Ok, so for those who were only focused on the visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (thank you copy and paste) this past week, it looks like President Bush has finally come around on the environment. So much so that the US held a two-day conference with the top 16 carbon emitters in the world at the end of this past week. The BBC has a piece on the meetings. Roger Harrabin has more on the Pres's motivations of the meetings as well.
A couple striking things from the article:
For one, the entire world calls the problem 'global warming.' The current administration calls it 'climate change.' Are they that afraid of being labeled environmentalists or being too worried to admit there is a problem that they cannot use the term that everyone else in the world is using? Or are they trying to brand themselves as the champion of the environment, just using a different name for the problem?
Another thing...If they are so committed to changing things around, why did they not specify any of their intended changes? As the first BBC article notes, all we have from them are statements like, " All nations should tackle climate change in the ways that they deem best" from Condoleezza Rice and that the talks were held under the banner of trying to agree to the goals of "energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions." It seems like they are trying to say "hey look we can do something too" yet still not show any action.
Finally, why not agree to the Kyoto Protocol? You know that agreement that was reaching in 1997 that would require countries to reduce carbon emissions. That would be the most obvious way to show that you are really making a strong effort to curb the problem and start on a path to change.
I just don't see how they expect people to buy this talk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
maybe they don't want people to "buy this talk."
and, in case you didn't know, Bush's "Texas White House" is more environmentally friendly than Al Gore's energy-expending mansion.
Though some people geniunely believe that climate change or global warming is a huge problem, it's not as important for the federal executive branch to focus on. If you are concerned about the environment, then do something about it yourself.
I don't understand why people constantly criticize Bush and most Republicans for doing things that the people advocate. Bush is doing something, even if it is just a little, about the so-called environmental problem, and you still complain? Why not just be happy?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
I am not debating who is the bigger energy conserver around, or who's how is greener, or how much to believe an urban legends reference page (which references a biased report and stories from 6 years ago (I would like to see more recent reports)). my point with the post is this:
if you are going to say that there is a big problem and something needs to be done, take some damn action. Don't call 16 nations together and say 'we need to do something' and then sit on your thumbs. They didn't commit themselves to any plan of action. When my government says there is a problem and something needs to be done about it, I want to see something done.
Whether or not Al Gore is a bigger energy consumer is a debate for another time (although if you would like to see a debunking of the 'Al Gore is a hypocrite' news stories that came out about 6 months ago, http://youtube.com/watch?v=Vfvg1TuER5A).
Another point i was trying to convey is that the administration is trying to rebrand "global warming" so that they can, in my opinion, own 'climate change.' In doing so, it is my opinion that they are trying to prove to the country that they care about the environment without them having to have been told there was a problem from people they disagree with.
The reasons people criticize the administration is that they do or advocate things that damage the environment. They talk about drilling in Alaska for oil. How is that helpful to the environment?
Finally, you say "Bush is doing something, even if it is just a little, about the so-called environmental problem, and you still complain? Why not just be happy?" President Bush has the biggest microphone in the world. He can say one thing and the world can change in 15 minutes. If he was so concerned about the environment to change his ranch to be more environmentally friendly (once again, I need to see more current data) why not use his power and position to make a more powerful effect across the country?
I don't personally think the President of the United States should be concerned with "global warming" when he has other, more important things to be doing and fixing.
once again, I would say if you are so concerned with global warming, do what you can about it and be happy in knowing that you did your part.
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/02/26/al-gores-own-inconvenient-trut.php
Post a Comment