really cares, Spain, warming emissions have decreased in a 16 year record, a 4.1% in the year 2006.
Last year has been also one of strong economic growth, a 3.9% increase in the GDP, Gross Domestic Product of the country.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:13 amI’m sure Muckdog has some brilliant wisdom to quote for us. Hey muckdog, any of your brilliant sources that think smoking is good for you have any input on this?
April 17th, 2007 at 8:59 amOf course, there’s always the distinct possiblity they cooked that number too (the “slight 1% increase”). You can never forget who your dealing with here. These SOBs lie about everything and anything.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:22 am#49,
April 17th, 2007 at 11:24 amSpain’s GHG emission growth rate since 1990 is 47.9%. That is not a decrease.