Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

The State of the Union is Warm–and Getting Warmer

By Joe Romm on January 19, 2007 at 3:25 pm

"The State of the Union is Warm–and Getting Warmer"

Share:

google plus icon

With less than a week before Bush’s 2007 State of the Union address, concerned parties are speculating over what the President will announce in regards to climate change. The problem is that no matter what he says, he will do nothing.

He is expected to call for a serious boost in our ethanol supply and consumption, but in terms of a climate change policy? The White House has gone so far as to outright DENY its intention to cap emissions.

Well, what about the state of our atmosphere? Of the Arctic sea ice or the Greenland ice sheet? What about the state of the union in 2050?

Last year, the “addicted to oil” comment was supposedly added last minute, so let’s just hope (feverishly) that he puts a final cap on the State of the Union by capping carbon dioxide emissions. Failing to do so would render the speech–and his presidency–irrelevant.

‹ PREVIOUS
Bush State of the Union Addresses on Energy: Yada, Yada, Yada….

NEXT ›
Climate Progress on Air America

8 Responses to The State of the Union is Warm–and Getting Warmer

  1. hippie with a pistol says:

    US GHG emissions grew at a rate much higher under Clinton than they have under GBUSH. Does that make the Clinton presidency irrelevant?

    With Dingell running the House Energy and Commerce Committe to you think congress will cap CO2 emissions? (I don’t think so) If not, won’t that make the 110th irrelevant?

    Canada’s GHG emissions growth rate far exceed US’s. Does that make Canada’s goverment irrelevant?

  2. ReadyForChange says:

    Hippie – you’re not adding anything to the real conversation, just trying to defend Bush which is the ultimate losing side of the debate. Does that make your comment irrelevant? Methinks you’re definitely no hippie… most likely a troll trying to pass oneself off as a liberal. Terrible job if that’s the case.

    And in the future if you want to spout off such claims it behooves you to also post a credible source to back it up. GHG emissions grew at a faster rate under Clinton? Hard to believe – although Clinton certainly never even tried to limit GHG emissions he left many of the current restrictions in place while GWB removed or relaxed many of the restrictions on atmospheric emissions such as CO2, methane and even mercury (which accounts for the increased concentration of mercury in sea fish thank you very much)

  3. JJ says:

    Hippie tried to make a similar argument on Think Progress.

    This list represents, year by year, the amount of increase in the rate of emissions in millions of metric tons. The only trend you can discern here is that you get drops in emissions rate increases whenever there’s a recession:

    1991 = -43
    1992 = +102
    1993 = +96
    1994 = +68
    1995 = +50
    1996 = +189
    1997 = +68
    1998 = +50
    1999 = +44
    2000 = +162
    2001 = -79
    2002 = +40
    2003 = +49
    2004 = +104

    Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/excel/figure108_data.xls

    There is no trend of smaller increases. It’s pretty much a steady rate of increase, except when there’s a recession.

  4. hippie with a pistol says:

    jj,
    You’ve selected data for energy-related co2 emissions only. That’s a subset of all GHG. For more complete data on GHG see the annual report I’ve cited above.

  5. In 2007 it’s not relevant who did what 10 years ago. As a simple matter of fact, Clinton did not have a terribly good record on environmental policy. But again, that is not relevant today since it is not 1996 today.

  6. ReadyForChange says:

    Haven’t had time to dig into those links yet but thanks for posting them.

    However the main point that rears its head no matter the outcome of this argument is that BUSH is in charge now, and that turning this into another Clinton smear project does nothing to advance the actual discussion other than to play the blame game. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Clinton wasn’t perfect but he at least kept America in one piece.

    With the evidence mounting and understanding growing of how urgent action is needed NOW, Bush can take a far greater slice of the blame if you ask me – especially when you consider his outright DENIAL of there even being a problem.

  7. Weather, Water, Energy 1-21-07…

    Quick hits for your weekend enjoyment (?):

    Don’t deny yourself the takedowns of Bushnev’s coming SOTU address and the excerpts of Hell or High Water over at ClimateProgress….