Schwarzenegger: Bush’s New Global Warming Plan = ‘No More Glaciers’
Schwarzenegger: Bush’s New Global Warming Plan = ‘No More Glaciers’
Earlier this week, President Bush outlined a new global warming plan calling for a
“national goal” to halt the growth of U.S. carbon emissions by 2025. Essentially, this policy would allow unchecked growth in emissions until that point, at which point, Bush has the “goal” of stopping the rate of growth of those emissions.
The administration’s plan was warmly received by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the Senate’s biggest global warming skeptic, and even Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) is having none of it. Thursday, on PBS’s Charlie Rose, Schwarzenegger sharply rebuked Bush: “this administration is just not really with the program”:
We have to go and make decisions today. Time is running out there’s an urgency there. This is the important thing here. For him to say we should start really reducing greenhouse gases by the year 2025, by that time we’ll have no more glacier left. By that time, our sea level will be rising. We will be in a dangerous situation. I think it is somewhat irresponsible. I think the action is now.
Watch out:
Bush’s “new” climate change policy is really more of the same. The Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson explained how Bush’s plan pales in comparison to the effectiveness of programs our allies are implementing:
| EUROPE | CANADA | UNITED STATES | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 Target For Greenhouse Emissions | 20% below 1990 levels | 1990 levels | No target; keep increasing until 2025 |
| Mechanism | Mandatory cap-and-trade system, performance standards, international offsets | Voluntary efficiency standards | Tax cuts for industry |
The IPCC has recommended that industrialized countries need to reduce emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.
Relive the White House’s seven years of climate policy failures here.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
So in 2025 will we be laughing at statements like this when we still have glaciers and the sea levels are all about the same?
April 19th, 2008 at 12:04 pmHey, hey, ho, ho!
Jim and Joe have got to go!
Hey, hey, ho, ho!
April 19th, 2008 at 12:05 pmJim and Joe have got to go!
I’m trying to figure out why so many global warming doubters are also intelligent design believers. The rapture must be on a faster track than carbon emission growth.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:13 pmSo in 2025 will we be laughing at statements like this when we still have glaciers and the sea levels are all about the same?
And riding sparkling elf-ponies in the surf!
April 19th, 2008 at 12:14 pmWhen guys like Ahnuldt get on something like the climate crisis, watch out.
Fascism isn’t above painting itself ‘green’ for the occasion. Green will work just as well as any other ideology to compel unity. It will, i’m certain, require a “unitary executive” to succesfully address the problems and dilemmas posed by the climate crisis.
As Naomi Klein has so ably noted, any crisis will do to disguise the true intentions and agendas of the fascist fux who own us.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:26 pmSo in 2025 will we be laughing at statements like this when we still have glaciers and the sea levels are all about the same?
say, alejandro, it’ll depend on whether you can laugh and tred water at the same time, i reckon…
April 19th, 2008 at 12:28 pmThis is somewhat reminiscent of the slavery debates in writing the Constitution. The ultimate resolution was written in: put off addressing slavery for the first 20 years of the Republic. I.e. let the next generation deal with the problem.
Now, put off dealing with global warming for about 20 years. Let the next generation deal with the problem.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:48 pmIMHO, I’d rather deal with the issue now, so my three year old son doesn’t have to later in life. Unfortunately, as long as you have the great unwashed masses of rednecks and evangelicals out there electing a**holes like the smirking chimp, things will not change.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:57 pmBriseadh na Faire Says:
Let the next generation deal with the problem.
__________________
One small correction, if you don’t mind, BnF.
“problem/S”
Let the next generation deal w/ the PROBLEMS…
The deficit, global warming, the endless cycle of violence in the ME, renewable energy, health care, off-shoring of jobs… on and on and on…
But hey, J McInsane sez it’s all “psychological”…
At least he’s half right… on the “psycho” part…
April 19th, 2008 at 1:00 pmApparently Alejandjob hasn’t looked at any of the comparison, before-and-after photos taken of glaciers around the world, which quite clearly PROVE how badly many of them have retreated over the last 50 years.
It’s amazing the way some folks REFUSE to acknowledge 100% factual information when its right in front of their faces.
Oh, look, Britney isn’t wearing panties!!!!
April 19th, 2008 at 1:06 pmThe Fat Bush Theory
[...]
Suppose that two years after taking office, George W. Bush discovered that because of the stress of his job, he had gained 40 pounds and was tipping the scales at 220.
The real-world Bush would immediately barricade himself in the White House gym, refusing all human contact or nourishment until the issue was resolved. But imagine that he regarded getting fat as seriously as he regards melting glaciers, rising oceans and drought and starvation around the planet. In that case, he would set a serious, management-type goal — of, say, an 18 percent reduction in the rate at which he was gaining weight, to be reached within the next decade.
Cut to the Rose Garden in 2008 where partial victory is declared. “Over the past seven years, my administration has taken a rational, balanced approach to these serious challenges,” the 332-pound chief executive announces. He delivers this good news sitting down.
2012: Bush hits his final goal and 400 pounds at approximately the same time.
[...]
April 19th, 2008 at 1:11 pmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/opinion/19collins.html
1) The oil companies are using this as a simple delaying tactic. Current management philosophy is ‘ignore the future while you’re making money. All that matters is maximum revenue now.” Rather than make sure there’s an Exxon and a Shell 20 years from now by turning theminto a broad-based energy company, these custodial managers just raake it in. In 20 years they’ll be retired with hundreds of millions of dollars, and not owning a single share of Exxon stock. So let loose the dogs to keep the status quo active.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:20 pm2) Fundamentalist Christians really don’t have a dog in this fight. They’re not only used to the idea of the world coming to an end, they’re fans. But they hate liberals. So they support any attack on the secular humanists–except that they like their plasma TVs and iPods as much as anyone. Getting too on board with the global warming deniers is dangerous for them, because that’s a slippery slope that would turn them into Amish. And they don’t want to actually sacrifice anything for their beliefs.
3)Global warming, if it exists, is the classic nighmare scenario for the Ayn Randists: a global ’scientific’ crisis that is both huge and time-limited.Objectivists fetishize Science and Logic–but Logic and Science show a danger that, in order to deal with it in time, needs mutualism on a large scale. Would Howard Roark hrlp pile sandbags when the river floods? If there really is a dinosaur killer meteor going to hit the earth in 3 years, does John Galt wait for market forces to come up with a solution? Very uncomfortable–so it’s far better to deny the scenario’s existence. These people who scream “A=A!” with a feeling of Olympian smugness–but run from actual science and logic when it presents them with an actual tough decision. And of course they hate Al Gore, so that makes it easier.
3)Then there are the Republicans who are rich people seeing their own wealth imperiled by the oil industry, who don’t want their beachfront properties underwater–and the liberal-haters who can tell the difference between Tim Robbins and James R. Hansen, who genuinely value science and/or do care what the world will be like in 30 years. Arnold is maneuvering to be their spokesman: He can’t become president, so wwhy not be The Man Who Saves The Republican Party?
Arnold can reprise his Mr. Freeze role from 1997’s Batman & Robin
April 19th, 2008 at 1:20 pmto combat the problem exacerbated by the Boy (but definitely not a Wonder) Bush.
Off-shoring of jobs means a thick, juicy tax cut. I’m still trying to figure out though, would that be a scrumptious tax cut?
April 19th, 2008 at 1:24 pmI like this turbogovernator.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:25 pmOver 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. See http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz
April 19th, 2008 at 1:27 pmAn-nold talks the talk, McWars, but he sometimes pulls fast ones behind the scenes. He ain’t THAT cool.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:27 pmDrColes Says:
Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.
_________________
Here’s what the website “DrColes” is linking to has to say about healthcare in this country…
“The other issue is that we have an industry which has been overly socialized by government, and therefore, does not compete. When competition enters, it is interfered with or struck down. We need our legislators both state and federal to be honest and fix this, we do not need or want government run healthcare (aka socialized medicine or Universal Healthcare, which is substandard healthcare in any honest persons book). State and National Medical Associations need to be investigated immediately to see if they are complicit in the lack of competition thereby maintaining a monopolistic condition.
If you think the government can run healthcare just take a look at your county hospital system, its rationed healthcare and in California they are killing people, one county hospital had to be closed because of massive incompetence.”
_________________
Wow… just Wow… T’anks fer addin’ ta the discussion Doc.
I unnnerstand the problem so much better now.
Healthcare hasn’t been DEREGULATED enough yet. In other other words, there’s still more money ta be made offin’ it.
I t’ink we unnerstand where yer comin’ from Doc.
Up is down… black is white…
April 19th, 2008 at 1:35 pmHey TRoS, great explanation on the other thread about Nader. Sure, it’s his right to run, but why does he believe that dem contenders putting over a year in of campaigning should bow down to his late and lazy campaign efforts? You can’t win an election
April 19th, 2008 at 1:43 pmby appearing once on Meet the Press. Nader’s a really smart man, but his timing sucks.
Another O/T
We know how this administration plays the macho act and ends up empowering our enemies. No different here: Now that they’ve weakened our dollar, they’ve got Ahmadinejad complaining that oil prices are too low.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:54 pmMany prominent scientists (who aren’t climatologists) can bark all they want about their denial. It’s still in Egypt, and the data is conclusive.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:56 pmWe’ve got a couple of global warming deniers at work, and they just say Look at the Nasa data! Which is at best incomplete and irrelevant.
You can lead an ass to the river, but if he doesn’t drink, shove him into the deep, swift flowing part.
Notice that the only thing bush wants to do right now is a tax cut for campaign contributors/industry. He never met a tax cut he didn’t love.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:56 pmReducing Carbon Emissions Could Help US Economy
A national policy to cut carbon emissions by as much as 40 percent over the next 20 years could still result in increased economic growth, according to an interactive website that reviews 25 of the leading economic models used to predict the economic impacts of reducing emissions.
“As Congress prepares to debate new legislation to address the threat of climate change, opponents claim that the costs of adopting the leading proposals would be ruinous to the U.S. economy. The world’s leading economists who have studied the issue say that’s wrong – and you can find out for yourself,” said Robert Repetto, professor in the practice of economics and sustainable development at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies who created the site.
Growth rates of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) have been 3 percent per year over recent decades. With emissions reduced by 40 percent below projected business-as-usual trends, even under most pessimistic assumptions the GDP would grow 2.4 percent a year, reaching $23 trillion by 2030, according to the website’s predictions. Under the most favorable assumptions, GDP would rise slightly above 3 percent a year.
“The website shows that even under the most unfavorable assumptions regarding costs, the U.S. economy is predicted to continue growing robustly as carbon emissions are reduced,” said Repetto. “Under favorable assumptions, the economy would grow more rapidly if emissions are reduced through national policy measures than if they are allowed to increase as in the past.”
Even looking at the worst case models our economy would grow. Cutting back on CO2 emissions will not only help the environment but will help the economy. Plus we need to have better mass transportation, that would cut down considerably on CO2 emissions and our dependency on oil would decrease. It would be a win-win situation if our government would use the European model on this one.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:03 pmTell them Arnold! Even if he wanted to the idiot makes such a lousy and stupid antichrist. Even Satan is disgusted with his forever-failing legacy!
April 19th, 2008 at 2:17 pmI think the ‘action’ should have been years ago..Ahhnoood has missed the train like all the Republican freaks.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:20 pmi missed this news:
04/07/08
Dick Cheney’s EPA Scam
By Mike Papantonio
In 2007, the most right wing reactionary Supreme Court America has seen since the 1930’s had to admit that George Bush’s crony hack EPA was intensely ignoring the fact that they had a responsibility to regulate global warming pollution from carbon fuels. In fact, even this industry lapdog US Supreme Court had at least a moment of inspiration when they directed the White House last fall to take action to begin regulating the problem.
Not long after the EPA was directed to do their job, Dick Cheney and George Bush figured out a way to protect their energy industry pals who are saturating our atmosphere with carbons from power plants and carbons from their 4 dollar a gallon fuel.
Here’s their plan – Direct the EPA and its industry-trained monkey EPA administrator Stephen Johnson – direct them to use a delay tactic that would add years to any activity from the EPA. The delay tactic is where the EPA pursues a meticulously detailed drawn out administrative process called the advance notice of proposed rule making. What that means is the EPA is telling industry that they can draw out their objections, demand hearings, demand delay studies, file lawsuits, and basically for years ignore any need to actively clean up their mess that is slowly melting our planet.
So think about this – you might believe that all progressives need to do is win back a veto-proof Congress to reverse the sick, twisted years of George Bush and Dick Cheney. But do you really think that if John McCain were calling the shots around the EPA anything would really be different?
http://airamerica.com/ringoffire
April 19th, 2008 at 3:24 pmWhat would be… strange… is to have the Dems get their veto-proof majority this fall, have McShame win the WH, and end up w/ the Dems finally impeaching someone, McShame, for the very crimes Botch and Cheney got a free pass on.
Wouldn’t THAT be entertaining??????
April 19th, 2008 at 3:36 pmBy the time the glaciers melt, scientist will have found a way to make more glaciers.
April 19th, 2008 at 4:44 pmAhh–nold has been blinded by science.
You know — the same witch doctors who provided him with steroids. Which didn’t work. Year after year.
Ahh–nold must repent and go with magical thinking. You know, the right wing’s version of “science.”
April 19th, 2008 at 5:52 pmTo the best of my knowledge none of the following have been refuted by reliable sources.
a. CO2, (a “greenhouse gas”), levels are at an at least, 800,000 year high, and rising. Human activities are a significant, if not sole, source of increased atmospheric CO2.
b. Average temperature is at a historical high and rising.
c. Average temperature goes up when more heat is retained by the Earth.
d. The “greenhouse effect” is one mechanism by which more heat is retained by the Earth.
e. At a certain, unknown, level; higher temps will release vast amounts of CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” (Methane is prominent among them) in a cascade reaction. This is believed to have happened many times, with many different causes and effects, in Earth’s history. Worst possible case is a worldwide mass extinction event which would tend to hit humans, as today’s “top of the food chain”, especially hard.
Still with me? Good. Here’s the hard part, and it ain’t hard:
a+b+c+d+e=X
X= A major problem which we should do everything in our power to prevent or mitigate.
A “major problem” is a variable which could be anything from: an inconvenient change in longterm weather systems to; the sudden end of higher life as we know it.
What possible cause is there to deny the reason of perusing every prudent, affordable, alternative to current idiotic uses of fuels both fossil and otherwise combustible?
April 19th, 2008 at 6:53 pmIf someone had a drinking problem, and their plan was to increase their drinking for the next 17 years, then level off, I would not say they were dealing with the problem.
April 19th, 2008 at 8:55 pmAnd this from a guy who drives a hydrogen powered Hummer. To produce the fuel alone for his vehicle on a scale large enough to make it a practical vehicle for even 10% of Americans to drive one, would exceed the emission levels proposed by Bush. Ask Arnold why he decided to kill the electric car in favor of destroying the lungs of the children of his state. For people to take this self promoting hack seriously is like having Hitler’s picture used to promote the building of Synagogues throughout Germany. Wake up America!
April 19th, 2008 at 9:21 pmSchwarzenegger is a neo-con Liar. He says one thing to appease the voters but his agenda is strictly Fascist.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:56 pmDo not be deceived by this Wolf in sheep’s clothing
Almost every time Bush has opened his mouth the last 7 years the goal has been to deceive and mislead the American public.
April 20th, 2008 at 12:51 amHe is a cheap sociopathic conman.
Even loyal Republicans like Arnold now realize it.
Only the koolade drinking deadender, bunker dwelling idealouges can still pretend Bush is not a habitual liar.
Bush’s global warming plan – No Glacier Left Behind.
April 20th, 2008 at 9:14 amThe glaciers are melting. I’ve seen it with my own eyes in my lifetime. Visits to Mt. Rainier when I was a child and now show a striking difference in the distance from the road up to Paradise to the Nisqually Glacier. Many Mt. Rainier attractions like the Ice Caves disappeared some years ago.
They get up to a thousand feet, really, of snow in the Cascade Mountains of Washington each year. But, the rise in temperature means that the snow pack melts faster in the Summer and tends to fall at higher altitudes. This prevents mass from being added to the glaciers so we see them recede a little more each year.
The glaciers are receding. Global warming is a leading theory. It is for the climate change deniers to propose an alternate theory. The popular “God does not like glaciers any more” theory espoused by most climate change deniers is not convincing from either a religious or scientific viewpoint.
April 20th, 2008 at 10:48 amThis thread is dead, but I’d like to use it to try to make the case that you can be skeptical of the claims of manmade climate change proponents without being blind to science.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:24 pmI’m an atheist that believes we can trace our history back to a big bang. And that billions of years of evolution is the most likely prelude to the world as we know it. I can conceive of an evolutionary cause to basically everything that I’m aware of. I don’t believe in God, but I do believe in science.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:34 pmI don’t doubt that there are scientific studies that point to a man made global climate change. But, I also understand that there are scientific studies that suggest there is not significant climate change caused by man.
Immediately, proponents will assert that the opposing studies are suspect and funded by groups that have an interest in the status quo. And they will also assert that the studies that indicate man’s role in climate change are objective, conducted free of any motivation.
I recognize that some or possibly many of the inconclusive or opposing studies (and scientists) are funded by entities with a vested interest. But, I find it difficult to believe that all or even most are.
Additionally, for those that believe the proponents of the man made climate change theory have no interest in its promotion, I would offer two.
I believe that it’s possible that environmentalists that want to improve or protect the Earth’s environment, irrespective of whether man’s activities are inducing climate change, may see the issue as a valuable tool and worthy means to an end.
Another quite objective motivation is money. As it is easy to see the financial stake that oil companies have in dismissing man made climate change, it should be equally apparent that the same motivation could tempt some proponents, if you consider a 3 trillion dollar carbon credit market and the incalculable value of political power that will be entrusted to those that promise to solve the crisis.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2021745/posts
June 19th, 2008 at 1:03 pmI believe in science. But, many times I’ll engage with climate change proponents and they will argue that I should trust the science. I do, but it seems there is science (or scientists) on both sides of the issue.
I suggest that what may be happening is a rhetorical battle between the two positions.
Proponents don’t consider their arguments rhetorical, because they say their arguments are based on science. (blockquotes from wikipedia).
In contraposition to scientific debates, rhetorical arguments, as in politics or even justice, do not make use of demonstrable or tested truths, but resort to fallible opinions, popular perceptions, transient beliefs, chosen evidence or evidence at hand (like statistics)…
So while rhetoric has traditionally been thought of as being involved in such arenas as politics, law, public relations, lobbying, marketing and advertising, the study of rhetoric has recently entered into diverse fields such as humanities, religion, social sciences, law,[1] science, journalism, history, literature and even cartography and architecture. Every aspect of human life and thought that depends on the articulation and communication of meaning can be said to involve elements of the rhetorical.
Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or “whitewashing” their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Okay. So what?
I believe in the possibility that man is having a significant impact on global climate change. And support those efforts that reduce carbon emissions that don’t pose significant economic disruption or transfers of wealth.
But, because some climate change proposals present significant economic consequences and others propose artificial transfers of wealth based on the needs to address climate change; the debate should continue to ensure the negative consequences of climate change policy are worth the potential benefits.
If and when studies, scientists, and understanding point to one of the competing positions; our answers will evolve and become progressively evident. In due course, without regard to rhetoric or reaction to alarmism.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:11 pmNot long after the EPA was directed to do their job, Dick Cheney and George Bush figured out a way to protect their energy industry pals who are saturating our atmosphere with carbons from power plants and carbons from their 4 dollar a gallon fuel.
October 15th, 2008 at 7:54 amHere’s their plan – Direct the EPA and its industry-trained monkey EPA administrator Stephen Johnson – direct them to use a delay tactic that would add years to any activity from the EPA. The delay tactic is where the EPA pursues a meticulously detailed drawn out administrative process called the advance notice of proposed rule making. What that means is the EPA is telling industry that they can draw out their objections, demand hearings, demand delay studies, file lawsuits, and basically for years ignore any compaq n410c battery,compaq presario 300 battery need to actively clean up their mess that is slowly melting our planet.
Just like the cold war when everyone who didn’t agree with the U.S. was either a communist or a communist sympathizer. toki This poor crazy guy spent half a decade being tortured because a bunch
of stupid politicians araç sorgulama were sure the NVA
was in bed with the Russians (minimal help) and/or the Chinese (ancient enemy of the vietnamese). ssk sorgulama You would think he would have learned from others’
mistakes. Guess not. Republicans need an enemy. key ödemeleri This
century it apparently will be all Muslims, health all of whom must
be alQaeda operatives.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:56 pm